Bill Overview
Title: Access to School Supplies Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Education to carry out a pilot program to make competitive grants for up to 10 qualified local educational agencies to purchase school supplies. School supplies refer to books, supplies, and supplementary materials used by students and instructional staff in the classroom.
Sponsors: Rep. Bush, Cori [D-MO-1]
Target Audience
Population: Students and instructional staff in eligible local educational agencies
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill targets local educational agencies, which typically oversee schools in particular districts or areas.
- Students are the primary users of school supplies, so all students in these participating agencies will be directly impacted.
- Instructional staff, including teachers, use school supplies daily for teaching activities.
- The bill is a pilot program, limited to 10 local educational agencies, which restricts its immediate impact.
- The program is funded through competitive grants, suggesting only selected agencies will benefit, not all schools nationwide.
Reasoning
- The pilot program's limitation to 10 local educational agencies means the impact will be more concentrated around regions that are selected for the grant. This restricts the national effect, but for those within selected areas, there could be significant improvements in access to educational resources.
- The funding is spread over 10 years, indicating a long-term commitment to improving educational supplies, but with the given budget, the immediate effect might be visible but moderate.
- The overall target population is educational agencies, especially those with limited resources. Hence, teachers and students in low-income areas might experience more noticeable benefits.
- The well-being of teachers could improve as they would have better resources to conduct their classes, reducing stress and improving job satisfaction.
- For students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, having access to proper school supplies could enhance their learning experience and overall satisfaction with school.
Simulated Interviews
4th Grade Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the Access to School Supplies Act could greatly benefit my students who often come to school without essential supplies.
- Our school struggles with funding, so this kind of support would be a game changer for us.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student in Middle School (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 13 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would be really cool to have all the supplies I need at school—even if my mom can't buy them all.
- Sometimes I have to share books with my classmates because we don't have enough.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
High School Principal (Boston, MA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Getting this grant would make a huge difference in the resources we can offer our teachers and students.
- However, the competition is tough, and many schools could benefit, not just ours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Substitute Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this policy might help consistent teachers, as a substitute, I move around too much to directly feel the benefits.
- It's great for schools to have more supplies, but substitutes need broader support.
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 | 5 | 5 |
Parent (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a parent, knowing my kids' schools will have enough supplies takes a burden off my shoulders.
- We often have to buy extra supplies, so this would help us save money.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
School Superintendent (Rural Alabama)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If our district is selected, this could provide much-needed resources we can't currently afford.
- I'm skeptical about our chances given that only 10 agencies will be selected.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (New York City, NY)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like a good start, but it's just a drop in the bucket for educational reform.
- Long-term changes should be systemic and not just temporary monetary grants.
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 |
High School Student (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think I'll notice any difference since our school already has the supplies we need.
- I'm glad other students might get what they need, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
E-learning Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Physical school supplies are crucial, but I think digital resources should also be prioritized in grants.
- It's great that the program targets immediate needs but should also focus on integrating technology.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Teacher's Union Representative (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This grant program is a step in the right direction for providing necessary tools in classrooms.
- However, teacher support needs to be comprehensive, addressing salaries and workload, not just supplies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $74000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $78000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $82000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $92000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $140000000)
Key Considerations
- Limited to 10 local educational agencies, making the national impact small.
- Designed as a pilot program to test effectiveness before broader implementation.
- Competitive grant structure controls funding distribution and impacts.
- Focus on educational outcomes could lead to indirect savings in other education-related expenditures.