Missouri’s K–12 and DESE budget is where policy becomes reality. This post compares the introduced DESE appropriations bill for FY2027 (HB 2002) to last year’s enacted DESE appropriations bill for FY2026 (HB 2) and flags the most important changes citizens should know before the late-session “add-ons” show up.
Important note: HB 2002 (introduced) does not include a “Bill Totals” page like HB 2. The FY2027 figure above is a calculated estimate based on the line-item appropriations in the bill text, excluding internal “funds transferred out of the State Treasury” lines. Use it for comparison and trend-spotting, not as a final audited number.
What changed—quick take
- Top-line spending is lower in the introduced bill, driven mostly by expired one-time federal relief and several one-time earmarks that do not reappear.
- The School Foundation Program is essentially flat, with one notable FY2026 one-time add-on removed.
- New implementation money appears for “Voluntary Open Enrollment.” This budget line is a policy signal worth watching.
- Child care subsidy spending increases, including a much larger draw from the Early Childhood Development, Education and Care Fund.
Key line-item differences (with section references)
| Item | FY2027 – HB 2002 | FY2026 – HB 2 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
|
School Foundation Program (total)
Section 2.015
|
$4,674,102,614 | $4,689,311,449 | -$15,208,835 |
|
Voluntary Open Enrollment Program
Section 2.020 (new line item)
|
$7,500,000 | — | +$7,500,000 |
|
Child Care Subsidy (low-income families)
HB 2002: Section 2.335 • HB 2: Section 2.360
|
$304,797,328 | $287,646,848 | +$17,150,480 |
|
Federal “Emergency Relief 2021” spending (ESSER/relief-era lines)
HB 2 Sections 2.045, 2.055, and 2.210
|
Not reappropriated in HB 2002 | $89,177,860 | -$89,177,860 |
|
Charter school facilities: low-interest loan program (one-time)
HB 2 Section 2.430
|
Not included | $10,000,000 | -$10,000,000 |
|
Online science platform earmark (one-time)
HB 2 Section 2.045
|
Not included | $2,000,000 | -$2,000,000 |
What to watch—policy and accountability concerns
1) “Voluntary Open Enrollment” money is a major policy flag
HB 2002 creates a new appropriation line for a Voluntary Open Enrollment Program (Section 2.020, $7,500,000). Open enrollment debates are ultimately about governance and control: who decides where students go, how transportation and capacity are handled, and whether funding formulas become another lever for centralized policy through DESE. Even if you support school choice, this should be debated openly as policy—not quietly advanced through an appropriation.
2) Child care subsidies expand—and tend to bring federal strings
The Child Care Subsidy line increases (Section 2.335 vs. Section 2.360 last year), including a much larger draw from the Early Childhood Development, Education and Care Fund. Subsidies may help some families in the short term, but they also push the state deeper into a system that can become bureaucratic, compliance-heavy, and federally conditioned. Citizens should ask what outcomes Missouri is buying, and what new reporting or eligibility requirements come with it.
3) Student data infrastructure remains a standing red flag
HB 2002 continues funding a statewide longitudinal data system (Section 2.130, $1,849,907). A data warehouse that follows students across years can easily become a pipeline for surveillance, profiling, and mission creep—especially when paired with vendor platforms and “whole child” metrics. If the state insists on funding this infrastructure, it must come with hard guardrails: minimal data, strict retention limits, independent audits, and clear prohibitions on non-educational use.
4) “Safety” and “mental health” spending needs a tighter definition
The safe schools grants line (Section 2.100) continues to mix physical security with behavioral/mental health services, and it adds a small school safety incident portal. It also routes the grant distribution through a “statewide education organization” whose directors consist entirely of public school board members—an approach that can create gatekeeping and weak accountability if not monitored closely. Missouri can support legitimate safety measures without sliding into behavioral surveillance or expanding DESE’s role into student mental-health management. The legislature should require clear scope, privacy protections, and measurable outcomes.
5) Flexibility clauses reduce transparency
Multiple sections include “flexibility” language allowing money to move between sections. That may help administrators, but it also makes it easier to blur priorities and hide late-session changes. When flexibility is granted, it should be paired with public reporting: what moved, from where, to where, and why.
Positives worth noting
- Lower reliance on one-time federal relief-era spending is generally healthier for state sovereignty and long-term planning.
- Several one-time earmarks from last year do not reappear in the introduced version, which is a modest sign of restraint.
- The foundation formula remains the core of the bill (as expected), rather than being overwhelmed by scattered boutique programs.
Questions to ask your lawmakers (simple and direct)
- What exactly is Missouri buying with the new $7,500,000 “Voluntary Open Enrollment” appropriation—policy, staff, systems, transportation, or incentives?
- Which federal conditions attach to the expanded child care subsidy spending, and what new reporting/data collection is required?
- What data does the statewide longitudinal data system collect, who can access it, and how long is it retained?
- Will DESE publish a plain-language report showing every inter-section “flexibility” transfer made during the year?
- What late-session “add-ons” are being considered that are not visible in the introduced bill?
Source documents used for the comparison: HB 2002 (introduced DESE appropriations for FY2027) and HB 2 (enacted DESE appropriations for FY2026). This post summarizes key line items and policy signals; it is not legal advice.