HB3567, the “Put School Counselors Where They’re Needed Act,” would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to create a competitive federal demonstration project for secondary schools receiving Title I funds that have very low graduation rates. The Secretary of Education would award four-year grants to eligible schools with four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates of 60 percent or lower, with the goal of adding counselors and related supports to reduce dropout rates.
The bill is built around the idea that high school students in struggling schools need more individualized counseling, especially students at risk of not graduating. It authorizes grant funds to be used for additional school counselors, professional development, home-visit travel, overhead, and related services. Participating schools would be expected to identify at-risk students, ideally before ninth grade, and provide counseling plans, meetings with parents and school staff, and other supports such as course placement help, tutoring, books, and materials. The bill also allows schools that show sufficient improvement to receive additional grant periods, with the third round requiring increasing non-federal support.
The bill would create a new subpart in Title I, Part D of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and make a conforming amendment to the statute’s existing funding rules. It also defines “regular high school diploma” for purposes of the program and includes a special rule for students with significant cognitive disabilities who receive a state-defined alternate diploma aligned with IDEA requirements. The bill authorizes $5 million per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2029.
Overall sentiment appears supportive and noncontroversial based on the available record, though no committee transcript or vote data is provided. The bill’s findings emphasize dropout rates, counselor shortages, and disparities affecting English learners, Black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and students with disabilities, suggesting a strong equity and student-support rationale. Because the measure is only at the referral stage, there is no recorded floor debate or vote to indicate broader political division.
The main potential point of contention is likely fiscal and administrative rather than ideological: the bill creates a new federal grant program and requires schools to add staff and services beyond existing counseling offices. Some stakeholders may question whether the program is sufficiently targeted, whether the 60 percent graduation threshold is the right cutoff, or whether federal funds should support counselor staffing versus other dropout-prevention strategies. The bill also requires that funds supplement, not supplant, existing local resources, which may matter to school districts and state education agencies.
HB3567 would add a new federal demonstration grant program to Title I, Part D of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, directing the U.S. Department of Education to fund additional secondary school counselors in low-graduation-rate Title I schools. It would affect federal education funding rules, create new eligibility and reporting expectations for participating schools, and authorize $5 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2029. The bill does not directly change state law, but it would influence how eligible schools and districts use federal education funds and how counselors are deployed in high-need secondary schools.
The available materials suggest generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s purpose: improving graduation rates by expanding counseling support in struggling schools. The findings section frames the measure as a response to dropout rates, counselor shortages, and inequities affecting vulnerable student groups, which indicates a student-support and equity-oriented approach. No committee transcript or vote history is available, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or recorded bipartisan debate in the provided record.
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials, but the bill’s likely pressure points are funding, implementation, and program design. Critics could question whether a federal counselor grant program is the best use of resources, whether the 60 percent graduation-rate threshold is too narrow or too broad, and whether schools can realistically meet the suggested counselor-to-student ratio. Another possible issue is the supplement-not-supplant requirement, which may raise questions for districts about how the new grants interact with existing counseling staff and local funding obligations.