Important 2026 Legislative Issues

MSTA Supports:

Fully funding education and the state budget

Gov. Mike Kehoe’s proposed budget for K-12 education would not fully fund the foundation formula for the first time since Fiscal Year 2018. Legislative changes over the previous 4 years have increased the cost of the formula, and now the legislators that put those provisions into law are contemplating not paying the bill that is now due on their actions. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)’s proposed budget calls for an increase of $190 million dollars.

The Governor’s proposed budget calls for underfunding the foundation formula and K-12 school transportation. MSTA supports $190 million in new funding in the state budget to fulfill the promises included as part of SB727 (2024) and fully fund the foundation formula. The reality is that school choice provisions are responsible for most of this request including local effort for charter schools and payments to virtual education providers, many of which are located outside of Missouri. The current budget proposal prescribes underfunding transportation by $34 million. The funding for these items required under current state law.

MSTA supports continued funding for the Career Ladder Program, and Teacher Baseline Salary Grant.

Missouri Student Responsibility and Teacher Empowerment Act

MSTA supports HB1767 (Lewis) which would require public schools and charter schools to adopt, publicly post, and annually review a code of student conduct consistent with moral responsibility, community standards, and respect for school authority. This legislation would create a framework to address student classroom behaviors.

Decreasing Administrative Burden on Educators

 

HB2335 (Kelley) establishes new guidelines for school employee training. Newly hired school employees would be required to receive training annually during each of their first three school years. After those initial three years, school districts would determine the appropriate training schedule based on local needs. The measure also ensures that districts provide employees with sufficient time during regular work hours to complete any training, instruction, or education required for their position or mandated by federal law.

HB2335 specifically references several required trainings that would fall under this new law, including:

• Annual training on the district’s discipline policy
• Training for individuals who utilize seclusion and restraint techniques
• Annual training in the use of bleeding control kits under the “Stop the Bleed Act"
• Training every two years on the care of students with epilepsy and seizure disorders under “Will’s Law”
• Suicide prevention training through self-review of approved materials as required by the “Jason Flatt/Avery Reine Cantor Act”
• Annual Active Shooter and Intruder Response Training (ASIRT)
• Two hours of annual training on dyslexia and related disorders

HB2335 clarifies that any future training requirements enacted by the legislature would follow this same structure, a three-year mandatory training followed by a locally-determined schedule that allows districts flexibility to meet the needs of their students and staff.

 

MSTA Opposes:

Direct state funding for school vouchers

MSTA Adopted Resolutions oppose legislation that would give tax credits for scholarships, tuition, or vouchers to private schools, or voucher plans that would divert public funds to pay for private school tuition.

Gov. Mike Kehoe has proposed adding $10 million in taxpayer funds to the MoScholars Voucher Program, raising the total spending on private schools to $60 million. The legislature previously approved $50 million for the program. In the current year, the program has not spent the $50 million allocation that is supposed to be funded through tax credits. The State Auditor has raised concerns regarding the accounting of these dollars and lack of audits and oversight by the State Treasurer. State Treasurer, Vivek Malek, requested doubling the amount to $100 million even though they have not spent the entire $50 million that was appropriated for the program this year.

This program diverts taxpayer dollars to private and religious schools, a move MSTA strongly opposes. MSTA believes public funds should be used to strengthen public schools, where most of Missouri’s students are educated, rather than being funneled into unaccountable private institutions. Instead of expanding a program that benefits a select few, these funds should be invested in the foundation formula to be used for teacher salaries, classroom resources, and student support services that directly impact Missouri’s student achievement.

MSTA’s concerns regarding private school vouchers:

• Lack of accountability: Unlike public schools, private and religious schools receiving voucher funds are not required to follow the same transparency standards, such as public financial reporting, enrolling all students, or standardized testing requirements. 
• Public dollars should stay in public schools: Every dollar allocated to a voucher program is a dollar taken away from public schools, which are already struggling to meet students’ needs. 
• No oversight on student outcomes: There is no clear evidence that students using vouchers perform better academically than those in public schools. Instead, many studies show voucher programs can lead to worse educational outcomes. 
• Deepening teacher shortages: Even with recent efforts, Missouri is still facing a critical teacher shortage and state leaders should focus on funding public schools to ensure competitive salaries and better working conditions for educators. 

 

MSTA believes legislators should prioritize funding for public education and reject this expansion of the voucher program. Missouri’s public schools serve all students, and the state budget should reflect that commitment.

A-F Report Card

MSTA Adopted Resolutions: MSTA Opposes assigning letter grades to schools.

HB2710 (Diehl) and SB1653 (Trent) would give a single A-F letter grade to schools and districts. A single letter grade does not tell the full story of a school district, and MSTA does not believe the proposal would lead to better outcomes for students or educators. 

 

Why MSTA opposes these bills:

A–F grades change labels, not learning. A single letter grade may appear simple, but it oversimplifies school performance and hides critical information about student growth, subgroup progress, and the underlying causes of challenges. Missouri already collects all this information, and collapsing it into one letter grade would reduce understanding, not improve it.

 Claims of success in other states are misleading. Supporters point to Mississippi and Tennessee as evidence that A–F systems drive improvement. In reality, gains in those states are widely attributed to well-funded and targeted instructional reforms, particularly early literacy initiatives and investments in curriculum and professional development—not to letter grades themselves. If A–F grading alone caused improvement, there would be consistent gains across all A–F states.

 Public grading creates pressure without support. A–F systems label schools quickly, but meaningful improvement takes time, resources, and stability. Publicly branding schools as “D” or “F” often leads to higher staff turnover, enrollment loss, and instability—conditions that make improvement harder, not easier.

 Growth gets lost under a single grade. Even when growth measures are included, the final letter dominates public perception. Schools making real progress can still be labeled as failing despite evidence of improvement, discouraging educators and communities.

Missouri already has accountability and flexibility. Missouri’s current improvement-based model holds districts accountable while providing detailed, actionable data. Federal law does not require A–F grades, and many states are moving away from them after experiencing unintended consequences.

 MSTA made clear that teachers support accountability systems that are fair, accurate, and focused on improvement, but warned that policies affecting classrooms must be shaped with input from the educators who work in them every day. Accountability should help schools improve, not just label them. Real progress comes from investing in educators, strengthening instruction, and using data to support growth, not from assigning a single letter to complex school communities.

Open Enrollment:

SB971 (Trent) in the Senate and HB2604 (Pollitt) in the House would create an open enrollment system in Missouri that would allow students to enroll in nonresident districts.

These bills claim to create a “voluntary” system, yet it is only voluntary as to whether a district accepts nonresident students. If a transfer student decides at any time to return to the resident district, the resident district is again responsible for the education of that student.

MSTA’s concerns with open enrollment:

• School consolidation: Open enrollment will lead to school consolidation. This legislation could leave districts unable to support all students in the community. Students who remain in community schools that have been consolidated will be forced to endure longer bus rides while districts that remain open will struggle to maintain the educational programs they already offer such as FFA, choir, band, and athletic programs. In many Missouri communities, these kinds of tough decisions have already been made due to a lack of funding or issues regarding recruiting and retaining education staff.
• Financial implications/anti-collaboration: Open enrollment will pit schools against one another to compete for students and the funding associated with them. Funding that would normally go toward student learning would then be spent on recruiting students and competing with neighboring districts. This creates competition for the sake of competition, and districts not in the same situations are forced to devote time and money to recruiting students while still attempting to provide a quality education to all the students who remain in the district.
• Further state influence: Open enrollment would mandate that schools adopt a model policy developed by DESE or “another entity skilled in policy development” to determine the number of transfers available. This policy must be adopted by schools even if they decide not to participate in the open enrollment program.
• Increased administrative bloat: Districts will assign staff and run programs to recruit and retain students in order to draw down the state dollars that follow the student.

MSTA opposes SB971 (Trent) and HB2604 (Pollitt). MSTA Adopted Resolutions support each local school district developing a written policy for the transfer and assignment of students within a district and to any other school district. MSTA opposes legislative actions involving the concept of inter-district choice and open enrollment.