Democrats and Republicans in both houses of the Congress showed a rare moment of bi-partisanship late last week, passing a bill to increase American competitiveness in math and science education.

The bill, which passed in the House by a vote of 367-57, and in the Senate unanimously, would cost slightly over $14 billion a year for each of the next three years if fully funded, though much of that money would be spent on research programs in technology, energy, and other areas and not on K-12 or college students directly. That portion which is targeted at students is set aside mostly for expanding existing programs such as the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, which provides grants to college students majoring in math and science who agree to teach in high-need areas upon graduation. The bill also contains significant recommendations to fund some new programs aimed at recruiting low-income and minority students to enter the math and science fields.

Members from both parties fully anticipate the president to sign the bill, which has been titled the "21st Century Competitiveness Act". It should be noted that while the bill authorizes new spending on new federal math and science programs, the money to pay for those programs will only actually come if it is appropriated during the budgeting process. If the law were to be fully funded, two new programs that would receive support are a $150 million program to encourage more undergraduates to pursue degrees in math and science and a $125 million investment in a similar program aimed at expanding masters degrees in both fields.

The strong support across both parties on the bill is in marked contrast to what is anticipated to be a very contentious process for re-authorizing No Child Left Behind, the President's signature education law. The reason why the competitiveness act was passed with such ease owes largely to two basic causes. First, the law is not perceived as a major federal intrusion into the way local districts and states run schools (instead it issues block grants to universities and scholarships to individual college-going students). As such, local and states rights proponents haven't risen with any objections. Second, the notion of international competitiveness seems to be very much en vogue right now, as has occurred in cyclical pattern throughout American history. Only time will tell if there is enough political will--and money--for our nation's leaders to renew their focus on educational equity as well when NCLB comes to the table.