PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 29, 2000
Recruit and Reward Future Math and Science Teachers of America Act of 2000 - Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish a pilot program for recruitment and training of future secondary school mathematics and science teachers.Makes available 500 scholarship grants and stipends to outstanding students enrolled in nationally accredited teacher training graduate programs who are committed to pursuing such careers in secondary school mathematics and science teaching.Authorizes appropriations. Designates funds under this Act as National Math and Science Teacher Scholarships. Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award funds for such scholarships on a competitive basis to qualifying higher education institutions with graduate programs in teacher training. Limits the amount of such funds in any academic year which may be awarded to any individual higher education institution.Makes an institution eligible for such funds only if it is ranked by the Secretary in the top 25 percent of schools in its State with the highest percentage of graduates passing the State teacher qualification assessment for new teachers. Directs the Secretary to give priority to eligible institutions that have one or more of these: (1) a year-long internship program in a professional development school; (2) mentoring programs for novice teachers in their first three years; (3) a history of placing graduates in rural and urban schools; and (4) a high retention rate of teachers that the institution places in teaching positions.Sets forth eligibility requirements for individual scholarships. Limits the scholarship amount per student to $10,000 per academic year. Requires scholarship recipients to agree to teach in an urban or rural public secondary school for at least three full academic years, or repay the pro rata amount of awards received, plus interest, for any failure to fulfill such obligation. Sets forth exceptions to such repayment requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Allen, Thomas H. [D-ME-1] · D–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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: Aug 20, 2025. 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.3702 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.3702 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.3702 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.3702 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.