This bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Title IV) to establish a new, competitive grant program for local educational agencies to design and run K–12 STEM education activities specifically aimed at girls and underrepresented minority students. Grants fund a broad menu of interventions — from classroom materials and teacher professional development to internships and family engagement — intended to increase interest, skills, and persistence in STEM.
The program targets high‑need districts and requires annual reporting to the Department of Education. For leaders in school districts, nonprofit providers, higher education, and workforce partners, the bill creates a focused funding stream and a set of federal expectations around program design, partnerships, and evaluation that will shape local STEM pipelines.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of Education awards competitive grants to eligible local educational agencies to carry out STEM activities for girls and underrepresented minorities. Applications must describe program design, school collaboration, recruitment, instructional components, and partnerships; the Secretary gives selection priority to applicants that partner with organizations experienced in increasing STEM participation.
Who It Affects
Title I local educational agencies that serve high percentages of low‑income students, K–12 girls and underrepresented minority students in those districts, classroom teachers who will receive professional development, and community partners (higher education, nonprofits, employers) that provide programming or internships.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a dedicated federal funding pathway aimed at closing early STEM opportunity gaps in high‑need districts and sets accountability expectations (annual evaluations and pre/post student assessments) that could standardize how districts measure program effectiveness.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates “Part G — Preparing Girls and Underrepresented Minorities for the 21st Century” in Title IV. It directs the Secretary to run a competitive grant program for qualified local educational agencies (LEAs) and sets out both what must be in an application and what activities the grant may support.
Applications must explain the proposed educational program, the research base and models behind it, how elementary and secondary schools will collaborate, recruitment and selection of student participants, instructional and motivational activities, and any planned collaborations with local, regional, or national organizations.
Grant funds may be used for a wide array of STEM‑focused activities. The statute lists tutoring and mentoring, role‑model exposure, teacher professional development on eliminating bias and creating supportive environments, after‑school and summer programs, field trips (including to colleges), purchasing instructional materials and equipment, academic advising for advanced course selection, and paying up to half the cost of STEM internships.
The list is explicitly non‑exhaustive, allowing LEAs some discretion to include other STEM‑related activities they deem appropriate.Eligibility is restricted to “qualified local educational agencies,” defined in the bill as LEAs that receive Title I, Part A funds and serve student bodies that are at least 40 percent eligible for free or reduced price lunch. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis; the Secretary must give priority to applicants that partner, as practicable, with institutions or organizations that have documented experience increasing STEM participation among girls or underrepresented minorities or conducting relevant research.Each award runs four years.
The statute requires recipients to use funds only to supplement, not supplant, non‑Federal funds. Recipients must submit an annual written evaluation within 30 days after the last day of each school year during which they receive grant funds.
That evaluation must describe the program and partnerships, report the percentage of participant time spent in STEM activities, and assess academic progress using student assessments at program entry and exit. The bill also defines “STEM” and authorizes appropriations of $10 million for each fiscal year 2026–2029 to carry out the new part.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Grants are fixed at $250,000 per year and are awarded for four‑year periods (so each award equals $1,000,000 over its term).
Only LEAs that receive Title I, Part A funds and serve populations that are at least 40% eligible for free or reduced price lunch are eligible to apply.
The Secretary must give selection priority to applicants that partner with institutions or organizations that have documented experience increasing STEM participation for girls or underrepresented minorities or conducting relevant research.
The program may pay up to 50% of the cost of a STEM internship for participating female and underrepresented minority students.
Grantee LEAs must submit a written evaluation within 30 days after each school year’s end that includes program description, partnerships, percent of time students spent in STEM activities, and pre/post assessments of participating students.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the “21st Century STEM for Girls and Underrepresented Minorities Act.” This is purely stylistic but signals the program’s focus on gender and racial equity in STEM pipeline development.
Creates a competitive grant program under Title IV
Directs the Secretary of Education to establish and run a competitive grants program that funds LEA‑led STEM activities targeting girls and underrepresented minorities. The Secretary has discretion to run the competition but must begin administering grants within 90 days of enactment. Practically, districts should expect to compete for a limited number of multi‑year awards and to justify how programs align with evidence or proven models.
Application contents and priority for experienced partners
Specifies minimum application elements: program description and evidence base, K–12 collaboration plans, recruitment processes, instructional and motivational content, and partner roles. It requires the Secretary to prioritize applicants that partner with organizations that have demonstrated experience or research expertise in boosting STEM participation among the targeted populations. This creates a clear incentive for LEAs to secure external partners (universities, STEM nonprofits, industry) before applying.
Enumerated allowable activities (broad but prescriptive list)
Lists permitted uses including parental outreach, mentoring/tutoring, role‑model exposure, travel to STEM events and higher‑education institutions, after‑school and summer programs, purchase of instructional materials and equipment, academic advising, internships (up to 50% cost coverage), and teacher professional development on bias and engagement. The list is broad, giving LEAs flexibility, but the statutory specificity signals clear programmatic expectations and audit points for allowable expenditures.
Four‑year awards, supplement-not‑supplant rule, and annual reporting requirements
Sets each award’s duration at four years with annual disbursements defined by statute, imposes a supplement‑not‑supplant constraint to protect local investment in STEM, and requires annual written evaluations within 30 days after the school year ends. Evaluations must describe activities and partnerships, quantify student time spent on STEM, and include pre/post assessments of participating students. These provisions create recurring data and compliance obligations for grantees.
Key statutory definitions and eligibility trigger
Defines STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) and codifies the “qualified local educational agency” standard: receipt of Title I, Part A funds and at least 40% of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch. By tying eligibility to Title I and FRPL thresholds, the statute narrows the applicant pool to higher‑need districts.
Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $10 million per fiscal year for 2026–2029 to carry out the part. The appropriation level determines how many grants can be made and constrains the program’s scale; program managers must reconcile statutory grant size and duration with annual funding availability.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Qualified high‑need LEAs: Districts that meet the Title I and 40% FRPL threshold gain access to a targeted federal funding stream to build multi‑year STEM initiatives without competing in broader discretionary pools.
- Girls and underrepresented minority K–12 students in participating districts: These students gain access to tutoring, mentoring, internships, advanced course advising, and exposure to role models and postsecondary STEM opportunities designed to increase persistence and readiness.
- Teachers and school staff: Staff receive funded professional development focused on eliminating gender and racial bias, classroom engagement strategies, and supporting students toward advanced STEM coursework.
- Higher education, nonprofits, and industry partners: Organizations with STEM outreach and research expertise can capture partnership roles and contract dollars to deliver programming, mentorship, internships, and evaluation support.
- Families of participating students: The bill funds parent education and engagement components intended to mobilize families to support student STEM trajectories and reduce cultural or informational barriers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Non‑qualified LEAs: Districts that do not meet the Title I or 40% FRPL threshold receive no direct access to this funding stream, potentially widening resource gaps between high‑need and moderate‑need districts.
- LEAs’ administrative budgets and staff time: Preparing competitive applications, coordinating partnerships, implementing programs, and producing annual evaluations will require administrative capacity and staff time that the grant may not fully cover.
- Small community organizations without established track records: The selection priority for experienced partners favors established institutions, so smaller or newer community groups may shoulder costs to build credibility or may be excluded from leadership roles.
- Employers and hosts of internships: Because the grant covers up to 50% of internship costs, employers or host sites must contribute the remainder or secure additional funding, which may limit internship availability for some students.
- Federal appropriations (congressional budget): The program’s capacity is limited by a $10 million-per-year authorization, so Congress (and the Department) must make allocation choices that effectively determine program scale.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between concentrated, accountable federal investment and limited scale: the bill focuses resources on a small number of high‑need districts to pilot intensive, evidence‑based interventions, but the authorization and statutory award size limit how many students and communities can benefit—forcing a choice between funding deep, measurable interventions and pursuing broader but shallower reach.
The statute’s structure produces several implementation tensions. First, the combination of a fixed statutory award size ($250,000 per year by statutory text) and a modest annual authorization ($10 million per year) limits the number of districts that can be funded; program designers will need to decide whether to prioritize breadth or depth and how to phase multi‑year awards against annual appropriations.
Second, the bill requires annual evaluations with pre/post student assessments and time‑on‑task metrics, but it does not prescribe standardized measures. That opens the door to inconsistent evaluation approaches across grantees and makes cross‑site comparison difficult unless the Department issues detailed guidance.
Other unresolved questions include operational definitions and implementation choices the statute leaves unspecified. The bill does not define “underrepresented minorities,” so LEAs and the Secretary will have to settle on local or federal definitions for targeting and reporting.
The professional development content called for (eliminating gender and racial bias, sensitivity training) is programmatically important but legally and politically sensitive in some local contexts; the statute does not set curriculum standards, leaving districts to balance community expectations with evidence‑based practice. Finally, the supplement‑not‑supplant rule protects local funding but may complicate budgeting: districts must document that grant dollars add to existing STEM investments rather than replace them, a potentially heavy audit burden for cash‑strapped administrations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.