The bill adds a new Part G to Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to create a federal grant program supporting students who have epilepsy or seizure disorders. The Secretary of Education will award competitive grants to States, which must use the funds to make subgrants to local educational agencies to run training and preparedness programs in elementary and secondary schools.
The program funds development and implementation of individualized health care plans and individualized emergency health care plans, training for school personnel on seizure recognition and response, and related activities. The measure establishes roles for school nurses, requires periodic training, sets parental-release procedures for medical information-sharing, and includes a liability safe harbor for good-faith acts consistent with the statute.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a competitive federal grant program under Title IV to fund state subgrants to LEAs for seizure awareness and preparedness programs, focusing on training and individualized health and emergency plans. The Secretary and States handle grant and application procedures subject to standard Department rules.
Who It Affects
State education agencies that apply for grants, local educational agencies that receive subgrants, school nurses and other school staff, school bus drivers, students with epilepsy or seizure disorders and their parents, and nonprofit epilepsy organizations that may deliver approved training.
Why It Matters
This is the first explicit Title IV federal funding stream aimed at epilepsy/seizure readiness in schools; it standardizes plan elements and training expectations and channels modest federal money toward school health capacity-building rather than direct clinical services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines two plan types: an individualized health care plan (IHP) that documents a student’s ongoing health services at school and an individualized emergency health care plan (IEHCP) that provides step-by-step instructions for acute events. Both must be developed with the student’s health care provider, the parent, appropriate medical professionals, and the school nurse, and must be signed by the provider, parent, and school nurse.
The definitions make those documents central to the program and tie them to school nurse coordination.
States compete for grants from the Department of Education; recipients must award subgrants to LEAs. Subgrant funds must be used to operate programs in the LEA’s elementary and secondary schools that deliver training on seizure awareness and preparedness addressing IHPs and IEHCPs.
The bill lists recommended content for those plans—physician orders, symptom profiles, exercise participation guidance, accommodations for trips and activities, communication protocols, and assessments of student self-management ability—but frames much of that content as recommended inclusions rather than rigid mandates.The statute requires that school nurses coordinate epilepsy and seizure care at each supported school and ensures staff training at least every two years, including personnel involved in after-school or extracurricular programs. The training must include a Department-approved online or in-person course provided by one or more nonprofit national organizations that support people with epilepsy and seizure disorders; the bill also permits LEAs to use subgrant funds to train personnel to administer seizure medications, educate students, recruit compliance staff, or carry out other Secretary-approved activities.Operational details include a specific requirement to notify and train school bus drivers who transport students with identified seizure disorders and a parental-release requirement authorizing the sharing of medical information between the student’s clinicians and school health staff.
The bill contains a good-faith liability shield for school employees acting consistently with the section (excluding willful misconduct, gross negligence, or recklessness), a supplement-not-supplant clause, and a five-year appropriation authorization for the program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute makes individualized health care plans and individualized emergency health care plans the central clinical documents for school-based seizure care and requires they be developed with the student’s clinician, parent, and school nurse and be signed by all three.
Each LEA receiving subgrant funds must ensure school staff are trained at least once every two years, and that training covers school-sponsored activities outside the regular school day.
The bill mandates that the Department of Education approve the online or in-person training course(s), which must be provided by one or more nonprofit national epilepsy organizations.
Subgrant funds may be used permissively to train staff to administer seizure medications, to educate students, to hire dedicated compliance staff, or for other Secretary-approved activities.
The law provides a statutory good-faith liability shield for school employees and agents acting consistent with the program’s provisions, but it excludes protection for willful misconduct, gross negligence, or recklessness.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a new Title IV part for epilepsy/seizure support
The bill inserts a new Part G into Title IV of the ESEA dedicated to a grant program for students with epilepsy or seizure disorders. Mechanically, that addition gives the Department of Education explicit statutory authority to run a targeted competitive program rather than relying on broader Title IV flexibilities. Because it sits in Title IV, the program follows typical ED grant-administration practices but is statutorily focused on school health and training rather than academics.
Definitions and signatory requirements for IHPs and IEHCPs
This subsection tightens who must participate in plan development and requires signatures from the student’s health care provider, the parent, and the school nurse. The definition of IEHCP emphasizes concrete procedural steps for emergencies, while the IHP covers ongoing educationally relevant health services. Requiring the school nurse’s signature embeds the nurse as the school's accountable clinical coordinator.
Competitive state grants and application authority
The Secretary awards grants to States on a competitive basis; States submit applications to ED and then run a subgrant competition for LEAs. The bill leaves application content and timing to the Secretary’s discretion, creating flexibility but shifting policy detail to federal rulemaking, guidance, or grant solicitations.
Required subgrant use: training on plans
States must use grant funds to make subgrants so LEAs can run training programs tied to IHPs and IEHCPs in their schools. That required use makes training and plan implementation the core deliverable; funding for other activities is optional, meaning LEAs must prioritize establishing and training staff on those plans if they accept funds.
Permissive uses, training standards, and bus-driver requirements
The statute allows subgrant funds to pay for medication-administration training, student education, and dedicated compliance staff, among other things. It requires that training include a Department-approved course provided by nonprofit national epilepsy organizations and directs LEAs to notify and train school bus drivers who transport affected students. Practically, SEAs and LEAs will need systems to identify impacted students, update driver rosters and emergency contact lists, and vet course providers for ED approval.
Parental release for information-sharing and liability protection
The bill requires school nurses to obtain parental releases authorizing information exchange between clinicians and school health staff, easing data-sharing hurdles but relying on parental consent. It also grants a statutory no-liability provision for school employees acting in good faith under the statute, explicitly excluding willful misconduct, gross negligence, and recklessness; this shifts legal exposure toward clearly culpable conduct while protecting routine care actions.
Supplement-not-supplant rule and funding level
Grant and subgrant funds must supplement, not supplant, other federal or state funds, which may limit use where districts already finance similar services. The bill authorizes $34,500,000 for fiscal years 2026–2030 — a fixed five-year pot that, when divided among applicants, will likely translate into modest per-LEA awards and therefore require prioritization of activities.
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
- Students with epilepsy or seizure disorders and their families — gain formalized plans, clearer emergency procedures, staff training, and structured communication between clinicians and schools.
- School nurses — receive statutory authority to coordinate epilepsy care, likely more resources and defined responsibilities tied to grant-funded activities.
- Local educational agencies that win subgrants — obtain federal funds to train staff, implement plans, and hire compliance personnel, reducing initial local outlays for startup activities.
- Nonprofit national epilepsy organizations — may secure contracts to deliver Department-approved training courses and influence standardized educational materials.
- State education agencies — receive federal funding to support statewide coordination, technical assistance, and competitive subgrant administration.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local educational agencies that do not win subgrants or that must maintain programs after grant expiration — face ongoing staffing and operational costs if they keep implemented supports in place.
- School nurses and school staff — take on new coordination and training duties that may increase workload even if partially funded, with potential need for backfill or overtime.
- State education agencies — must run competitive subgrant processes and oversight without an explicit administrative set-aside, creating administrative burdens.
- District legal and data teams — must operationalize parental-release procedures and reconcile information-sharing with FERPA/HIPAA, which may require policy updates and training.
- Organizations competing to become approved course providers — must meet Department approval criteria and likely invest in curriculum alignment and capacity to deliver at scale.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades narrowly targeted federal support for safer school environments against limited funding, administrative burdens, and decentralized implementation: it prioritizes immediate training and plan-based preparedness but does not fund comprehensive, sustained clinical services or create a uniform national standard, leaving equity, monitoring, and long-term sustainability unresolved.
The funding level is modest: $34.5 million over five years yields limited per-state or per-district awards once competitive distributions and administrative costs are accounted for, so the program will likely seed pilot activities rather than fully fund statewide implementation. Because the statute relies on competitive grants rather than an entitlement, coverage will be uneven — well-resourced SEAs and LEAs with grant-writing capacity will be advantaged.
The supplement-not-supplant rule tightens use of the money, potentially excluding districts that already spend local dollars on similar programs from using these funds to replace that spending.
The bill delegates significant implementation detail to the Secretary (application requirements, Department-approved courses, and Secretary-approved permissive activities) but provides little in the way of monitoring, reporting, or performance metrics. That creates flexibility but also uncertainty about consistency, quality assurance, and how ED will vet nonprofit course providers.
The parental-release mechanism eases clinician–school data flows but depends on consent; it does not resolve conflicts between FERPA and HIPAA where provider records and school records intersect. Finally, the statutory liability shield protects good-faith actors but risks reducing litigation incentives that might otherwise surface systematic training or compliance failures; enforcement relies largely on local oversight and the exclusion for gross negligence or recklessness, which will be litigated if disputes arise.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.