Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4658

Bill Overview

Title: Student Apprenticeship Act of 2022

Description: 2022 This bill requires the Department of Education to award grants to certain partnerships to enable the development and implementation of a postsecondary apprenticeship program. An eligible partnership must consist of (1) at least one institution of higher education, (2) at least one individual employer, and (3) a workforce intermediary (an entity that demonstrates expertise in fostering partnerships in order to support postsecondary apprenticeship programs). Such partnership may also include other entities such as a state agency responsible for administering career and technical education, a labor organization, or an economic development agency. A partnership that receives a grant must use the funds to develop and implement a postsecondary apprenticeship program in a high-skill, high-wage, and in-demand industry sector or occupation. Additionally, an apprenticeship shall qualify as a work-study program through which a student apprentice is eligible for federal financial assistance.

Sponsors: Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]

Target Audience

Population: Postsecondary students interested in apprenticeships

Estimated Size: 2500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Student (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 19 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm very interested in the apprenticeship because it could integrate perfectly with my part-time job.
  • Financial assistance through the apprenticeship would help me devote more time to my studies.

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 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 8 7

Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The apprenticeship program in renewable energy would be a perfect fit for me.
  • It would provide me with valuable hands-on experience.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 7 6

Vocational training counselor (Rural Kentucky)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could increase funding and opportunities for students who often struggle to find work-study options.
  • There might be more placements in high-demand vocational sectors.

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 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 7 6

Graduate Student (New York, NY)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I doubt I'd qualify since I'm not in a technical field, but if there's any overlap with tech entrepreneurship, I might benefit.
  • It's promising for those who can join, but I'm unsure about the business sector inclusion.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Working Student (Austin, TX)

Age: 25 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Balancing work and study is challenging, an apprenticeship could lessen financial strain.
  • Hands-on experience in IT would enhance my skills for better job opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 6

Student (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 21 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The program could solidify my career path in tech analytics.
  • However, given the competitive nature, I'm unsure if I'll benefit directly.

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 8

Part-time Lecturer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The program offers a chance to collaborate with industries, enhancing course relevance.
  • I'm excited about potential curriculum updates to include apprenticeship components.

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 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Education Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy aligns well with current trends in education.
  • It may enhance students' future job prospects significantly if implemented correctly.

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

Vocational Student (Miami, FL)

Age: 23 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could be a great way to enter the automotive industry with practical experience.
  • I've been looking for something like this to move into skilled labor.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 9 6
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 7 6

High School Senior (Detroit, MI)

Age: 18 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the apprenticeship program includes healthcare, it might be a great opportunity as I transition to college.
  • Scholarships and apprenticeships could significantly reduce my education costs.

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 7 7
Year 20 6 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1200000000)

Year 2: $950000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1150000000)

Year 3: $900000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1100000000)

Year 5: $850000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1050000000)

Year 10: $800000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $1000000000)

Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $900000000)

Key Considerations