The Changing Federal STEM Education Effort

The Changing Federal STEM Education Effort

May 19, 2015
The Changing Federal STEM Education Effort
Background
Policymakers have an active and enduring interest in STEM
Funding stays (about) the same. Administration-requested
education. The topic is raised in federal science, education,
reductions in the number of federal STEM education
workforce, national security, and immigration policy
programs and activities were not accompanied by similarly
debates. Various analysts have attempted to inventory the
scaled reductions in (total) Administration-requested
federal STEM education effort. These inventories have
funding for STEM education. The FY2014 request was for
identified between 105 and 254 STEM education programs
$3.1 billion; the FY2015 request was $2.9 billion. The
and activities at 13 to 15 agencies. Annual federal
FY2016 request is for $3.1 billion. FY2014 enacted and
appropriations for STEM education are typically in the
FY2015 estimated appropriations were each $2.9 billion.
range of about $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion. Most of these
funds go to the National Science Foundation, National
Policy Analysis
Institutes of Health, and the Department of Education.
Why reorganize? Some observers perceive the federal
The term “STEM education” refers to teaching and
STEM education effort as fragmented or even redundant.
learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering,
Analysts who hold this view often see reorganization—
and mathematics. It typically includes educational
particularly when combined with program consolidation—
activities across all grade levels—from pre-school to
as an opportunity to concentrate the focus of the effort on
post-doctorate—in both formal (e.g., classrooms) and
what they perceive as priority concerns. Others look to
informal (e.g., afterschool programs) settings.
reorganization as a means to reduce perceived duplication
in the portfolio, thereby potentially increasing efficiency.
Over the past several years, the Obama Administration has
Some analysts believe reorganization would contribute to
sought to change the federal STEM education effort
better program evaluation and coordination because, they
through its annual budget requests. These changes received
assert, a portfolio made up of a smaller number of large
a mixed response in Congress. Some of the proposed
programs is more amenable to (1) certain types of program
changes were expressly adopted in appropriations bills and
evaluation methods, and (2) cross-agency coordination.
reports, others were rejected. Overall, it appears the number
of federal programs and activities has been reduced from
Why not? A reorganization of federal STEM education
about 254 in FY2010 to about 114 in the FY2016 request.
programs could result in the elimination or decreased
effectiveness of good or popular programs, depending on
Annually published inventories of the federal STEM
implementation. Further, one of the historical rationales for
education effort make it possible to track changes in the
embedding small-scale STEM education activities in
number of agency activities and funding levels. Less clear
scientific programs—which may look like undesirable
is the substantive effect these changes have had on
fragmentation to some observers—was the belief that this
agencies, programs, and the STEM education challenges
integration would increase connections between the U.S.
and communities they were established to serve.
scientific and education systems. Consolidating or reducing
Reorganization
funding for these activities might disrupt existing networks,
with unknown effects on education, research, and
Proposed changes. In FY2014 the Obama Administration
communities. The degree to which federal STEM education
proposed a major reorganization of the federal STEM
programs actually are duplicative is contested and
education portfolio. The proposal sought to reorganize 126
unknown. As for evaluation, analysts debate the value of
programs and activities—over half (55%) the FY2012
reshaping federal programs in conformance with certain
baseline effort (about 226)—by terminating or internally
types of evaluation methods, when critics say a variety of
consolidating agency activities, or by transferring funds
methods can be appropriate.
between agencies.
More proposed changes. In FY2015 the Administration
What Has Reorganization Done to the
Federal STEM Education Effort?
proposed a second, “fresh reorganization” of the federal
STEM education portfolio. That plan sought to build on
It’s hard to say. The qualitative effect of the various
changes made in FY2014 by further reducing the effort by
proposed reorganizations on the federal STEM education
approximately 30 more programs and activities.
effort is unknown. These effects depend on what, when, and
And more proposed changes. The Administration’s
how changes are implemented; on the scope and scale of
FY2016 budget request seeks further changes in the federal
demand for STEM education services in the community;
STEM education portfolio. The Administration has
and on the availability of alternative sources of funding or
proposed eliminating 20 existing programs and establishing
programming. It may be many years before these effects are
five new programs (compared to FY2015 enacted).
fully discovered and evaluated.
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

The Changing Federal STEM Education Effort
Trends. It is possible to track trends in the number of
primary source of federal STEM education funding.) It is
federal STEM education programs and activities. (See
not clear if changes in the number of activities also changed
Table 1.) The number of programs and activities has
the character or substance of agency efforts. Total federal
changed substantially since FY2010, with some of the
funding for STEM education ranged from $2.8 billion to
greatest reductions occurring in federal science agencies or
$3.4 billion during the observed period; however, this
science-focused units of federal agencies. (As opposed, for
general trend in funding masks (in some cases) large shifts
example, to the Department of Education, which is another
at the agency, program, and activity level.
Table 1. Change in Federal STEM Education Programs and Activities: FY2010 to FY2016 Request
By Agency with Largest Number of Reported Programs and Activities in FY2010 Baseline Year
2010 to 2016
FY2015
FY2016
Agency
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Estimate
Request
# %
National Aeronautics and
63 61 61
39
18
6 6
-57
-90%
Space Administration
National Science
41 41 38
32
22
21 21
-20
-49%
Foundation
Department of Health and
36 36 26
24
21
19 17
-19
-53%
Human Services
Department of Energy
26
22
22
21
15
17
16
-10
-38%
Department of Commerce
19
18
16
12
10
10
4
-15
-79%
Department of Agriculture
17
18
16
12
13
13
9
-8
-47%
Department of Defense
16
17
16
16
11
11
10
-6
-38%
Department of Education
14
11
12
11
12
12
13
-1
-7%
Environmental Protection
8 7 7
6
7
7 5
-3
-38%
Agency
Department of
5 6 6
5
5
5 6
1
20%
Transportation
Department of Homeland
4 3 3
3
1
1 1
-3
-75%
Security
Nuclear Regulatory
4 3 2
2
3
3 1
-3
-75%
Commission
Department of the Interior
1
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
200%
Corporation for National
0 0 0
0
1
1 1
1
100%
and Community Service
Smithsonian
Institution
0 0 0
0
0
0 1
1
100%
Total 254 247 229
186
142
129 114
140
55%
Source: CRS. Based on data from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).

Limitations. The analysis and data reported in this In Focus
these inventories differs from report to report. In compiling
are based on data from a series of published inventories of
this data, CRS made certain methodological choices in
the federal STEM education effort produced by the Office
order to make the data as accurate and comparable as
of Science and Technology Policy and National Science
possible. For example, if two or more inventory reports
and Technology Council. These inventories index federal
reflected different funding levels for a particular activity,
STEM education “investments” (described herein as
CRS used the most recently reported data. Other limitations
“programs and activities”). They do not align exactly with
inherent to the data also apply. (See author for more
inventories that track federal agency programs or with
information.)
agency budget justifications. (Other inventories, such as the
index published by the Government Accountability Office
Heather B. Gonzalez, hgonzalez@crs.loc.gov, 7-1895
in 2012, track programs but are not regularly updated.)

Further, the list of investments (and funding levels) in
IF10229
www.crs.gov | 7-5700