Federal STEM education policy in flux: What it means for afterschool and informal STEM learning

By Della Cronin, Principal, Bose Public Affairs Group.

The federal STEM education landscape is entering a period of significant transition and uncertainty. For advocates of afterschool and informal science education, the current moment is defined by shifting National Science Foundation (NSF) priorities, constrained federal budgets, and evolving interagency coordination mechanisms that may reshape how programs are funded and implemented.

At the center of this transition is the NSF, long considered the backbone of federal investment in informal STEM learning. For decades, programs like Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) provided critical support for museums, science centers, afterschool programs, and community-based organizations working to broaden participation in STEM. AISL-funded projects focused on public engagement, science communication, and community-based learning—areas often underserved by traditional K–12 systems.

Recent policy shifts have disrupted that ecosystem. The NSF has archived AISL and consolidated it (along with several other programs) into a new, broader STEM K–12 funding initiative. While this new program still includes both formal and informal learning contexts, it represents a structural change that leaves many in the informal STEM community uncertain about future funding streams, priorities, and access. The new program is expected to fund fewer projects at smaller award levels, raising concerns about whether large-scale, community-based informal learning initiatives will continue to receive robust support.

This uncertainty is compounded by broader federal budget pressures. Recent NSF budget proposals have included significant cuts to STEM education funding overall, including proposals to dramatically reduce or restructure the agency’s Directorate for STEM Education. For afterschool providers, who often rely on partnerships with NSF-funded institutions like universities and science centers, these reductions could have cascading effects which would limit access to curriculum innovation, evaluation research, and professional development.

Programs like Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST), which have historically supported out-of-school STEM pathways and workforce development, are also caught in this moment of transition. While not eliminated, ITEST and similar initiatives are increasingly being reframed through the lens of workforce alignment, emerging technologies, and artificial intelligence (AI) readiness. This shift may benefit some programs, but it also risks narrowing the scope of informal STEM education to workforce outcomes rather than broader goals like curiosity, engagement, and equity.

Indeed, one of the clearest signals from federal policymakers is the growing emphasis on AI. NSF has made AI education a priority across multiple initiatives, including new funding opportunities and Dear Colleague Letters aimed at expanding K–12 AI learning and workforce pathways. The agency is actively encouraging projects that integrate AI into both formal and informal learning environments, signaling that future investments will likely favor programs aligned with emerging technologies and national competitiveness goals.

While this emphasis creates opportunities—particularly for afterschool programs that can adapt quickly and offer hands-on, exploratory learning—it also introduces new challenges. Smaller community-based organizations may struggle to compete for funding in highly technical areas like AI, especially if grant criteria prioritize research capacity or institutional partnerships over community engagement. There is also concern that a strong focus on AI could crowd out funding for other important areas of STEM learning, including environmental science, engineering design, and basic science literacy.

Overlaying these programmatic shifts is a broader climate of fiscal constraint and policy uncertainty. Advocates are currently awaiting the White House’s FY 2027 budget request, but expectations for significant increases in education funding are low. In recent cycles, flat or reduced funding has become the norm, forcing agencies and programs to do more with less.

At the same time, new interagency agreements—intended to better coordinate STEM education efforts across federal agencies—are raising concerns among stakeholders. While coordination has long been a goal of federal STEM policy, advocates worry that these agreements may reduce transparency in how funds are allocated and programs are implemented. In particular, there is uncertainty about how key programs, such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) and Title IV, Part A, will be administered under these new frameworks. These programs are critical to afterschool and informal STEM education, providing flexible funding that supports enrichment activities, including STEM programming, in communities across the country.

The stakes are high. Afterschool and informal STEM programs play a unique role in the broader STEM ecosystem: they engage students who may not thrive in traditional classrooms, provide early exposure to STEM careers, and help build inclusive pathways into the workforce. Federal policy decisions made today—about funding structures, program priorities, and interagency coordination—will shape whether these programs can continue to serve that role effectively.

In the months ahead, the field will be watching closely. Will NSF’s new funding structures maintain a meaningful commitment to informal STEM learning? Will AI-focused investments broaden participation or inadvertently narrow it? And will federal agencies implement new coordination mechanisms in ways that are transparent and responsive to the needs of communities?

For now, uncertainty remains the defining feature of STEM education policy. For afterschool advocates, the challenge is to ensure that informal STEM learning remains a central, not peripheral, part of the national STEM agenda.