Since its adoption in 1822, the state motto “salus populi suprema lex esto,” has appeared boldly across the Seal of the State of Missouri. This Latin phrase is translated to “the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.” In recent years, many controversial decisions have been made across that state that beg the question: Is this motto being honored?

In a comprehensive analysis of public school systems nationwide, Missouri ranked last in public school safety and 38th in regard to overall performance, safety, funding and teaching measures. This marked Missouri’s second consecutive year being marked as the state with the worst school safety in the country.

“Missouri’s ranking as last in public school safety highlights issues such as insufficient mental health resources, inadequate security measures and possibly a lack of proactive prevention programs. As a​n [assistant principal], my biggest concern is ensuring a safe and secure learning environment where students and staff feel protected both physically and emotionally. When students don’t feel safe, they experience anxiety and stress that impede concentration, memory and overall cognitive function,” assistant principal Kate Piffel said. “I have witnessed firsthand, as an educator for 28 years, that chronic exposure to unsafe environments can lead to absenteeism, disengagement and lower academic performance. Teachers also struggle to teach effectively in disruptive or tense atmospheres, which affects the entire school community.” 

The magnitude and scale of these systemic issues prove that the state government needs to step in. The level of involvement the government should have in citizens’ day-to-day lives is a long-standing debate, especially regarding education. However, when nearly 900,000 students stand to be victims of the poor Missouri public school system, thorough government involvement seems vital. 

Race and financial status are two major factors that separate children across the state and play a large role in the issues the school system faces today. In Parkway, the median household income is $140,940, nearly double the state average of $71,689. Meanwhile, the Farmington School District in rural Missouri has a reported median household income of $27,963. Statewide, not all school districts have access to equally wealthy patrons, creating discrepancies that must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Racial disparities further complicate the problem as financial resources and racial backgrounds don’t always align. In Missouri, there are poor pockets in both predominantly white and ethnically diverse communities. That means policies cannot always assume a direct connection between race and wealth. These clear disparities highlight the problem of implementing blanket laws, which are unlikely to work effectively for such a diverse group of people. 

Amidst these challenges within public schools, on July 9, Missouri Governor Michael Kehoe signed Senate Bill 68, implementing many changes to the school system, including major modifications in safety and disciplinary policy. However, these new updates appear to overlook the exact disparities that are at the root of Missouri’s education problem. 

“Many policies created by Missouri lawmakers focus on surface-level issues without fully tackling underlying socioeconomic disparities, funding inequities and mental health crises that disproportionately affect public schools in Missouri,” Piffel said. “To bridge these gaps, lawmakers need to [do things such as] invest more in equitable school funding [and] support community-based services that address poverty and trauma.” 

Senate Bill 68 particularly highlights a transformative crackdown on personal communication device usage. Missouri was one of 18 states that implemented an outright ban on personal communication devices, defined in Section 162.207 of the bill as “portable devices that are used to initiate, receive, store, or view communication, information, images, or data electronically.” Before the passing of this bill, in April, the Parkway School District voted to implement a different phone removal policy.  

Amid the rise in threats and violence on campuses across the country, taking away students’ means of communication raises concern. Rather than working to implement measures that would strengthen school safety and address the root causes of violence, government officials have placed a large emphasis on the removal of personal devices in schools. By prioritizing such policies over substantive efforts to protect students, the state diverts invaluable attention and resources away from addressing the threats that endanger school communities. 

As the government, legislators are elected to represent the will of the people and serve communities by responding to the most urgent problems, especially when this concerns the vulnerable populations of young students. In failing to do so, Missouri’s governmental leaders risk neglecting the very duties they were entrusted to fulfill. 

In this new, conflicting and unique position under the phone policy, Superintendent Melissa Schneider joined the Parkway staff in July during these major changes to the school system. 

“The first week of school, I went and visited each middle and high school. I was watching how kids were interacting with each other and if I was going to see [students struggling] with not being able to use cell phones. I was pleasantly surprised as I saw kids eating lunch together and interacting in the hallways. I didn’t see one cell phone out. One thing that I like to do is be able to actually get into buildings and see how kids are actually doing with new rules,” Schneider said.

Teachers, administrators and students all have different perspectives about these restrictive policies. The ongoing debate and conflict highlight a disconnect between lawmakers and the complex realities of school communities. While the majority of students comply with these policies to avoid disciplinary consequences, compliance does not necessarily indicate students’ actual opinions or benefits to learning at all. In fact, prior to these bans, cell phones served numerous educational purposes to teachers in their classrooms. Aside from academic interests, this ban potentially conflicts with the health and safety of students and the wishes of parents. Many parents fear for their young children in emergency situations, in which students fear for their lives and well-being. The idea that cell phone usage is the largest factor in the decline in student health is far-fetched, especially when it’s used to justify a restrictive policy in an already flawed education system.

“I don’t think that [banning phones] improves mental health at school at all. I feel [more] stressed not being able to reach my parents, especially [because I have] anxiety. When we have our phones at school, when we are done with all our work, it’s a way of taking time for [ourselves]. I think having your phone can help your mental health because [you’re] able to talk to friends who aren’t in your classes,” junior Aminah Hilaly said. “When I was able to have my phone out at school, I would text my friends or my family to help me be less stressed throughout the day. Having phones [during] teaching is a problem, but taking away our phones isn’t solving the problem; it makes the problem worse.”

This is not the first time the Missouri government and public school officials have ignored and failed to consider student perspectives. In a July filing, the Missouri National Education Association sued the State of Missouri and many members of the state government. This suit came after a bill was passed that allows over $50 million in taxpayer money to be used for scholarships for private school students. The idea that public funds could be used to help private schools, while the public school system is struggling, was not well-received. However, in August, a Cole County judge ruled that these funds could continue to fund private school scholarships. 

In December 2024, another lawsuit was filed, this time on behalf of a middle school student in the Jackson school district who was suspended due to a miscommunication on social media. This suspension came after a student repeated a threat she had heard from an anonymous student, and after attempting to clear up this confusion, she was still suspended.  This case shed light on the possibly unconstitutional rules in many school handbooks as the debate shifted toward the poor treatment of students from the public school system. 

Senate Bill 68 continues this pattern of government overlooking and ignoring the treatment and safety of students. As a result, local school districts like Parkway have both the opportunity and responsibility to support students in ways that the government has failed to. While this bill requires an overly strict blanket policy, the government actually does leave a large amount of authority to local districts. The bill allows exceptions to phone usage for learning time at the discretion of the district and allows the district to create and implement its own disciplinary policy. 

At Parkway, students and staff must work together to support each other and reflect the needs of the community. Hearing and implementing the ideas of students is necessary to build and maintain trust during such an uncertain time. Schneider came into Parkway with this approach, striving to maintain an advisory group composed of a diverse group of students to gain insight from their perspectives.

“[Members of this advisory group] can actually [be] the voice for other students. We plan to convene a few times this year. If they report something that gets me a little bit more curious, I may contact principals and set up an opportunity to sit with perhaps their student council or other groups of students who will paint a picture of what their day-to-day experience is in school,” Schneider said.

Initiatives like this empower Parkway to embody Missouri’s motto of putting the welfare of the people at the center of decision-making, even as the state government falls short. By listening to students and adapting policies to meet real needs, Parkway can demonstrate that when local districts take responsibility, they can protect and uplift education.