PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 6, 2011
Preparing Students for Success in the Global Economy Act of 2011 - Directs the Secretary of Education to allot formula grants to states and, through them, award competitive subgrants to high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) or educational service agencies serving such LEAs to improve preschool and elementary and secondary school science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.
Allots such grants to states pursuant to a formula that takes into account each state's share of elementary and secondary school students and each state's share of such students who are impoverished.
Awards the grants to states on a competitive basis if this Act's funding falls below a specified amount. Authorizes the Secretary to award capacity-building grants to states to help them qualify for competitive grants.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires subgrants to be used for activities that include: (1) recruiting, supporting, evaluating, and training STEM teachers; (2) developing and improving high-quality STEM curricula and instructional supports to improve student achievement in those subjects; and (3) integrating STEM instruction with instruction in reading, English language arts, or other academic subjects.
Authorizes states to require subgrantees to obtain a commitment from one or more outside partners to match, from nonfederal funds, a portion of the subgrant funds.
Directs the Secretary to award competitive grants to partnerships between states or LEAs and outside entities experienced in improving the effectiveness or retention of STEM teachers, to establish and operate STEM master teacher corps programs.
Requires the partnerships to: (1) select a group of highly-rated STEM teachers to serve as corps members in high-need schools; (2) provide corps members with instructional leadership responsibilities, research-based training, and a salary supplement; and (3) build a community of practice among corps members.
Directs the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, to establish performance metrics and use those metrics to evaluate this Act's programs and identify best practices to improve STEM instruction.
People & committees
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
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 14, 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 S.1675 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 S.1675 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 S.1675 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 S.1675 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.