Scaling and Sustaining Pre-K-12 STEM Education Innovations: Systemic Challenges, Systemic Responses (2025)
Chapter: Front Matter
Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation (49100423C0013). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72602-3
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-72602-6
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27950
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025932293
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Scaling and Sustaining Pre-K–12 STEM Education Innovations: Systemic Challenges, Systemic Responses. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27950.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON PRE-K–12 STEM EDUCATION INNOVATIONS
CHRISTINE M. MASSEY (Chair), Senior Researcher, University of California, Los Angeles
HYMAN BASS,1 Samuel Eilenberg Distinguished University Professor of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, University of Michigan
JASON T. BLACK, Associate Professor in Business Information Systems, Florida A&M University
TINA CHEUK, Assistant Professor of Elementary Science Education, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
CHRISTINE M. CUNNINGHAM, Senior Vice President of STEM Learning, Museum of Science in Boston
XIMENA DOMINGUEZ, Executive Director of Learning Sciences and Early Learning Research, Digital Promise
KARA JACKSON, Professor of Mathematics Education, University of Washington, Seattle
AMERY D. MARTINEZ, CTE Curriculum Specialist, Denver Public Schools, Colorado
KRISTEN D. MCKINNEY, Innovation Coach, Sedalia 200 School District, Missouri
MEIXI, Assistant Professor in Comparative Education and International Development, University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
THOMAS T. PETERS, Executive Director, South Carolina’s Coalition for Mathematics & Science, Clemson University
ANTHONY J. PETROSINO, JR., Associate Dean for Research and Outreach, Professor of Learning Sciences, Southern Methodist University
ROBERT J. SEMPER, Chief Learning Officer, Exploratorium
MIRAY TEKKUMRU-KISA, Senior Policy Researcher, RAND
MARCELO AARON BONILLA WORSLEY, Associate Professor of Computer Science and Learning Sciences, Northwestern University
Study Staff
AMY STEPHENS, Study Director, Associate Board Director
AUDREY WEBB, Program Officer
SAMUEL CRAWFORD, Research Associate (as of December 18, 2023)
BRITTANI SHORTER, Senior Program Assistant
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Board Director
___________________
1 Member of the National Academy of Sciences
BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
SUSAN R. SINGER (Chair), President, St. Olaf College
SUE ALLEN, Deputy Director, Clean Conferencing Institute
MEGAN BANG, Professor of Learning Sciences and Psychology, Northwestern University
VICKI L. CHANDLER, Provost, Minerva Schools at Keck Graduate Institute
KIRSTEN ELLENBOGEN, President and CEO, Great Lakes Science Center
MAYA M. GARCIA, Chief Program Officer, Beyond100K
DAVID GOLDSTON, Director, MIT Washington Office
G. PETER LEPAGE, Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Cornell University
WILLIAM PENUEL, Professor of Learning Sciences and Human Development, University of Colorado Boulder
STEPHEN L. PRUITT, President, Southern Regional Education Board
K. RENAE PULLEN, K–6 Science Curriculum Instructional Specialist, Caddo Parish Schools, Louisiana
K. ANN RENNINGER, Dorwin P. Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action, Swarthmore College
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, Chancellor, Los Angeles Community College District
MARCY H. TOWNS, Bodner-Honig Professor of Chemistry, Purdue University
DARRYL N. WILLIAMS, Senior Vice President, Science and Education, The Franklin Institute
Study Staff
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Senior Board Director
AMY STEPHENS, Associate Board Director
MARGARET KELLY, Senior Program Coordinator
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by SUZANNE M. WILSON, University of Connecticut, and ENRIQUETA C. BOND, Burroughs Wellcome Fund. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Acknowledgments
The Committee on Pre-K–12 STEM Education Innovations faced a monumental charge mandated by Section 10311 of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 to study the interrelated factors that foster or hinder the widespread implementation of promising science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education practices, programs, models, and technologies. Through a contract with the National Science Foundation (NSF), the committee embarked on the project with the goal of making recommendations to various federal, state, and local educational agencies, programs, and other relevant stakeholders to address pervasive systematic barriers. Considering the breadth of the task, this report represents the work of thousands of people in numerous roles and contexts within and adjacent to STEM education.
This congressionally mandated study would not have been possible without sponsorship from NSF, and we would like to thank both our technical point of contract, Margret Hjalmarson, and our contracting officer’s representative, Sarah-Kathryn McDonald, for working so diligently to ensure that this project ran smoothly. And a special thanks to Margret for her participation during many of our open sessions and providing any necessary insights along the way.
We also would like to extend thanks to the congressional staffers from both the Democratic and Republican House Science Space and Technology Committee who recognized the importance of equitable access to high-quality STEM education and included this study within the scope of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.
The committee benefited from the expertise of dozens of individuals, most of whom have made STEM education their lives’ work, who presented at one of three information gathering meetings.
- The goal of the first committee meeting in September 2023 was to clarify the statement of task as well as the kinds of recommendations that would be most useful to the entities specifically called out in the charge. We thank the following individuals for their participation: Patti Curtis (U.S. Department of Education), Margret Hjalmarson (NSF), Cate Jonson (House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Research and Technology Subcommittee, Republican), Victoria Rubin (House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Republican), and Dahlia Sokolov (House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Democratic).
- The goal of the second committee meeting in December 2023 was to consider impact, opportunities, and barriers to implementation across contexts. The committee extends thanks to: Jeremy Babendure (SciTech), Pam Buffington (Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands), Alice Klein (WestEd), Calvin Mackie (STEM NOLA), Lee Meadows (Alabama STEM Advisory Council), Kathy Perkins (PhET Simulations), Katie Rich (Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest), Julie Riordan (Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands), Prentice Starkey (WestEd), Michael Vargas (Arizona STEM Acceleration Project), and Jeff Weld (Iowa STEM Advisory Council).
- The goal of the entirely virtual third committee meeting in February 2024 was to highlight the needs of both in-service and preservice STEM teachers, as well as those of certain student populations, that need to be considered when designing and implementing innovations for STEM education. The committee wishes to thank: Jody Bintz (BSCS Science Learning), Laura Booker (Tennessee Education Research Alliance), Kathy DeerInWater (American Indian Science and Engineering Society), Megan Franke (University of California Los Angeles), Richard Ingersoll (University of Pennsylvania), Michael Marder (University of Texas at Austin), Gina Svarovsky (Notre Dame University), Jonte Taylor (Pennsylvania State University), Karen Thompson (Oregon State University), and Chris Wilson (BSCS Science Learning).
The Education Development Center (EDC) was tasked with identifying and reviewing promising, evidence-based Pre-K–12 STEM education programs that have scaled and demonstrated evidence of impact. The committee is immensely grateful for the work that they were able to accomplish
in such a brief period of time. We would like to thank Andres Henriquez for his enthusiasm to engage with us about this project from the beginning and Rebecca Lewis for her management of the project at EDC. A special thank you goes out to her team, which included Jennifer Jocz, Madelyn Johnson, and Erin Stafford. Thank you for your time, patience, promptness in responding to committee (and staff) queries, and hard work.
The committee also sends endless gratitude to the authors of several commissioned papers that form part of the body of this work: Sarah L. Woulfin, Daniel Dawer, Lauren McKenzie, and Michaela Pernetti from the University of Texas at Austin; Lori Connors-Tadros and GG Weisenfeld from the National Institute for Early Education Research; and Sadhana Puntambekar from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Lastly, special thanks are due to the staff of this project who worked together to support the committee in coming to consensus and ushered the report through all its iterations into its current form. Amy Stephens, associate board director for the Board on Science Education (BOSE), directed the study and played a key role throughout the entire study process. Audrey Webb, program officer for BOSE, and Samuel (Niko) Crawford, research associate with BOSE, provided critical assistance through the project. Brittani Shorter, senior program assistant with BOSE, managed the study’s logistical and administrative needs. Heidi Schweingruber, director of BOSE, provided thoughtful advice and many helpful suggestions throughout the entire study.
Staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education also provided help: Laura Yoder substantially improved the readability of the report; Kirsten Sampson Snyder expertly guided the report through the report review process; and Bea Porter masterfully guided the report through production. The committee also wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Anne Marie Houppert in the National Academies Research Center for assistance with conducting literature searches.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
MAJOR FEATURES OF THE CURRENT CONTEXT
2 Landscape of STEM Education Learning Opportunities: Federal, State, Local, and Regional Roles
MAPPING THE STRUCTURE OF U.S. EDUCATION SYSTEM
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CURRENT STEM EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES
ROLE OF STATES IN PRE-K–12 STEM EDUCATION
ANNEX 2-1: TRACKED COSTEM FEDERAL PRE-K–12 STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS
3 History of Federal and National STEM Education Improvement Efforts
LAUNCH OF SPUTNIK TO A NATION AT RISK (1958–1983)
FROM A NATION AT RISK TO NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (1983–2001)
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND TO THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (2001–2015)
FROM EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT TO NOW: THE CURRENT STATE OF STEM EDUCATION (2015–PRESENT)
4 Approaches to Scaling and Sustaining Innovations
CONCEPTUALIZING SCALE AS MULTIDIMENSIONAL
5 Navigating the Landscape of STEM Innovation and Implementation
THE INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE
THE INNOVATION IMPLEMENTATION LANDSCAPE
NEGOTIATING THE TERRAIN BETWEEN THE LANDSCAPES OF INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
6 Technology in STEM Education and the Emerging Frontier
TECHNOLOGIES DESIGNED TO SUPPORT STEM LEARNING AND TEACHING
EMERGING FRONTIERS: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN EDUCATION
CLOSING DIGITAL DIVIDES AND CREATING EQUITABLE STEM LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL STUDENTS
MANAGING THE RAPID PACE OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION
7 Promising Pre-K–12 STEM Education Innovations
IDENTIFYING PROMISING PRE-K–12 STEM INNOVATIONS
INNOVATION-LEVEL FACTORS THAT SUPPORT SCALING
CHALLENGES TO SCALING PROMISING INNOVATIONS
8 Enabling and Constraining Factors and the Need for System Change
ENABLING AND CONSTRAINING FACTORS
AFFORDANCES OF RESILIENT SYSTEMS
9 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Research Agenda
This page intentionally left blank.
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
2-1 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
2-2 ESSA Funds: Categories, Calculations, and Flow-Through
2-3 Institute of Education Sciences Authorizing Legislation, Role and Responsibilities
2-5 National Science Foundation (NSF)
2-6 Teaching Institute for Exemplary STEM (TIES)
2-7 State STEM Ecosystem Functions
3-1 History of Goals for the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Program
3-2 Race to the Top (RTTT) Program
4-2 Tennessee Math Coaching Project
4-4 Ambitious Science Teaching Networked Improvement Community (AST NIC)
6-1 Recommendations on AI and the Future of Teaching and Learning
7-1 Strategic CSforALL Resource & Implementation Planning Tool (SCRIPT)
7-2 IRCEDE STEM for Our Youngest Learners
7-3 Beauty and Joy of Computing (BJC)
7-4 Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA)
7-5 Making Sense of SCIENCE (MSS)
7-8 Exploratorium California K–12 Science Leader Network
FIGURES
2-1 The nested ecology of STEM policy actors
3-1 Statewide Systems Initiatives (SSI) activities
3-2 Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) model
8-1 Aligning factors across the system to enable scaling and sustaining innovations
TABLES
2-2-1 Competitive Assessment Grants
5-1 STEM Investments across Federal Agencies
6-1 Technologies to Support Learning and Teaching
7-1 Nominated Innovations by Domain and Grade Band
7-2 Nominated Innovations by Audience
8-1 Considerations Related to Scaling and Sustaining Innovations
B-1 Individual Programs Invited to Self-Nominate
Preface
For many decades, the United States has been a deep wellspring for creative design, insightful research, practical wisdom, and persistent ingenuity aimed at innovations to improve learning and teaching in science, technology, education, and mathematics (STEM)-related fields. At the same time, only a limited number of students routinely experience the benefits of many of these efforts. What do we need to understand and what actions should we undertake in order to activate the best of what has been discovered and created to improve STEM education for all students in the United States? This is at the heart of the charge that was given to our consensus committee under a congressional mandate within the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. Our committee was charged with assembling a compendium of successful evidence-based education practices, models, programs, and technologies, and identifying the state of evidence on the interconnected factors that foster and hinder their capacity for widespread and sustained implementation. In doing this work, we were to consider the full range of STEM-related disciplines across all grade bands from preschool through the end of high school and at all levels of the educational system, from local classrooms through national policies.
Given the scale and complexity of public education in the United States, this was a daunting undertaking, but we consistently found inspiration in reminders of what is at stake. The shining promise of public education in the United States is that every child will have the opportunity to learn about the world around them and to participate in the remarkable human enterprise of invention and discovery, to cultivate their own interests and talents, and to prepare for a productive future as a community member and citizen.
This promise is intended for all children, whether they are naturally drawn to STEM fields or need some encouragement to approach them, whether their ambitions are customary or uncommon in their setting, and whether their families and communities are prosperous or struggling. Thus, first and foremost, our inspiration was serving children and youth, from early childhood through the threshold of adulthood.
We also drew inspiration from the many enthusiastic, creative, and dedicated innovators and designers who have made a deep study of STEM teaching and learning and have pioneered new approaches and resources. In addition to reviewing their published work and publicly accessible resources, we also communicated directly with researchers and developers through correspondence, interviews, and in-person presentations at our committee’s open sessions. We gained insights from their reflections on how they have sustained their efforts, often in the face of unexpected obstacles, and forged new pathways to develop and expand their projects and to adapt them to new settings and participants. For many, these efforts have been their life’s work, and it was our privilege to learn from the full arc of their experience.
We were equally inspired by hardworking, resourceful educational leaders and teachers who are deeply committed to enhancing their professional practice and bringing new and better learning opportunities to all of the students under their care. No one knows more than teachers and educational leaders about the myriad challenges posed by the hard work of providing high-quality STEM education to all students. And yet many of them remain eager to explore new STEM education innovations, put them into practice, and figure out how to make them even better.
They are also joined in this work by people who stand outside the formal education system but who share a compelling vision for advancing opportunities for young people to become engaged in programs and activities related to STEM and to deepen and broaden the kinds of learning experiences available to them. Champions from local communities and businesses, museums and science centers, and foundations have seen the need for fresh opportunities in their communities and have launched into action to activate new resources and forge broader networks of support for STEM education, both in schools and in out-of-school programs.
The work of a consensus committee is demanding and painstaking. Answering our particular charge required a willingness to tackle a series of difficult, high-stakes questions in all of their complexity. The committee had to seek out and process a wide range of evidence and use it to probe and frame our assumptions and conclusions. We also needed to engage in extended discussions to compare and connect our varied knowledge and perspectives, with the goal of achieving a deeper understanding of the broad, complicated landscape of Pre-K–12 STEM education than any one
of us was able to command on our own. We had to figure out collectively how to organize and sequence our analysis of a nonlinear and somewhat chaotically interconnected set of systems and processes.
Fortunately, the members of our committee brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to our work. In contrast to the more typically “siloed” nature of many people’s careers, individual committee members’ careers have been characterized by an unusual and impressive breadth and variety of work across different roles, initiatives, and organizations over the course of their professional lives. The committee included scientists and mathematicians who have become deeply involved in Pre-K–12 education; school-based educators who have been active in overseeing or advising on curriculum, instruction, and assessment at classroom, district, and state levels; people who have served as classroom teachers or program directors as well as academic researchers and university faculty; and researchers and teachers with extensive experience with the needs of particular students and cultural communities. For nearly all of the issues or questions that emerged, we had one or more committee members who were able to speak to them in depth as scholars and also from first-hand experience. This range of expertise allowed us, both individually and collectively, to illuminate potential relationships, connections, interactions, and contexts that are not always obvious from more limited perspectives.
Our committee strove to create a report that is educative, insightful, and responsive to the available evidence. We hope that our report gives voice to the knowledge and experiences of people who do the work of creating, implementing, and supporting new resources and ways of doing things in STEM education. We also hope that this report will build on the solid foundations that they have provided to activate and mobilize new and improved STEM learning opportunities throughout the STEM education landscape. Many varied and creative approaches to questions of teaching and learning have been developed and investigated, and, as a nation, we have also made progress in promoting evidence-based improvements. But the United States has consistently under-invested in the kinds of research methodologies and organizational structures that would allow us to better understand and address the contexts and variables that facilitate or hinder widespread distribution and effective adaptation to new contexts in actual practice. While the committee examined many individual innovations and initiatives in particular contexts, our conclusions and recommendations are aimed at a systemic perspective, since that is where the committee saw the most persistent obstacles and the most promising models for large-scale change.
I am deeply grateful for the exceptional generosity shown by each of the committee members in sharing their time, talents, knowledge, and wisdom as we prepared this report. Despite the many other demands on them, they
somehow found time and brought their best efforts to developing a shared understanding that expanded and deepened as we all learned from each other. They also showed remarkable good humor, diligence, and persistence as we worked through draft after draft of the report’s components. They joined Zoom meetings from across the globe, responded to emails in the wee hours of the night, and were generally undeterred as they simultaneously dealt with extreme weather, rampant viruses, family needs, and more.
Finally, I think I speak for the whole committee in thanking the extraordinary National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff members who supported our team. Dr. Amy Stephens, our fearless and unflappable study director, provided expert guidance and astounding hard work that kept us motivated and on track every step of the way. Dr. Heidi Schweingruber, director of the Board on Science Education (BOSE), regularly provided deep insights into the broader contexts surrounding this report and helped us understand and use the National Academies’ processes, standards, and resources to the fullest. Samuel (Niko) Crawford, Brittani Shorter, and Audrey Webb accompanied us on this journey with inspiring energy and superb organization and support. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with each of you, and we thank you for your contributions to this report and to the larger mission of BOSE.
Christine M. Massey, Chair
Committee on Pre-K–12 STEM Education Innovation
