Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill adds a new grant program to Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to support students with epilepsy or seizure disorders. The Secretary of Education would award competitive grants to states, which would subgrant local educational agencies to fund training, individualized health care plans, emergency plans, and related activities.
Liberals emphasize equity, thorough training, and stronger funding
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a discrete federal grant program within the ESEA with defined beneficiaries, some required program components, and an explicit authorization of appropriations.
This bill adds a new grant program to Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to support students with epilepsy or seizure disorders.
The Secretary of Education would award competitive grants to states, which would subgrant local educational agencies to fund training, individualized health care plans, emergency plans, and related activities.
Required elements include biannual staff training coordinated by the school nurse, school bus driver notification and training, parental releases for medical information sharing, and liability protection for good-faith acts.
Content is narrow, sympathetic, and low-cost—favorable for bipartisan passage—yet requires appropriations and must secure floor time, lowering guaranteed enactment odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a discrete federal grant program within the ESEA with defined beneficiaries, some required program components, and an explicit authorization of appropriations. It specifies several operational elements (definitions, training frequency, responsible actors) but leaves numerous administrative and oversight details unspecified.
Liberals emphasize equity, thorough training, and stronger funding
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize equity, thorough training, and stronger funding
Likely strongly supportive because the bill targets vulnerable students and funds training and individualized care.
It advances disability inclusion, health equity, and school safety with modest federal investment.
Supporters may still ask for stronger enforcement and equitable distribution to low-resource districts.
Generally favorable because the bill is narrowly targeted, modestly funded, and aims to improve student health and safety.
Appreciates liability protections and optional uses like medication training.
May seek clarity on reporting, cost-sharing, and whether funds truly supplement existing programs.
Cautiously supportive for addressing student safety, but wary of new federal programs and spending.
The liability protections and modest appropriation reduce opposition, yet concerns exist about federal overreach into local education and ongoing costs.
Some conservatives may prefer state-led or private solutions instead of federal grants.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow, sympathetic, and low-cost—favorable for bipartisan passage—yet requires appropriations and must secure floor time, lowering guaranteed enactment odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize equity, thorough training, and stronger funding
Content is narrow, sympathetic, and low-cost—favorable for bipartisan passage—yet requires appropriations and must secure floor time, lower…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a discrete federal grant program within the ESEA with defined beneficiaries, some required program components, and an explicit authorization of appropriations…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.