Bill Overview
Title: Supplemental Impact Aid Flexibility Act
Description: This bill revises the Impact Aid Program application process for FY2023. Specifically, the bill requires local educational agencies (LEAs) participating in the Impact Aid Program to use the student count or federal property valuation data from their FY2022 program applications, as applicable, for their FY2023 program applications. The program provides funding to LEAs that have lost property tax revenue due to the presence of tax-exempt federal property or to those that have experienced increased expenditures due to enrollment of federally connected children (e.g., children living on Indian lands or military bases).
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Students attending schools in districts eligible for Impact Aid funding
Estimated Size: 6000000
- The Impact Aid Program is designed to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) affected by the presence of tax-exempt federal property.
- This includes areas where federal property reduces property tax revenues or where there are increased costs due to enrollment of federally connected children.
- Federally connected children include those living on Indian lands or military bases.
- This legislation affects the application process for LEAs, specifically allowing them to use data from the previous fiscal year (FY2022) for FY2023 applications.
- The primary impact here will be on students attending schools in LEAs that qualify for Impact Aid, which generally means children in areas with significant federal land or federally connected students.
Reasoning
- The Impact Aid Program affects certain local educational agencies (LEAs) with federal properties affecting their budget.
- Changes in the application process allow LEAs to potentially receive funding more aligned with previous fiscal realities.
- The primary beneficiaries would be students in these LEAs, whose educational resources could be stabilized or improved if funding is consistent.
- The policy does not involve new funding but may affect the consistency of fund distribution.
- The interviews simulate potential experiences to gather a range of perceived impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The consistent funding through Impact Aid is crucial for maintaining school programs.
- Using last year's data ensures stability in planning for the next academic year.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Principal (Flagstaff, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining consistent funding projections from past data helps us avoid disruption.
- It's vital for supporting our federally connected students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
School District Accountant (Albany, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The revised application process will reduce our administrative load.
- However, it doesn't bring additional funds which are badly needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Education Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change seems administrative, with little impact on actual educational quality or student well-being.
- The status quo remains unchanged for better or worse.
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 |
Federal Policy Maker (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This provides an opportunity for LEAs to streamline funding applications.
- The policy delivers consistency without added financial burden.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Parent (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stability in funding equals stability in classroom size and resources.
- I hope this leads to better educational outcomes.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Veteran (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient funding processes are necessary, but the policy doesn't add new financial resources.
- Support for military families should be robust.
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 | 5 | 5 |
Military Spouse (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Aiding in predictability of funds can help schools plan adequately.
- Consistent resources will improve the family’s quality of life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Recent High School Graduate (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The movie to stable funding is good for future students.
- During my time, we faced unpredictable resource shortages.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
City Council Member (Houston, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy offers a short-term, administrative fix.
- The real need is additional funding to support schools in these high-demand zones.
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: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The legislation affects only administrative processes, limiting both cost and savings to administrative efficiencies.
- The primary effect is more precise predictability in budgeting for LEAs, potentially improving education outcomes for impacted students.
- Broader economic impacts remain minimal due to the narrow focus of the bill.