The bill instructs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to run a merit-reviewed, competitive grant program that funds research and development to modernize K–12 mathematics through mathematical and statistical modeling, data science, computational thinking, and project-based learning. Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations (and consortia), and the program emphasizes partnerships with local educational agencies, outreach to rural and underrepresented communities, and explicit plans for educator professional learning and curriculum innovation.
The statute also directs an independent study (via NASEM or a comparable entity) to map barriers and best practices for modeling education, requires outcome-oriented evaluations and annual reporting by grant recipients, and authorizes finite funding across fiscal years 2026–2030 with the authority to award grants expiring September 30, 2029. For education leaders, curriculum vendors, and workforce stakeholders, the bill creates a small, targeted federal lever to change what counts as school mathematics and seed models for scalable teacher preparation and district-level adoption.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes the NSF Directorate for STEM Education to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants to IHEs and nonprofits for R&D and professional development that embed mathematical and statistical modeling into K–12 education. It also commissions a NASEM study to analyze barriers and pathways for implementing modeling education.
Who It Affects
Teacher-preparation programs, K–12 districts (including rural and Tribal agencies), curriculum developers and ed‑tech vendors, NSF researchers, and employers looking for data-literate entry-level talent. Grants target projects that partner with local educational agencies and recruit students from underrepresented groups.
Why It Matters
The bill signals a federal R&D priority to shift classroom math toward data-driven, applied skills rather than only procedural fluency. Although funding is modest, the program is designed to produce tested models, educator resources, and evaluative tools that could influence state and district practices and create new markets for curriculum and training providers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core of the bill is a grant program run by the NSF Director through the Directorate for STEM Education. The program makes merit-reviewed awards to institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations — either alone or in consortium with local educational agencies — to develop and study approaches that teach mathematical and statistical modeling in public schools.
Applicants are encouraged to form sustained partnerships that bridge critical transitions (middle-to-high school, high-school-to-college, and school-to-work) and to design communications and resources for parents, school boards, and community stakeholders.
Applications must explain who will be served (with explicit reference to ESEA subgroups, students experiencing homelessness, and youth in foster care), the recruitment and selection process, and how the activity will improve engagement and achievement among students historically underrepresented in STEM. The statute lists a range of allowable activities: professional learning for pre-K–12 educators, research on curricula and teaching practices that let students choose tools and approaches, use of messy real-world datasets (missing values, multiple data types, large volumes), transdisciplinary and community-based projects, and mechanisms to connect educators and students with employers and Federal labs.Awardees must include evaluation plans using outcome-oriented measures; recipients must report annual and final results.
The Director must conduct a portfolio-level evaluation using common benchmarks to surface best practices and, within 180 days after that evaluation, produce a public report to Congress with findings and recommendations. Separately, the bill directs the NSF to contract with NASEM (or a substitute) for a two-year study on barriers and best practices for implementing modeling education, including at least one public stakeholder meeting.The statute authorizes multi‑year funding for both the grant program and the study but constrains the program with a sunset provision: the authority to make awards terminates on September 30, 2029.
The law also ties funding to amounts appropriated to NSF, so actual activity will depend on appropriations and NSF prioritization. Operationally, the program is structured as a classic federal R&D prize: relatively small, competitive awards intended to generate evidence, resources, and scalable practices rather than to underwrite system‑wide deployment on day one.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The NSF Director must award merit-reviewed, competitive grants to institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations (or consortia) to advance K–12 mathematical and statistical modeling education.
Applications must identify target populations including ESEA subgroups, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, and describe recruitment, selection, and equity plans.
Grant funds may be used for professional learning, pre-service and in-service training, curriculum R&D, community-based projects using messy real-world datasets, and partnerships with Federal labs or industry.
Every proposal must include an outcome-oriented evaluation plan; recipients must submit evaluative results in annual and final reports and the Director will perform a portfolio evaluation and report to Congress.
The bill authorizes $10,000,000 per year for FY2026–2030 for the grant program, $1,000,000 per year for FY2026–2030 for the NASEM study, and sunsets the authority to award grants on September 30, 2029.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the act’s short title as the “Mathematical and Statistical Modeling Education Act.” This is a naming provision only, but it signals the bill’s focus on integrating mathematical and statistical modeling into K–12 STEM education.
Findings and definitions
Lists congressional findings about workforce demand, the importance of data science and computational thinking, and international comparative concerns; establishes key definitions used later (Director = NSF Director, mathematical modeling, statistical modeling, STEM, Federal laboratory). These definitions anchor the program’s scope, especially by referencing GAIMME and GAISE II guidance for modeling and statistics, which steers grant evaluation toward recognized disciplinary frameworks.
NSF grant program: eligibility, partnerships, and allowable activities
Authorizes merit-reviewed awards to IHEs and nonprofits, encourages sustained partnerships with local educational agencies (including Tribal and rural agencies), and requires assurances from school leaders about implementation priority. The statute provides a long menu of allowable activities—professional learning, curriculum research, real-data projects that include missing/heterogeneous data, transdisciplinary teaching, internships, industry and Federal lab placements, and explicit supports for students historically underrepresented in STEM—giving applicants latitude to propose both research and scalable capacity-building strategies.
Evaluation, reporting, and funding authorization
Requires each proposal to include an evaluation plan with outcome-oriented measures; mandates annual and final reporting of evaluative results; directs the Director to perform a portfolio evaluation using common benchmarks and to publish findings and recommendations to Congress within 180 days of that evaluation’s completion. Authorizes specific amounts for FY2026–2030 for program administration and ties availability to NSF appropriations; includes a statutory sunset for award authority (Sept. 30, 2029).
NASEM study on implementation barriers and pathways
Directs the NSF Director to seek an agreement with NASEM (or an alternative) to study factors that help or hinder implementation of modeling education K–12, teacher-prep program characteristics, and stakeholder communication mechanisms; requires at least one public stakeholder meeting and a final report with recommendations within 24 months of the agreement. This provision is designed to generate an independent evidence base and actionable recommendations for policy and practice.
Funding limits and sunset
Clarifies that funds must come from amounts appropriated to NSF and reiterates the sunset that ends the authority to make awards on September 30, 2029. This ties the program to annual appropriations and limits the statutory window for grant-making, creating a finite test period for R&D investments.
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
- K–12 students (especially those historically underrepresented in STEM): The bill funds curricula and projects using real-world data and supports programs designed to increase engagement and access to modeling experiences, with explicit outreach requirements for disadvantaged groups.
- Pre‑service and in‑service teachers and teacher‑preparation programs: Grants support professional learning, mentoring, and resources to build capacity for teaching modeling, creating career-long training pipelines and stronger practicum links with industry and Federal labs.
- Curriculum developers and ed‑tech vendors: The statute creates demand for modeling-centered instructional materials, assessment rubrics, data sets, and computation tools that are classroom-ready and aligned to the GAIMME/GAISE frameworks.
- Local educational agencies (including rural and Tribal schools): Encouraged partnerships and targeted engagement create opportunities for district-level capacity building, hands-on training, and connections to employers and research institutions.
- Employers, industry partners, and Federal labs: Firms and labs gain structured mechanisms to partner with schools and colleges, helping develop a pipeline of students with applied data and modeling skills relevant to the workforce.
Who Bears the Cost
- NSF and federal budget-makers: NSF must allocate appropriations to implement the program and manage evaluations, potentially diverting funds from other STEM priorities unless additional appropriations are provided.
- Institutions of higher education and nonprofits: Applicants will incur proposal-development costs and, if awarded, must run rigorous evaluations and partnerships — activities that require administrative capacity and staff time.
- Local school leaders and districts: Schools that partner must commit leadership time, prioritize proposed reforms, provide teacher release time for PD, and may need to invest in hardware/software or local staffing to implement projects.
- Teachers: Participation requires time for professional learning and adapting curricula; without substitute coverage or compensation, PD participation represents a labor and time cost.
- Small and resource-constrained districts: Even though engagement is encouraged, smaller districts may lack the grant-writing and implementation capacity to compete effectively, risking uneven access to program benefits.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a modest, competitive federal R&D program can both produce rigorous, generalizable models for classroom modernization and, at the same time, expand equitable access to those innovations: prioritizing experimentation and evidence risks concentrating benefits among capable partners, while prioritizing broad access risks diluting research rigor and the clarity of evidence needed to scale effective practices.
The bill sets an ambitious agenda—modernizing mathematics toward modeling and data literacy—while allocating modest, time-limited funding and tying activity to competitive grants. That design favors demonstration projects and knowledge generation over immediate system-wide change; it therefore places heavy weight on the selection process and on NSF’s ability to identify scalable pilots.
Measuring success will be difficult: outcome-oriented measures are required, but modeling skills are complex to assess reliably across grades and contexts, and the statute does not prescribe standardized metrics.
Another tension concerns equity versus capacity. The bill repeatedly emphasizes students historically underrepresented in STEM and lists specific subgroups for inclusion, but competitive grant models often benefit institutions and districts with pre-existing grant-writing and evaluation expertise.
Without intentional set-asides or technical assistance, the projects that are easiest to fund may not be those best suited to close access gaps. Finally, partnerships with industry and Federal labs can accelerate relevance and provide resources, but they raise questions about who shapes curricular choices and whether private-sector engagement will steer projects toward specific tools or vendors rather than pedagogical goals.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.