Bill Overview
Title: Funding Early Childhood is the Right IDEA Act
Description: This bill authorizes through FY2027 specified provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for early childhood education. Specifically, the bill authorizes Part B, Section 619 (grants to states for preschool programs serving children with disabilities ages three to five) and Part C (grants to aid states in implementing early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families).
Sponsors: Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-11]
Target Audience
Population: Children with disabilities, aged 0-5, and their families
Estimated Size: 1150000
- The bill targets children with disabilities who are in the early stages of their education or development.
- Under Part B, Section 619, the population includes children with disabilities aged three to five, focusing on preschool-age children.
- Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) focuses on infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, expanding the target population to even younger ages including newborns.
- The funding will directly affect the number of disabled children who can access specialized early childhood education services.
- Families of these children will also be impacted as they receive early intervention services.
Reasoning
- The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act target population includes children aged 0-5 with disabilities and their families. This is a small, but very important segment of the population that requires specialized services early in life to improve long-term outcomes.
- The policy combines existing provisions under Parts B and C of IDEA. Thus, expected impacts include improved early intervention and educational experiences, reducing negative impacts of disabilities in early development stages.
- Given the high estimated number of children who might benefit, ranging in the hundreds of thousands, the budget will need to be allocated effectively across states.
- Social indicators including Cantril wellbeing scores can help measure the policy's impact by comparing emotional and psychological well-being before and after introduction.
- It's essential to include unaffected people too, to understand broader societal and administrative impacts.
- High commonness values for certain profiles indicate more widespread representation or awareness of similar experiences.
Simulated Interviews
parent (rural Iowa)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think having more funding is crucial for areas like ours where special services are hard to access.
- I'm hopeful this means we won't have to drive hours for my son's therapies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
preschool teacher (New York City)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding like this is essential; it enables us to tailor our program better suited for each child's needs.
- I'm cautiously optimistic but worried about how evenly the funds will be distributed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
advocate for children with disabilities (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can transform lives by giving children the right resources during critical developmental years.
- I've seen how early intervention can change trajectories in such positive ways.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
data analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support initiatives like these in theory, but I'm not personally affected.
- The good will and societal benefits could trickle down, improving overall community wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
state education budget manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding means we can reach more kids, which is great
- Balancing our budget while meeting these new standards will be challenging.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
speech therapist (Austin, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could allow us to reach more families sooner, making our jobs more impactful.
- It's vital to ensure effective use and tracking of funds for long-term benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
father (suburban Cleveland)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Currently, it's a string of dead ends and long waits, which is frustrating.
- I hope this policy opens up more immediate support options near us.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
early childhood educator (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any added support can improve our children's learning experiences and outcomes.
- Implementation efficiency will be crucial given such a large budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sounds positive for affected families, but I don't see it impacting me.
- I believe societal well-being impacts us all indirectly over time.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
social worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The allocation of funds might help resolve long-standing access issues we've faced
- Early childhood intervention is critical and this policy could potentially open doors for many families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 2: $1030000000 (Low: $930000000, High: $1130000000)
Year 3: $1060900000 (Low: $957000000, High: $1160900000)
Year 5: $1126190000 (Low: $1011990000, High: $1226190000)
Year 10: $1285942905 (Low: $1155859050, High: $1394389760)
Year 100: $6250000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $7500000000)
Key Considerations
- The authorized funding is dependent on yearly appropriations by Congress, which may vary based on broader budget negotiations and fiscal policy changes.
- The funding supports a specific population segment, aiming to enhance early childhood educational and developmental outcomes, potentially decreasing future educational and social costs.
- Part B and Part C focus not only on educational but also on health developmental impacts, crucial for overall child development.
- Evaluating outcomes will be essential to determine the long-term efficacy and potential to renew funding post-2027.