An Analysis of STEM Education Funding at the NSF: Trends and Policy Discussion

Heather B. Gonzalez
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Federal policymakers have a long-standing interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education that dates to at least the 1st Congress. In its contemporary construct, this interest largely focuses on the connection between STEM education and the U.S. science and engineering workforce, which, in turn, is often perceived as instrumental to national security and the U.S. economy.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a key component of the federal STEM education effort. Several inventories of the federal STEM education portfolio have highlighted NSF’s important role—both in terms of funding and in the number and breadth of programs. The NSF is also the only federal agency whose primary mission includes supporting education across all fields of science and engineering. As such, funding for STEM education at the NSF impacts not only the agency, but also the entire federal STEM education effort.

Congress reduced enacted funding levels (from the prior year) for NSF’s main education account in both FY2011 and FY2012. Those year-over-year reductions followed several years of varying funding, as well as changes in the distribution of the Foundation budget that reduced funding for the main education account as a percentage of the total NSF budget. For the most part, these changes appear to result from a combination of holding the main education account more-or-less constant while applying most of the Foundation’s FY2003-FY2011 budget growth to the main research account. However, in constant dollar terms, it appears at least some of the increase in funding for research activities during the observed period may have come at the expense of education activities.

It is not clear if these funding changes reflect evolving congressional and Administration policy priorities and an intentional prioritization of research over educational activities at the NSF or if they reflect the cumulative impact of funding decisions made in response to specific conditions in specific fiscal years that happen to have had this effect. Further, the significance of these changes for NSF’s STEM education and research missions—and for the overall federal STEM effort— depends, in part, on how they fit within the broader policy context. In particular, it depends (among other things) on how policymakers perceive and assess the policy rationale behind STEM education funding at the NSF; the character of NSF’s STEM education activities; the Foundation’s role in the federal STEM education portfolio; and the impact of changes in NSF’s education account on the Foundation’s other primary mission, research.

This report analyzes NSF funding trends and selected closely related STEM education policy issues in order to place conversations about FY2013 funding in broader fiscal and policy context. It concludes with an analysis of potential policy options.


Date of Report: December 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R42470
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42470.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy

One of the major goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), is to raise the achievement of students who currently fail to meet grade-level proficiency standards. Because student achievement is widely believed to depend largely on the quality of instruction, the law also contains provisions designed to improve teacher quality. These provisions establish professional credentials for teachers and charge states and school districts with developing plans to improve teacher quality. According to the law, these plans must ensure that all core subjectmatter courses are taught by a highly qualified teacher and that poor and minority students have equal access to quality instruction.

To be deemed highly qualified, NCLB requires that teachers possess a baccalaureate degree and a state teaching certificate, and that teachers also demonstrate subject-matter knowledge for their teaching level. Elementary school teachers must show knowledge of basic elementary school curricular areas. Middle and secondary school teachers must demonstrate a high level of competency in all subject areas taught. Demonstration of subject-matter knowledge and competency may be shown by passing a state certification exam or licensing test in the relevant subject(s).

This report examines implementation of the NCLB requirement and examines the extent to which schools achieved the law’s goal of placing a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. After describing the highly qualified teacher requirement in detail, the report analyzes data from a national survey of schools conducted a year before NCLB became law. These data suggest that as many as four out of five teachers met the NCLB requirement prior to its enactment. Data reported throughout implementation of the law indicate that the proportion of highly qualified teachers increased each year, but that no state has reached 100%. In addition, analysis of these data also support concerns about the equitable distribution of teaching quality between poor and nonpoor schools.

This report concludes with a discussion of teacher quality issues that may be considered as the ESEA reauthorization process unfolds. Several of these issues have been the subject of waiver authority exercised by the Secretary of Education under both the current and previous administrations. Congress has also taken up these issues along with reauthorization of the rest of the ESEA. This report will be updated as significant legislative developments occur.


Date of Report: December 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R42127
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42127.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Value-Added Modeling for Teacher Effectiveness

Erin D. Lomax
Specialist in Education Policy

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy

Two of the major goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110; NCLB), are to improve the quality of K-12 teaching and raise the academic achievement of students who fail to meet grade-level proficiency standards. In setting these goals, Congress recognized that reaching the second goal depends greatly on meeting the first; that is, quality teaching is critical to student success. Thus, NCLB established new standards for teacher qualifications and required that all courses in “core academic subjects” be taught by a highly qualified teacher by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

During implementation, the NCLB highly qualified teacher requirement came to be seen as setting minimum qualifications for entry into the profession and was criticized by some for establishing standards so low that nearly every teacher met the requirement. Meanwhile, policy makers have grown increasingly interested in the output of teachers’ work; that is, their performance in the classroom and the effectiveness of their instruction. Attempts to improve teacher performance led to federal and state efforts to incentivize improved performance through alternative compensation systems. For example, through P.L. 109-149, Congress authorized the Federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program, which provides grants to support teacher performance pay efforts. In addition, there are various programs at all levels (national, state, and local) aimed at reforming teacher compensation systems. The most recent congressional action in this area came with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) and, in particular, enactment of the Race to the Top (RTTT) program.

In November 2009, the U.S. Department of Education released a final rule of priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the RTTT. The final rule established a definition of an effective teacher as one “whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice).” That is, to be considered effective, teachers must raise their students’ learning to a level at or above what is expected within a typical school year. States, LEAs, and schools must include additional measures to evaluate teachers; however, these evaluations must be based, “in significant part, [on] student growth.”

This report addresses issues associated with the evaluation of teacher effectiveness based on student growth in achievement. It focuses specifically on a method of evaluation referred to as value-added modeling (VAM). Although there are other methods for assessing teacher effectiveness, in the last decade, VAM has garnered increasing attention in education research and policy due to its promise as a more objective method of evaluation. The first section of this report describes what constitutes a VAM approach and how it estimates the so-called “teacher effect.” The second section identifies the components necessary to conduct VAM in education settings. Third, the report discusses current applications of VAM at the state and school district levels and what the research on these applications says about this method of evaluation. The fourth section of the report explains some of the implications these applications have for large-scale implementation of VAM. Finally, the report describes some of the federal policy options that might arise as Congress considers legislative action around these or related issues.


Date of Report: December 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R41051
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41051.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Education for Homeless Children and Youth: Program Overview and Legislation

Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy

The Education for Homeless Children and Youth program (EHCY) provides formula grants to state educational agencies (SEAs) to help ensure that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same free and appropriate public education, including public preschool education that is provided to other children and youth. It is the only federal education program exclusively focused on homeless children and youth. SEAs competitively subgrant funds to local educational agencies (LEAs). Not all LEAs receive EHCY grants. In school year (SY) 2010-2011, 3,651 LEAs, out of a total of 16,290, received awards. Although only 22% percent of LEAs received EHCY grants in SY2010-2011, they enrolled 71% of all homeless students in that year. Education and related services for homeless children and youth are also funded through required set-asides from Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. National data on the amount of funding set aside are not available.

The EHCY program was most recently reauthorized as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, P.L. 107-110). Reauthorization of EHCY may be considered by the 113th Congress as part of the reauthorization of ESEA. EHCY received $65.2 million in funding for FY2012. EHCY is currently funded through March 27, 2013, by a government-wide Continuing Resolution (P.L. 112-175) at the FY2012 level plus 0.612%.

All LEAs are required to report data to the Department of Education on the number of homeless students enrolled in school each year, regardless of whether or not they receive an EHCY grant. In SY2008-2009, 956,914 homeless students were reported enrolled in school; in SY2009-2010, 939,903 homeless students were reported enrolled; and in SY2010-2011, the number of enrolled homeless students reported was 1,065,794. The total number of homeless students enrolled decreased by 2% between SY2008-2009 and SY2009-2010; it increased 13% between SY2009- 2010 and SY2010-2011. During the three-year period between SY2008-2009 and SY2010-2011, it increased by 11%. Four states accounted for 42% of the total number of students enrolled in both LEAs with EHCY subgrants and those without in SY2010-2011. Those states, and their percentages of total homeless student enrollment were, California (21%), New York (9%), Texas (8%), and Florida (5%).

Legislation to reauthorize EHCY as part of the reauthorization of ESEA was reported by both House and Senate committees in the 112th Congress, and may be considered in the 113th Congress. Some of the issues that are under consideration include EHCY program funding; costs of transporting homeless students to their school of origin; implementation of the ESEA Title I-A set-aside for EHCY; whether to permit separate schools for homeless students; clarification of the “best interest” school selection process; how to enhance the ability of LEA homeless liaisons and state coordinators to meet the needs of homeless students; how to improve the identification of, and services provided to, preschool students and unaccompanied youth; how to increase access to education and related services for homeless students; and the impact of potential changes to the definition of homeless in EHCY and other legislation.


Date of Report: December 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R42494
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42494.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 112th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy

Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy

Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 112th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. On October 20, 2011, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and ordered reported the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 3578; S.Rept. 112-221) by a bipartisan vote of 15-7. The House Education and Workforce Committee considered and ordered reported two bills that together would provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA: (1) the Student Success Act (H.R. 3989, H.Rept. 112-458), and (2) the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (H.R. 3990; H.Rept. 112-459 Part 1). Both bills were ordered reported on February 28, 2012, on strictly partisan votes (23-16 in each case). It is unclear whether S. 3578 or H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 will be considered on the Senate or House Floors, respectively.

S. 3578 and H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would take different approaches to reauthorizing the ESEA, most notably in three key areas:

1. Accountability for student achievement: Both S. 3578 and H.R. 3989 would modify current accountability requirements related to student achievement, including eliminating the requirement to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the requirement to apply a specified set of outcome accountability provisions to all schools, regardless of the extent to which they failed to make AYP. While both bills would continue to require that states have standards for, and assess students annually in, reading and mathematics, only S. 3578 would continue to require states to have standards and assessments in science. S. 3578 would require various interventions to be implemented in certain low achieving schools, while H.R. 3989 would not require specific actions to be taken in low performing schools. 
2. Teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness: S. 3578 would retain requirements related to “teacher quality” unless a state met several requirements related to teacher performance evaluation, including using student achievement as part of the teacher evaluation process. H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would eliminate current “teacher quality” requirements but would require local educational agencies to implement teacher performance evaluation systems based, in part, on student achievement. 
3. Targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant: Each bill would consolidate some existing competitive grant programs, but H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would consolidate a greater number of programs than S. 3578. At the same time, S. 3578 would create several new targeted grant programs, while H.R. 3990 would greatly expand the use of block grant funding. .

Date of Report: November 6, 2012
Number of Pages: 56
Order Number: R42819
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42819.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.