Bill Overview
Title: Right to Read Act of 2022
Description: This bill expands access to school libraries and literacy skills support for elementary and secondary school students, including by authorizing comprehensive literacy state development grants and increasing the number of state-certified school librarians in high-need schools.
Sponsors: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3]
Target Audience
Population: students and educators in elementary and secondary schools worldwide
Estimated Size: 50800000
- The bill focuses on elementary and secondary school students by expanding access to school libraries and literacy programs.
- Comprehensive literacy state development grants will likely increase literacy resources and support.
- The emphasis on high-need schools suggests a focus on economically disadvantaged areas which typically have lower literacy rates.
- The bill aims to increase the number of state-certified school librarians, which should directly impact students in schools that previously lacked sufficient library support.
- Since the bill is related to education, it directly impacts students under the US education system, particularly those who are currently in school (i.e., ages 5-18 years).
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets elementary and secondary school students and their educators, mainly focusing on improving literacy rates and the availability of librarians in high-need areas. Consequently, interviews should include students from various regions and economic backgrounds, teachers, and school librarians.
- Since the policy is implemented across the US, interviewees should represent a diverse geographical and socio-economic landscape to provide a comprehensive view of its impact.
- We should also include perspectives from individuals not directly targeted by the policy to understand its broader societal impacts, if any.
- The $270 million budget in year one suggests that while many will benefit, the extent of individual impact may vary, with greater benefits likely in high-need areas with limited literacy resources currently available.
Simulated Interviews
student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 10 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I love reading and was sad that our library had old books. I'm excited about new books and more time to read in school!
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
librarian (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know we'll get more librarians. This will make a real difference in how we can support students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much change for us, but it's cool other schools will get more books.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
teacher (Dallas, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative is perfect for our students. More librarians will mean better access to resources we've needed.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
educational policy developer (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act solidifies ongoing literacy efforts and sets a great example for successful policy development in education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
student (Miami, FL)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm looking forward to more reading programs. I'm hoping it helps me prepare for college.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
principal (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic that increased library access will enhance overall student performance.
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 | 7 | 6 |
educational researcher (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will likely improve literacy in disadvantaged areas, providing valuable data for my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
parent (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this means my kids will have more resources to help with reading. It's been a struggle so far.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
college student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns well with what I'm studying. It provides a practical example of supporting literacy.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $270000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $280000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $320000000)
Year 3: $290000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $330000000)
Year 5: $320000000 (Low: $290000000, High: $350000000)
Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $380000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The long-term economic benefits of improved literacy are significant but challenging to quantify in immediate fiscal terms.
- The policy directly addresses educational disparities, which may alleviate other socio-economic pressures over time.
- The scale of the target population requires substantial upfront investment, with potential multi-generational return on investment.