Legislative Update, February 1, 2025

“I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them. Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity. This is good and pleases God our Savior.” 1 Timothy 2: 1-4

*Members of the Missouri Homeschool Alliance Board of Directors are not lawyers. This update is for information purposes only.

These are the developments we are following this week in Jefferson City. 

Governor Kehoe gave his State of the State address Tuesday afternoon, and in that speech, he announced that he intends to direct $50 million from the general revenue funding to the MO Scholars program. MO Scholars is Missouri’s ESA program, in which true homeschoolers are not eligible to participate. MO Scholars is funded by private donations, in that taxpayers may allocate a certain percentage of their MO Taxes to privately fund, which in turn is distributed to students who participate in the program. With the Governor’s plan, we assume it would mean that direct, public money would be going to fund private school and FPE students. While FPE students are not homeschoolers, we are still watching this closely because it appears that legislators are still interpreting FPE to be an iteration of homeschooling, and it's in our interest to keep tax dollars out of the program.

Hearings this week: 

SB63, sponsored by Senator Ben Brown will be heard in the Senate Education Committee Tuesday, February 4 at 8 am. This bill seeks to establish provisions related to participation of certain students in non-traditional educational settings—in other words, it would allow homeschooled students and virtual public school students to participate in events and activities offered by the public school district in which they live without needing to enroll in public school. This bill seeks to make requirements for participation in public school activities fair across the state. Understand that if your student chooses to participate in sports or activities in the public school, you will be subject to whatever requirements the district places upon their enrolled students. This bill also seeks to remove from statute the optional declaration of enrollment for homeschoolers. MHA is NEUTRAL this bill. While we don’t see anything that is glaringly dangerous to homeschool freedom in this bill as it now stands, we are not willing to endorse or come out in favor of any bill as experience has shown us that even a small one or two page bill could easily blow up to 400+ pages of regulation by the time it reaches the Governor’s desk. In such a case, we have historically come out against such mammoth bills, but time will tell if this bill is passed out of committee and moves through the legislature.

HB31 is sponsored in the House of Representatives by Representative Bishop Davidson. It will be heard in the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education on Wednesday, February 5, at noon (or upon adjournment of the floor).  This bill seeks to modify provisions relating to Homeschool Protections. It is, however, somewhat problematic in that it includes FPE students in the “homeschool protection bill”, lumping us all together, which we do not like, as it blurs the line of demarcation that was achieved with statutory separation last year. At its core, this bill opens our homeschool statute to modify the language about investigation of educational neglect, adding a distinction that only the prosecuting attorney may see our records ONLY WITH PROBABLE CAUSE. HB31 also seeks to eliminate the optional Written Declaration of Enrollment that is in our statute now, by deleting the section entitled RsMO 167.042  While we appreciate the efforts to add an extra layer of protection for homeschool families, MHA is NEUTRAL on this bill. While we don’t see anything that is glaringly dangerous to homeschool freedom in this bill as it now stands, we are not willing to endorse or come out in favor of any bill that opens our homeschool statute and could possibly lead to changes to our statute that would increase regulation for all homeschoolers.

The two bills above, SB63 and HB31 will be heard in committee this week. If you feel strongly about either bill, you may contact the members of the committee (Here) and (Here) to express your thoughts by email or phone prior to the hearing date. If you are interested in testifying for, against, or neutral regarding these bills, you may do so in person at the date and time listed, or testimony may alternatively be submitted online beforehand on the House or Senate websites.

Update: The hearing for HB31 has been canceled.

Also In Committee:

SB53, sponsored by Senator Nick Schroer, has been referred to the Senate Education Committee. This bill defines FPE School as homeschool and lumps us together with state-funded FPE students.  SB53 gives a refundable tax credit for homeschoolers, FPE, and private schoolers for the following expenses: Tuition and fees, textbooks. Educational therapies, Tutoring, Curriculum, Fees for standardized tests, individual classes and extracurriculars at public school, computers, summer education programs and after school programs, transportation costs. This credit is “refundable”, meaning that it will give parents a tax credit for more than the amount that they have paid in State taxes. Parents who choose to take this tax credit would be required to submit a certification from the public school district where they reside that they did not enroll their student in public school. This is backdoor registration. As you know, Missouri does not require any registration or reporting related to homeschool students, but by taking this tax credit, parents would be  de-facto placing their child on a list of homeschoolers. Furthermore, this bill leaves the Department of Revenue in charge of setting the rules for how this is all implemented. MHA is OPPOSED to tax credits for homeschoolers.

Watching:

The following bills haven't gone to committee yet, but we're watching them. As these bills have not yet been assigned to a committee, no call to action is being given, however if you feel strongly about any of the bills after reading them, feel free to contact the bill sponsor and politely express your thoughts or concerns.

HB1015, sponsored by Representative Melissa Douglas has had 2nd reading on the floor, but has not yet moved forward to a committee. This bill seeks to modify the compulsory age to 5, but exempts homeschool and FPE school. There is some question about the language in this bill as it appears to not allow a child to be unenrolled/excused from attendance at parent's request. We have questions about how this may require students to homeschool starting at age 5, if that is the district's compulsory age of attendance. MHA is OPPOSED to changes in the compulsory age. . 

HB77, sponsored by Representative Cathy Jo Loy has also had a 2nd read on the floor but is not yet assigned to committee. This bill is called the “Missouri Parental Choice Tax Credit Act”.  It seeks to establish a refundable tax credit, but it appears that public schooled and FPE students are excluded. As it reads this appears to primarily target only homeschoolers? This is backdoor registration and we are watching it closely. This bill is significantly similar to SB53 and SB195.  MHA is OPPOSED to tax credits for homeschooling.

SB195, sponsored by Senator Rick Brattin has had a first read on the floor but is not yet assigned to a committee. This bill proposes a refundable tax credit for educational expenses. This bill is substantially similar to SB53, but does not specify that a parent must submit a certification from the school district. Even so, the dept of revenue will write the rules for implementation. Significantly similar to SB53 and HB77. MHA is OPPOSED to tax credits for homeschooling.

HB1082, sponsored by Representative Ben Baker has had a 2nd Read on the floor. This bill seeks to amend our homeschool statute RsMO 167.012 and says that we cannot be background checked as a condition to receiving funds. This  same wording is included  in his amendment of the FPE Schools statute, RsMO 167.013. We are unclear at this time what the purpose of this would be, as homeschool families are not able to participate in the state’s ESA program. Our question would be, is this to set them up to again try to fund homeschools in some other way? Or is this related to other state benefits like food stamps, medicaid, etc? We don't support putting this language in our statute as we understand it. Homeschool is not FPE school, and this again blurs the lines between the two. MHA is seeking more information on this bill. 

Related to the governor's announcement of his plan for expansion of school choice funding, we have SB24, sponsored by Senator Rick Brattin. This bill has been referred to the Senate Education Committee. SB24 requires MO Scholars recipients to be funded by the state if the MO Scholars program isn't fully funded by donations. It requires school districts to reimburse the Educational Assistance Organization who distributes funds for the difference. This is now definitely state money funding the ESA. MHA is OPPOSED to expansion of the MoScholars program.

SJR6 is a proposed Constitutional amendment carried by Senator Rick Brattin. It has had a first read on the Senate floor. This amendment, if passed, would amend the State Constitution to assert the right of parents to participate in and direct the education of their children free from government interference.  At this point, MHA does not have enough information about this proposed amendment to formulate a position on this.  We will let you know more when we learn more about this proposal.

One More Thing:

On January 29, President Trump signed the "Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families" Executive Order. This order instructs that the "Secretary of Education shall issue guidance regarding how States can use Federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives." MHA has held the position that state funds have no place in private education options. We are equally opposed to federal funds targeted to families for private education. 

 Please check out our previous blog post where we address this in greater detail.

(this article has been updated to fix an incorrect link to one bill.)