Full-Service Community School Expansion Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 12, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to dramatically increase federal investment in and standardize the framework for full-service community schools to improve student outcomes and community well-being through comprehensive, integrated services.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes and significantly expands the Full-Service Community School program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It authorizes substantial appropriations for planning, implementation, and expansion grants to eligible entities and states, and defines key roles, structures, and "pillars" of community schools, focusing on integrated student supports, expanded learning time, and community engagement. The bill also includes dedicated provisions for Bureau of Indian Education and Tribally-controlled schools.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that full-service community schools provide a holistic approach to education by integrating academic, health, and social services, leading to improved student achievement, attendance, and overall community well-being, especially in high-need areas. They emphasize the importance of community engagement and collaborative leadership in addressing out-of-school barriers to learning and fostering a supportive school environment.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that this approach overburdens schools with social services responsibilities, potentially diverting focus and resources from core academic instruction. Concerns could also be raised about the significant increase in federal spending and the potential for bureaucratic inefficiencies in coordinating diverse services and partners, questioning the cost-effectiveness of such a broad federal initiative.
The bill is moderately complex due to detailed program requirements, definitions, and cross-references, requiring careful reading to understand its full scope and implications.
Section 2(a), amending Section 4601(c) of ESEA
Increased Authorization for Full-Service Community Schools
This provision significantly increases the authorized appropriations for the full-service community school program. It allocates $500 million for fiscal year 2027, escalating to $1 billion by fiscal year 2031. This substantial funding aims to enable a broad expansion of community school initiatives across the nation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this increased funding is essential to scale effective community school models, address the comprehensive needs of students and communities, and ensure equitable access to resources, especially in areas with high poverty and academic challenges.
Critics contend
Critics may raise concerns about the scale of federal spending, questioning whether such large appropriations are fiscally responsible or the most effective use of education funds, particularly without a clear, immediate return on investment.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for widespread impact and comprehensive support with concerns about federal expenditure and fiscal sustainability.
Section 2(b), amending Section 4622 of ESEA
Standardized Definitions for Community School Roles and Practices
This section introduces detailed definitions for key roles such as 'community school coordinator' and 'community school initiative director,' and establishes structured teams like 'community-wide leadership team' and 'school-based leadership team.' Crucially, it defines the 'pillars of community schools,' outlining six core practices including integrated student supports, expanded learning time, and collaborative leadership, providing a standardized framework for program implementation.
Section 2(c), new Section 4625(a) of ESEA
Grant Structure and Priorities for Community Schools
This section outlines the types of grants available: planning, implementation, and expansion grants for eligible entities, and 5-year grants for States. It reserves funds for Bureau of Indian Education schools and technical assistance. The provision prioritizes grants for high-need LEAs, rural areas, and Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations, directing resources to communities with the greatest identified needs.
Section 2(c), new Section 4625(c) of ESEA
Implementation Grants for Full-Scale Community School Operation
This provision details the requirements for implementation grants, which fund the full operation of community schools. It mandates the establishment of at least one full-service community school, funding a community school coordinator, and implementing the 'pillars of community schools.' Specific integrated student supports (e.g., health, nutrition, homeless prevention), expanded learning time (e.g., tutoring, workforce development), and family engagement strategies are required, along with non-discrimination and public transparency clauses.
Section 2(c), new Section 4625(f) of ESEA
State-Level Grants for Systemic Community School Support
This section authorizes 5-year competitive grants to States to support the planning, implementation, and expansion of full-service community schools statewide. States are required to establish a State liaison, a State-level steering committee, provide subgrants to local educational agencies, and develop statewide goals and resources. This aims to build systemic support and infrastructure for community schools beyond individual school sites.
Section 2(c), new Section 4625(g) of ESEA
Dedicated Program for Tribal Schools
This provision directs the Secretary of Education, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior and in consultation with Indian Tribes, to develop a plan and award grants for full-service community schools in elementary and secondary Bureau-funded schools. It also allows for waivers of certain requirements to ensure effective delivery and administration of activities in these unique contexts.
The definition of an 'eligible school' for receiving grants is a public elementary or secondary school where not less than 40 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, OR a school identified for comprehensive, targeted, or additional targeted support by the State.
Section 2(b), new Section 4622(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining eligibility criteria that apply throughout the bill, rather than repeating the full definition multiple times.
Case for: Supporters argue that this definition effectively targets federal resources to schools with the highest need, ensuring that the program benefits disadvantaged students and communities where integrated supports are most critical.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying solely on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility or state identification could miss other schools with significant, albeit different, needs that could also benefit from community school models.
Estimated impact: This definition will determine which schools are eligible for billions of dollars in federal grants over five years, significantly shaping the program's reach.
The bill repeatedly requires a data-sharing agreement between the local educational agency and partner entities and services to ensure the sharing of relevant and timely student data for needs assessments, service provision, and program progress/quality assessment.
Section 2(c), new Section 4625(b)(1)(H), (c)(1)(C), (d)(2)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard practice for operational requirements tied to specific grant applications, but its importance for program effectiveness can be underestimated.
Case for: Proponents argue that robust data sharing is essential for tailoring services to student needs, evaluating program effectiveness, and demonstrating accountability, ensuring that interventions are evidence-based and responsive.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about student privacy and data security, arguing that such extensive data sharing, even with agreements, could pose risks or create administrative burdens for schools and partners.
Estimated impact: This provision is critical for the program's ability to measure impact and adapt services, affecting the quality and targeting of interventions for all participating students.
The bill mandates that any full-service community school supported by grant funds must hold leadership team meetings that are open to the public, and that records related to finances, personnel, and other decision-making processes for those schools must be made available for public review.
Section 2(c), new Section 4625(b)(1)(J), (c)(1)(E), (d)(2)(F), (f)(2)(G)
Why it matters:This is a common way to include accountability measures within grant programs, but its repetitive nature across different grant types might make it seem less prominent than it is.
Case for: Supporters argue that public transparency is vital for ensuring accountability, fostering community trust, and allowing stakeholders to monitor how funds are used and decisions are made, promoting good governance.
Case against: Some might argue that such extensive public disclosure requirements could create administrative burdens for schools and partners, potentially deterring participation or slowing down decision-making processes.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly enhances public oversight and accountability for all federally funded full-service community schools, impacting their operational practices and community relations.
The definition of 'Pillars of community schools' is highly detailed, specifying six key practices: Integrated student supports (e.g., medical, mental health, homeless prevention), Expanded and enriched learning time (e.g., project-based learning, CTE, evidence-based tutoring), Active student, family, and community engagement, Collaborative leadership and practices (e.g., school-based and community-wide leadership teams), Rigorous and engaging classroom instruction (e.g., community-connected curriculum), and a Culture of belonging, safety, and care (e.g., restorative discipline).
Section 2(b), new Section 4622(8)
Why it matters:This is a legislative technique to ensure that the core philosophy and operational components of the program are consistently applied across all grants without having to repeat them in every section describing grant uses.
Case for: Proponents argue that this detailed framework ensures fidelity to a proven model, provides clear guidance for implementation, and promotes a comprehensive approach that addresses all critical aspects of student and community well-being.
Case against: Critics might suggest that such a prescriptive definition could limit local innovation and flexibility, making it challenging for communities to adapt the model to their unique needs or to experiment with alternative effective practices.
Estimated impact: This definition dictates the fundamental design and operational requirements for all full-service community schools receiving federal funding, profoundly shaping their services and structure.