PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 11, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10314 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10314 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10314 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10314 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-08 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would require the Department of Education to study how public elementary and secondary schools teach students about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Working with the head of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, the department would examine state and local requirements, teaching practices, and educators’ needs. It would report its findings to Congress within three years of enactment, or sooner depending on when the study finishes.
the Secretary of Education, in coordination with the head of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, shall conduct a study on the efforts of States, local educational agencies, and public elementary schools and secondary schools to educate students on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
identify each State’s standards and the requirements of the local educational agencies being studied relating to 9/11 education and summarize the status of the implementation of such standards and requirements
the identification of training and resources needed to support educators teaching about 9/11
Following the completion of the study under subsection (a), the Secretary of Education shall prepare and submit to Congress a report on the results of the study.
not later than the earlier of— (A) 180 days after the completion of the study under subsection (a); or (B) 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
The Secretary of Education would have to begin the study within 180 days after enactment. It would cover every state, a nationally representative sample of local education agencies, and a representative sample of public elementary and secondary schools served by those agencies.
Beginning not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education, in coordination with the head of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, shall conduct a study
Such study shall include an examination of— (1) all States; (2) a nationally representative sample of local educational agencies; and (3) a representative sample of public elementary and secondary schools served by the local educational agencies being studied.
The study would determine which states and sampled local education agencies require 9/11 instruction and which offer it as an optional part of the public school curriculum.
(1) determine whether the States and local educational agencies being studied require 9/11 education as part of the curriculum taught in public elementary schools and secondary schools; (2) identify the States and local educational agencies being studied that have optional 9/11 education as part of the curriculum taught in public elementary schools and secondary schools
The study would identify state standards and sampled local agencies’ requirements and examine how they are being implemented. It would cover systems for sharing teaching materials, training opportunities for prospective and current teachers, participation by museums and cultural centers, obstacles educators face, and needed training and resources.
(3) identify each State’s standards and the requirements of the local educational agencies being studied relating to 9/11 education and summarize the status of the implementation of such standards and requirements, including— (A) the existence of a centralized apparatus at the State or local level that collects and disseminates 9/11 education curricula and materials; (B) the existence of 9/11 education professional development opportunities for pre-service and in-service teachers; (C) the involvement of informal educational organizations in implementing 9/11 education, including museums and cultural centers; (D) an assessment of the challenges or gaps that may prevent educators from fulfilling 9/11 education requirements; and (E) the identification of training and resources needed to support educators teaching about 9/11
The study would examine intended learning outcomes and methods teachers use successfully to achieve them. Possible methods to examine include classroom discussions, homework and learning through experiences with local organizations, projects, age-appropriate teaching sensitive to trauma, and lessons spread across subjects and the school year. This directs a study of teaching methods; it does not establish that any particular method is effective.
(4) determine— (A) the range of intended outcomes from a 9/11 education unit at the State and local educational agency level; and (B) the methods teachers are using that result in successfully achieving intended learning outcomes, which may include— (i) in-class discussion; (ii) educational activities conducted outside the classroom, including homework assignments and experiential learning involving State and local organizations, such as museums and cultural centers; (iii) project based learning; (iv) educational materials and activities that are developmentally appropriate and taught through a trauma-informed lens; and (v) integration of lessons from 9/11 across the curriculum and throughout the school year
The study would identify instructional materials, including original source materials, and how schools assess learning. It would examine both traditional and nontraditional assessments of students’ knowledge of 9/11 and their ability to identify and analyze terrorism in historical and present-day settings.
(5) identify the types of instructional materials used to teach students about 9/11, including the use of primary source material; and (6) identify the approaches used by public elementary schools and secondary schools to assess outcomes using traditional and nontraditional assessments, including assessments of— (A) students’ knowledge of 9/11; and (B) students’ ability to identify and analyze terrorism in historical and contemporary contexts.
For this bill, “9/11 education” means activities specifically intended to improve understanding of the attacks, teach their lessons to raise awareness of preventing terrorism, and study terrorism’s history. “Project based learning” means learning through active participation in real-world, personally meaningful projects.
(2) 9/11 education The term 9/11 education means educational activities that are specifically intended— (A) to improve students’ awareness and understanding of 9/11; (B) to educate students on the lessons of 9/11 as a means to raise awareness about the importance of preventing terrorism; and (C) to study the history of terrorism.
(3) Project based learning The term project based learning means a teaching method through which students learn by actively engaging in real-world and personally meaningful projects.
After completing the study, the Secretary would have to submit its results to Congress. The deadline would be whichever comes first: 180 days after study completion or three years after enactment.
(c) Report (1) In general Following the completion of the study under subsection (a), the Secretary of Education shall prepare and submit to Congress a report on the results of the study. (2) Deadline for submittal The report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than the earlier of— (A) 180 days after the completion of the study under subsection (a); or (B) 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
The bill would use the existing definitions of elementary school, secondary school, local educational agency, and state from section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(1) ESEA terms The terms elementary school, local educational agency, secondary school, and State have the meanings given those terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
The supplied action snapshot, updated September 11, 2026, records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on September 8, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-11T14:59:33Z. 2026-09-08: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-09-08: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-08. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow exemption, carve-out, or preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text under the stated criteria. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI