Senate Bill 278, titled the Smart Heart Act, would require every public school unit in North Carolina to develop and maintain a cardiac emergency response plan (CERP) for sudden cardiac arrest and similar life-threatening emergencies on school grounds. The plan must include a designated response team, activation procedures, annual CPR and AED training for specified staff, annual practice drills, and coordination with local emergency medical services. The bill also directs schools to integrate evidence-based practices, including core elements recommended by the American Heart Association or similar nationally recognized guidance.
The bill further requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules for the installation, use, and maintenance of AEDs in public schools, including placement of at least one AED in each school, signage and unlocked access, placement that allows use within three minutes, staff training, and maintenance/testing requirements. It also amends multiple education statutes so that local school boards, charter schools, regional schools, special schools, and public secondary schools under the UNC Board of Governors must adopt a CERP consistent with the new statewide requirements. The bill appropriates $2 million in nonrecurring General Fund money to the Department of Public Instruction for distribution to school units to help purchase AEDs and develop required emergency plans.
The bill’s impact would be to create a new statewide school safety and health mandate focused on cardiac emergencies, while also imposing implementation duties on school governing bodies and the State Board of Education. It would affect public school units broadly, including traditional public schools, charter schools, regional schools, special schools, and certain public secondary schools under the university system. It would also create a funding stream intended to offset some of the costs of AED acquisition and planning, and it would take effect July 1, 2025, beginning with the 2025-2026 school year.
Because no committee transcript or vote history is provided, there is no recorded debate or roll-call sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a student safety and emergency preparedness bill, with an emphasis on prevention, rapid response, and training rather than controversy. The only likely points of contention would be the cost of purchasing and maintaining AEDs, the administrative burden of annual training and drills, and the practicality of meeting the three-minute AED access standard in every school.
This bill would add a new statutory requirement in Chapter 115C for cardiac emergency response planning and AED deployment in public schools, and it would conform related provisions across local school boards, charter schools, regional schools, special schools, and UNC-affiliated public secondary schools. It also appropriates $2 million in nonrecurring General Fund support to DPI for AED purchases and plan development, shifting some implementation costs to the state while imposing ongoing compliance, training, maintenance, and coordination duties on school systems and the State Board of Education.
No committee discussion or vote record is included, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from the available materials. The bill’s framing, however, suggests generally favorable support around student safety, emergency preparedness, and lifesaving equipment in schools, with the funding provision indicating an effort to address implementation concerns. Any skepticism would likely center on cost, staffing, and operational feasibility rather than the underlying goal.
The main potential points of contention are practical and fiscal: whether $2 million is sufficient to equip all schools with AEDs and support training; whether schools can reliably maintain unlocked, clearly marked AEDs within a three-minute access standard; and how much burden annual CPR/AED training and drills will place on school personnel. School administrators and local boards may be concerned about compliance costs and logistics, while supporters are likely to emphasize the lifesaving value of rapid defibrillation and coordinated emergency response.