Elementary and secondary education is among the most popular subjects of legislation filed in the Missouri legislature this year. The Missouri House lists more than 150 bills in that category in 2026, while the smaller Missouri Senate lists nearly 75.

Among those bills, more than two dozen affect what proponents often call “school choice,” programs that make it easier for families to educate their children outside of the traditional public school system.

That includes making it easier for families to afford private school, letting students attend public school districts they don’t live in or expanding the availability of charter schools — which are funded by tax dollars and free to attend but not attached to the local public school district.

Many proponents say those programs give families more options, make it easier for them to find the best fit and put pressure on traditional public schools to improve. Opponents say they make the education system less efficient and drain money from traditional public schools in favor of less regulated options.

In Missouri, positions on school choice have not always fallen along party lines, but Republicans have generally been more supportive. In recent years, the Republican-controlled legislature has created and then expanded a program that redirects tax dollars to private school scholarships and voted to allow charter schools in Boone County as well as St. Louis and Kansas City.

This year, some lawmakers want to see those programs grow. Others want to rein them in or give them more oversight.

Some of the proposals have started to make their way through the legislative process, but they all face a series of hurdles before they are potentially approved by both houses and reach the governor’s desk. They may be amended at several stages in the process.

Since Democrats are a minority in the legislature, their bills in particular need bipartisan support to succeed.

If you want to weigh in on which of these bills should advance or how they should change, contact your representatives .

Here’s a look at key school choice legislation that has been proposed in Missouri.

Expanding private school scholarships

In 2022, Missouri launched a tax credit scholarship program for private schools, known as the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Program or .

Instead of the state funding scholarships directly, it offers donors tax credits to contribute to state-approved organizations, which in turn distribute private school scholarships to students who met state eligibility requirements. Last year, the state also directly contributed millions of dollars to the program, helping it expand.

State Treasurer Vivek Malek that the program awarded 6,418 scholarships, totaling more than $43 million, for the current school year.

So far, MOScholars has mainly been geared toward two groups: students with disabilities and students who meet income requirements and don’t already attend private school. Some lawmakers want to expand which students and schools qualify.

, sponsored by Republican Rep. John Voss of Cape Girardeau, keeps the requirement that students must meet income or disability requirements. But it removes other restrictions, opening the program to existing private school students. A similar proposal is sponsored by Republican Rep. Mark Matthiesen of O’Fallon.

, sponsored by Republican Sen. Brad Hudson of Cape Fair, is similar. It includes some additional changes, such as forbidding rules and regulations for schools involved in the program beyond those included in state law.

, sponsored by Rep. Michael Davis of Belton, goes even further in expanding eligibility. It only requires that participating students are lawfully present state residents.

Lawmakers from both parties have proposed adding early childhood students to the program. One such proposal is from Rep. Ian Mackey, a Democrat from St. Louis County.

Another is , filed by Sen. David Gregory, a Republican from St. Louis County. Gregory’s bill also expands eligibility, similarly to Davis’, and restricts further regulations on participating schools, similarly to Hudson’s.

Regulating private school scholarships 

In contrast, some lawmakers want to add regulations or restrictions to the MOScholars program.

, sponsored by Rep. Mark Boyko, a Democrat from Kirkwood, would require schools participating in the program to meet certain minimum standards. They include health and safety items, the length and start date of the school term, dyslexia screening, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and allowing military recruiters into the school.

Rep. Betsy Fogle, a Democrat from Springfield, is sponsoring . It requires that schools participating in the program don’t discriminate on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression in their “creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum.”

, sponsored by Rep. Melissa Douglas, a Democrat from Kansas City, is similar to Fogle’s legislation.

Current law says participating schools can’t discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin but won’t be required to change their “creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum.”

Beacon reporting has found that some schools that participate in the program do of students or their family members.

Rep. Stephanie Hein, a Democrat from Springfield, filed to require families who are eligible based on income to prove they still meet the requirements each year.

, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Doug Beck from St. Louis County, would require more information on scholarship recipients to be posted online, including parents’ names, the amount of money their students received and the amount each school received.

Expanding charter schools

Currently, charter schools are only allowed within Kansas City Public Schools, St. Louis Public Schools and Boone County with some limited exceptions, such as in unaccredited districts.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Michael Davis, , would also allow them in Cass County.

, sponsored by Republican Rep. Ben Keathly of Chesterfield, would expand charter schools to counties with a charter form of government — which includes Jackson, Clay and several counties in the St. Louis area — and cities with more than 30,000 residents.

, sponsored by Republican Rep. Cathy Jo Loy of Carthage, would expand charter schools statewide.

Both Keathly’s proposal and , sponsored by Republican Rep. George Hruza of St. Louis County, would forbid local regulations that don’t allow charter schools to purchase property from the school district or local political subdivision. Keathly’s bill specifically applies to St. Louis, while Hruza’s is more broad.

Regulating charter schools

Other lawmakers want to further regulate or restrict charter schools.

Boyko filed , similar to his legislation about the MOScholars program, which would require charter schools to follow certain regulations that traditional school districts have to follow. Those include having a minimum school term, observing Veterans Day and youth brain injury prevention.

Three Boone County Democrats filed bills that would reverse the decision to allow charter schools in Boone County. They include:

• from Rep. Kathy Steinhoff.
• from Rep. David Tyson Smith.
• from Sen. Stephen Webber.

, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, who represents part of the Kansas City area in Clay County, would add requirements for new charter schools to open. The State Board of Education would have to issue a certificate of need based on information from the local school board or city or county government.

The certificate of need application would say that there is enough consumer demand and availability of high-quality teachers for the charter school to operate without harming the local school district. It would also affirm that the charter school is likely to reduce inequality, improve achievement, create a more efficient education system and address family priorities.

, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Karla May of St. Louis, would prohibit new charter schools in St. Louis. It wouldn’t affect existing charter schools.

Transferring to a different school district

Several lawmakers filed bills that would allow students to transfer outside of the school district in which they live.

, filed by Republican Rep. Brad Pollitt of Sedalia, allows school districts to decide whether they would like to accept transfer students and how many spots they have open. Districts can also limit how many students leave to no more than 5% of their enrollment.

Transfer students can’t be selected based on academic or athletic ability or past discipline records unless they’ve been suspended multiple times or expelled.

Reasons families might want their students to transfer could include proximity to a parent’s workplace — allowing them to be more involved during the school day — special programs offered or a curriculum that better matches their beliefs, the bill says.

, filed by Republican Sen. Curtis Trent from southwest Missouri, is similar to

filed by Gregory. Both proposals modify a section of existing state law that allows students to transfer from unaccredited districts.

Under both bills, students would be allowed to transfer from any district. Schools would report their capacity to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and DESE would assign students who wished to transfer to a nearby district or charter school with room for them.

Each district would have to provide transportation to at least one other school district or charter school, designated by DESE.

Education tax credits

Three proposals from Republicans would reimburse parents who educate their children outside of a public school system.

Parents could receive a refundable tax credit for things like tuition, fees, supplies and tutoring. The amount of the tax credit cannot exceed the state adequacy target — the amount the state determines is necessary to educate a public school student.

The proposals are:

• , sponsored by Davis.
• , sponsored by Republican Sen. Nick Schroer of St. Charles County.
• , sponsored by Republican Sen. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville.

Davis’ bill is worded differently than the other two and goes into more detail about what types of nonpublic schools are eligible, including home schools, private schools, private virtual schools and parish schools.

Giving parents control over state education spending for their children

, sponsored by Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican who represents part of Jefferson County, would allow parents to direct the funding that would have gone to educate their child at a local public school to another school of their choice.

That could be a private school, charter school or virtual school. Parents could also choose to send their child to a traditional public school other than the one the school district assigns them.

The amount of funding available would either be the state adequacy target or tuition at the school that parents choose, whichever is less.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

Lawmakers moved a bill out of an Iowa House subcommittee Wednesday that would have the state’s public higher education system explore a funding model based on workforce-based performance measures.

would have the Iowa Board of Regents study a potential performance-based funding model for the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa and submit a report to the General Assembly by its November 2026 meeting.

According to the bill, this funding model should factor in graduation rates, the number of awarded degrees corresponding to Iowa’s high-demand jobs, post-graduation employment rates and income and how many graduates stay in Iowa.

While the board of regents is registered as undecided on the legislation, board state relations officer Jillian Carlson said there are some concerns with what would need to be factored into the funding model. Post-graduation income is one she identified as potentially posing an issue, as the universities work to meet workforce needs in rural areas where income is often lower.

“I think we certainly understand your guys’ desire to look at these performance metrics, but we do have some concerns with the metrics in the bill, particularly where they would conflict with state needs,” Carlson said.

As the Iowa House Higher Education Committee is “looking to create efficiencies,” Carlson said the board’s budget, investment and finance committee is “currently working on an efficiency review of all of our revenue” — an effort headed by Regent Kurt Tjaden.

Members of the subcommittee said they were surprised and disappointed to see little public comment during the meeting, with Rep. John Wills, R-Spirit Lake, saying he’s noticed a lack of participation in other subcommittees he’s sat on during this legislative session as well.

Rep. Heather Matson, D-Ankeny, was the only lawmaker on the subcommittee to not support the legislation, saying so after Rep. Taylor Collins, R-Mediapolis, didn’t answer her questions on what a performance-based funding model would look like from his perspective as the person who filed the bill.

“I think it probably goes without saying that I’m not going to be signing off on the bill today, mostly because of a lack of engagement in a conversation on what this bill actually entails and how it will practically work in the real world,” Matson said.

She also took issue with the potential funding model’s criteria, some which she said are out of universities’ control. If a student decides to move away from Iowa because it is what is best for them and their family, she said a university could be penalized through the funding model even though they couldn’t do anything to change that outcome.

Collins said the bill would not enact a new system for universities to follow but “seeks to align taxpayer investment with taxpayer return,” and to gather additional information for the General Assembly to potentially act upon.

Iowa needs to evolve, Wills said, and the Legislature can’t just keep going with the status quo.

“We need to become more efficient,” Wills said. “We need to look and research other opportunities and other ways of doing business, because sometimes the status quo, the way we’ve always done it, is not the best way.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.

Lawmakers want to turn the tide on the growing number of unprepared and uncertified teachers by restricting who can lead Texas classrooms. But school leaders worry those limits will leave them with fewer options to refill their teacher ranks.

Tucked inside the Texas House’s $7.6 billion school finance package is a provision that would ban uncertified teachers from instructing core classes in public schools. gives districts until fall 2026 to certify their K-5 math and reading teachers and until fall 2027 to certify teachers in other academic classes.

Texas would help uncertified teachers pay for the cost of getting credentialed. Under HB 2, those who participate in an in-school training and mentoring program would receive a one-time $10,000 payment and those who go through a traditional university or alternative certification program would get $3,000. Special education and emergent bilingual teachers would get their certification fees waived. Educator training experts say it could be the biggest financial investment Texas made in teacher preparation. Rep. , the Salado Republican who authored the bill, has signaled the House Public Education Committee will vote on HB 2 on Tuesday.

District leaders, once reluctant to hire uncertified teachers, now rely on them often to respond to the state’s growing teacher shortage. And while they agree with the spirit of the legislation, some worry the bill would ask too much too soon of districts and doesn’t offer a meaningful solution to replace uncertified teachers who leave the profession.

“What’s going to happen when we’re no longer able to hire uncertified teachers? Class sizes have to go up, programs have to disappear…. We won’t have a choice,” said David Vroonland, the former superintendent of the Mesquite school district near Dallas and the Frenship school district near Lubbock. “There will be negative consequences if we don’t put in place serious recruitment efforts.”

A floodgate of uncertified teachers

Nowadays, superintendents often go to job fairs to recruit teachers and come out empty-handed. There are not as many Texans who want to be teachers as there used to be.

The salary in Texas is about , so people choose better-paying careers. Teachers say they are , sometimes navigating unwieldy class sizes and using weekends to catch up on grading.

Heath Morrison started to see the pool of teacher applicants shrink years ago when he was at the helm of Montgomery ISD. Many teachers left the job during the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the problem.

“This teacher shortage is getting more and more pronounced,” said Morrison, who is now the CEO of Teachers of Tomorrow, a popular alternative teacher certification program. “The reality of most school districts across the country is you’re not making a whole lot more money 10 years into your job than you were when you first entered … And so that becomes a deterrent.”

As the pool of certified teachers shrunk, districts found a stopgap solution: bringing on uncertified teachers. Uncertified teachers accounted for roughly 38% of newly hired instructors last year, with many concentrated in rural districts.

The Texas Legislature facilitated the flood of uncertified teachers. A 2015 law lets public schools get exemptions from requirements like teacher certification, school start dates and class sizes — the same exemptions allowed for open enrollment charter schools.

Usually, to teach in Texas classrooms, candidates must obtain a certification by earning a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, completing an educator preparation program and passing teacher certification exams.

Teacher preparation experts say certifications give teachers the tools to lead a high quality classroom. To pass certification tests, teaching candidates learn how to plan for lessons and manage discipline in a classroom.

But the 2015 law allowed districts to hire uncertified teachers by presenting a so-called “district of innovation plan” to show they were struggling to meet credential requirements because of a teacher shortage. By 2018, had gotten teacher certification exemptions.

“Now, what we’ve seen is everyone can demonstrate a shortage,” said Jacob Kirksey, a researcher at Texas Tech University. “Almost every district in Texas is a district of innovation. That is what has allowed for the influx of uncertified teachers. Everybody is getting that waiver for certification requirements.”

This session, House lawmakers are steadfast on undoing the loophole they created after new research from Kirksey sounded the alarm on the impacts of unprepared teachers on student learning. Students with new uncertified teachers , his analysis found. They missed class more than students with certified teachers, a signal of disengagement.

Uncertified teachers are also less likely to stick with the job long-term, disrupting school stability.

“The state should act urgently on how to address the number of uncertified teachers in classrooms,” said Kate Greer, a policy director at Commit Partnership. The bill “rights a wrong that we’ve had in the state for a long time.”

The price of getting certified

Rep. , a Plano Republican who sits on the House Public Education Committee, said his wife has worked as an uncertified art teacher at Allen ISD. She started a program to get certified this winter and had to pay $5,000 out of pocket.

That cost may be “not only a hurdle but an impediment for someone who wants to teach and is called and equipped to teach,” Leach said earlier this month during a committee hearing on HB 2.

House lawmakers are proposing to lower the financial barriers that keep Texans who want to become teachers from getting certified.

“Quality preparation takes longer, is harder and it’s more expensive. In the past, we’ve given [uncertified candidates] an opportunity just to walk into the classroom,” said Jean Streepey, the chair of the State Board for Educator Certification. “How do we help teachers at the beginning of their journey to choose something that’s longer, harder and more expensive?”

Streepey sat on the teacher vacancy task force that Gov. established in 2022 to to retention and recruitment challenges at Texas schools. The task force’s recommendations, such as prioritizing raises and improving training, have fingerprints all over the Texas House’s school finance package.

Under HB 2, districts would see money flow in when they put uncertified teachers on the path to certification. And those financial rewards would be higher depending on the quality of the certification program.

Schools with instructors who complete yearlong teacher residencies — which include classroom training and are widely seen as the gold standard for preparing teacher candidates — would receive bigger financial rewards than those with teachers who finish traditional university or alternative certification programs.

Even with the financial help, lawmakers are making a tall order. In two years, the would have to get their credential or be replaced with new, certified teachers.

“The shortages have grown to be so great that I think none of us have a really firm handle on the measures that it’s going to take to turn things around.” said Michael Marder, the executive director of UTeach, a UT-Austin teacher preparatory program. “There is financial support in HB 2 to try to move us back towards the previous situation. However, I just don’t know whether the amounts that are laid out there are sufficient.”

Restrictions like “handcuffs”

Only from 2017 to 2020 went on to get a credential within their first three years of teaching. Texas can expect a jump in uncertified teachers going through teacher preparatory programs because of the financial resources and pressure on schools through HB 2, Marder said.

But for every teacher who does not get credentialed, school leaders will have to go out and find new teachers. And they will have to look from a smaller pool.

The restrictions on uncertified teachers “handcuffs us,”said Gilbert Trevino, the superintendent at Floydada Collegiate ISD, which sits in a rural farming town in West Texas. In recent years, recruiters with his district have gone out to job fairs and hired uncertified teachers with a college degree and field experience in the subjects they want to teach in.

Rural schools across the state have acutely experienced the challenges of the teacher shortage — and have leaned on uncertified teachers more heavily than their urban peers.

“We have to recruit locally and grow our own or hire people who have connections or roots in the community,” Trevino said. “If we hire a teacher straight out of Texas Tech University, we may have them for a year. … And then they may get on at Lubbock ISD or Plainview ISD, where there’s more of a social life.”

Floydada Collegiate ISD recruits local high school students who are working toward their associate’s degree through what is known as a Grown Your Own Teacher program. But Trevino says HB 2 does not give him the time to use this program to replace uncertified teachers. From recruitment to graduation, it takes at least three years before students can lead a classroom on their own, he said.

School leaders fear if they can’t fill all their vacancies, they’ll be pushed to increase class sizes or ask their teachers to prepare lessons for multiple subjects.

“Our smaller districts are already doing that, where teachers have multiple preps,” Trevino said. “Things are already hard on our teachers. So if you add more to their plate, how likely are they to remain in the profession or remain in this district?”

At Wylie ISD in Taylor County, it’s been difficult to find teachers to keep up with student growth. Uncertified teachers in recent years have made up a large number of teacher applicants, according to Cameron Wiley, a school board trustee.

Wiley said restrictions on uncertified teachers is a “good end goal” but would compound the district’s struggles.

“It limits the pot of people that’s already small to a smaller pot. That’s just going to make it more difficult to recruit,” Wiley said. “And if we have a hard time finding people to come in, or we’re not allowed to hire certain people to take some of that pressure off, those class sizes are just going to get bigger.”

Learning suffers when because students are not able to get the attention they need.

“This bill, it’s just another obstacle that we as districts are having to maneuver around and hurl over,” Wiley said. “We’re not addressing the root cause [recruitment]. We’re just putting a Band-Aid on it right now.”

This article originally appeared in at .

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.