Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
The bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to require State educational agencies to maintain state funding for school resource officer (SRO) programs at or above recent historical levels. States must annually certify and report SRO funding amounts and officer counts to the Secretary.
Progressives emphasize policing harms; conservatives stress school safety benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a clear statutory condition tying State receipt of funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to maintenance of State funding for school resource officer programs, and it establishes reporting, waiver, and penalty (proportional reduction) mechanisms.
The bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to require State educational agencies to maintain state funding for school resource officer (SRO) programs at or above recent historical levels.
States must annually certify and report SRO funding amounts and officer counts to the Secretary.
Failure to maintain funding (absent an approved waiver for extraordinary financial circumstances) triggers a proportional reduction in the State’s ESEA program funding in the following fiscal year.
Narrow but ideologically charged and federalizing; easier passage as part of larger must-pass packages than standalone enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a clear statutory condition tying State receipt of funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to maintenance of State funding for school resource officer programs, and it establishes reporting, waiver, and penalty (proportional reduction) mechanisms. However, it omits detailed definitional, fiscal, procedural, and verification elements that would normally accompany a nationwide funding-conditional statutory change.
Progressives emphasize policing harms; conservatives stress school safety benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize policing harms; conservatives stress school safety benefits.
Likely opposes the bill because it locks in funding for law-enforcement presence in schools and limits reallocating funds toward counselors or mental-health services.
Concerned about worsening the school-to-prison pipeline and harming marginalized students through increased policing.
Sees the reporting requirement as insufficient to mitigate harms.
Views the bill as a mixed, pragmatic measure to preserve school safety resources but worries about rigid federal conditions and unintended budget tradeoffs.
Wants clearer waiver criteria, evaluation of SRO effectiveness, and flexibility for districts using proven alternatives.
Support is contingent on safeguards and evidence requirements.
Likely supports the bill as it protects law-enforcement presence and school safety funding, and uses federal leverage to prevent politically motivated defunding.
Values reporting for accountability and sees the waiver as reasonable for exceptional circumstances.
May still prefer stronger anti-waiver limits.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but ideologically charged and federalizing; easier passage as part of larger must-pass packages than standalone enactment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize policing harms; conservatives stress school safety benefits.
Narrow but ideologically charged and federalizing; easier passage as part of larger must-pass packages than standalone enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a clear statutory condition tying State receipt of funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to maintenance of State funding for school resource…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.