Bill Overview
Title: No Child Left Inside Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides support for environmental literacy and environmental education programs in elementary and secondary schools, including by directing the Department of Education to award grants for (1) implementing state environmental literacy plans, and (2) establishing or expanding outdoor school education programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Sarbanes, John P. [D-MD-3]
Target Audience
Population: students, teachers, and school administrators in elementary and secondary schools
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill targets elementary and secondary schools, which means it is focused on students within these educational levels.
- The focus on environmental literacy and education programs will also impact teachers and educational administrators who will implement and guide these programs.
- Parents and communities are indirectly impacted as these educational changes can influence the broader school environment and community awareness.
- Students in countries outside the US who may develop similar programs inspired by this legislation could also be impacted, albeit indirectly.
Reasoning
- The policy is focused on environmental literacy in elementary and secondary schools, primarily affecting students, teachers, and administrators.
- A budget of $200 million in the first year and $2.63 billion over 10 years means impact per person might be modest, reflecting in small increments in wellbeing scores.
- Not all students or schools will receive funding directly due to the budget constraints, which means variations in impact.
- The policy's impact on urban and rural schools may differ, with varying access to outdoor education spaces.
- Parents and communities may indirectly feel small effects in terms of increased environmental awareness but will not have direct changes in wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
student (Houston, TX)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the idea of outdoor school because I like nature.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might provide us with resources to make science classes more engaging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
school administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding is a step in the right direction but limited by budget constraints.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
parent (Boise, ID)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this program will improve my children's education.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incorporating real-world experiences into my teaching will be fantastic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
school administrator (rural Arkansas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding distribution will determine the actual benefits for rural schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
student (New York, NY)
Age: 12 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Outdoor classes sound fun and engaging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any additional resources will be incredibly valuable for our students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Wish this policy existed when I was working in education.
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 |
parent (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this could lead to positive changes in the school curriculum.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $215000000 (Low: $165000000, High: $315000000)
Year 3: $230000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $330000000)
Year 5: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $360000000)
Year 10: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $420000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1900000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation fidelity is critical to achieving the intended educational outcomes.
- Coordination between the Department of Education and individual states will affect the efficiency of fund allocation and usage.
- Potential for positive ripple effects in terms of community environmental consciousness and participation.