Revitalizing America’s Schoolyards Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal grant program to transform public elementary and secondary school outdoor spaces into environmentally beneficial and educationally rich revitalized schoolyards, with a focus on underserved communities.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes the Secretary of Education to award grants to eligible entities, including local educational agencies, educational service agencies, or nonprofits partnered with LEAs, to revitalize schoolyards. The program is structured with initial planning grants for concept development, followed by implementation grants for project execution, with a maximum award of $1,000,000 per entity. It prioritizes schools serving low-income students and Tribal educational agencies, and includes detailed requirements for revitalized schoolyards to enhance ecological systems, provide hands-on learning resources, and foster nature play.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill addresses critical needs for outdoor learning, environmental education, and climate resilience in schools, especially in communities lacking green spaces. It promotes physical and mental health, provides hands-on learning opportunities, and creates shared public spaces, while prioritizing schools with low tree canopy and high percentages of low-income students.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that this program represents an overreach of federal involvement into local school infrastructure decisions, potentially diverting funds from core academic programs. Concerns could also be raised about the long-term maintenance costs for revitalized schoolyards falling on local budgets after grant funds expire, or that the specific design requirements might be overly prescriptive for diverse local needs.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Sections 2, 3, 4(a)(1), 4(b)(1)
Creation of Revitalizing America's Schoolyards Grant Program
This bill establishes a grant program through the Department of Education to fund the transformation of public elementary and secondary school outdoor spaces into "revitalized schoolyards." These schoolyards are defined as park-like outdoor environments updated to strengthen local ecological systems, provide hands-on learning, foster nature play, and enhance health. They may include trees, gardens, outdoor meeting areas, and can serve for shared public use outside school hours.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing this grant program directly addresses the need for improved outdoor spaces in schools, recognizing their value for education, health, and environmental resilience, especially in underserved communities.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while the goal is laudable, creating a new federal grant program adds to administrative overhead and could be better handled by existing state or local funding mechanisms.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for federal support for school infrastructure improvements with concerns about federal involvement in local educational and land-use decisions.
Section 3
Two-Phase Grant Structure and Funding Allocation
The grants are awarded in biennial cohorts, with an initial planning grant in the first year and a subsequent implementation grant in the second year, contingent on the Secretary's determination of project viability. A total of $1,000,000 is the maximum an eligible entity can receive across both grants, each lasting up to 2 years. 5% of appropriated funds are reserved for Tribal educational agencies, while 30% of the remainder goes to planning grants and 70% to implementation grants.
Section 4(a)(3)
Comprehensive Concept Plan Requirements
Planning grant recipients must develop a detailed concept plan for revitalized schoolyards. This plan must incorporate school and public input, aim for longevity, and prioritize schools with low tree canopy, vulnerability to extreme heat or flooding, and high percentages of low-income students. It must detail ecological, climate, biodiversity, learning, and health goals, ensure ADA compliance, provide site designs, cost estimates, and a long-term management plan. Specific design components like growing food, managing stormwater, supporting hands-on learning, using arts, planting native species for climate resilience, and incorporating natural playgrounds are also detailed.
Section 5, Section 4(b)(4)(B)
Prioritization and Match Waiver for Underserved Communities
The Secretary must give competitive priority to eligible entities serving schools where at least 75% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Additionally, the 20% non-Federal matching fund requirement for implementation grants can be waived for entities serving schools where at least 40% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, or for Tribal schools.
Allows planning grant funds (up to 10% of the total award) to be used to hire a qualified grant writer or consultant to assist in preparing an implementation grant application.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)
Why it matters:While a practical detail, its impact on the accessibility of the grant program for smaller entities might be overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the main project activities. It's standard legislative practice to detail allowable uses of funds.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is critical for enabling smaller or less-resourced eligible entities to successfully navigate the complex federal grant application process, thereby leveling the playing field and ensuring broader participation.
Case against: Critics might suggest that using grant funds for administrative costs, even for application writing, could be seen as diverting resources from direct project implementation, or that the federal government should simplify applications rather than funding consultants.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on the success rate of applications from entities that lack in-house grant writing expertise, increasing the diversity of grantees.
Defines 'shared public use' as a facility open and accessible to the public outside of school hours, but during daylight hours, and states that a revitalized schoolyard 'may' serve as a facility for shared public use.
Section 2(5) and 2(3)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:Definitions are often skipped by readers, and the use of 'may' rather than 'shall' indicates it is an encouraged option rather than a strict requirement, making it less prominent.
Case for: Proponents argue that encouraging shared public use maximizes the community benefit of federal investment, providing green spaces and recreational opportunities beyond school hours, especially in urban areas lacking public parks.
Case against: Some school districts might express concerns about increased liability, security issues, and additional maintenance costs associated with opening schoolyards to the general public, even if optional, potentially deterring participation.
Estimated impact: Potentially expands public access to green spaces in communities, but its actual impact depends on how many grantees choose to implement this optional feature, which could vary widely.