Bill Overview
Title: Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill provides support for long-term improvements to public elementary and secondary school facilities. First, the bill sets forth allocations to states and establishes a need-based grant program for local educational agencies (LEAs) to improve school facilities. Further, the bill specifies allowable uses of grant funds, including carrying out major repairs, improving indoor air quality, and making facilities accessible to disabled individuals. Additionally, the bill requires LEAs that receive funds for new construction, modernization, or renovation projects to comply with hazard-resistance building codes and performance criteria under the WaterSense program of the Environmental Protection Agency. Further, the bill requires such LEAs to adopt certain green practices (environmental standards) and requires the use of iron, steel, and manufactured products that are made in the United States (Buy America). The bill restores school infrastructure tax credit bonds. The bill also sets forth reporting requirements, including annual reports on grant program projects and a report by the Government Accountability Office that requires a study of the geographic distribution of projects, the impact of selected projects on student and staff health and safety, and the accessibility of projects to high-poverty schools. The bill also establishes the Office of School Infrastructure and Sustainability within the Department of Education. Next, the bill extends through FY2027 the Impact Aid Construction program. Finally, the bill establishes a grant program to assist LEAs with repairing or replacing concrete foundations affected by pyrrhotite (an iron sulfide material linked to crumbling foundations).
Sponsors: Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]
Target Audience
Population: Students at public elementary and secondary schools, teachers, and staff
Estimated Size: 54000000
- The bill targets improvements to public elementary and secondary school facilities.
- Such facilities serve roughly 50.8 million students in the US, based on recent enrollment statistics.
- In addition, teachers, staff, and administration working in these schools will be impacted.
- Indirectly, parents and communities associated with these schools will also see effects from improved or deteriorated school infrastructure.
- A large majority of these facilities are in the US, and their health impacts would be particularly on the onsite population within the schools.
Reasoning
- The Rebuild America's Schools Act is primarily targeting public school students, teachers, and staff. The policy mostly affects those in underserved areas or schools with outdated infrastructure due to its need-based grant model.
- With a budget of $10 billion in the first year, focus will likely be on schools identified as most needing urgent repairs and upgrades impacting wellbeing.
- Interviews should include a mix of students, teachers, and parents from various socioeconomic backgrounds.
- It's important to include those who won't see changes because their schools are well-funded and modern already.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Detroit, MI)
Age: 8 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The school building is often cold in winter and we have old desks.
- I wish the bathrooms weren't so stinky and had soap.
- I'm excited because the school will fix the heating and toilets with the new policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
4th Grade Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our classroom environment needs a lot of improvement.
- It's hard to manage classes when the building is not maintained well.
- The policy brings hope for a better teaching environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
School Principal (Rural Tennessee)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We desperately need more space and repairs.
- This policy can radically change our school's condition.
- It's essential for equitable education in rural areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
High School Senior (Boston, MA)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our school has been modernized so I don't think we'll see much change.
- Policies like these are crucial for other schools with fewer resources.
- I'm glad public schools are receiving attention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Parent (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've longed for better facilities; this policy is a beacon of hope.
- Happy to see attention to quality of our kids' school environments.
- Hope this policy translates into actual changes soon at our school.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Construction Worker specializing in school projects (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy directly boosts my job prospects.
- It ensures projects align with green and local sourcing principles I've advocated for.
- I'm optimistic about the future of school infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having been in the system, I know how critical infrastructure improvements are.
- I'm hopeful the policy can address longstanding school needs I witnessed throughout my career.
- I have faith in improved outcomes for future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited to see schools involved in sustainable and green initiatives.
- This policy aligns with my career focus and is a great step forward for environmental sustainability.
- School buildings as eco-friendly spaces can inspire students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
School Administrator (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Budget constraints have been a significant barrier for facility upgrades.
- This policy is a major positive stride we desperately need.
- Efficient resource management is crucial for the success of this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Parent and Software Developer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm a big proponent of strong school infrastructure.
- Hoping technological updates will be part of this policy's roll-out.
- Desire for more engagement in policy implementation with parent feedback.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $12000000000)
Year 2: $10000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $12000000000)
Year 3: $10000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $12000000000)
Year 5: $10000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $12000000000)
Year 10: $10000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $12000000000)
Year 100: $10000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $12000000000)
Key Considerations
- The IRS allocations, grant programs, and credits span numerous fiscal years, requiring consistent budgeting.
- Economic activity will vary regionally, affecting cost and revenue estimates.
- Domestic manufacturing requirements can bolster local economies but may increase expenses.