The President’s FY2015 Budget and STEM Education

The President’s FY2015 Budget and STEM Education

March 11, 2014
The President’s FY2015 Budget and STEM Education
Background
with unknown effects on education, research, and
communities. (These effects could vary widely.) The degree
Policymakers have an active and enduring interest in STEM
to which federal STEM education programs actually are
education. The topic is raised in federal science, education,
duplicative is contested and unknown. As for evaluation,
workforce, national security, and immigration policy
analysts debate the value of reshaping federal programs in
debates. Various analysts have attempted to inventory the
conformance with certain types of evaluation methods,
federal STEM education effort. These inventories have
when critics say a variety of methods can be appropriate.
identified between 105 and 252 STEM education programs
and activities at 13 to 15 agencies. Annual federal
Would it save money? It is not clear. GAO has found that
appropriations for STEM education are typically in the
savings from reorganization and consolidation depends on
range of about $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion.
how they are accomplished. In general, if programs are
consolidated without reducing effort or caseloads, then
FY2015 Proposed Reorganization. The Obama
savings may be limited to about 10% in administrative
Administration’s FY2015 budget request proposes a
costs. Savings could be increased by reducing program
government-wide reorganization of federal STEM
scope.
education programs. According to the Office of
Management and Budget, the reorganization would
The Federal STEM Education Effort
consolidate or terminate 31 programs at 9 agencies,
affecting $145 million in FY2014 budget authority. (Details
The current status of the federal STEM education effort is
may change as new budgetary data become available.)
unknown. Most inventories of the effort rely on information
Funding would stay at each agency, but would focus on the
from FY2010 or earlier. Policy and fiscal conditions have
priorities outlined in the National Science and Technology
changed since then. Agencies also make regular changes to
Council’s Federal STEM Education 5-Year Strategic Plan.
STEM education programs each budget cycle.
The term "STEM education" refers to teaching and learning in
However, based on available evidence, over half of federal
the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It
STEM education programs serve postsecondary
typically includes educational activities across all grade levels—
education—typically in the form of grants and scholarships
from pre-school to post-doctorate—in both formal (e.g.,
to students, as well as institutional support to colleges and
classrooms) and informal (e.g., afterschool programs) settings.
universities. (See Figure 1.) Although STEM education
activities may be found across the federal enterprise, about
80% of federal funding goes to the National Science
Why reorganize? Some observers perceive the federal
Foundation, Department of Education, and Department of
STEM education effort as fragmented or even redundant.
Health and Human Services. By primary objective, federal
Analysts who hold this view often see reorganization—
programs focus on advanced degrees, STEM careers,
particularly when combined with program consolidation—
research experience, learning and engagement, teacher
as an opportunity to concentrate the focus of the effort on
training, and institutional capacity.
what they perceive as priority concerns. Others look to
reorganization as a means to reduce perceived duplication
Figure 1. Percentage of STEM Education Programs,
in the portfolio, thereby potentially increasing efficiency.
by Education Level
Some analysts believe reorganization would contribute to
better program evaluation and coordination because, they
assert, a portfolio made up of a smaller number of large
programs is more amenable to (1) certain types of program
evaluation methods, and (2) cross-agency coordination.
Why not? A reorganization of federal STEM education
programs could result in the elimination or decreased
effectiveness of good or popular programs, depending on
implementation. Further, one of the historical rationales for
embedding small-scale STEM education activities in
scientific programs—which may look like undesirable
fragmentation to some observers—was the belief that this

Source and Notes: CRS calculation based on various federal assessments of the
integration would increase connections between the U.S.
federal STEM education effort, including two Government Accountability Office
scientific and education systems. Consolidating or reducing
reports (GAO 2005 and GAO 2012), an Academic Competitiveness Council report
funding for these activities might disrupt existing networks,
(ACC 2007), and a National Science and Technology Council report (NSTC 2011).
See author for full citations.
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

The President’s FY2015 Budget and STEM Education
Key Issues
More Information
Redux? The idea of a reorganization of the federal STEM
The United States is widely believed to have a poorly
education effort is not new. The Obama Administration
performing STEM education system. However, the data
sought to reorganize the federal effort in FY2014. That
paint a complex picture. If measured by degree production,
reorganization, which was also part of the Administration’s
the number of degrees in STEM fields almost tripled
annual budget request, would have affected about half the
between 1966 and 2010. (See Figure 2.) On the other hand,
effort. Congressional reaction to the FY2014 proposal was
achievement gaps between demographic groups persisted
mixed. Although many policymakers expressed conceptual
between 1990 and 2011, despite gains by all students.
support for reorganization as a means to improve the
Figure 2. Number of S&E Degrees Awarded from
portfolio, the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied
1966-2010, by Degree Level
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76)
rejected the proposal, stating that it “contained no clearly
defined implementation plan, had no buy-in from the
education community, and failed to sufficiently recognize
or support a number of proven, successful programs.”
Whether the FY2015 reorganization proposal addresses
concerns about the FY2014 proposal remains to be seen.
STEM Education Strategy. The America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358) directed the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to
develop a federal STEM education strategy. The NSTC
published that strategy after the release of the FY2014

budget request. Some policymakers perceived the NSTC
Source: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering
strategy as (at least in part) a justification for the FY2014
Statistics, "Table 1," Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2010, NSF 13-327, June
reorganization proposal; while others saw it as a starting
2013.
Notes: Includes only degrees where field of study is known. Includes degrees
point for debate about the portfolio. If legislators agree—
awarded in the social sciences and psychology. Data not available for Bachelor's and
and some may not—that reorganization would improve the
Master's degrees in 1999.
federal effort, then the question of “to what end?” may
International Tests. While U.S. students tend to outscore
follow. The list of challenges in STEM education is long
all-country averages, they typically rank below the scores
and wide-ranging. Policymakers’ views about which of
of industrialized nations on international tests. Analysts
these challenges ought to be tackled, and in what order and
debate the meaning and implications of these rankings.
manner, may vary. The NSTC strategy offers one possible
Some observers see U.S. student performance as a problem
direction. Other analysts may prefer alternative goals or
for a society driven by innovation; others argue these tests
means. The broader context to debate about the
(for a variety of methodological and historical reasons) are
Administration’s proposed reorganizations includes
insufficient barometers of future national performance.
potentially unresolved questions about both the NSTC
strategy and the general direction of the federal STEM
Broadening Participation. The demographic profile of the
education effort.
U.S. youth population is changing. It is less non-Hispanic
white, and the college-going population is less male, than
Implementation. One of the challenges that the
previous generations. Some of these “growing” groups—
Administration’s proposed FY2014 STEM education
e.g., Latinos, women—are underrepresented in some STEM
reorganization faced was the lack of a detailed
fields. Some analysts assert that differences in participation
implementation plan. Some policymakers hesitated to adopt
rates reflect personal choices and aptitude; others perceive
the reorganization without a clear understanding about what
systematic barriers to participation that exclude certain
the changes would mean for programs and constituencies.
groups from STEM fields. Socioeconomic status and
Further, while a detailed implementation plan may address
urbanization level may also impact STEM participation.
concerns about the mechanics of the changes, it may also
generate new concerns about effects. Either way, questions
STEM Workforce. Historically, interest in ensuring the
about implementation may be raised during deliberations
strength of the U.S. STEM workforce has driven federal
over the FY2015 proposed reorganization.
investment in STEM education. Although a consensus
holds that the United States faces (or will soon face)
Stakeholders. During debate over the FY2014 proposed
workforce shortages in STEM fields, some analysts dispute
reorganization, many stakeholders—including those in
this notion. The national debate is ongoing. About 6% of
science and education—appealed to Congress for more
the U.S. workforce (7.2 million people) is employed in a
input into national STEM education policy. Some STEM
STEM occupation.
advocates asserted that the development of the FY2014 plan
“lacked transparency,” and that decisions were made with
For more information see CRS Report R42642, Science,
insufficient input from program users. Administration
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A
supporters, on the other hand, noted that “vested interests”
Primer, by Heather B. Gonzalez and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
may seek to impede the rationalization of “overlapping and
wasteful” programs. The role of stakeholders in the
Heather B. Gonzalez, hgonzalez@crs.loc.gov, 7-1895
reorganization process may be raised again in FY2015.
IF00013
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

Document Outline

Background

The Federal STEM Education Effort

Key Issues

More Information