Committee hears Senate Bill 68 to centralize school-safety reports and curb student personal-device use

Sen. Mike Henderson, R-Third Senatorial District, told the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education that Senate Bill 68 would require local school districts to report school-safety incidents and credible threats to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and would set a statewide floor for restricting students27 personal electronic devices during the school day.

Henderson said the reporting requirement would let the state "take a snapshot" of incidents by building and district so officials could identify problem sites and, if necessary, allocate resources. "Every parent should be able to feel safe sending their kids to school," he told the committee.

The bill pairs that reporting mandate with a statewide device rule that, in Henderson27s language, would bar students from using or displaying personal electronic communication devices from the start to the end of the school day except for defined emergencies, individualized education plan (IEP) or Section 504 accommodations, and other board‑defined emergency situations. Henderson told members the bill includes a built‑in eight‑year sunset to allow revision as technology changes.

Why it matters: sponsors and supporters said the measure addresses classroom disruptions, cheating and a rise in sexting and mental‑health concerns since the COVID‑19 pandemic. Opponents and some committee members raised questions about local control, the bill27s device definitions, and how "school safety incidents" will be defined and reported.

Key provisions and clarifications discussed - Reporting: Henderson said DESE would maintain a regularly updated database of building‑level incidents; DESE27s public disclosures would be aggregate (building or district level) and not include individually identifiable student information. Henderson said much of the data is already reported annually in districts27 core data but that SB 68 would expand and centralize the list of required items. - Devices: The bill would apply to personal electronic communication devices; school‑issued devices would not be covered. Exceptions listed in the bill include emergencies (examples in committee discussion: fire, tornado, active shooter), IEP/504/ADA accommodations and medical devices such as glucose monitors. Henderson cited districts that require students to deposit phones in "black bags," and said some superintendents told him those rules improved cafeteria interaction and classroom engagement. - Scope and flexibility: Committee members repeatedly asked whether the measure was too prescriptive. Henderson said the text includes phrases such as "including but not limited to" and that local school boards would retain discretion over how to implement device handling (for example, bag storage or other methods).

Public testimony and stakeholders - Autumn Fagen, testifying for Missouri NEA, urged adoption but asked for attention to language that preserves students27 ability to use lunch or study time for work. "Because this is an issue that is important to our teachers," she told the committee, adding that teachers report headphones and related issues as well. - Branch Shields, testifying for the Missouri School Boards Association (MSBA) for informational purposes, urged clarity about the purpose and use of the data and warned that some districts might underreport incidents to avoid reputational harm.

Outstanding questions raised in committee - Definition and scope of "school safety incidents": several members said the bill lists examples (including shootings, weapons offenses referenced to Section 571.01) but does not provide a tight statutory definition; members warned inconsistent local interpretations could produce misleading comparisons across buildings. - Device list and enforcement: members asked whether the bill27s enumerated device list (which committee discussion showed includes smartphones, smartwatches, portable game consoles and other items) should be narrowed or left broad to prevent students from circumventing the rule. - Local control vs. statewide floor: multiple lawmakers said they support local control in principle but that some districts have asked the legislature to set a statewide floor so boards can enforce a policy without becoming the target of parent backlash.

What the bill does not do (as presented in committee) - It does not require DESE to release personally identifiable student records; Henderson said individual student data would not be "sunshineable." The bill27s reporting, as described in committee, focuses on aggregated building‑ and district‑level counts.

Next steps The committee received public testimony and extensive questions; committee members signaled interest in drafting a substitute that harmonizes definitions and exceptions with companion House language. No committee vote on Senate Bill 68 was recorded during the hearing.

Ending note: Supporters called the bill a tool to make problems visible and to reduce classroom disruptions; critics and several committee members urged clearer definitions and protections for local policymakers.