The term "STEM education" refers to teaching and learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It typically includes educational activities across all grade levels—from pre-school to post-doctorate—in both formal (e.g., classrooms) and informal (e.g., afterschool programs) settings. Federal policy makers have an active and enduring interest in STEM education, and the topic is frequently raised in federal science, education, workforce, national security, and immigration policy debates. The purpose of this report is to put various legislative and executive branch STEM education-related policy proposals into a useful context for Congress. Although many observers cite the launch of the Soviet Union's Sputnik satellite in the 1950s as a key turning point for STEM education policy in the United States, federal interest in scientific and technological literacy writ large is long-standing and dates to at least the 1 st Congress. For example, in the first State of the Union address President George Washington called upon Congress to promote scientific knowledge for the sake of the republic and the polity, saying Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably [sic] essential. More recent concerns about scientific and technological literacy in the United States focus on the relationship between STEM education and national prosperity and power. Since World War II, the United States has benefitted from economic and military advances made possible, in part, by a highly skilled STEM workforce. However, today the economic and social benefits of scientific thinking and STEM education are widely believed to have broad application for workers in both STEM and non-STEM occupations. As such, many contemporary policy makers consider widespread STEM literacy, as well as specific STEM expertise, to be critical human capital competencies for a 21 st century economy. One major source of the STEM workforce in the United States is the education system. Federal legislators have paid close attention to the STEM-related outputs of that system—such as the number of college graduates with degrees in STEM fields or the performance of U.S. students on international mathematics tests—and have sought to increase its functioning and capacity though federal policy and investments. For example, over 225 bills containing the term "science education" were introduced in the 20 years between the 102 nd (1991-1992) and 112 th (2011-2012) Congresses. Agency reauthorization bills often contain STEM education-related provisions, and at least 13 federal agencies conduct STEM education programs or activities. The federal investment in STEM education programs is estimated at between $2.8 billion and $3.4 billion annually. Congressional interest in STEM education heightened in 2007 when the National Academies published a report titled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future . This influential publication warned federal policy makers that perceived weaknesses in the existing U.S. STEM education system—along with other important factors—threatened national prosperity and power. Although some analysts disputed its assertions, the report helped focus the federal conversation about STEM education and led, in part, to passage of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (or America COMPETES Act, P.L. 110-69 ). Among other things, that act authorized STEM education programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Energy (DOE), and Department of Education (ED). Congress reauthorized major provisions of the America COMPETES Act in 2010 ( P.L. 111-358 , America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010). Major provisions in P.L. 111-358 expired in FY2013. Congressional committees in the 113 th Congress have begun the process of reauthorizing these acts, including selected STEM education provisions. The federal conversation about STEM education also continues in the annual budget and appropriations processes, in various agency reauthorization bills, as well as in the many STEM education-related bills introduced each year. Given policy makers' ongoing interest in establishing the scope and scale of federal STEM education effort, the first section of this report examines federal agencies, programs, and funding for STEM education. The second section examines the performance of the U.S. STEM education system and includes data and sources frequently cited in federal STEM education policy debates. The third section analyzes various STEM education policy issues and options, including broad issues that typically apply across the federal portfolio as well as those that are specific to the kindergarten-through-grade-12 (K-12) and higher education systems. Appendix A and Appendix B contain links to sources of STEM education data and publications and to selected major legislation in federal STEM education policy history. At the request of Congress, four inventories of federal STEM education programs and activities have been published since 2005: two by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), one by the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC), and one by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The first GAO study, in 2005, found 207 distinct federal STEM education programs funded at about $2.8 billion in FY2004 (hereinafter this report is referred to as "GAO-2005"). In 2007, the ACC found 105 STEM education programs funded at about $3.1 billion in FY2006 (hereinafter this report is referred to as "ACC-2007"). A 2011 report by the NSTC identified 252 "distinct investments" in STEM education funded at about $3.4 billion in FY2010 (hereinafter this report is referred to as "NSTC-2011"). A second GAO study, published in 2012, reported 209 programs funded at about $3.1 billion in FY2010 (hereinafter this report is referred to as "GAO-2012"). The discrepancies between these inventories indicate that establishing the federal effort in STEM education is complex and subject to methodological challenges. Differences between the inventories are due, in part, to the lack of a common definition of what constitutes a STEM education program or activity. Auditors have also found STEM education activities performed by science mission agencies difficult to capture because such activities tend to be fiscally and organizationally integrated into what are otherwise primarily scientific programs. Funding calculations and program identification become even more intricate when broad-purpose education programs with a STEM goal are considered (e.g., teacher training programs that focus on mathematics in addition to other fields such as reading). Finally, some estimates of federal STEM education activities depend on agency self-reporting, which is a less-reliable auditing method. Despite these limitations, these four inventories reveal several general patterns in federal STEM education investments. The next two sections will discuss the inventories' findings by federal agency, population served, and program objective. Each of the four congressionally mandated inventories of the federal STEM education effort found that virtually all federal agencies administer STEM education programs. However, three agencies account for about four-fifths of federal funding for STEM education: the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Departments of Education (ED) and Health and Human Services (HHS). As Figure 1 shows, all four inventories found that about one-third of the federal investment in STEM education is appropriated to the NSF. However, each inventory found different portions of STEM education funding at the other two agencies. The GAO-2005 and ACC-2007 inventories found a larger share of STEM funding at HHS than the GAO-2012 and NSTC-2011 studies. The GAO-2005 inventory found a much smaller share of funds at ED (8%; compared to 23%, 29%, and 22% in the latter three inventories). This discrepancy is likely attributable to a large increase in the FY2006 ED appropriation (roughly $310 million) for the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant program, which was newly authorized in 2005. Authority for the SMART Grant program ended in FY2010. No funds have been appropriated for the program since then. Each inventory took a different methodological approach and reported results somewhat incompatibly in terms of population served and program objective. This incompatibility is likely due to overlap between the populations served or program objectives within the individual STEM education programs. That is to say, sometimes the same program serves multiple populations (e.g., high school students and postsecondary students, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows). Additionally, nearly all STEM education programs have multiple objectives (e.g., supporting research and increasing degree attainment, encouraging advanced study and smoothing career transitions). Further, the inventories reported their findings on populations served and program objectives in different ways, thus making it difficult to compare their results on these important program elements. Each inventory reported on programs by population served (e.g., by education level), although both GAO studies did this only in terms of the number of programs and not their funding level. Figure 2 presents the percentage of programs primarily serving elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary institutions as a share of the total number of programs identified in each inventory. Of the programs identified by GAO-2005, just fewer than 40% served elementary and secondary schools and just over 60% served postsecondary institutions, compared to 25% and 75% in the ACC-2007 study, 44% and 56% in the NSTC-2011 inventory, and 31% and 69% in the GAO-2012 study. The NSTC-2011 inventory did not include programs serving postdoctoral fellows, thus lowering the share of programs found at the postsecondary level. Each inventory also collected information on program objectives. However, only the NSTC-2011 and GAO-2005 inventories reported information that could be summarized. The NSTC-2011 study found that nearly three-quarters of programs (74%) have at least two secondary program objectives in addition to the primary objective. The GAO-2005 study found an even larger share of programs (80%) with more than one goal, with about half supporting four or more goals. Figure 3 presents the share of federal STEM education programs by primary program objective for the GAO-2005 and NSTC-2011 inventories. In both studies, the majority of programs support degree attainment, research experience, and career development for postsecondary students (57% in the GAO study and 59% in the NSTC study). Fewer than 1 in 5 programs support STEM learning and engagement (GAO, 18%; NSTC, 13%). About 1 in 10 programs support the training of STEM educators (GAO, 11%; NSTC, 9%). In FY2012, the largest federal programs supporting STEM education were the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards ($274 million) administered by HHS, the Graduate Research Fellowships program ($198 million) administered by NSF, and the Mathematics and Science Partnership program ($150 million) administered by ED. Not only are these the largest programs, they also represent two of the major types of activities receiving federal support: fellowships for graduate study and K-12 teacher training. First funded in 1975, the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards (NRSA) constitute just under half (roughly 48%) of HHS spending on STEM education. Most NRSA funds support Institutional Research Training Grants. About 15%-20% of funds support individual fellowships. Institutional Research Training Grants are awarded to institutions to develop or enhance research training opportunities for individuals who are training for careers in specified areas of interest to the institution or principal investigator. Organizations within NIH (e.g., National Institute on Aging) grant individual fellowship awards. The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program is the oldest and largest STEM education program at NSF. Established in 1952, the GRF is one of the most prestigious national awards offered to STEM graduate students. Fellows receive three-year portable stipends for graduate study leading to research-based master's and doctoral degrees in fields related to NSF's mission. Applicants are chosen by a competitive, merit review process. The NSF issued 7,800 fellowships (including 2,000 new fellowships) worth up to $42,000 each in FY2012. This amount includes a $12,000 cost-of-education (COE) allowance for the enrolling institution and a $30,000 stipend for the fellow. In December 2012, the NSF announced a new effort to expand and enhance international research opportunities for GRF fellows. According to NSF, the GROW (Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide) program is a collaboration between NSF, international partners and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide NSF Graduate Research Fellows with expanded opportunities to enhance professional development through research collaborations at top-caliber science and engineering research sites overseas. Host countries agree to provide GROW/GRF fellows with a living allowance. The NSF provides $5,000 for travel and research costs. Under certain conditions, fellows may also continue to receive their NSF stipends through their home (e.g., U.S.) institution. GROW awards are distributed through a competitive, merit-review process to GRF fellows. NSF announced the first cohort of 53 GROW/GRF fellows in July 2013. Participating counties included Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, South Korea, Norway, and Sweden. The Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) program accounted for more than half (52%) of ED's STEM education portfolio in FY2012 ($150 million of $284 million). First authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ( P.L. 107-110 ), the MSP program provides formula grants to states to increase the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. With these funds, each state administers a grant competition in which awards are made to partnerships between high-need school districts and institutions of higher education. Grantees typically provide summer institutes and ongoing professional development designed to improve teachers' content knowledge through direct collaboration with scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. In addition to ED's MSP, the 107 th Congress created a companion program through the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-368 ). NSF's companion program is also called the Mathematics and Science Partnership (NSF-MSP) program. Funded at $55 million in FY2012, NSF-MSP is a research and development effort that supports projects to serve as models of innovation for K-12 STEM education through competitive grants to institutions of higher education or nonprofit organizations in partnership with local education agencies. The NSF Director is required to report annually to Congress on how the program has been coordinated with ED's MSP program. No single fact or statistic can wholly capture the condition of STEM education in the United States and for a variety of reasons the question "what is the condition of STEM education in the United States?" may be unanswerable. However, some trends appear to have held over time and in the most general sense, the condition of STEM education in the United States may be characterized as having more or less held constant or improved over the course of the last four decades. This is not the end of the story, though. Looking at STEM education from this broad perspective disguises trends that concern many analysts and drive policy in this area. Among these concerns are persistent achievement gaps between various demographic groups, U.S. student performance on international mathematics and science tests, foreign student enrollments in U.S. institutions of higher education, global STEM education attainment, U.S. STEM teacher quality, and the U.S. STEM labor supply. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of U.S. bachelor's degree holders with undergraduate degrees in science and engineering (S&E) was 36.4% in 2009 (approximately 20 million people). This percentage is roughly consistent with the annual production of S&E bachelor's degrees in the United States. The NSF estimates that the percentage of bachelor's degrees in S&E fields has held relatively constant—at between approximately 30% and 35% of all bachelor's degrees—for the past four decades. However, in part because the U.S. college-age population grew during these years, the total number of S&E bachelor's degrees awarded annually nearly tripled between 1966 and 2010 (from 184,313 to 525,374). At the graduate level, S&E degrees predominate doctorate degree production. Since 1966, the percentage of doctorates in S&E fields has ranged between approximately 56% and 69% of all graduate degrees (where a field of study has been reported). The total number of doctoral degrees in S&E fields has also nearly tripled, growing from 11,570 in 1966 to 33,141 in 2010. Graduate enrollments show similar upward trends. In 2010 there were 556,532 graduate students enrolled in S&E fields (an historic peak), up from 413,536 in 2000. Figure 4 displays the number of S&E degrees awarded, by degree level, over the last four decades. In K-12, U.S. student performance on standardized national mathematics tests has held constant or improved over the past four decades. For example, the average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scores of students in 4 th and 8 th grades, grades in which students have been tested for decades, increased by 28 and 21 points—respectively—between 1990 and 2011. Figure 5 presents average NAEP math scores by various student subpopulations. Although all group scores have improved over time, sizable gaps remain. The average scores of 12 th grade students on the main NAEP mathematics assessment were three points higher in 2009 than they were in 2005, when the test was first administered to this age group. In some respects, the overall trends paint a fairly optimistic picture for STEM education in the United States. Why, then, are so many observers so concerned about it? Analysts with concerns about STEM education cite a variety of data and trends as alarming. Among these are persistent achievement gaps between various demographic groups, U.S. student performance on international mathematics and science assessments, foreign student enrollments in U.S. institutions of higher education, global STEM education attainment, U.S. STEM teacher quality, and the U.S. STEM labor supply. A central topic in the conversation about STEM education focuses on achievement gaps among various racial and ethnic groups and between women and men in certain STEM education outcomes. These gaps can be seen in a wide variety of STEM data, which show disparities by race, ethnicity, and gender in test scores, degree attainment, and employment. For example, there was at least a 20-point gap between the average scores of white students and their black and Hispanic counterparts on the 2011 4 th and 8 th grade NAEP mathematics assessments. (See Figure 5 .) At the higher education level, only 18.4% of bachelor's degrees in engineering went to women in 2010. Some STEM achievement gaps appear to hold relatively constant over time. Although achievement gaps appear to be both pervasive and persistent, some evidence points to various types of improvement over time and in certain fields. For example, in the decade between 2000 and 2010, graduate enrollments in S&E fields grew by 35%. Further, among U.S. citizens and permanent residents, S&E graduate enrollments among Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, and black/African America students grew at a higher rate than that of whites (not of Hispanic origin) and Asians. While women account for relatively small percentages of degree recipients in certain STEM fields (as noted above), they accounted for 77.1% of the psychology degrees and 57.8% of the biological and agricultural sciences degrees in 2010. Finally, although the 20+ point gap between the average scores of white students and their black and Hispanic counterparts on both the 4 th and 8 th grade NAEP mathematics tests has persisted for two decades, students of all ethnicities and races have higher average scores in 2011 than they did in 1990. Many observers look to the nation's teaching force as a source of shortcomings in student mathematics and science achievement. Research on teacher quality conducted over the last 20 years reveals that, among those who teach mathematics and science, having a major in the subject positively affects student achievement. Unfortunately, many U.S. mathematics and science teachers lack this credential. For example, nearly all high school teachers have at least a baccalaureate degree; however, mathematics teachers are less likely than teachers of other subject areas to have majored in the subject they teach. In the 2007-2008 school year, roughly 17% of all high school teachers did not major in the subject they taught, while 28% of mathematics teachers did not major in mathematics. Moreover, among those who majored in the subject they taught, mathematics teachers are less likely to be subject-certified than other teachers. Another area often of concern is how U.S. students compare with their peers in other nations in their knowledge of mathematics and science. While U.S. students usually outscore the all-country average on international mathematics and science tests, they typically score below the average of industrialized nations. For example, U.S. 15-year-olds ranked below the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average in mathematics—and ranked at the OECD average in science—on the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). U.S. students fare better on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS); U.S. 8 th graders ranked 9 th in mathematics and 11 th in science on the 2007 TIMSS assessment. Some observers caution against using student assessments to compare nations. A variety of factors may influence test results, including translation issues, differences in test administration, student effort, and the selection and diversity of test takers. The latter issue is often raised by critics of international assessments when looking at U.S. student performance. Some observers say that low performance in the United States is closely related to poverty, though the same reasoning applies to other countries. One analysis of the 2009 PISA results found that the richest U.S. areas (especially areas with less than 10% poverty) perform better than most other nations. Other analysts assert that (in general) improved performance on international assessments could have positive effects on long-term economic growth. Although the number of degrees awarded in STEM fields has increased over time, many analysts are concerned about the percentage of STEM degrees that go to foreign students. For example, foreign students earn roughly one-third of all U.S. S&E doctoral degrees and earn half (or more) of U.S. doctoral degrees in the specific fields of engineering, physics, computer sciences, and economics. Further, the percentage of doctoral degrees going to foreign students has been generally increasing since the mid-1970s. The presence of foreign students in U.S. graduate S&E programs has been and continues to be of concern to some analysts because foreign graduates may not be eligible for work in the United States or in certain jobs requiring security clearance. Other observers suggest that these trends may mean missed opportunities or depressed wages for U.S. citizens and permanent residents who may be displaced by foreign graduates. Some analysts say that federal policy makers should encourage foreign STEM students to study and stay in the United States, arguing that policies meant to attract the world's best and brightest are key to ensuring U.S. competitiveness. In addition to concerns about foreign students obtaining STEM graduate degrees at U.S. institutions, some observers assert that the United States is falling behind other nations in the production of total STEM degrees. Of the 5 million first university degrees (e.g., undergraduate degrees) awarded globally in S&E in 2008, students in China earned about 23%, European Union students earned about 19%, and U.S. students earned about 10%. Further, while the United States awarded the largest number of total S&E doctoral degrees in 2008 (about 33,000), in 2007 China overtook the United States to become the world leader in the number of doctoral degrees awarded in the specific fields of natural sciences and engineering. Some analysts challenge these degree production numbers, arguing that in some cases the United States produces higher quality graduates and that country-level comparisons are misleading because the statistics are not based on common methodologies or definitions. However, attention to degree attainment trends has been amplified by scale differences between the populations of the United States (about 300 million) and China (about 1.3 billion). Many business, academic, and policy leaders assert that U.S. STEM education weaknesses have contributed (or will soon contribute) to national S&E workforce shortages. They further contend that this labor supply problem has diminished U.S. global economic competitiveness and threatened national security (or will do so in the future). However, some analysts argue that perceived limitations in the U.S. S&E workforce are overstated and that U.S. competitiveness is not threatened by across-the-board S&E labor shortages and does not require a supply-side response. A third view holds that perceptions of S&E workforce shortages are accurate if the increasing numbers of jobs that are technically non-STEM, but that require STEM competencies (e.g., analytical skills), are included in labor demand calculations. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 7.2 million STEM workers (6% of the total workforce) in the United States in 2011. About 70% of these workers had at least a bachelor's degree. However, the bureau states that, "the vast majority of workers who have been trained in science and engineering are not currently working in a STEM occupation." Those who majored in engineering or computers/mathematics/statistics had the highest rates of employment in STEM occupations (49% each). The next-highest rate of STEM employment (27%) was among those who majored in physical and related science. Education majors had the lowest STEM employment rate overall (2%). Stakeholders with an interest in improving STEM education suggest a wide and disparate set of policy options for Congress. Some of these recommendations address governance concerns about the administration of federal programs—for example, removing duplication and improving program coordination within and across agencies. Other policy options focus attention on elements of the elementary and secondary school system—for example, improving the quality and quantity of mathematics and science teachers and strengthening school accountability measures. Some recommendations seek to make improvements at the post-secondary level—for example, enhancing retention of undergraduate STEM majors and strengthening incentives to pursue advanced STEM education. Many options focus on improving the STEM education outcomes of underrepresented populations. Governance concerns are central to the contemporary debate about the federal STEM education effort. The scope and scale of the federal STEM education portfolio have some analysts concerned that federal agencies may be duplicating effort. In response to these concerns, some policy makers have proposed consolidating or eliminating STEM education programs. Other stakeholders are more concerned with an apparent lack of coordination in the federal STEM education effort. Proponents of this view have argued for the development of an overarching federal STEM education strategy. Program consolidation is a widely debated policy option for federal STEM education programs. Arguments for program consolidation include reduced duplication and fragmentation in the federal STEM education effort and increased program flexibility and responsiveness. Some policy makers see program consolidation as a strategy to transfer control to the states. Proposals to consolidate STEM education programs have been made by both Members of Congress and the Obama Administration. Analysts who perceive duplication and fragmentation in the federal STEM education effort often note the number of federal STEM education programs—ranging from 105 to 252 in various estimates—and assert that merging programs could result in cost savings and greater coherence in the federal STEM education effort. However, GAO has found that STEM education program consolidation can be more expensive in the short term and may not result in long-term savings (if workloads are not also reduced) because administrative costs in federal STEM education programs tend to be less than 10% of total program costs. The impact of program consolidation on the federal STEM education effort would depend on what programs are consolidated, how the consolidation is accomplished, how funding streams are affected, and the degree to which programs are duplicative. Other policy makers see program consolidation as a means to increase program flexibility and responsiveness because (under certain models of consolidation) federal program managers would have greater authority to shift priorities. Some policy makers may object to this change because it typically transfers program control from the legislative to the executive branch, shifting the balance of power. Consolidation (particularly in the form of block grants) has also been proposed as a strategy to transfer control to the states. Shifting control to the states could increase their ability to respond to local conditions and needs, but might make it more difficult to drive a national STEM education agenda or to leverage unique assets of federal science agencies. Consolidation opponents raise general concerns about the potential impact of merging programs, arguing that certain programs (such as STEM education programs) need specified funding streams to avoid being passed over in favor of competing education priorities. It is unclear if this assertion would hold true in practice. Other options to address duplication and fragmentation include increased coordination between and among various federal STEM education programs and activities. Some stakeholders maintain that duplication in the federal portfolio is limited. They tend to focus instead on a perceived lack of coordination among and within agencies. To address this concern, some analysts call for an overarching STEM education strategy. Until recently, the federal STEM education effort was primarily undertaken in a distributed fashion that responded to the specific needs of agencies and STEM constituencies. That is, in general, programs were not part of a defined government-wide system with clear roles played by individual federal agencies. Some analysts may view this distributed approach as particularly sensitive to the unique workforce needs or STEM education assets of federal science agencies; other observers suggest that an overarching strategy may improve the efficiency of federal STEM education investments. Both Congress and the President have moved to develop a federal STEM education strategy. Section 101 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-358 ) directed the NSTC to develop and implement a five-year STEM education strategy. The NSTC published this strategy in May 2013. Congressional response to the strategic plan was mixed, and, to some degree, became part of a broader conversation about the FY2014 Administration budget request and related Administration proposals to reorganize federal STEM education programs. For example, some policy makers asserted that the NSTC strategy was modified to bring it into conformance with the Administration's proposed STEM education program reorganization (and in so-doing lost key elements). Other policy makers asserted that the strategic plan offers "a new starting point for discussion" about the direction of the federal STEM education effort as an alternative to the proposed reorganization. Other policy options designed to enhance coordination of federal STEM education programs include proposals to create an Office of STEM Education and designate an Assistant Secretary for STEM Education at the Department of Education. Advocates for this approach claim that it would raise the profile of STEM education and improve administration of the various programs and policies at ED. Policy makers often express interest in making improvements in the early part of the STEM education pipeline—for example, from kindergarten to 12 th grade (also referred to as the "K-12" pipeline). Some analysts assert that mathematics and science achievement will not easily be raised unless the quality of K-12 teaching is improved. Other observers suggest low or unequal student achievement may be best addressed by adjustments to the K-12 system's accountability structure and standards for performance. To many observers, mathematics and science teachers' lower likelihood of possessing subject-specific professional credentials, compared to teachers of other subjects, identifies a deficit of mathematics and science teacher quality. Although most teaching positions may be staffed, the K-12 system's stock of fully credentialed mathematics and science teachers is in short supply. A variety of solutions to the shortage of STEM teachers have been proposed. One set of proposals is directed at teachers currently in the classroom, while another set of solutions targets new or prospective teachers. Some advocates feel that it is important to focus on performance, and that current teachers who are less than fully effective in the classroom are not provided the support and training they need to succeed and want to see federal funding for professional development (PD) specifically designed for STEM teachers maintained and expanded. Other stakeholders propose establishing a STEM Master Teacher Corps that would reward experienced and effective mathematics and science teachers with increased career prestige and pay in return for mentoring and providing PD for less effective teachers. Still others support increased use of online education, especially in rural schools that struggle to attract new teachers in any subject. Additionally, some analysts support reforms that would ease the removal of ineffective teachers who do not sufficiently improve with PD and may not be cut out for the profession. Other stakeholders think improved recruitment and retention of high-quality new teachers is the primary solution to the mathematics and science teacher quality problem. Many who take this approach argue that federal teacher policies should assist state and local efforts to improve non-traditional routes to teaching—for example, alternative certification policies and incentives for mid-career transition of STEM professionals. Analysts have identified options for attracting new STEM teachers through traditional preparation programs by subsidizing their education costs—for example, through direct grants, student loan repayment, or tax credits —and encouraging colleges and universities to develop concurrent STEM and teaching degree programs. Such recruitment strategies may also serve as retention tools when paired with requirements that new teachers fulfill service agreements. Some proponents prefer policies designed to attract and retain STEM teachers through financial incentives such as differential pay, housing subsidies, and signing bonuses. Alternatively, some education analysts have criticized the federal policy focus on teacher quality, as measured by credentials, calling into question its link to student achievement and advocating instead for proposals to improve teacher effectiveness. Specifically, those in this camp suggest reforming teacher evaluation systems to identify multiple levels of effectiveness: rewarding those at the top with performance pay and removing those at the lowest level of performance. Related proposals would reform the structure of teacher preparation by rewarding teacher training programs, both traditional and non-traditional, on the basis of their graduates' classroom effectiveness rather than on certification exam results. The accountability movement has been a powerful force in the federal education policy debate for some time, reaching particular prominence with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110 ). NCLB reforms were based on the premise that, to improve outcomes from the K-12 system, student achievement must be accurately assessed and schools must be held accountable for measurable results. The law required that states establish achievement benchmarks, set annual goals (referred to as Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP), and have all students reach "proficiency" in reading and mathematics by 2014. NCLB also requires that students be assessed for their academic proficiency in science. However, these results are not tied to the accountability system. Some stakeholders are in favor of amending the law to mandate that schools ensure students also be proficient in science. Independent of federal involvement, states have begun development of a common core of academic standards across the K-12 system. This effort intends to create nationally consistent standards of knowledge and skills that students need in order to graduate from high school and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses or workforce training programs. So far, standards have been developed for reading and mathematics and adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia. Pointing to the perceived "mediocre" state of current state science standards, some analysts say the inclusion of science in the common core "is long overdue." Some analysts argue that the current "STEM for all" approach is not working. Those in this camp urge policy makers to focus limited federal resources on high-achieving students with an interest in STEM by, among other things, using federal education funding to create new specialty STEM high schools. Proponents of the STEM for All approach counter by asserting that advocates of "STEM for Some" fail to appreciate widespread demand for STEM competencies in the economy. Other analysts seek to expand programs such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate (AP/IB)—including grants to pay the AP/IB testing fees of low-income students—or seek to increase STEM education achievement among demographic groups with historically low participation rates in STEM fields. (See section on " Broadening Participation .") As a proportion of all federal STEM education funding, the majority of the federal investment in STEM education supports undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate education and research. In each of the recent program inventories, post-secondary education accounted for more than half of the federal STEM education portfolio. However, some analysts argue that current U.S. STEM degree production rates are insufficient. Proposals to improve post-secondary STEM education include those that seek to address remediation in the early college years or increase retention rates in STEM majors through graduation. Other proposals seek increased support for graduate study and post-doctoral research. Some analysts favor lowering barriers for foreign STEM students seeking entry into U.S. institutions of higher education. Researchers cite poor pre-college mathematics and science preparation and high rates of attrition among STEM majors as two major challenges for undergraduate STEM education in the United States. In addition to the K-12 improvements discussed above, some observers propose additional federal investment in remedial education for students as they enter college. For example, some stakeholders advocate for increased funding for ED's Upward Bound Mathematics and Science program. Others analysts see community colleges playing an important role in counteracting the perceived failings of secondary schools. For example, some stakeholders have called for partnerships between business and two-year colleges to prepare students for STEM careers. Other analysts argue that proprietary, non-degree-granting institutions are well suited to provide STEM remediation and training. Some policy makers are concerned with low retention rates at undergraduate STEM programs. Although attrition in STEM fields may be due, in part, to poor K-12 preparation and to overall college attrition patterns, there are likely multiple reasons why students complete a non-STEM degree after showing initial interest in STEM. Some policy makers advocate for STEM education research programs that focus on improving undergraduate STEM education practices for all students, such as NSF's Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-based Reforms (WIDER) and Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (TUES) programs. Others support efforts to improve retention among groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields (including ethnic and racial minorities, the disabled, and females). The demographic profile of the U.S. student-age population is changing. The youth population is more racially and ethnically diverse than previous generations of Americans. In addition, more than half of U.S. college students are now female, and over half of all bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees awarded in the United States go to women. Some observers say that these trends are problematic for the U.S. scientific and technological enterprise, which has historically relied mostly on a white male labor supply (particularly in fields such as mathematics and engineering). However, because the growth in the student-age population (and therefore future labor supply) is in segments that have typically been underrepresented in STEM, these observers argue that underrepresented groups "embody a vastly underused resource and a lost opportunity for meeting our nation's technology needs." The solution to this challenge, many stakeholders argue, is to increase (or broaden) the participation of women and ethnic and racial minorities in STEM education and employment. General agreement about the problems posed by racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in STEM education and employment has not translated into widespread agreement on either the causes of underrepresentation or policy solutions. Further, causes and solutions may be different for different population subsets. Researchers have identified dozens of school and non-school variables that may contribute to racial and ethnic achievement gaps in STEM. For example, in 2011 researchers reviewed over 400 books, book chapters, journal articles, and policy reports on factors that influence minority student success in STEM (hereinafter referred to as the "2011 review"). The 2011 review found that the following factors positively influence the success of minority students in STEM: K-12 —parental involvement and support, availability of bilingual education, culturally relevant pedagogy, early exposure to STEM fields, interest in STEM careers, self-efficacy in STEM subjects, and STEM-related educational opportunities and support programs. The 2011 review also identified the following school-based factors as contributing to minority under-preparedness in elementary and secondary STEM education: K-12 —a lack of resources (underfunding) and less qualified teachers at schools that serve minority students, limited access to Advanced Placement courses, disproportionate tracking of minority students into remedial education, teachers' low expectations, stereotype threat, racial oppression and oppositional culture, and premature departure from high school. At the post-secondary education level, the 2011 review identified the following factors as associated with varying levels of minority student STEM success in college: Higher Education —colorblind meritocracy, financial aid and employment, institutional type, campus culture and climate, institutional agents, self-concept and self-efficacy, and STEM opportunity and support programs. In addition to these school-based factors described in the 2011 review, other researchers have identified non-school factors that contribute to achievement gaps in both STEM and non-STEM fields. Some scholars argue that these non-school factors have been overlooked and that too much emphasis is placed on schools. Non-school factors that have been identified as contributing to achievement gaps include concentrated poverty and single-parent households, early childhood development, and health. Policy solutions for broadening participation in STEM are also numerous. In 2010, Congress directed the National Academies to examine diversity in the STEM workforce and make recommendations for broadening participation. Of the many recommendations in the resulting report, the Academies identified several policy options as top priorities. These include increased financial support for minority undergraduate STEM students, improved teacher preparation, more and better advanced courses and academic advising for minority K-12 students, improved transition to graduate school for minority undergraduates in STEM fields, and increased availability of research assistantships for minority graduates students in STEM. Other researchers have proposed solutions such as charter schools and school choice, faith-based schooling, improved transfer pathways from community colleges and reducing undergraduate debt, and participation in undergraduate research. Some analysts propose increased investments in minority serving institutions (MSIs)—such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) or Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs)—as an option to broaden participation in STEM fields. Although the number of women earning colleges degrees has been increasing, they hold less than a quarter of STEM jobs nationally. Scholars debate the causes of gender disparities in STEM. Some analysts assert that self-efficacy, institutional culture, discrimination, and bias limit female participation in science. Other observers do not find evidence of widespread, contemporary discrimination against women in STEM fields; instead, they primarily attribute disparities to family formation and child rearing, gendered expectations, lifestyle choices, career preferences, and personal choice, among other complex factors. Some researchers find that women choose careers outside of science because they are more likely than men to have both high math and verbal skills. This combination of skills means women have access to a wider range of occupations. Differences in beliefs about the causes of gender disparities in STEM lead to different emphases in proposed solutions. Scholars who generally align with the discrimination hypothesis suggest a variety of policy options. Among these are policies that seek to increase girls' interest in STEM; create college environments (e.g., institutional culture) that attract and retain female students and faculty; and counteract bias by, among other things, creating clear and transparent criteria for success. Scholars who generally align with the preferences hypothesis recommend family friendly policies at academic institutions (e.g., part-time tenure track positions and childcare) and propose federal funding for research "on the differing lifecourses of women's and men's careers to determine whether the traditional timing of hiring, tenure and promotion may deny society and science the contributions of talented women." Some researchers argue that income is the most critical variable in achievements gaps and that gaps between children from high- and low-income families have grown substantially in recent decades. The income achievement gap, these researchers argue, is as determinative (if not more) than race. Researchers have identified summer learning loss as one of the possible contributors to achievement gaps by income. Studies show that students lose skills over the summer, especially in mathematics, and that the effects of these losses appear to accumulate over time. Further, losses appear to disproportionately affect low-income students. Other researchers have observed mathematics achievement gaps by urbanization level (e.g., between rural, urban, and suburban youth), finding that urban and rural youth have lower average mathematics achievement levels than their suburban peers and that this gap appears to widen between kindergarten and 8 th grade. These findings, say the researchers, are not solely attributable to differences in socioeconomic status. Appendix A. Data Sources and Major Publications Federal STEM education analysts rely on a number of sources and major publications for data about the federal STEM education effort and the condition of STEM education in the United States and around the globe. This appendix includes links to sources and publications where readers can find the most up-to-date STEM education data and information. National and International Assessments National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) —The NAEP is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of U.S. K-12 students. There are two NAEP assessments: Main NAEP and Long-Term Trends (LTT). The Main NAEP administers assessments in 12 subject areas, including mathematics and science. The LTT assesses mathematics and reading. In 2013 ED launched a pilot NAEP assessment in technology and engineering literacy. That assessment will be fully operational in 2014. More information about these assessments is available at LTT Mathematics — http://nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ , Main NAEP Mathematics — http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/ , Main NAEP Science — http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/ , and Main NAEP Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL) — http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tel/moreabout.aspx . Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) —TIMSS is an international test that assesses the mathematics and science achievements of U.S. 4 th and 8 th grade students in a manner that is comparable across countries. More information about TIMSS is available at http://nces.ed.gov/timss/ . Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) —PISA assesses the reading, mathematics, and science literacy of 15-year-old students in dozens of industrialized and developing nations. More information about PISA is available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/ . Federal Programs and Inventories U.S. Government Accountability Office, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs Across Multiple Agencies (GAO-12-108) —This 2012 GAO report on federal STEM education programs includes an inventory of federal STEM education programs and policy recommendations. The report is available at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-12-108 . National Science and Technology Council, A Report from the Federal Inventory of STEM Education Fast-Track Action Committee (NSTC 2011) and A Report from the Federal Coordination in STEM Education Task Force (NSTC 2012) —These reports provide an inventory of federal STEM education investments from FY2008 to FY2010 actual (in the 2011 report) and an update with information from FY2011 enacted to FY2013 requested (in the 2012 report). NSTC 2011 —This report is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/costem__federal_stem_education_portfolio_report.pdf . NSTC 2012 —This report is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nstc_federal_stem_education_coordination_report.pdf . U.S. Department of Education, Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC), Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council —The 2007 ACC report provides an inventory of federal STEM education programs with funding data from FY2005 actual to the FY2007 President's budget request. Includes policy recommendations and an assessment of STEM education program evaluations from across the federal enterprise. The 2007 ACC report is available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/acc-mathscience/index.html . U.S. Government Accountability Office, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends (GAO-06-114) —This 2005 GAO report includes an inventory of federal STEM education programs and assesses program goals and constituencies served. The 2005 GAO report is available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-114 . Condition of STEM Education National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 —This publication provides, among other things, one of the most comprehensive collections of key STEM indicators. It is published every two years. More information about Science and Engineering Indicators is available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/front/fronts6.htm . National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) —NCSES compiles and analyzes a variety of STEM data. Much of this data may be found in Science and Engineering Indicators , but the NCSES website includes separate, detailed, and timely publications on various STEM education data. More information about NCSES is available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ . Appendix B. Selected Major Legislation Depending on how broadly the term is defined, federal interest in STEM education may be traced to the 1 st Congress. Several institutions that would become central parts of the federal STEM education effort—such as Health and Human Services (1798, 1 Stat. 605), the Smithsonian Institution (1846, 9 Stat. 103), the National Academy of Sciences (1863, 12 Stat. 806), and Department of Education (originally the Office of Education, 1867, 14 Stat. 434)—were in place before the United States celebrated its first centennial. Federal STEM education policymaking intensified after World War II. The desire to maintain the scientific achievements of the war led to the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950. By 1952, NSF was issuing GRF awards to promising STEM graduate students. The Soviet Union's launch of the first artificial satellite, Sputnik , triggered fears that the United States was falling behind in mathematics and science education and led to the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which some analysts cite as the first federal foray into STEM education policy in the modern era. This appendix includes selected historical federal STEM education measures arranged by date. Land Ordinance of 1785 and Northwest Ordinance of 1787 The Land Ordinance of 1785 was one of a series of three measures providing for the political and geographic incorporation of the Northwest Territories in the Union. These measures were passed by the Continental Congress after the Revolutionary War and prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Drafted primarily for the purpose of disposing of land in the territories, the Land Ordinance of 1785 directed surveyors to establish townships in the territories. These townships were to be subdivided into lots, one of which (lot number 16) was to be preserved for the maintenance of a public school. The Land Ordinance's more famous cousin, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, established governments in the territories and provided for the civil liberties of the inhabitants. On the question of education the Northwest Ordinance said, "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Marine Hospital Service Act of 1798 (1 Stat. 605) Congress established the Marine Hospital Service (MHS) in 1798 to provide medical care for merchant seaman. Many federal health agencies trace their origin to the establishment of the MHS; including the National Institute of Health (NIH), which began as the Hygienic Laboratory within the MHS in 1887. The Ransdell Act of 1930 (P.L. 71-251) re-designated the Hygienic Laboratory as the NIH and authorized fellowships at the institute. Although NIH education and training funding in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s primarily focused on post-doctoral researchers and clinical traineeships for physicians, in 1948 the National Institute of Cancer began awarding funds to institutions to improve undergraduate education. In 1974 Congress established the National Research Service Award (NRSA) at NIH. The National Research Service Award Act ( P.L. 93-348 ) consolidated and established under a single authority existing research and fellowship authorities. P.L. 107-206 re-named the NRSA the "Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award" in 2002. Morrill Acts of 1862 (12 Stat. 503) and 1890 (26 Stat. 417) The Morrill Act of 1862 authorized the sale of federal lands and distribution of the proceeds to the states for the purpose of establishing colleges in the "mechanic arts" (e.g., engineering, manufacturing, inventions), agriculture, and military tactics. The original Morrill Act did not apply to the "states in rebellion," but in 1890 Congress passed a subsequent measure to provide for colleges in Southern states. The 1890 Morrill Act also expanded the purposes of the colleges to include "agriculture, the mechanic arts, the English language, and the various branches of mathematical, physical, natural, and economic science." These provisions were repealed in 1981 and replaced with "food and agricultural sciences." Colleges funded by these acts include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Clemson University, and many U.S. Historically Black Colleges and Universities. National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507) The NSF was established in 1950 to—in part—"develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy for basic research and education in the sciences." Congress passed the act authorizing the Foundation after several years of debate and a veto in 1947. NSF distributed its first fellowships to pre- and post-doctoral STEM students in 1952. As early as 1953 the Foundation began supporting teacher institutes as a means of improving STEM education in the lower grades. Although both Congress and the President have made changes to the NSF since its founding, STEM education has remained a core function of the agency. National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864) Passed in 1958 in response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik , the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), sought to address concerns about "existing imbalances in our educational programs which have led to an insufficient proportion of our population educated in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages and trained in technology." Among its many provisions, the NDEA authorized the first federal student loan program; provided funds to states for science, mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction; and authorized grants to states for programs to identify and encourage gifted students. Some NDEA scholars assert that this act paved the way for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by establishing a legislative precedent for federal education aid to states. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-10) The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110 ). STEM education was not central to the ESEA as originally constructed in 1965, but STEM-specific provisions have been added in subsequent reauthorizations. For example, as amended by No Child Left Behind, the act authorizes the Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) program at ED and requires states to have mathematics assessments and standards. Higher Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-329) The Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes a series of programs that provide federal aid and support to institutions of higher education as well as a broad array of federal student aid programs that assist students and their families with paying for or financing the costs of obtaining a postsecondary education. The HEA was most recently amended in 2008 by the Higher Education Opportunity Act ( P.L. 110-315 ); however, the only major STEM-related postsecondary program administered by ED was enacted by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA; P.L. 109-171 ). The HERA amendments included authorization and appropriations for the SMART Grant program, which provided $4,000 grants to students majoring in STEM fields. Congress provided that the program sunset at the end of the 2010-2011 academic year. Approximately $1.4 billion in grants were awarded between FY2006 and FY2010. Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 ( P.L. 96-88 ) The Department of Education Organization Act established ED as an independent federal agency. Section 304 of the act transferred science education programs established at NSF to ED. Excluded from this directive were programs that related to scientific career development, continuing education of scientific personnel, career-focused broadening participation programs, research and development in science learning, and programs to inform the general public about the nature of science and technology and related policy issues. The conference report on the final bill included two specific examples of NSF programs to be transferred to ED: Elementary and Pre-school Science Teacher Training and Minority Institutions Science Improvement. The act provided only for the transfer of programs in existence at the time of enactment and included a provision affirming NSF's authority to initiate and conduct programs under its originating act (P.L. 81-507). Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 ( P.L. 98-377 ) The Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 (EESA) authorized teacher institutes and mathematics and science education development programs (including partnerships) at the National Science Foundation; directed the Department of Education to provide grants to states and local educational agencies for STEM teacher training and development; and authorized presidential awards for teaching in mathematics and science, among other things. EESA was enacted following publication of several reports—most notably A Nation at Risk —that were highly critical of the U.S. education system and amid growing concerns about international competitiveness in the wake of the 1970s recession and apparent ascendancy of the Japanese and German economies. America COMPETES Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-69 ) and America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-358 ) The America COMPETES Act (and its 2010 reauthorization) authorized a variety of STEM education programs at several federal science agencies and ED. Most of the specified STEM education appropriations authorizations in these acts are at the NSF, but the acts also contain STEM education provisions for the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Among other things, the 2010 reauthorization established a federal government-wide STEM education coordinating committee under the National Science and Technology Council. 

Summary: The term "STEM education" refers to teaching and learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It typically includes educational activities across all grade levels—from pre-school to post-doctorate—in both formal (e.g., classrooms) and informal (e.g., afterschool programs) settings. Federal policy makers have an active and enduring interest in STEM education, and the topic is frequently raised in federal science, education, workforce, national security, and immigration policy debates. For example, more than 225 bills containing the term "science education" were introduced between the 102nd and 112th Congresses. The United States is widely believed to perform poorly in STEM education. However, the data paint a complex picture. By some measures, U.S. students appear to be doing quite well. For example, overall graduate enrollments in science and engineering (S&E) grew 35% over the last decade. Further, S&E enrollments for Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, and African American students (all of whom are generally underrepresented in S&E) grew by 65%, 55%, and 50%, respectively. On the other hand, concerns remain about persistent academic achievement gaps between various demographic groups, STEM teacher quality, the rankings of U.S. students on international STEM assessments, foreign student enrollments and increased education attainment in other countries, and the ability of the U.S. STEM education system to meet domestic demand for STEM labor. Various attempts to assess the federal STEM education effort have produced different estimates of its scope and scale. Analysts have identified between 105 and 252 STEM education programs and activities at 13 to 15 federal agencies. Annual federal appropriations for STEM education are typically in the range of $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion. All published inventories identify the Department of Education, National Science Foundation, and Health and Human Services as key agencies in the federal effort. Over half of federal STEM education funding is intended to serve the needs of postsecondary schools and students; the remainder goes to efforts at the kindergarten-through-Grade 12 (K-12) level. Much of the funding for post-secondary students is in the form of financial aid. Federal STEM education policy concerns center on broad issues—such as governance of the federal effort and broadening participation of underrepresented populations—as well as those that are specific to STEM education at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels. Governance concerns focus on perceived duplication and lack of coordination in the federal effort; broadening participation concerns tend to highlight achievement gaps between various demographic groups. Analysts suggest a variety of policy options in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary STEM education. At the K-12 level, these include proposals to address teacher quality, accountability, and standards. At the post-secondary level, proposals center on efforts to remediate and retain students in STEM majors. This report is intended to serve as a primer on existing STEM education policy issues and programs. It includes assessments of the federal STEM education effort and the condition of STEM education in the United States, as well as an analysis of several of the policy issues central to the contemporary federal conversation about STEM education. Appendix A contains frequently cited data and sources and Appendix B includes a selection of major STEM-related laws.