Bill Overview
Title: Safe Schools Act
Description: This bill allows state and local educational agencies to use certain COVID-19 emergency relief funds to carry out school security measures (e.g., trainings and security assessments).
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: Students, teachers, staff, and parents in various educational settings
Estimated Size: 135000000
- The bill targets state and local educational agencies, implying direct impacts on school administration and staff.
- Funds will be used for school security measures, affecting the entire student body across schools that implement these security measures.
- Teachers and administrative staff will also be impacted as they will be involved in executing or participating in these security measures, trainings, or assessments.
- Parents might also experience indirect impacts, as changes in school security measures can affect their perception of safety and school management.
- The bill allows for the use of COVID-19 emergency relief funds, previously allocated to schools, thus affecting the financial aspects of schools in implementing security improvements.
Reasoning
- The policy targets educational institutions, which means direct impacts will likely be on administrators and staff responsible for implementing the security measures.
- Teachers would be involved in trainings and security measures, which could impact their perception of safety and job satisfaction.
- Students are primary indirect beneficiaries, as improved security could influence their wellbeing at school.
- Parents will likely perceive changes in school security and this could impact their feelings about their children's safety.
- The constraints of the budget mean that only a portion of schools can implement comprehensive security measures immediately.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Principal (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the increased focus on safety; it gives us tools we didn't have before.
- The training sessions might be disruptive, but they are essential.
- Security assessments will help us identify vulnerabilities we otherwise might miss.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
High School Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new security measures might make the school feel more like a fortress than a welcoming place.
- I appreciate the emphasis on safety, but I hope it doesn't come at the expense of our school culture.
- Training could be beneficial if it doesn't take too much time away from teaching.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
High School Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer knowing there will be more security measures in place.
- I hope this doesn't mean we are constantly under surveillance.
- It’s good to see my school taking these issues seriously.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Security Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides crucial resources for reinforcing school safety.
- Security assessments are fundamental in identifying and addressing potential threats.
- The funding could ensure comprehensive security plans and trainings.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Parent (Denver, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know schools are taking safety more seriously.
- I'm concerned about funds being diverted from other educational needs.
- I hope there will be transparency about what these assessments entail.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Middle School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm conflicted; while safety is crucial, I worry about over-policing our students.
- Security measures should be balanced with promoting a positive school atmosphere.
- Trainings will be helpful to us as teachers in dealing with emergencies.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
High School Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'd like to know more about how these adjustments change my school day.
- Enhanced security measures are necessary but shouldn’t be intrusive.
- The focus should also be on fostering a supportive school environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
School Board Member (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding provides a significant opportunity to improve safety across the district.
- Collaboration with teachers, parents, and the community is key for success.
- We must ensure these funds are used strategically for lasting impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Elementary School Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 11 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's good if it helps keep us safe.
- I hope there will still be fun activities and not just focus on safety.
- I trust my teachers to keep us safe.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
School Security Officer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional resources could greatly enhance our current security capability.
- Security training should be more comprehensive and frequent than before.
- Open dialogue with staff and students will help in gaining acceptance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The utilization of existing COVID-19 emergency relief funds should not create new fiscal pressures but require effective reallocation processes.
- The security measures could have substantial qualitative benefits in terms of improving perceptions of safety in schools.
- The reallocation could influence the original intended uses of the COVID-19 relief funds, necessitating careful management to avoid adverse impacts on pandemic recovery measures.