Bill Overview
Title: GROW SISPS Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Education to award competitive grants to eligible partnerships (e.g., partnerships between institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, and organizations that provide credentialing for specialized instructional support personnel) for expanding or establishing programs to increase specialized instructional support personnel in schools.
Sponsors: Rep. Newman, Marie [D-IL-3]
Target Audience
Population: Students requiring specialized instructional support
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill aims to expand or establish programs to increase the number of specialized instructional support personnel in schools.
- Specialized instructional support personnel include roles such as school counselors, psychologists, social workers, and speech-language pathologists.
- The increase in specialized instructional personnel is intended to benefit students who require additional support in schools.
- Schools, particularly those lacking sufficient support personnel, will be directly impacted as they may gain increased capacity to address student needs.
- Educational agencies and institutions involved in training and recruiting specialized personnel will see impact from the creation and expansion of programs.
Reasoning
- The GROW SISPS Act is aimed at enhancing the availability of specialized instructional support personnel in schools. This entails a collaborative effort among higher education institutions, local educational agencies, and relevant credentialing organizations to train and recruit personnel such as school counselors and speech-language pathologists.
- Considering the budget, capacity, and target population, the policy is designed to address gaps in schools where support personnel are scarce. The focus is on schools with greater student needs and educational institutions that have the ability and readiness to develop or expand such programs.
- We must also consider the various socio-economic, geographic, and demographic distributions within the United States. For instance, urban schools might see different impacts compared to rural or suburban schools due to differences in existing infrastructure and resources for educational support.
- The policy targets approximately 50 million students who might need specialized support over the course of their education, suggesting a broad and potentially significant impact, especially in underserved areas.
Simulated Interviews
School Counselor (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful that this policy will bring much-needed support to our schools.
- Our district struggles to meet the emotional and educational needs of our students due to limited personnel.
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 | 5 |
Speech-Language Pathologist (Suburban California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The GROW SISPS Act could create more job opportunities for someone like me.
- Given the high student-to-therapist ratio in many schools, additional positions could significantly alleviate workloads.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
School Social Worker (Urban New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's exciting to see potential funding that addresses students' mental health and social needs.
- Hopefully, the program will prioritize districts based on need, ensuring equitable distribution of resources.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
University Student (Rural Iowa)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might provide more incentives and specific paths for students like me to enter this field.
- I'm concerned about the availability of funds to actually reach rural areas.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Principal (Urban Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the increasing student population, our support staff needs grow every year.
- I'm hopeful but wary about the distribution of these grants and the follow-up on their impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Urban Michigan)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen firsthand the differences additional support personnel can make in students' lives.
- This legislation could change the game for many struggling schools.
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 |
High School Student (Suburban Ohio)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our school desperately needs more counselors.
- This bill sounds like it could give students like me the support we need to succeed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Rural Alabama)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If implemented well, the policy could stabilize our support staff which is much needed.
- Rural schools are often last to receive benefits from new initiatives.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Speech-Language Pathologist (Suburban Arizona)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The workload can be overwhelming without enough colleagues to share it.
- The expansion of programs could ease this burden significantly if distributed properly.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Education Policy Analyst (Urban Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy has potential if executed with careful tracking and assessment.
- Evaluation mechanisms must be robust to ensure funds are benefiting the most in-need areas.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 3: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 5: $190000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $240000000)
Year 10: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Key Considerations
- The estimated number of required specialized personnel vs. current availability.
- Variation in grant funding efficiency and program success rates across different regions.
- The necessity for collaboration among higher education institutions, local educational agencies, and credential organizations.
- Potential disparities in how effectively different schools can utilize increased funding.