By Della Cronin

Since the beginning of the year, STEM education advocates have been hopeful that the Trump Administration might take up their cause.  There were encouraging signs from the start.  Presidential Adviser Ivanka Trump participated in several events where she talked about the importance of STEM disciplines and early engagement in them—particularly for girls. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos hosted more than one event that focused on STEM education and its place in K-12 education.  The First Lady visited a school and saw STEM activities firsthand, and even President Donald Trump talked about the issue publicly.  All of this attention was building up to a September 25th White House announcement that the President would direct the Department of Education (ED) to invest at least $200 million annually in STEM and computer science education.  The announcement was amplified the very next day at an event that hosted many leaders of the country’s technology companies.  At that event, companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft unveiled a $300 million commitment to K-12 computer science education. And then, to round out the announcements and celebrations, Ivanka Trump visited a school to see students participate in STEM and computer science activities.  It seems as though the Administration has identified an education issue it cares about and has created some policy to support it.

While the fanfare surrounding the announcement was considerable, the details of the announcement were scant.  The Department of Education will have weeks (and maybe months) to identify competitive grant programs that can contribute to the $200 million effort and to develop guidance for would-be applicants.  The awards will reportedly focus—at least in part—on professional development opportunities for classroom teachers in order to get the skills that are in demand in the workforce to students in the classrooms.  There will also be an emphasis on reaching girls and diverse students.  This policy and its roll out will be watched closely by NCTM and others.

In addition to this new policy, the education community is watching the ED’s review and approval of state-submitted plans to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  All states have now submitted plans and reviewers will be getting feedback to states as soon as possible.  (ED is keeping track of approvals here.)  The STEM Education Coalition recently held a briefing on Capitol Hill to talk about those plans and their content.  Some states have elements that are encouraging to math educators—detailed plans for assessing and report mathematics achievement in various ways.  In addition, some states have interesting plans for using after school programs to reinforce math and other STEM classroom instruction.  Education First has been examining plans and analyzing their STEM elements; their work is available here.

As for the spending debate on Capitol Hill that is so important to NCTM, it has reached a pause of sorts.  When President Trump struck a deal with Hill Democrats on the country’s debt ceiling and an initial investment in disaster relief, he also delayed the deadline for action on federal spending bills until December 8th. While the House has passed all of its spending bills, the Senate hasn’t.  The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending plan looks very different in the two chambers.  The House-passed bill guts the over $2 billion invested in professional development for educators; the Senate plan maintains this crucial investment.  In addition, the Senate bill proposes a modest increase to the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant program that NCTM has weighed in on with lawmakers.  While neither bill is perfect, the Senate bill largely ignores the devastating cuts to education proposed by President Trump earlier this year.  There will have to be negotiations between the House and Senate before December, and NCTM will be hoping for more overall funds for education, along with the rest of the education advocacy community.  NCTM will also be telling lawmakers exactly why they must adequately invest in programs crucial to math teachers and the programs that prepare them.