Bill Overview
Title: Keep Kids in Schools Act
Description: This bill prohibits a local educational agency (LEA) from obligating federal COVID-19 relief funds during any period when one or more elementary or secondary schools served by the LEA do not provide full-time, in-person instruction. This prohibition does not apply with respect to a school that does not provide full-time, in-person instruction due to following quarantine or isolation guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sponsors: Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]
Target Audience
Population: Students, parents, and educational staff
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill directly affects local educational agencies (LEAs) in the United States, which handle the administration of public education at the local level.
- Elementary and secondary school students in the U.S. may be impacted, as the funding structure could influence the availability of in-person instruction.
- Teachers and school staff at these schools may also be impacted, as their work structure might change with shifts between in-person and other types of instruction.
- Family members of students who depend on full-time, in-person schooling for childcare during work hours could also be indirectly affected.
- Policymakers and public health officials need to consider guidelines for school operations during health crises, impacting their plans and strategies for managing public health.
Reasoning
- The target population includes 50 million students, over 3.7 million teachers, and other educational staff, with an estimated reach of about 60 million people when including family members.
- The policy primarily impacts local educational agencies but indirectly affects students and families reliant on in-person instruction for childcare and educational routines.
- The policy's restriction on federal relief funds may pressure schools to maintain or return to in-person instruction unless quarantine guidelines necessitate remote learning.
- The budget constraints ($300 million in year one, $1.675 billion over ten years) suggest a focus on urgent or high-impact areas initially, potentially limiting broader systemic changes at the onset.
- By considering a spread across different stakeholders (students, teachers, family members), we aim to understand varying degrees of impact.
- In regions and schools less impacted by COVID-19 restrictions, the policy may have little to no effect, while high transmission areas adhering to quarantine guidelines could see more significant challenges.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a teacher, I feel the pressure to return to in-person teaching despite safety concerns. The funds are needed for better infrastructure if we are to continue remotely during outbreaks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
High School Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I prefer in-person classes because I can interact directly with my teachers and friends. If schools close, it really affects my extracurricular activities too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
School Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's challenging to manage contingency plans under uncertain funding. The focus should be on continuity and safety, not just in-person requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having schools open full time is essential for me to manage my work and childcare responsibilities. Remote learning was a struggle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freelance Writer (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate flexibility in learning modes. Forcing in-person classes limits innovative teaching and learning experiences, which can be safer for some families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
High School Counselor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to consistent schooling is key to supporting vulnerable students. We need flexibility in using funds to support mental health, not just enforcing attendance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
High School Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining in-person classes is crucial for access to lab-based learning, which remote setups can't fully replicate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Parent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Schools staying open helps with my work-life balance. But they must remain adaptable for health safety instead of financially pressured.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Rural Kansas)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Remote learning isn't feasible here due to connectivity issues. We need funds to ensure safe, in-person instruction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
School Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies need to be flexible. Tying funds to in-person instruction may limit effective responses to outbreaks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $375000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $225000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy shifts focus entirely on maintaining in-person instruction which could lead to neglecting improvements and innovations in remote learning infrastructure.
- Short-term compliance costs may be high due to sudden administrative and operational shifts.
- Long-term cost savings might accrue from consolidating resources but could limit flexibility during health crises.