Bill Overview
Title: Stronger Schools Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Education to award competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to make physical improvements at elementary and secondary schools. Grant funds must be used to ensure that each elementary and secondary school served by the LEA (1) hires a school resource officer who carries a firearm, and (2) establishes a single point of entry that includes a locked anteroom with metal detectors and bulletproof windows and where the school resource officer inspects all guests prior to entry into another area of the school.
Sponsors: Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with elementary and secondary education
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill targets elementary and secondary schools, which primarily affect students attending these schools.
- Teachers and staff at these schools will also be impacted as the schools' environments undergo physical and procedural changes.
- Parents of the students may also be influenced by the perceived safety changes within the schools.
- School resource officers and security personnel will be directly impacted, as they are at the core of the bill's requirements.
- The presence of firearms and metal detectors may involve local law enforcement and potentially lead to broader community impacts.
Reasoning
- The population impacted by this policy is diverse, including students, parents, teachers, and security personnel. Each group may perceive and experience the policy differently, leading to a variety of impacts on self-reported wellbeing.
- The budget constraints indicate a potential limited rollout across many schools, so not every individual will experience the policy immediately.
- The presence of firearms in schools is a contentious issue, which is likely to elicit varying opinions based on personal beliefs about safety and gun control.
- Understanding the impact involves considering both immediate physical environment changes and longer-term community dynamics.
- The policy might enhance perceptions of safety for some, whereas others might feel discomfort or anxiety due to heightened security presence.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate efforts to improve safety but I'm concerned about the atmosphere this will create.
- A school environment should feel welcoming, not like a security checkpoint.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
High School Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might feel safer, but going through metal detectors every day sounds like a hassle.
- I worry about how this change might affect our school's culture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
School Resource Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative could bring more job opportunities for people like me.
- I'm supportive because I believe it's necessary for the safety of our schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Parent (New York, NY)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The school should prioritize mental health resources rather than security hardware.
- I'm not convinced this will address the underlying issues of school safety.
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 | 6 | 6 |
High School Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this new system will make students feel they're under surveillance.
- It's important to make sure it doesn't cause more stress or anxiety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
School Administrator (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might help us get funds we desperately need for improvements.
- Managing the fear and perception among students and parents will be challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Parent (Denver, CO)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't feel reassured by an armed presence at schools.
- The focus should be on preventative measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Elementary School Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 11 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this makes my parents feel better about me being at school.
- Will the new system be stressful?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
School Security Consultant (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a good opportunity to enhance safety.
- It can become a model for other institutions if successful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
High School Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Students' learning environment is my primary concern; it should not feel like a fortress.
- Let's ensure this does not overly disrupt daily operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 2: $2550000000 (Low: $2050000000, High: $3050000000)
Year 3: $2600000000 (Low: $2100000000, High: $3100000000)
Year 5: $2700000000 (Low: $2200000000, High: $3200000000)
Year 10: $-1 (Low: $-1, High: $-1)
Year 100: $-1 (Low: $-1, High: $-1)
Key Considerations
- Implementation will vary significantly depending on existing school infrastructures and local regulations.
- Potential for controversy regarding the presence of armed personnel and installation of metal detectors in schools.
- Long-term maintenance costs of equipment and security personnel could extend beyond the initial funding period.