Congressional Panels Dump on STEM Reshuffling Plan
STEMming the tide. The House science committee, led by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), is one of several panels weighing in against the proposed realignment of STEM education programs.
Fuhgettaboutit.
That's the response this month from several congressional panels to the Obama administration's plan to radically realign the federal government's $3 billion annual investment in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. The latest—and sharpest—criticism came yesterday from the Senate Appropriations Committee as it approved a 2014 spending bill covering NASA, the Commerce Department, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The administration's plan,
unveiled in April as part of its 2014 budget request to Congress would cut in half the 226 STEM education programs now being funded at 13 federal agencies. White House officials say that their goal is to both eliminate redundant and ineffective programs and give authority to the Department of Education, NSF, and the Smithsonian Institution to lead federal efforts in four key areas: K-12 education, undergraduate and graduate training, and informal science education.
But so far Congress isn't buying those arguments. Its spending and authorizing committees seem to agree with most STEM educators that the White House hasn't explained why the reshuffling is needed and that the proposal scraps many effective programs. Educators have also complained that White House budget officials are ignoring the unique expertise and tools that exist within so-called mission agencies like NASA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). And they say that the White House failed to seek their input about the best way to improve STEM programs.
The Senate spending panel basically trashed the idea in report language approved yesterday as part of a $52 billion Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) bill that funds several federal agencies. "While the committee maintains its support for greater efficiencies and consolidation … [it] has concerns that the proposal has not been thoroughly vetted with the education community or congressional authorizing committees and lacks thorough guidance and input from Federal agencies affected by the proposal."
The congressional panel questioned both the basis for the reshuffling and the idea of creating lead agencies. "The administration has yet to provide a viable plan ensuring that the new lead STEM institutions … can support the unique fellowship, training, and outreach programs now managed by other agencies. Conversely, what is proposed as a consolidation … is really the elimination of many proven and successful programs with no evaluation on why they were deemed duplicative or ineffective."
Responsibility for STEM education is spread across many congressional committees, each of which exercises oversight of a handful of federal agencies. In the past few weeks, half a dozen panels have addressed the administration's plans for STEM education. And while the CJS language may be the harshest, none of the committees has embraced the reorganization.
A bill approved yesterday by the House of Representatives science committee to reauthorize NASA programs, for example, rejects the two key elements of what the administration has proposed—stripping the agency of most of its STEM education agencies and putting the rest under one roof. "The administration may not implement any proposed STEM education and outreach-related changes proposed [for NASA] in the president's 2014 budget request," the bill flatly declares. "Funds devoted to education and public outreach should be maintained in the [science, aeronautics, exploration, and mission] directorates, and the consolidation of those activities within the Education Directorate is prohibited."
Likewise, the House version of the CJS spending bill would restore money for STEM education activities at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and put the kibosh on a realignment of undergraduate STEM education programs at NSF. "The committee supports the concept of improving efficiency and effectiveness, through streamlining and better coordination, but does not believe that this particular restructuring proposal achieves that goal," the legislators explain in a report this week accompanying the spending bill. The report also notes that "the ideas presented in the budget request lack any substantive implementation plan and have little support within the STEM education community."
The chair of the House panel that crafted the language, Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA), has long felt that the federal government does a poor job of spreading the word about what works in STEM education. And he doesn't think that the administration's new strategy adequately addresses that problem, either. Wolf said the White House has broken its promise to provide a "coordinated and robust strategy for dissemination" and replaced it with a "limited initiative at the Smithsonian Institution that would be funded by eliminating many of the programs whose content was to be disseminated and which would not capture all potential inputs from across the government."
Senate appropriators were equally dismissive of the reorganization. Last week, they approved a massive spending bill covering NIH's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and several other departments that would put the brakes on the administration's plan to dismantle NIH's Office of Science Education and a related grants program supporting informal health science education. "The Committee is not convinced that the quality of these programs would be maintained if they were moved to other Federal agencies," states a report accompanying the spending bill.
The bill also rejects the administration's plans to beef up STEM education at the Education Department. Instead of endorsing a request for $414 million worth of programs under the new umbrella "STEM Innovation," the panel allocates $55 million for STEM innovation networks under an existing program and less than the White House requested for a handful of programs aimed at improving STEM teaching and bolstering online learning. The House has not yet taken up an NIH spending bill.
The proposed STEM reorganization fared best in the two congressional spending panels that fund the Department of Energy (DOE). The House version of the so-called energy and water appropriations bill, approved by the full body on 10 July, states that the spending panel "is still evaluating" the plan. At the same time, it instructs DOE officials to meet with NSF to figure out how to fund a graduate fellowship program in the computer sciences that was put on the chopping block. The Senate counterpart to the bill, which has not gone to the floor, makes no mention of the proposed reorganization.
A U.S. Makeover for STEM Education: What It Means for NSF and the Education Department
A proposed reshuffling of federal STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education programs in the United States would move the Department of Education (ED) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to the head of the class. Their new status would be a major change for the federal government, which now spends nearly $3 billion on 226 STEM education programs run by a dozen agencies.
Many of those programs were created to address a specific problem or at the behest of Congress to serve a specific constituency. However, the resulting fragmentation has hampered efforts to coordinate and assess the impact of the government's investment. The proposed realignment, part of the president's 2014 budget request to Congress, would slice the overall number of programs in half by slashing the education activities of mission agencies such as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institutes of Health.
The
reorganization unveiled last week surprised science educators, legislators, and even other federal officials. While the upcoming debate in Congress is likely to focus on whether some of the programs targeted for elimination should be preserved, the broader issue is the wisdom of creating two executive branch heavyweights in STEM education. Under the proposal, ED would oversee federally funded activities to improve elementary and secondary school science education, while NSF would lead the way in undergraduate and graduate STEM education. (The Smithsonian Institution was given the green light, and $25 million, to expand its activities in informal, or nonclassroom, science education.) The realignment is designed to tap into ED's extensive ties to, and experience working with, local schools as well as NSF's expertise in funding high-quality STEM education activities.
The administration has targeted 78 programs for elimination, and an additional 49 would be consolidated. But it has also proposed 13 new programs, and its 2014 budget request of $3.1 billion for all STEM education activities would be 7% higher than what was spent in 2012. (Figures for 2013 are not yet available).
Yesterday, presidential science adviser John Holdren told the House of Representatives science committee that the reorganization would also "leave intact" programs aimed at attracting underrepresented groups into STEM fields. "There has been a very serious effect to preserve the programs that most leverage the unique assets of the mission agencies, including programs that reach women and other underrepresented groups in STEM," Holdren explained during a hearing on the administration's overall 2014 request for research.
To learn more about the proposed reorganization, ScienceInsider spoke last week with top officials at each agency. Joan Ferrini-Mundy is head of NSF's education directorate, and James Lightbourne oversees graduate education within the directorate. ScienceInsider also exchanged e-mails with Camsie McAdams, ED's senior adviser on STEM education. These interviews have been edited for brevity and clarity.
At NSF:
Q: What does it mean to be a lead agency?
J.F-M.: Being the lead means we have a responsibility to make sure that there is an anchor program in place that takes into account the particular interests and mission of other programs that fall into this category across government. So what we are doing is serving as a focal investment mechanism for the government. These ideas are in place in the budget, but the implementation has yet to be worked out.
Q: Is the additional $89 million that NSF would receive under the president's request devoted to expanding existing NSF programs in the two priority areas?
J.F-M.: The expectation is that we put in place these programs at the graduate and undergraduate level that will be coherent and bigger, to make sure we will be serving a government-wide purpose. The idea is to reach more students and teachers more effectively.
Q: A lot of programs are tied to the mission of a particular agency and make use of tools such as ships or nuclear reactors. How will NSF be successful without access to those facilities?
J.F-M.: Part of the model will be to see what's possible with other agencies regarding the use of those special facilities. It may be that a good place for us to start is with NSF's own centers and facilities. That's another place where we want to be sure that it's part of what is available to them.
J.L.: We've been experimenting with this in the past few years in the Graduate Research Fellowship [GRF] program. The idea is that the fellows will have opportunities through industry or other agencies. A good example is with DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency]. Two years ago they had identified a couple of GRFs who wanted to do an internship at DARPA. Both the students and DARPA benefited.
You're right. We don't have the facilities and expertise to develop those programs. So it's important to work with other agencies.
Q: Since each agency has been assigned a priority area, what NSF programs in K-12 or informal science will be moving to ED or the Smithsonian Institution?
J.F-M.: This budget request contains no significant decrease for programs in those areas. Our intention is to continue with what we've been doing; these are research and development programs that provide the tested, evidence-based models and materials that can be used by others. So they are still crucial pieces of our portfolio.
Q: Doesn't that run counter to the idea of designating a lead agency?
J.F-M.: The details will take shape over the coming months. But there is a strong focus on engagement. The place where that will begin is with engagement of the public at different levels through what the Department of Education and the Smithsonian now do. These agencies are working very closely together, and there are a lot of questions that we will tackle in the coming months.
We've been talking about them within the limits of what we can do prebudget. Now that the budget is out, these conversations will become much more open.
Q: Is it a new role for NSF to take on the missions of other agencies?
J.F-M.: I wouldn't say we're trying to accomplish the missions of other agencies. We're trying to make sure that we have strong programs in place that select and give learning opportunities to students who will be able to succeed in science across a wide range of fields.
At ED:
Q: Will ED be increasing its roster of STEM specialists or will it rely on NSF and the mission agencies to carry out its new role in STEM K-12?
C.M.: In the 2014 budget, ED has proposed an Office of STEM and anticipates hiring additional staff to manage any new programmatic initiatives. But the specific structure is still to be designed. We are relying on strong partnerships with NSF and the mission science agencies and will increase capacity at ED to help manage those relationships and run the new initiatives.
Q: How much more money is ED getting as the leader for STEM K-12?
C.M.: The reorganization resulted in approximately $180 million in redirected funds, split between NSF, Smithsonian, and ED. ED's overall increase reflects a portion of those redirected funds plus proposed new investments in ED's STEM Innovation initiatives (STEM Innovation Networks, STEM Teacher Pathways, STEM Master Teacher Corps, and the STEM Virtual Learning Network).
Q: Is ED ending any programs or activities that now fall under the priority areas to be headed by NSF and SI?
C.M.: ED does not anticipate holding another Teacher Incentive Fund-STEM program in FY '14. The reorganization protects the investments across all agencies that serve underrepresented groups, including ED's investments for minority-serving institutions. We are actively working together with NSF to coordinate our approach on undergraduate STEM education. The delineation of these additional agency roles does not imply that NSF will discontinue its important work on K-12, or that ED would not continue its role in postsecondary STEM education.
Q: Where will the STEM Innovation Networks (STEM-INs) program be housed within the department? What's the projected size of a typical grant? Will the networks be linked in any way to the Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM program?
C.M.: We are determining the appropriate placement for the STEM-INs program pending further discussion and pending appropriation of programmatic funds. The size and term and number of awards are still being developed. We are considering ways to preference the Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM program as a way to increase the impact of both STEM-INs and the ETL:STEM funding, but again, these are design considerations that will be developed through a policy process.
One of the goals of STEM-INs is to prepare students for college-level work, and a postsecondary institution would be a required partner in the STEM-INs partnership structure. Their role is not just to provide alignment to college curricula and expectations for postsecondary study, but also potentially to be a research partner, as the evaluation design component of STEM-INs is critical. We are working very closely with our colleagues at NSF and the other agencies to make sure we have a coherent, targeted approach that serves more teachers, more students, more effectively.
