Bill Overview
Title: Students' Access to Freedom and Educational Rights Act of 2022
Description: This bill expands protections against discrimination and harassment in federally funded education programs or activities. Among other provisions, the bill (1) establishes statutory standards of liability for harassment and relevant remedies under specified statutes; (2) requires the Department of Education to develop a climate survey on K-12 students' experiences with domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and stalking; and (3) establishes training requirements and a grant program for Title IX coordinators.
Sponsors: Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in federally funded education programs
Estimated Size: 75000000
- The bill focuses on federally funded education programs and activities, which include a vast number of educational institutions in the U.S.
- It aims at expanding protections against discrimination and harassment, impacting students who may be affected by such issues.
- K-12 students are specifically mentioned in regards to a climate survey, implying direct involvement of this demographic.
- Title IX coordinators are directly addressed, indicating potential impact on individuals responsible for ensuring compliance with Title IX regulations.
- All individuals involved in federally funded education programs could potentially be impacted, including students, staff, and administrators, due to changes in liability standards and training programs.
Reasoning
- This policy specifically targets individuals within federally funded educational institutions, including K-12 and college students, as well as staff handling Title IX compliance.
- The budget, while substantial, requires careful allocation to balance between urban and rural areas, diverse educational levels, and the breadth of training and survey implementations.
- Considering the number of students versus staff, the policy would directly affect a larger student population, while staff impact—particularly in administration and compliance roles—might be more significant but less broad.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores pre- and post-policy implementation will vary significantly depending on each individual's exposure to discrimination and harassment issues, as well as their role within educational institutions.
Simulated Interviews
Student (New York City, NY)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is an important step in making schools safer.
- I've seen and heard about many instances of harassment that go unpunished.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Title IX Coordinator (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional resources will be beneficial, but the implementation process will be intense.
- It's crucial to have specialized training and support for coordinators.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
High School Principal (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the goals of the policy, but I'm concerned about the funding being sufficient for effective implementation.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels the policy reaffirms his sense of safety, though hasn't personally experienced harassment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems necessary, I've witnessed students struggle with harassment.
- However, the extra administrative work is a concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
University Staff (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our mission to ensure student wellbeing.
- I'm optimistic about the changes it will bring.
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 | 7 | 5 |
School Counselor (Rural Kansas)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Training and support are much needed here.
- Without support, it'd be hard to manage the additional responsibilities.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
High School Senior (Portland, OR)
Age: 18 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could really help reduce bullying for people like me.
- I'm cautiously hopeful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 14 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes the policy makes his new school experience better.
- Feels that his school doesn't adequately address harassment complaints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Educational Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be transformative if implemented effectively.
- Monitoring and evaluation will be crucial for long-term benefits.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $14000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $21000000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $22000000)
Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $23000000)
Year 10: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $24000000)
Year 100: $19000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill necessitates substantial resource allocation for compliance, training, and data collection.
- Schools must adapt to increased regulatory requirements for handling discrimination and harassment.
- Potential long-term societal benefits might include reduced discrimination and improved educational environments, indirectly fostering better economic performance.