Bill Overview
Title: Strength in Diversity Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill establishes a program through which the Department of Education may award planning and implementation grants to specified educational agencies (e.g., local educational agencies) to improve diversity and reduce or eliminate racial or socioeconomic isolation in publicly funded early childhood education programs, public elementary schools, or public secondary schools.
Sponsors: Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in public education in the United States
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The bill aims to improve diversity and reduce racial or socioeconomic isolation in public education settings.
- The target population includes students in publicly funded early childhood programs, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools.
- School teachers and administrators will also be affected as they will need to implement changes guided by the new measures.
- Parents and guardians are indirectly affected as their children’s educational environments may change.
Reasoning
- The policy targets publicly funded educational institutions, which are a major part of the education system in the US, affecting millions of students and hundreds of thousands of teachers and administrators.
- The budget constraints mean that while the policy can bring about significant benefits to those directly involved, its spread is limited relative to the total number of potentially impacted individuals.
- There is diversity in the degree of impact. Those directly involved, such as students and teachers in districts receiving grants, would see noticeable changes, while others may perceive only indirect or diffuse improvements in diversity and educational atmosphere.
- Cantril Wellbeing Scores provide a framework to gauge personal perceptions of life quality pre- and post-policy, reflecting subjective experiences of the policy's impact, including aspects like reduced isolation and improved educational environments.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Principal (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will greatly benefit our students by providing the resources to foster a more inclusive environment.
- I'm hopeful that teachers will embrace the changes as part of improving student outcomes.
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 | 6 |
High School Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about efforts to increase diversity because it means more perspectives and cultures are celebrated in school.
- It feels like these changes might take a long time to fully implement, though.
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 | 8 | 5 |
Parent and PTA member (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great to hear that there might be more focus on diversity, which is very important for developing strong, inclusive communities.
- As a parent, I hope it translates into real benefits without just being more administrative work.
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 | 7 | 6 |
High School Teacher (Dallas, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy sounds promising because it addresses real issues my students face every day.
- I'm hopeful that with proper implementation, it will create a fairer school environment.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Vice Superintendent (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant could be a powerful tool to address disparities.
- I'm cautious about the administrative burden it might bring but optimistic about the outcomes.
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 | 9 | 7 |
School District Grant Coordinator (Detroit, MI)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having access to these grants could lead to significant improvements in our district.
- We have to be strategic in using these funds to ensure they're making the best impact.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Early Childhood Educator (Denver, CO)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy can lay an important foundation for children at a young age.
- There's always a concern that not all promised changes will reach us.
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 Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with positive trends in educational reform.
- Effective implementation will be key to realizing its full potential.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Nashville, TN)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is heartening to see new efforts towards improving school diversity – something we pushed for during my active years.
- I hope younger educators will take full advantage of such opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Freshman (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having seen firsthand how important diversity is in schools, I believe this policy can make significant positive changes.
- I only wish there had been more support like this while I was in school.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $96000000, High: $144000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- The need for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the program's effectiveness.
- Potential disparities in implementation costs across different regions and states.
- The possibility of resistance from stakeholders not aligned with the program's objectives.