Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Adds a new Title IV, Part G to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act creating a competitive federal grant program for States. States would award subgrants to local educational agencies to fund seizure awareness and preparedness programs, including training on individualized health care plans and individualized emergency health care plans.
Federal role vs local control and administrative burden
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive policy change by creating statutory grant authority and funding to support students with epilepsy or seizure disorders and provides several concrete implementation elements (definitions, required uses, training cadence, and liability protection).
Adds a new Title IV, Part G to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act creating a competitive federal grant program for States.
States would award subgrants to local educational agencies to fund seizure awareness and preparedness programs, including training on individualized health care plans and individualized emergency health care plans.
Requires school nurses to coordinate epilepsy care, biennial staff training, bus driver notification and training, parental release for medical information sharing, and provides limited liability protection for good-faith acts.
Modest, noncontroversial program with limited cost and clear implementation path; still requires appropriations and standard legislative steps.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive policy change by creating statutory grant authority and funding to support students with epilepsy or seizure disorders and provides several concrete implementation elements (definitions, required uses, training cadence, and liability protection).
Federal role vs local control and administrative burden
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Federal role vs local control and administrative burden
Likely strongly supportive; seen as a focused federal effort to protect students with disabilities and health needs in schools.
Values the training, formalized care plans, nurse coordination, and safeguards to improve equity and school safety.
May want stronger funding and oversight to ensure implementation in underserved districts.
Generally supportive if implemented efficiently and monitored for effectiveness.
Views the bill as a targeted, limited federal investment to improve student safety with reasonable guardrails.
Will want accountability, measurable outcomes, and clarity on long-term costs once grants expire.
Cautious to skeptical: supports protecting children but concerned about federal expansion into local education and added bureaucracy.
Worries about recurring obligations after grant funding ends, federal prescriptive oversight, and potential intrusion into parental or local medical decision-making.
May accept a narrower, state-led approach instead.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest, noncontroversial program with limited cost and clear implementation path; still requires appropriations and standard legislative steps.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Federal role vs local control and administrative burden
Modest, noncontroversial program with limited cost and clear implementation path; still requires appropriations and standard legislative st…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive policy change by creating statutory grant authority and funding to support students with epilepsy or seizure disorders and provides se…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.