PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 10, 2011
Statistics Teaching, Aptitude, and Training Act of 2011 or STAT Act of 2011 - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to award formula grants to states and, through them, competitive subgrants to eligible partnerships to: (1) establish or enhance teacher training in statistics education; and (2) develop more rigorous statistics education curricula that are aligned with challenging state academic content and achievement standards in statistics, and integrate statistics in the teaching of other courses.
Defines an "eligible partnership" as a partnership between a local educational agency (LEA) and one or more of the following: (1) an institution of higher education (IHE), (2) another LEA, (3) a public elementary or secondary school or schools, or (4) a government statistical agency experienced in improving the quality of statistics teachers.
Requires partnership activities to be consistent with a statistical literacy plan that each state is required to develop and have approved by the Secretary of Education before receiving its formula grant. Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive grants to states that lack the resources to develop an adequate plan so that they can do so.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive grants to IHEs, governmental statistical agencies, or nonprofit organizations to: (1) develop model state standards and curriculum frameworks for statistics education, (2) disseminate information about proven and tested model statistics education programs that integrate statistics in other studies, (3) develop and implement new policy approaches to advancing statistics education, (4) conduct national statistics education studies, and (5) advance the widespread adoption by states and LEAs of statistics education content standards.
People & committees
Rep. Loebsack, David [D-IA-2] · D–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1817 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1817 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1817 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1817 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.