Bill Overview
Title: Students' Access to Freedom and Educational Rights Act of 2022
Description: This bill expands protections against discrimination and harassment in federally funded education programs or activities. Among other provisions, the bill (1) establishes statutory standards of liability for harassment and relevant remedies under specified statutes; (2) requires the Department of Education to develop a climate survey on K-12 students' experiences with domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and stalking; and (3) establishes training requirements and a grant program for Title IX coordinators.
Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: Students in federally funded education programs
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill focuses on students in federally funded education programs or activities.
- Federally funded education programs include public K-12 schools and possibly private schools that receive federal funds.
- The bill impacts students by providing more protection against harassment and discrimination.
- It requires Department of Education activities, indicating an impact on students in the U.S.
- Harassment and discrimination protections for students suggest it could affect a large chunk of the student population.
Reasoning
- The population for this policy includes students at K-12 levels in federally funded schools, which implies it covers a wide demographic spectrum of students, geographically and financially diverse.
- The target population is approximately 50 million students in K-12 settings, which will be directly impacted by the bill's focus on addressing discrimination and harassment.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy implementation needs to maximize reach within the federally supported frameworks. Training requirements and climate surveys will particularly impact schools with existing Title IX coordinators.
- There will be students who may not experience a notable change as they may not face the types of harassment addressed directly, but students who do will likely have significantly improved wellbeing.
- The diversity in responses can showcase different socio-economic, cultural, and regional impacts, as the policy's implementation takes place nationwide.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy will make schools feel safer for people like me.
- More training for the staff on what to do if we report something is overdue.
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 |
Student (Dallas, TX)
Age: 14 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's helpful but I don't personally see a need since I'm not affected.
- Maybe it helps my classmates who have faced trouble with this stuff.
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 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 16 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More surveys can lead to better data and understanding of what's going on.
- Our school has dealt with issues like this before, but more focus is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Student (Rural Iowa)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't know if it will trickle down to us here.
- Our school doesn’t talk much about these issues.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our school already has strong policies, but national standards could help everywhere.
- It's good for creating consistency in handling these issues.
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 |
Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's sometimes hazing and harassment in sports, so this bill could help.
- If staff is better trained to handle complaints, it might change things.
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 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels like we’ll have better support, which is desperately needed.
- Anticipating real change from these measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 6 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Don't really think about harassment policies as it doesn't affect me now.
- It's more for the older kids, I believe.
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 |
Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 13 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This isn't something that affects me directly, we feel pretty safe here.
- Good to know it's available for those who need it.
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 |
Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 11 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might make me feel braver to report something if it ever happens.
- We've had a good experience with current programs so far.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $140000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The broad student demographic impacted can lead to uniform policy application challenges.
- Funding requirements could vary significantly based on specific grant distributions and training program scales.
- Long-term impact could improve educational outcomes, indirectly affecting future policy costs and benefits.