Bill Explainer
Home  /  Recent Bills  /  Put School Counselors Where They’re Needed Act
HOUSE · HR 3567 119 CONGRESS

Put School Counselors Where They’re Needed Act

INTRODUCED
May 21, 2025
POLICY AREA
Education
STATUS
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
SOURCE
Congress.gov ↗

Bill Summary

H.R. 3567, introduced in the House of Representatives on May 21, 2025, is titled the 'Put School Counselors Where They're Needed Act.' This bill seeks to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to create a demonstration project that funds additional secondary school counselors in Title I schools with low graduation rates, aiming to reduce high school dropout rates. The legislation is structured with four key sections: Section 1 provides the short title; Section 2 establishes the demonstration project in Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the ESEA; Section 3 contains conforming amendments; and Section 4 authorizes appropriations.

Section 2 is the core of the bill and includes several subsections: Subsection (a)-(d) outline the findings of Congress regarding the state of high school graduation rates in the United States, highlighting disparities among demographic groups and the importance of school counselors in supporting student success. Subsection (e) details the demonstration project itself: the Secretary of Education will award competitive grants to secondary schools that receive Title I funds and have a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate of 60 percent or lower. Grants last for four years and can be used to hire additional school counselors, provide resources for professional development and home visits, and cover overhead costs. Congress expresses the sense that participating schools should aim for one additional counselor per 250 at-risk students. Subsection (f) specifies that the additional counselors must identify at-risk students (ideally before ninth grade) and provide comprehensive services, including individual graduation plans, course placement, tutoring, supplemental materials, and meetings with students, teachers, tutors, parents, and other relevant individuals. Subsection (g) requires that funds supplement, not supplant, existing non-Federal funding for counseling services. Subsection (h) allows for additional grant periods if a school demonstrates adequate improvement—defined as a 10 percentage point or greater increase in its four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate—with decreasing Federal support over time requiring increased non-Federal investment. Subsection (i) mandates that the demonstration project be carried out in at least 10 schools, with the first five selected from different states. Subsection (j) defines 'regular high school diploma' for the purposes of the Act, aligning with State standards and excluding GEDs and certificates of attendance, while making a special rule for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Finally, Subsection (k) authorizes $5,000,000 in appropriations for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2029 to fund the demonstration project.

Section 3 makes a conforming amendment to Section 1002(d) of the ESEA by inserting '(other than subpart 4)' after 'part D,' and updates the table of contents to include the new subpart. The bill is sponsored by a bipartisan group of representatives led by Ms. Sanchez, with co-sponsors including Mr. Panetta, Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Smith of Washington. It has been referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The bill represents a targeted effort to address educational inequities by providing additional counseling resources to schools serving high concentrations of low-income students that struggle with low graduation rates, using a competitive grant structure to encourage innovation and accountability.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

Democrats

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Directly addresses systemic inequities in education by focusing on Title I schools serving high concentrations of low-income and minority students.
+Addresses documented disparities in graduation rates among Black, Hispanic, Native American, English language learner, and disabled students.
+Provides comprehensive support including individual graduation plans, course placement, tutoring, and family engagement, recognizing that academic success requires holistic intervention.
+Invests in school counselors who have mental health training, addressing both academic and socio-emotional barriers to graduation.
+Builds in sustainability through the possibility of renewed grants with decreasing federal support, encouraging long-term local investment in counseling services.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Authorization of appropriations ($5M/year for 4 years) is relatively modest and may not scale to meet the significant need across thousands of eligible Title I schools.
−Demonstration project limited to at least 10 schools may be too small to generate comprehensive data or produce widespread impact.
−Focus on secondary school counselors may neglect the importance of early intervention in elementary and middle schools to prevent dropout risks from developing.
−Reliance on competitive grants may create uncertainty for schools and hinder long-term planning, as funding is not guaranteed beyond the initial 4-year period.
−Does not address root causes of low graduation rates such as school funding inequities, poverty, or lack of access to broader support services beyond counseling.

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Targets resources to schools with the greatest need (graduation rates of 60% or lower) ensuring efficient use of federal funds.
+Emphasis on supplementing rather than supplanting existing funds prevents federal money from replacing local or state investments, encouraging fiscal responsibility.
+Competitive grant structure rewards schools that demonstrate improvement and encourages innovation in addressing dropout rates.
+Focus on at-risk students aligns with principles of equity and opportunity without creating broad, universal programs that may be less efficient.
+Authorization of appropriations is limited and specific ($5M/year for 4 years), making it easier to oversee and evaluate for effectiveness.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Creates a new federal program and bureaucracy, increasing federal involvement in education which is traditionally a state and local responsibility.
−The $5 million annual authorization may be insufficient to meaningfully impact the target schools nationwide, potentially leading to limited results.
−Competitive grants may disadvantage schools lacking grant-writing capacity or administrative resources, potentially overlooking some of the most troubled schools.
−Defines 'adequate improvement' as a 10 percentage point increase in graduation rates, which may be unrealistically high for some schools given the complex socioeconomic factors affecting dropout rates.
−Supplemental not supplant requirement may be difficult to enforce and monitor, creating administrative burden without ensuring actual increase in counseling services.

History

May 21, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
May 21, 2025
Introduced in House
May 21, 2025
Introduced in House
SPONSOR
Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38]