Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill incentivizes states to adopt comprehensive concussion safety protocols in schools by linking compliance to federal education funding, aiming to protect student athletes.
What it actually does
This bill mandates minimum state requirements for the prevention and treatment of concussions in school sports, linking compliance to federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funding. States must ensure local educational agencies develop concussion safety plans, schools post information, and protocols are in place for immediate removal from play and medically cleared return to both athletic and academic activities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for protecting student athletes from the long-term dangers of concussions by establishing uniform, evidence-based safety standards across states. It ensures that all students, regardless of where they live, benefit from robust concussion management plans, proper academic accommodations, and safe return-to-play protocols, ultimately safeguarding their health and academic success.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill represents federal overreach into state and local educational matters, imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate that may not account for diverse local needs or resources. Concerns could also be raised about the financial penalties for non-compliance, which could disproportionately affect states with limited budgets, potentially harming the very educational programs it aims to support.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)
Local Educational Agency Concussion Safety and Management Plan
This provision requires each local educational agency (LEA) in a state to develop and implement a standard plan for concussion safety and management. This plan must include educating students, parents, and school personnel (such as coaches, teachers, and nurses) on concussion prevention, recognition, and response. It also encourages support for students recovering from concussions, including academic accommodations and evaluations for special education services if symptoms persist for a substantial period.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures a consistent, high standard of care and education regarding concussions across all schools, protecting students and empowering school communities with necessary tools and knowledge.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that mandating specific plan components from the federal level could be overly prescriptive, potentially leading to unfunded mandates or administrative burdens that strain local resources without sufficient flexibility for diverse school environments.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for uniform safety standards with concerns about local control and resource allocation for educational agencies.
Section 2(a)(2)
Public Information Posting Requirement
This provision mandates that every public elementary and secondary school must visibly post information about concussions on school grounds and make it publicly available on the school website. This information must be based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence and cover the risks, appropriate actions to take after a concussion, and the signs and symptoms of a concussion.
Section 2(a)(3)
Immediate Response Protocol for Suspected Concussions
This provision stipulates that if a designated school personnel member suspects a student has sustained a concussion, the student must be immediately removed from participation in any school-sponsored athletic activity. They are prohibited from returning to play on the day of the injury and until medically cleared. Additionally, parents or guardians must be notified of the injury details and any actions taken to treat the student.
Section 2(a)(4)
Medical Clearance Required for Return to Athletics
This provision mandates that a student who has sustained a concussion cannot resume participation in school-sponsored athletic activities without a written release from a qualified health care professional. This release may also require the student to follow a plan for gradual reintroduction to physical and cognitive demands, ensuring that increases in exertion do not cause the reemergence or worsening of concussion symptoms.
Section 2(a)(5)
Academic Accommodations for Concussion Recovery
This provision requires the school's concussion management team to consult with and make recommendations to relevant school personnel and the student to ensure appropriate academic supports during concussion recovery. This includes providing for periods of cognitive rest over the school day, offering modified academic assignments, and allowing for gradual reintroduction to cognitive demands, along with other appropriate accommodations.
Section 2(b)
Penalties for State Noncompliance
This provision outlines that if a state fails to comply with the minimum requirements by the compliance deadline (the last day of the fifth full fiscal year after enactment), the Secretary of Education will reduce the state's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funds. The reduction is 5% for the first fiscal year of non-compliance and 10% for each succeeding fiscal year of non-compliance.
This section provides a highly specific and detailed definition of 'concussion,' outlining it as a mild traumatic brain injury with various physical, cognitive, emotional symptoms, and sleep difficulties, and clarifying it can occur with or without loss of consciousness in any organized sport or recreational activity.
Section 4(1)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms for clarity and consistent application, but the specificity here is critical for effective implementation of the bill's protocols.
Case for: Supporters argue a precise definition ensures consistent diagnosis and application of safety protocols across schools and medical professionals, preventing ambiguity that could compromise student safety or lead to inconsistent treatment.
Case against: No specific opposition to the definition itself, but some might argue that such a detailed medical definition could be rigid and not adapt easily to evolving medical understanding without legislative amendment.
Estimated impact: Ensures a uniform understanding of the medical condition the bill addresses, directly impacting all diagnoses and subsequent actions taken under the bill's provisions.
This section defines 'health care professional' as an individual trained in pediatric concussion diagnosis and management, registered, licensed, or certified by the state, and whose scope of practice and experience includes traumatic brain injury among a pediatric population.
Section 4(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to ensure that critical roles are filled by appropriately qualified individuals, enhancing the safety and efficacy of the bill's mandates.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that critical medical decisions, such as return-to-play clearances, are made by genuinely qualified professionals with specialized expertise, thereby safeguarding student health and recovery.
Case against: Some might argue that this definition could be too restrictive, potentially limiting the pool of available professionals, especially in underserved areas, or requiring additional training for existing practitioners, which could create access barriers.
Estimated impact: Determines which medical professionals are authorized to provide critical clearances and guidance for student athletes, directly affecting the implementation of return-to-play protocols.
This section broadly defines 'school-sponsored athletic activity' to include not only physical education classes, athletic activities during school hours, and extracurricular sports teams, but also 'any recess activity.'
Section 4(5)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for defining scope, but the broadness of this definition is a notable policy choice that extends the bill's reach to informal play.
Case for: Supporters argue that including recess ensures comprehensive protection, as many concussions can occur during less structured play, and the same safety principles for recognition and response should apply regardless of the activity's formality.
Case against: Some might argue that applying formal concussion protocols to recess activities could be overly burdensome for schools, requiring more supervision or resources than currently allocated for informal play, potentially leading to unintended consequences like reduced recess time.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of activities covered by the bill's concussion protocols, extending them to informal play settings like recess, thereby increasing the responsibilities of schools.