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.