Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Charter Schools from Federal Overreach Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Education from finalizing or implementing its March 14, 2022, proposed rule (or any substantially similar rule) that revises priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the Charter Schools Program.
Sponsors: Rep. Steel, Michelle [R-CA-48]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with or impacted by charter schools
Estimated Size: 3000000
- Charter schools are a significant part of the education system in the United States, with over 3 million students attending these schools.
- Families, teachers, and administrators associated with these charter schools will be directly affected by any changes or protections afforded by this legislation.
- The general public who have opinions or stakes in education policy, especially ones pertaining to the operation and funding of charter schools, are also relevant stakeholders.
- Since this is a US bill about charter schools, the global impact is very limited to the current international charter school environment or similar setups.
Reasoning
- Charter schools are a significant portion of the education system in the US, with 3 million students enrolled. Therefore, any policy impacting them will directly affect millions of families, educators, and communities.
- The policy will have a varied impact. For some, it might provide stability and freedom from federal regulation, improving their wellbeing. For others, who view federal oversight positively, it might create concerns about accountability and quality assurance.
- The policy's financial constraints suggest that while impactful, it needs to be efficiently targeted as it represents a budgetary commitment of ten million dollars over a decade.
- Efforts should be made to cover various geographic and socio-economic sectors served by charter schools, recognizing their diversity.
- The wellbeing scale used (Cantril) is subjective and highly personal, yet it provides a consistent metric across different individuals and timeframes for comparison.
Simulated Interviews
Charter School Administrator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe limiting federal overreach can allow charter schools to innovate and tailor education to our students' needs.
- However, I am also concerned about maintaining accountability without federal guidelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Teacher at a Charter School (Austin, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to have more freedom to implement teaching methods that work best for my students without federal interference.
- But I worry about the loss of federal funds or support that could accompany deregulation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Parent (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the idea of innovative education, but worry about lack of oversight when it comes to the educational standards in charter schools.
- Federal guidelines can sometimes ensure a baseline quality that I find reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Charter School Principal (Detroit, MI)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeping federal hands off gives us the ability to adapt quickly to our students' needs, promoting innovation and specialized education.
- I'm very positive about this bill, hoping it will empower schools like ours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Charter School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More autonomy could mean better tailored education, but often comes with funding challenges.
- Federal involvement sometimes comes with necessary resources which we might miss.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Educational Policy Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While protecting charter school autonomy sounds good, there needs to be a balance to ensure accountability.
- My concern is that without federal oversight, some charter schools may suffer in terms of educational quality and equity.
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 |
Public School Teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think removing federal oversight is the right approach, as it might lead to inconsistencies in educational quality.
- Standards should be maintained to ensure every child receives the education they deserve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
College Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I had a great experience in a charter school and support maintaining their ability to operate independently.
- My concern is making sure that innovation doesn’t come at the expense of student welfare and education standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Parent and School Board Member (Boston, MA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support local control, I also see value in some federal guidance to ensure equity and access.
- Education is deeply personal and community-based but should also meet a national standard.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Tech Startup Co-founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could allow for more innovation, which aligns with my work in tech and education.
- However, I'm cautious about how diverted federal oversight affects underserved communities without guaranteed non-federal aids.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary goal of the bill is to limit federal influence rather than create new programs or funding pathways, hence the negligible cost to the budget.
- While it is challenging to quantify, preventing regulatory changes could safeguard charter schools from potential administrative burdens, producing indirect benefits.