SB 1300 revises Missouri law governing school safety by expanding and restructuring the state’s “school protection officer” framework and by strengthening active-shooter and intruder preparedness requirements in schools. The bill changes the existing school protection officer provisions so that any school district or charter school employee, not just teachers or administrators, may be designated for that role. A designated school protection officer may carry a concealed firearm or self-defense spray device on school property if the person has the required permit and training, and the bill sets out procedures for written requests, board hearings, closed-session votes on firearm authorization, notification to the Department of Public Safety, revocation of designation, and maintenance of a statewide list available to law enforcement.
The bill also makes school safety training more mandatory and more detailed. It requires school districts and charter schools to include active shooter and intruder response training for teachers and employees, with expanded topics beginning in the 2026-27 school year, including threat recognition, emergency protocols, and annual training if offered. Public schools must annually provide age-appropriate information about the Courage2ReportMO reporting system, and districts must hold age-appropriate active shooter exercises involving students, teachers, and other employees. The bill also directs the POST Commission and the Department of Public Safety to set standards for training instructors, centers, continuing education, and joint training with local law enforcement.
In terms of state law, SB 1300 amends sections 160.665, 170.315, 590.010, and 590.205, RSMo, replacing prior language and broadening the statutory definition of school protection officer. It adds new administrative duties for school districts, charter schools, the Department of Public Safety, and the POST Commission, while also making certain identifying information confidential and not subject to public records requests. The bill would therefore affect school districts, charter schools, school employees who seek designation, training providers, and law enforcement agencies that receive the statewide officer list.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and caption is that it is intended to enhance school security and emergency readiness. Because no committee transcript or vote history is provided, there is no recorded public debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests a pro-safety, pro-preparedness approach that emphasizes both armed response options and broader emergency training.
The main points of potential contention are the expansion of armed school personnel authority and the mandatory nature of some training and exercises. Supporters would likely view the bill as giving schools more tools to deter or respond to threats, while critics may raise concerns about firearms on campus, employee liability, privacy of designated officers, the burden on districts, and the appropriateness of requiring student participation in active-shooter drills. The bill also shifts decision-making to local school boards through hearings and votes, which may be seen as increasing transparency by some and as adding procedural complexity by others.
SB 1300 would amend Missouri’s education and public safety statutes to expand who may serve as a school protection officer, establish new training and reporting requirements, and create additional oversight duties for the Department of Public Safety and the POST Commission. It would affect school districts, charter schools, school employees, training providers, and law enforcement agencies by formalizing armed school security roles, mandating or expanding active-shooter preparedness measures, and making certain designation records confidential.
The bill appears generally supportive of school safety and emergency preparedness, with a clear emphasis on prevention, response training, and local implementation. No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no documented opposition or support in the supplied history, but the bill’s design suggests a favorable posture toward stronger school security measures and more structured training requirements.
Likely areas of contention include allowing more school employees to be armed on campus, the requirement for school boards to hold hearings and votes on protection officer programs, the confidentiality of officer-identifying information, and the burden of annual training and active-shooter exercises. Supporters would likely emphasize deterrence and preparedness, while opponents may focus on gun safety, district costs, employee concerns, and the psychological impact of drills on students and staff.