Bill Overview
Title: To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to a local educational agency unless in-person instruction is available to all students at the schools served by the agency.
Description: This bill prohibits a local educational agency (LEA) from receiving federal funds unless in-person instruction is available to all students at each public elementary and secondary school under the jurisdiction of the LEA.
Sponsors: Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
Target Audience
Population: People globally enrolled in primary and secondary education
Estimated Size: 156000000
- The bill directly targets local educational agencies, which manage public schools in the U.S.
- All students attending public elementary and secondary schools are affected by the requirement to have in-person instruction available.
- Teachers and school staff at these schools will also be impacted as this might change their teaching methods and environments.
- Requirements for in-person learning might affect local government decisions and policies.
- Parents of students will be indirectly affected by changes in their children's educational formats.
Reasoning
- To simulate the potential impact of this policy on a variety of people in the US, it's important to consider individuals who are directly and indirectly affected. The population includes students, teachers, school staff, parents, and local government officials. Given the policy's scale, we need to distribute impacts across these subgroups. The Cantril wellbeing scores provide a way to observe shifts in perceived quality of life and control over future circumstances.
- The budget limitation suggests that not all schools may receive equal support, leading to varied impacts based on school districts' current financial status and operational capacity. Urban schools and those already conducting in-person learning might experience less disruption than underfunded, rural, or suburban schools currently relying on remote learning.
- A budget of $2 billion USD in the first year needs to address a population of approximately 156 million directly and indirectly affected individuals in the US, with funding requirements potentially asymmetrical—schools with less infrastructure for in-person learning may need more resources.
Simulated Interviews
Public School Principal (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the idea of returning to in-person instruction, but we need adequate funding to ensure safety measures are in place.
- Concerns about staffing and resources to support the transition.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 11 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I miss seeing my friends and learning is harder online.
- Excited to get back to school if it's safe.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
School Bus Driver (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In-person learning is critical for my job security.
- Safety measures on buses need to be enforced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I value in-person interactions, I'm worried about health risks.
- There's a need for accommodations for teachers at high risk.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
High School Senior (New York City, NY)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In-person classes would help with my college prep and social life.
- Virtual schooling has limited my extracurricular activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Parent and IT Specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Returning to in-person schooling would make managing work and home life easier.
- It needs to be safe and well-coordinated.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
School Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In-person learning means more work but I support it if proper health guidelines are followed.
- Additional resources are crucial to ensure safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
School District Superintendent (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal support for in-person instruction is welcome, but funding might not cover all needs.
- Facing challenges with infrastructure and staff allocations.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Miami, FL)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need detailed plans to safely reopen schools, a move not just based on federal mandates but community needs.
- Health data should drive reopening decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (Denver, CO)
Age: 9 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can't wait to play with my friends again at school.
- I miss my teachers and the fun activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $1800000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $2300000000)
Year 3: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill links federal funding to LEAs providing full in-person instruction, which could potentially exclude schools unable to meet this requirement.
- Variability in pandemic developments might affect the feasibility and costs associated with maintaining in-person instruction.
- The bill does not account for potential public health guidelines that could restrict in-person gatherings, including school settings.