SB 945 targets uneven access to lifesaving skills by making CPR and AED instruction a standard part of the high school experience. The bill frames those skills as essential public health tools and seeks to normalize training so every graduating pupil leaves school with basic emergency response capability.
The measure leans on existing school structures to scale instruction: it ties training to coursework all pupils encounter and asks the state curriculum body to consider embedding CPR/AED content into the physical education framework. The apparent goal is equity—closing gaps where health courses are optional—while keeping the approach flexible and low-cost for local districts.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires instruction in compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and how to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) as part of a course required for high school graduation, and directs the Instructional Quality Commission to consider adding CPR/AED content to the physical education framework when it is next revised after January 1, 2027.
Who It Affects
Applies to governing boards of school districts and charter school governing bodies that serve grades 9–12, the Instructional Quality Commission, the California Department of Education (for guidance), training providers, and all public high school pupils in the state.
Why It Matters
Creates a uniform point of delivery for CPR/AED training to reduce disparities in access and increase the number of bystander responders; it also creates implementation choices for districts that will affect budgets, staffing, and procurement of training materials or devices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 945 builds three implementation pathways into law. First, it amends state education code to require that instruction in compression-only CPR and AED use be delivered as part of a course that pupils must take to graduate from high school.
The statute points schools toward national, evidence-based emergency cardiovascular care guidelines and explicitly includes hands-on psychomotor practice as part of the instructional standard. Second, the bill adds a direction to the Instructional Quality Commission to consider integrating CPR/AED content into the physical education curriculum framework the next time that framework is revised after January 1, 2027, so the state-level curriculum guidance can align with the new graduation expectation.
To ease local implementation, the Department of Education must issue guidance before the 2027–28 school year that covers who may provide instruction. The law encourages districts to use the most cost-effective methods and states that boards are not required to purchase AEDs to comply.
Where a school lacks an AED, the bill permits meeting the AED-instruction requirement through free online video resources — in other words, the legislation prioritizes exposure to the concept and function of AEDs even when equipment is unavailable.The bill also addresses liability and cost allocation. It grants limited immunity from civil damages to local agencies, sponsoring organizations, and public employees who provide or facilitate the instruction, while preserving liability for gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Finally, the text includes a provision that triggers state reimbursement procedures if the Commission on State Mandates finds the act imposes state-mandated costs, signaling that districts could seek reimbursement under existing mandate law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The instruction requirement becomes effective commencing with the 2027–28 school year for pupils in grades 9–12.
The curriculum must be based on national evidence-based emergency cardiovascular care guidelines and include psychomotor (hands-on) skills practice.
AED instruction is required, but schools without an AED may satisfy that element by using free, online video resources demonstrating AED use.
The law encourages districts to use the most cost-effective implementation methods and explicitly states it does not require school boards to purchase AEDs.
The statute provides civil-liability protection for sponsoring organizations and public employees who provide or facilitate the instruction, except in cases of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Why the Legislature is acting
The bill begins with detailed findings on the prevalence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, low bystander intervention rates, and disparities in access to CPR training. These findings frame the policy rationale—equitable, universal access to lifesaving skills—and provide statutory backing for directing curriculum and graduation policy toward CPR/AED instruction. For implementers, these findings are relevant because they signal the Legislature’s intent to prioritize equity and public health outcomes when interpreting ambiguous provisions.
Instructional Quality Commission—PE framework consideration
This new section requires the Instructional Quality Commission to consider including content on compression-only CPR and AEDs in the physical education framework when the framework is next revised after January 1, 2027. Practically, that means the state curriculum body should evaluate how CPR/AED material fits into PE standards and model curricula, which can produce guidance, sample lesson plans, or competency expectations that local districts can adopt. The timing provision also lets the Commission align its work with its existing revision cycle rather than forcing an immediate rewrite.
Graduation-course instruction requirement
The amendment instructs governing boards to provide compression-only CPR and AED instruction as part of a course required for graduation, starting in 2027–28. It sets a substantive baseline: curricula should align with national evidence-based emergency cardiovascular care guidelines and must teach psychomotor (hands-on) CPR skills. For compliance officers and curriculum directors, the key implication is that districts must integrate training into an existing required course (for example, physical education) or adjust local graduation-course requirements to ensure coverage.
AED instruction and substitution where devices are unavailable
The statute requires instruction on AED use but permits schools that lack an AED device to satisfy the requirement using free online video resources. That creates a compliance path that avoids immediate capital outlays for districts without AEDs, but it also raises pedagogical and legal questions about skill acquisition when hands-on AED practice is absent. Districts will need to decide whether to invest in devices, partner with local agencies for practical sessions, or rely on video-based exposure.
State guidance, local policy flexibility, and cost language
The department must publish implementation guidance before the required school year; local boards may adopt their own policies to implement the statute; and the law encourages cost-effective approaches while expressly stating it does not require boards to purchase AEDs. The guidance will likely cover who is qualified to teach, minimum contact hours or lesson structure, and sample competency checks; districts retain discretion in how they meet the requirement within those parameters.
Liability protections and state-mandate reimbursement
Subdivision (e) shields local agencies, sponsoring entities, and public employees from civil damages arising from acts or omissions of trainees, except for gross negligence or willful misconduct. Separately, the bill invokes the Commission on State Mandates process: if costs are found to be mandated by the state, districts and local agencies can seek reimbursement under the Government Code. Together, these provisions limit legal exposure for trainers while recognizing the potential fiscal impact on local education agencies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- High school pupils statewide—They gain standardized exposure to compression-only CPR and AED use, increasing the likelihood that more community members can provide timely intervention in cardiac emergencies.
- Students from underresourced communities—By tying instruction to a universally required course, the bill reduces dependence on optional health classes that are unevenly offered, narrowing disparities in access to lifesaving skills.
- Public health agencies and emergency medical services—Broader population-level CPR/AED competency can translate into higher bystander intervention rates and potentially better survival outcomes, reducing emergency-system strain over time.
- Families and communities—More graduates with basic emergency response training increases the pool of potential responders in public settings and private homes, improving community resilience.
Who Bears the Cost
- School districts and charter schools—They must arrange instruction, possibly contract with providers, schedule training into required courses, and absorb nonreimbursed staff time and administrative costs unless the state provides reimbursement.
- Local school staff and PE teachers—They may face additional training duties or need curriculum adjustments; if districts rely on in-house delivery, teacher training and time allocation will be required.
- Training organizations and vendors—While some will benefit commercially, they must meet demand and may face procurement competition; smaller providers may need to scale up quickly to serve multiple districts.
- State education agencies—The Department of Education must create guidance and potentially support implementation monitoring, adding workload unless additional resources are provided.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is simple: make lifesaving training universal and equitable without imposing unfunded, burdensome costs or diluting instructional quality. The bill widens access by embedding CPR/AED instruction in required coursework and permitting low-cost compliance options, but those same choices risk uneven skill acquisition and financial strain on districts that must implement the mandate without guaranteed state funding.
The bill attempts a pragmatic balance between universal access and local flexibility, but that balance creates implementation questions. Allowing online video to satisfy AED instruction where no device exists lowers the financial bar for compliance but risks producing divergent skill levels: watching a video does not substitute for hands-on practice, and the statute does not set a minimum contact hour or competency check for AED exposure.
Similarly, encouraging cost-effectiveness while explicitly not requiring AED purchases avoids new capital mandates but shifts responsibility for effective skill acquisition back onto districts and community partners.
Liability protections are broad but not absolute; the carveout for gross negligence or willful misconduct will be litigated in edge cases, and the statute does not define instructor qualifications or supervision standards. Finally, the reimbursement clause relies on the Commission on State Mandates process, which can be slow and uncertain.
Districts that front costs while awaiting a mandate determination could face budget pressure, and the statute leaves open which training models (outside contractors, teacher-led, community partnerships) will scale most effectively while preserving learning outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.