Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8204

Bill Overview

Title: No Cost Educational Resources Act

Description: This bill authorizes the Institute of Museum and Library Services to award grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs) for facilitating the adoption, adaption, and creation of open educational reading materials and establishing more open educational reading material courses. Open educational reading material refers to a free digital text that is publicly available to be downloaded and redistributed. Open educational reading material course refers to a science, technology, engineering, or math course offered by an IHE that uses only open educational reading materials as the form of the required readings for the course.

Sponsors: Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in or affected by higher education STEM courses worldwide

Estimated Size: 20000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

college student (Boston, MA)

Age: 20 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The cost of textbooks is a huge burden every semester.
  • Having free resources would make it easier to focus on my studies without working extra hours.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

university professor (Chapel Hill, NC)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will allow us to update our courses with more cutting-edge materials.
  • It reduces the financial barriers for students, which can only benefit my classes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

library services coordinator (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This would increase access to STEM materials across our state university system.
  • I hope it comes with enough funding to properly support the distribution infrastructure.

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 5
Year 20 6 5

college student (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 18 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's my first year and textbooks are really expensive.
  • Having free resources would make things a lot less stressful.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 4

faculty administrative staff (Ann Arbor, MI)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy can modernize how resources are integrated into curriculums.
  • I hope it simplifies processes for faculty and reduces paperwork.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

graduate student (Austin, TX)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Reducing costs on resources is crucial as fees continue to rise.
  • This policy should help reduce my student loan burdens.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 6 3

educational policy analyst (Seattle, WA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a step towards making education universally accessible.
  • It should be expanded to other non-STEM fields too.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

employed (New York, NY)

Age: 25 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If this policy was available when I was in school, finances would be easier now.
  • Seeing this change gives me hope for future students.

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

public high school teacher (Miami, FL)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Free resources could affect my students heading to college, lowering their costs.
  • It would be great if this was available to high schools too.

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

educational technology consultant (Chicago, IL)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Introducing more digital resources aligns with the educational trends I support.
  • I hope this incentivizes more digital learning in the STEM areas.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $120000000)

Year 2: $90000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $110000000)

Year 3: $85000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $105000000)

Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $95000000)

Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)

Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)

Key Considerations