Full-Service Community School Expansion Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 12, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to dramatically increase federal investment and support for the full-service community school model, integrating academic, health, and social services with community engagement to improve student outcomes.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands and reauthorizes the Full-Service Community School program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It authorizes substantial appropriations from fiscal year 2027 to 2031, defines key terms like 'pillars of community schools,' and establishes new grant types (planning, implementation, expansion, renewal, and state grants) to support the development and growth of community schools. It also includes specific 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, addressing both academic and non-academic barriers to student success by integrating vital services and fostering strong community partnerships. They contend that this model leads to improved student achievement, attendance, and well-being, especially for disadvantaged students, and strengthens communities by making schools hubs for essential services.
Opponents contend
While direct opposition to the concept of community schools is often limited, potential critics might raise concerns about the federal government's role in local education, the overall cost of the program, or the administrative burden on schools and districts to coordinate numerous services and partnerships. Some may also question the sustainability of funding beyond federal grants or argue for more targeted academic reforms.
The bill is extensive, requiring careful reading to understand the detailed grant structures and definitions. The time given for analysis is sufficient for this tier.
Section 2(a), amending Section 4601 of ESEA
Authorization of Appropriations for Full-Service Community Schools
This provision authorizes significant federal funding for the Full-Service Community School program. It allocates $500 million for fiscal year 2027, increasing annually to $1 billion by fiscal year 2031. These funds are specifically for carrying out the activities outlined in the expanded community school program.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this substantial authorization is necessary to scale up the successful community school model nationwide, providing the sustained investment needed to address the complex needs of students and communities effectively.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that these spending levels are excessive and contribute to the national debt, or that such large federal allocations could lead to overreach into local educational decisions.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for robust federal investment to support comprehensive student services and concerns about the overall fiscal impact and the appropriate balance of federal versus local funding for education.
Section 2(b), amending Section 4622 of ESEA
Definitions of Key Personnel and Program Components
This section introduces and redefines several key terms crucial for the program's operation. It defines 'community school coordinator' as a full-time staff member responsible for identifying and coordinating services, and 'community school initiative director' for entities serving multiple schools. Crucially, it also defines the 'pillars of community schools,' outlining the six core practices (integrated student supports, expanded learning time, active engagement, collaborative leadership, rigorous instruction, and culture of belonging) that must be incorporated.
Section 2(c), amending Section 4625(a) of ESEA
New Grant Structure for Full-Service Community Schools
This section establishes a new, tiered grant structure for the program. It allocates at least 80% of funds for competitive planning, implementation, and expansion grants to eligible entities, with specific amounts and durations. Up to 15% is reserved for state grants, and up to 5% for technical assistance. Priority is given to high-need LEAs, rural areas, and Tribal entities.
Section 2(c), amending Section 4625(c) of ESEA
Implementation Grants for Full-Service Community Schools
This provision details the requirements for eligible entities to receive 5-year implementation grants. Applicants must demonstrate completion of planning activities, provide data-sharing agreements, and assure non-discrimination. Funds must be used to establish full-service community schools, fund community school coordinators, establish leadership teams, and implement specific integrated student supports, expanded learning time, family engagement, collaborative leadership, rigorous instruction, and a culture of belonging.
Section 2(c), amending Section 4625(f) of ESEA
State Grants for Full-Service Community Schools
This provision allows states to apply for 5-year grants to plan, implement, and expand full-service community schools statewide. States must create a State liaison position, establish a State-level steering committee, and provide subgrants to LEAs. They are also required to develop plans for increasing State spending on community school priorities and integrating community schools into State education plans.
Requires data-sharing agreements between local educational agencies and partner entities/services to ensure the sharing of relevant and timely student data for needs assessments, service provision, and program evaluation.
Section 2(b)(1)(H) and (c)(1)(C), amending Section 4625(b)(1)(H) and (c)(1)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include operational requirements within application guidelines. However, the practical challenges of data sharing, especially with privacy laws like FERPA and HIPAA, make this a critical detail.
Case for: Proponents argue that robust data sharing is essential for effective program design, targeted service delivery, and rigorous evaluation of student outcomes, allowing for continuous improvement and accountability.
Case against: Critics, particularly privacy advocates, might raise concerns about the potential for misuse or breaches of sensitive student and family data, even with agreements in place, highlighting the need for strong safeguards.
Estimated impact: Facilitates comprehensive assessment and evaluation for all grant-funded community schools, impacting data privacy protocols for potentially millions of students and families.
Requires that leadership team meetings for full-service community schools be open to the public, and that records related to finances, personnel, and other decision-making processes be made available for public review.
Section 2(c), amending Section 4625(b)(1)(J), (b)(2)(A)(viii), (c)(1)(E), (d)(2)(F), (d)(3)(B)(iii)(VIII), (f)(2)(G)
Why it matters:This repetition emphasizes the importance of transparency, but its placement within detailed grant requirements rather than a dedicated 'transparency' section might make it less prominent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue that public transparency fosters trust, accountability, and genuine community engagement, ensuring that community schools are responsive to the needs and priorities of the populations they serve.
Case against: Some might argue that such extensive public disclosure requirements could create an administrative burden for schools and potentially deter community members or partners from participating in leadership roles due to privacy concerns or time commitments.
Estimated impact: Establishes a high standard of public accountability and transparency for all federally funded full-service community schools.
Grants the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and Indian Tribes, the authority to waive any requirement under this section or prescribe an alternative if necessary for the effective delivery and administration of activities for Bureau of Indian Education and Tribally-Controlled Full-Service Community Schools.
Section 2(c), amending Section 4625(g)(2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to provide flexibility for unique contexts, such as those of Tribal governments and BIE schools, which often have distinct governance structures and needs. It's not intended to be evasive but addresses specific administrative realities.
Case for: Proponents argue that this waiver authority is essential to ensure that the program can be effectively tailored to the unique cultural, governance, and logistical realities of Tribal communities and BIE schools, preventing unintended barriers to participation.
Case against: Some might argue that broad waiver authority could lead to inconsistencies in program implementation or reduce accountability, potentially undermining the standardized 'pillars' of community schools.
Estimated impact: Provides critical flexibility for the implementation of community schools in Tribal and BIE contexts, potentially affecting dozens of schools and thousands of students.