To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants to State educational agencies to carry out wellness programs for school personnel, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 7, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 8676 aims to improve the well-being and retention of school personnel by authorizing new federal grants and expanding the use of existing federal education funds for wellness programs.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to authorize the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) for the purpose of establishing wellness programs for school personnel. It also expands the allowable uses of existing Title II, Part A funds under ESEA to include developing and implementing programs aimed at improving the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of school personnel, and reauthorizes appropriations for Title II, Part A through fiscal year 2030.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill directly addresses the critical issues of teacher and school personnel burnout, stress, and high turnover rates, which negatively impact educational quality. They contend that investing in the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of educators and support staff will lead to healthier work environments, increased retention, and ultimately, better outcomes for students. Proponents believe that providing dedicated funding and flexibility for states and local districts to implement tailored wellness programs is a necessary step to support the education workforce.
Opponents contend
Critics may express concerns that this bill represents an expansion of federal involvement into areas traditionally managed at the state and local levels, potentially leading to federal overreach in school personnel policies. Some might argue that authorizing 'such sums as may be necessary' for appropriations creates an open-ended spending commitment without clear fiscal guardrails. Opponents could also contend that diverting existing Title II, Part A funds, which are intended for 'effective instruction,' towards wellness programs might dilute their original purpose without sufficient new funding, potentially shifting resources away from other critical instructional support activities.
The bill is concise and straightforward, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a short timeframe.
Section 1(a), (b), (d) of the bill; Amends Sections 2003, 2101(b)(1), 2104(a) of ESEA
Reauthorization of Title II, Part A Appropriations and Reporting
This provision reauthorizes appropriations for Title II, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which supports effective instruction, for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. It changes the funding mechanism to 'such sums as may be necessary' rather than specific amounts. Additionally, it updates the state allotment years and requires states to report on the wellness programs implemented by local educational agencies using these funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that reauthorizing Title II, Part A ensures continued federal support for critical instructional programs and provides stability for states and local districts. The shift to 'such sums as may be necessary' allows for flexibility in future appropriations based on evolving needs, while the new reporting requirements ensure accountability for how funds are used, particularly for the new wellness initiatives.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that the 'such sums as may be necessary' language lacks fiscal discipline and could lead to unpredictable or excessive spending in the future. Some might also argue that the expanded reporting requirements could increase administrative burden on states and local agencies without a clear benefit proportional to the effort.
Tradeoffs
The tension here is between providing flexibility in future funding levels and ensuring fiscal predictability. There's also a balance between increasing accountability through reporting and avoiding excessive administrative burdens on educational agencies.
Section 1(c) of the bill; Amends Section 2103(b)(3) of ESEA
Expanded Local Uses of Title II, Part A Funds for Wellness Programs
This provision amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to allow local educational agencies (LEAs) to use their existing Title II, Part A funds for developing and implementing programs that create healthier and more sustainable working environments for all school personnel. This includes initiatives focused on stress management, improving workplace conditions, increasing access to support, and boosting job satisfaction for teachers, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, and paraprofessionals.
Section 1(e) of the bill; Inserts new Part C (Sections 2250, 2251, 2252) into Title II of ESEA
Establishment of Competitive Grants for School Personnel Wellness Programs
This provision creates a new competitive grant program under Title II, Part C of ESEA, authorizing the Secretary of Education to award 5-year grants to State educational agencies (SEAs). SEAs, in turn, will award subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop and implement wellness programs for all school personnel. The grants prioritize SEAs and LEAs facing educator shortages or serving high-need student populations, and require detailed applications, consultation, and reporting on program effectiveness and impact on retention and school climate.
This amendment adds a new allowable use for existing Title II, Part A funds, permitting local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop and implement programs that create healthier and more sustainable working environments for all school personnel, focusing on mental, emotional, and physical well-being, stress management, workplace conditions, access to support, and job satisfaction.
Section 1(c) of the bill, amending Section 2103(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6613(b)(3))
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for modifying existing statutes. It's not necessarily evasive, but its placement within an amendment to an existing section might make its significance less immediately apparent compared to the creation of a brand new part of the Act.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this provision is highly beneficial as it provides immediate flexibility to LEAs to address personnel wellness using funds they already receive. It allows districts to respond to local needs without waiting for new competitive grants, ensuring that wellness initiatives can be integrated into existing funding structures.
Case against: Critics might argue that by expanding the allowable uses of existing Title II, Part A funds without increasing the overall appropriation, this provision could lead to a diversion of resources from other established priorities of Title II, Part A, such as professional development or class size reduction. This could potentially dilute the impact of funds intended for core instructional improvements.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it allows for the reallocation of a portion of the substantial existing Title II, Part A federal funding (which was authorized for 'such sums as may be necessary' for FY2026-2030) towards school personnel wellness programs across all LEAs.