The bill creates the Mental Health Excellence in Schools Program at the Department of Education to expand the pipeline of school-based mental health providers by subsidizing graduate students’ cost of attendance through public–private contributions. Eligible graduate institutions enter agreements with the Secretary to contribute toward students’ tuition and costs; the Secretary may match up to 50 percent of a participating student’s cost of attendance when the institution provides an equivalent contribution.
The statute sets participation conditions — agreement terms for maximum per-student contributions and enrollment caps, prioritized outreach to Pell recipients and students from institutions listed in section 371(a) of the Higher Education Act, annual reporting requirements, a two-year interim report to Congress, an independent national evaluation starting within four years, and a five-year appropriation schedule. The program aims to increase recruitment and retention of school counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other school-based mental health providers by lowering graduate education cost barriers and creating incentives for institutions to invest in these programs.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a grant-matching program in which eligible graduate programs agree to subsidize students’ cost of attendance and the Secretary of Education may provide up to a 50 percent federal contribution when the institution matches. Agreements specify contribution mechanisms, per-student and per-year caps, and student selection priorities.
Who It Affects
Graduate programs that train school counselors, school social workers, and school psychologists (and other school-based mental health fields as designated by the Secretary); graduate students pursuing those degrees; K–12 systems that hire these graduates; and the Department of Education, which administers the program and reporting.
Why It Matters
It uses federal funds to leverage institution-level contributions to lower tuition barriers for students entering school-based mental health careers, coupled with reporting and evaluation to measure whether subsidized training translates into credentialing and employment in schools.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes a voluntary partnership between the Department of Education and graduate institutions that train school-based mental health providers. Participating schools sign agreements that define how they will apply institutional funds—through scholarships, grants, or other mechanisms—to reduce students’ cost of attendance for approved graduate programs in school counseling, school social work, school psychology, or similar fields the Secretary recognizes.
The agreement must set a per-student contribution cap and a maximum number of students an institution will support each year.
If an eligible graduate institution commits matching funds under its agreement, the Secretary may contribute an amount up to 50 percent of a participating student’s cost of attendance. The program requires the Department to publish and update an online list of participating institutions and the terms of their agreements, and to conduct targeted outreach to students who previously received Federal Pell Grants or who attended institutions listed in section 371(a) of the Higher Education Act.To track performance, participating institutions must submit annual reports covering number of students served, percentage of tuition covered, Pell recipient participation, and, where applicable, graduation and post-graduate employment data.
The Secretary must deliver an interim report to Congress two years after the first funds are provided and initiate an independent national evaluation within four years, with findings and recommendations forwarded to Congress shortly after the evaluation is complete.The bill authorizes specific appropriations over five fiscal years to fund the federal contributions and program administration. Definitions anchor the program to existing federal terminology for cost of attendance and limit eligible institutions to those offering accredited or approved graduate programs that prepare students for state licensure or certification in school-based mental health fields.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary may provide up to 50 percent of a participating student’s cost of attendance, but only if the eligible graduate institution commits an equivalent matching contribution under an agreement.
Participating institutions must limit per-student contributions and state a maximum number of students they will support each academic year in their agreement with the Secretary.
The Department must prioritize outreach to students who received Federal Pell Grants as undergraduates and to students who attended institutions listed in section 371(a) of the Higher Education Act.
Institutions must submit annual reports with enrollment, tuition-coverage, Pell-recipient share, and (if applicable) graduation and post-graduate employment metrics; the Secretary must produce an interim report to Congress after two years and commission an independent national evaluation within four years.
Congress authorized $20 million for FY2026, $30 million for FY2027, and $50 million annually for FY2028–FY2030 to support the program.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Program authorization and institutional agreements
This provision authorizes the Secretary to run the Mental Health Excellence in Schools Program and requires entry into written agreements with eligible graduate institutions. Each agreement must describe how the institution will apply its contribution (for example, grants or scholarships), set a per-student maximum contribution, and cap the number of students receiving support in a given academic year. Practically, these terms give institutions control over distribution while binding them to administrative conditions required for federal matching.
Public transparency and targeted outreach
The Department must post and periodically update a public list of participating institutions and the terms of their agreements on its website. The Secretary must also conduct outreach aimed at students who previously got Pell Grants or attended institutions listed under section 371(a) of the Higher Education Act, which targets historically under-resourced or minority-serving campuses as referenced in existing law. This section is a mechanism to steer benefits toward lower-income students and specified campus populations.
Matching rule and federal contribution cap
Under this clause the federal contribution is conditional: the Secretary’s share may be up to 50 percent of the student’s cost of attendance, but only when the institution matches that federal contribution through its agreement. The 'up to' phrasing lets the Department limit federal dollars per student, and the institution-level match is the lever intended to secure buy-in from graduate programs and ensure shared financial commitment.
Reporting, interim oversight, and independent evaluation
Participating institutions must file annual reports listing students served, the share of tuition covered, Pell recipient participation, and, where applicable, graduation rates and post-graduation employment. Two years after the program first pays funds, the Secretary must synthesize those reports into an interim report to Congress. Additionally, the Secretary must commission an independent national evaluation within four years and deliver the evaluator’s findings and recommendations to Congress soon after completion, embedding an evidence-building requirement into program design.
Funding authorization and definitional scope
The bill specifies explicit annual authorization levels ($20M, $30M, then $50M annually) to fund the federal matching contributions and departmental administration. Section 3 ties program eligibility to existing accreditation and licensure pathways—e.g., NASP/APA-accredited school psychology, CSWE-accredited social work, and accredited school counseling programs—and gives the Secretary authority to designate other school-based mental health fields, aligning federal support with recognized professional credentialing routes.
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
- Graduate students pursuing school-based mental health degrees — the program reduces their cost of attendance when their institution participates and matches, lowering a major barrier to entering school-based careers.
- Eligible graduate institutions with accredited school mental health programs — they gain federal leverage to expand recruitment and can offer targeted financial aid to attract candidates.
- K–12 school districts and students — over time districts can expect a larger supply of credentialed counselors, social workers, and psychologists, potentially improving access to school-based services.
- Low-income and historically underrepresented students — targeted outreach to Pell recipients and students from institutions listed in section 371(a) aims to increase access for these groups, improving workforce diversity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Participating graduate institutions — they must provide equivalent matching contributions and may face budgetary reallocation pressures to fund scholarships or tuition discounts.
- The Department of Education — ED must administer agreements, maintain public listings, manage outreach, compile reports, and oversee the independent evaluation, increasing agency workload and administrative costs.
- Federal budget/taxpayers — appropriations are authorized for multiple fiscal years, and actual outlays will depend on participation rates and matching behavior.
- Institutions unable to match — while not a direct monetary cost, these campuses face the opportunity cost of being excluded from benefits if they cannot or choose not to provide matching funds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to use federal money as leverage (requiring institutional matches to encourage buy-in and sustainability) or to provide direct student subsidies that prioritize equity and reach; the matching approach incentivizes institutional investment but risks excluding underfunded programs and the students they serve, while a purely federal subsidy would be more equitable but costlier and provide less institutional commitment.
The bill leverages institutional matching to amplify federal dollars, but the match requirement creates a selection effect: well-resourced programs can scale awards quickly while programs serving under-resourced students may struggle to participate. The Secretary’s discretion to designate “other” school-based mental health fields and to limit federal contributions with the 'up to 50 percent' language introduces implementation variability that will determine whether funds flow to the highest-need areas or cluster at institutions that can maximize receipt.
Measurement depends on institutions reporting graduation and post-graduate employment “as applicable,” which may produce patchy outcome data if programs and states vary in how they track credentialing or employment in K–12 settings. The independent evaluation is a strong accountability tool, but its usefulness depends on data quality, the Secretary’s selection of an evaluator, and the evaluation’s ability to distinguish program effects from broader labor-market factors affecting school-based mental health hiring and retention.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.