Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill creates a four-year competitive demonstration grant program under Title I to place additional professional secondary school counselors in low-performing secondary schools (four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate of 60% or lower). Grants (at least 10 schools) fund counselors, professional development, outreach, and overhead; aim is one additional counselor per 250 at-risk students (sense of Congress).
Scale and funding adequacy: liberals/centrists want larger funding; conservatives see waste.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a narrowly scoped federal demonstration grant program with clear problem framing and basic statutory elements but limited operational, fiscal, and accountability detail.
This bill creates a four-year competitive demonstration grant program under Title I to place additional professional secondary school counselors in low-performing secondary schools (four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate of 60% or lower).
Grants (at least 10 schools) fund counselors, professional development, outreach, and overhead; aim is one additional counselor per 250 at-risk students (sense of Congress).
Schools may receive up to three grant periods if graduation rates improve (10% increase threshold); third period phases down federal funding and requires increased non‑federal funding.
Content is low-conflict and small-cost, which favors enactment, but many authorization-only pilot bills fail to be funded or prioritized.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a narrowly scoped federal demonstration grant program with clear problem framing and basic statutory elements but limited operational, fiscal, and accountability detail.
Scale and funding adequacy: liberals/centrists want larger funding; conservatives see waste.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scale and funding adequacy: liberals/centrists want larger funding; conservatives see waste.
Generally supportive: views the bill as a targeted, equity-focused intervention to reduce dropout disparities for Black, Hispanic, Native, English learner, and disabled students.
Sees counselors as essential for mental health, college and career access, and individualized graduation planning.
Cautiously supportive: likes a targeted, evidence-oriented pilot to reduce dropouts and improve counselor ratios, but wants clearer evaluation, selection transparency, and cost accounting.
Sees pilot value if rigorously measured.
Skeptical: recognizes dropout reduction is worthwhile but is concerned about new federal spending, added bureaucracy, and federal involvement in local staffing.
Prefers local control and market‑driven or state solutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is low-conflict and small-cost, which favors enactment, but many authorization-only pilot bills fail to be funded or prioritized.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scale and funding adequacy: liberals/centrists want larger funding; conservatives see waste.
Content is low-conflict and small-cost, which favors enactment, but many authorization-only pilot bills fail to be funded or prioritized.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates a narrowly scoped federal demonstration grant program with clear problem framing and basic statutory elements but limited operational, fiscal, and accountabil…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.