Modifies provisions governing Missouri empowerment scholarship accounts
HB 3022 revises Missouri’s empowerment scholarship account law by repealing and reenacting sections 166.700 and 166.720. The bill updates definitions for key terms such as “qualified student,” “qualified school,” “parent,” and “program,” and it expands/clarifies eligibility rules for students who may receive scholarship funds. Under the bill, a qualified student includes a Missouri resident who is not an illegal alien and either has an approved IEP under IDEA or meets income-based and schooling-history criteria tied to free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, prior public-school attendance, kindergarten entry, or sibling participation in the scholarship program.
The bill also changes the rules governing participating schools and the use of scholarship funds. It specifies that qualified schools may include charter schools, private schools, public schools, and virtual schools, but schools that discriminate on certain protected bases are not eligible. It further states that participating nonpublic schools are not agents of the state and limits governmental control over them. In addition, the bill preserves state and federal aid calculations for a student’s resident public school or charter school for a period after the student leaves, so the student may still be counted in weighted average daily attendance under specified conditions.
HB 3022 would affect Missouri education statutes by amending the state’s existing empowerment scholarship account framework rather than creating a wholly new program. Its practical impact would be to broaden and clarify who can qualify, how schools qualify, and how funding and attendance counts are handled when students use scholarship accounts to attend schools outside their resident district. It would also reinforce the legal separation between participating private schools and government oversight, while preserving certain funding flows to resident districts for a limited time.
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor debate or formal vote sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be generally supportive of school choice and scholarship-account expansion, with a policy emphasis on access for students with disabilities and lower-income families. The inclusion of nondiscrimination language and restrictions on eligible schools suggests an effort to balance expanded choice with participation standards.
The main points of contention likely involve school choice policy more broadly: whether public funds should follow students to private or virtual schools, how much oversight the state should retain over participating schools, and whether the eligibility rules are too broad or too restrictive. The bill’s explicit exclusion of schools that discriminate on race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or national origin may also be a point of debate, as could the provision defining “illegal alien” and the rules preserving district funding after students leave.
HB 3022 would amend Missouri’s empowerment scholarship account statutes in chapter 166 by repealing and reenacting sections 166.700 and 166.720. It would revise eligibility, school participation, and funding-counting rules for scholarship recipients, affecting students, parents, school districts, charter schools, private schools, virtual schools, and the state treasurer/education assistance organization. The bill would also preserve resident-district aid calculations for certain students after they transfer, and it would strengthen statutory language limiting state control over participating nonpublic schools.
No committee transcript or vote history is available, so there is no recorded public debate to measure. On its face, the bill reflects a pro-school-choice and pro-scholarship-account approach, with support likely centered on expanding educational options for students with disabilities and lower-income families. The bill also includes nondiscrimination and eligibility safeguards, suggesting an attempt to make the program more structured and legally durable.
Likely areas of contention include the use of public funds for private or virtual schooling, the extent of state oversight over participating schools, and the effect on public school and charter school funding when students leave. The bill’s eligibility definitions, including the income threshold and the exclusion of students who are not lawfully present in the United States, could also draw disagreement. The nondiscrimination requirement for qualified schools may be supported by some as a safeguard but criticized by others as a condition on participation.