SB 68 is a broad education omnibus bill that creates, repeals, and revises numerous provisions affecting Missouri public schools, charter schools, and related education programs. A major component is the new “Get the Lead Out of School Drinking Water Act,” which requires schools to inventory, test, disclose, and remediate drinking water outlets for lead, with a five parts per billion standard, public reporting, parent/staff notification, and state funding priority for disadvantaged districts. The bill also establishes or expands requirements for school safety and health, including emergency operations plans, annual physical security assessments, cardiac emergency response plans with AED placement and CPR training, bleeding control kits and trauma protocols, anti-intruder door locks, school safety incident reporting, and active shooter response training.
The bill also makes substantial changes to instruction, staffing, and school choice. It requires a reading program based on scientific research and phonics, limits the use of three-cueing methods, and creates a statewide STEM career awareness activity program. It raises minimum teacher salaries beginning in 2025-26, creates a teacher baseline salary grant fund, expands teacher recruitment scholarships, and adds or revises certification pathways for teachers and substitute teachers. It also modifies virtual education rules, including the Missouri Course Access and Virtual School Program, and creates or revises programs for adult high schools and recovery high schools. Other provisions address student discipline, attendance counting, school accountability report cards, mobile device restrictions, and special education services.
The bill’s impact on state law is extensive: it repeals multiple existing statutes and reenacts them in revised form, while adding new sections that impose operational duties on schools and new administrative responsibilities on the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Department of Health and Senior Services, the Department of Natural Resources, and other agencies. It also changes funding formulas and creates dedicated funds and grant programs, though many provisions are expressly subject to appropriation. Several sections include rulemaking authority and nonseverability clauses, meaning agency implementation is tied closely to legislative oversight and future constitutional review of rulemaking powers.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable, with the bill passing the Senate 29-5 and later receiving large bipartisan majorities in the House, including 130-15 and 132-20 votes on later stages. The broad vote margins suggest general support for the bill’s school safety, teacher pay, literacy, and student support measures. At the same time, the bill’s size and scope indicate it is a negotiated package rather than a narrow consensus measure.
Notable points of contention likely center on cost, mandates, and implementation. Several provisions require schools to act only if funding is appropriated, including AED purchases, bleeding control kits, and door-lock upgrades, signaling concern about unfunded mandates. The bill also imposes significant compliance and reporting duties on schools and districts, which may be burdensome for smaller or disadvantaged districts even though some receive funding priority. Other potentially debated issues include the restrictions on mobile phones, the shift in reading instruction away from three-cueing, expanded virtual school rules, and the new teacher certification pathways that allow alternative preparation routes.
SB 68 repeals and reenacts numerous Missouri education statutes, creating new obligations for schools, districts, and state agencies. It establishes new statewide standards for school drinking water lead testing and remediation, school safety planning, emergency preparedness, cardiac response, bleeding control, and active shooter training, while also revising teacher pay, certification, scholarships, virtual education, accountability reporting, discipline, and special education-related provisions. The bill also creates dedicated funds and grant programs and authorizes agency rulemaking, with many requirements contingent on appropriations.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support based on its strong Senate and House vote totals, suggesting favorable sentiment toward its mix of school safety, teacher compensation, literacy, and student support provisions. The large margins also indicate that, despite its breadth, the bill was able to attract bipartisan backing. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote history points to overall approval rather than deep partisan division.
Likely points of contention include the bill’s cost and whether it imposes unfunded mandates on schools, especially for lead remediation, AEDs, bleeding control kits, and anti-intruder locks, all of which are tied in part to appropriations. Implementation burdens on districts, especially smaller or disadvantaged ones, may also be debated. Additional areas of possible disagreement include the mobile device ban, the reading-instruction requirements that limit three-cueing, the expanded virtual school framework, and alternative teacher certification pathways, which may draw differing views from educators, administrators, and school choice advocates.