1

Introduction

The world is rapidly changing. Harnessing advances in science and technology to navigate pressing local and global challenges in an increasingly technological society requires a population that understands science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. This holds particular significance amid present-day challenges and impacts of technologies related to artificial intelligence (see U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology’s policy report, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations, 2023). As technology continues to shape our information landscape, the focus on developing a well-informed, engaged populace of critical and ethical thinkers is essential.

In response to these challenges, various governmental and nongovernmental agencies have put forth visionary and expansive goals for the U.S. STEM education system. A 2011 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Successful K–12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, argued that the goals for U.S. STEM education include:

• Expand the number of students who ultimately pursue advanced degrees and careers in STEM fields and broaden the participation of women and minorities in those fields.
• Expand the STEM-capable workforce and broaden the participation of women and minorities in that workforce.
• Increase STEM literacy for all students, including those who do not pursue STEM-related careers or additional study in the STEM disciplines.

In these goals, the 2011 report mirrors the priorities put forth by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) during the Obama Administration, which aims to “advance a wide range of initiatives, programs, projects, and activities that unleash the power of science, technology, and innovation for the benefit of Americans and people around the world.”¹ This was amplified in the 2018 National Science & Technology Council Committee on STEM Education strategic plan Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education, which specified “a vision for a future where all Americans will have lifelong access to high-quality STEM education and the United States will be the global leader in STEM literacy, innovation, and employment” (p. 4).

As highlighted above, the purposes of STEM and advancing formal STEM education have been tied to political and economic goals with an emphasis on a workforce wellversed in basic STEM content. This workforce was needed to exercise various, seemingly repeatable, processes across an array of contexts. In some respects, STEM workers were valued based on their knowledge and their ability to complete pre-defined tasks. In more recent years, however, a shift has been observed where STEM workers are being valued for their ideas and ways of thinking. Instead of solely focusing on the capacity of STEM workers to retain certain forms of knowledge, there has been a growing interest in fostering learning experiences that expansively contribute to creativity in thought and in practice, that expand the purposes and goals of STEM education, and that understand STEM learning as part of larger goals of human development toward more socially and ecologically just and healthy societies (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2024). Part of this shift is based on the recognition that many of the challenges that our society faces will require untold amounts of creativity and innovation.

More recently, in 2022, the U.S. Department of Education launched Raise the Bar: STEM Excellence for All Students initiative² designed to strengthen STEM education nationwide by prioritizing three goals for STEM education:

• Ensure all students from Pre-K to higher education excel in rigorous, relevant, and joyful STEM learning.
• Develop and support our STEM educators to join, grow, and stay in the STEM field.

___________________

¹ See https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ostp/initiatives#:~:text=OSTP%20works%20to%20advance%20a,%2C%20and%20Mathematics%20(STEM)%20Education

² See https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-launches-new-initiative-enhance-stem-education-all-students

• Invest in STEM education strategically and sufficiently using American Rescue Plan and other federal, state, and local funds.

These goals are inherently aspirational, but their fulfillment has often been compromised by privileged access of some groups and marginalization of others, notably people of color (see NASEM, 2023, 2024) and students with disabilities (see National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES], 2023). For example, although the U.S. STEM workforce gradually became more diverse between 2011 and 2021, including Black, Latino/a, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations, these populations still accounted for a smaller percentage of the total STEM workforce: 9 percent Black, 15 percent Latinx, and less than 1 percent American Indican/Alaska Native (NCSES, 2023). And whereas the number of women earning a STEM degree has grown, gender parity does not exist for some disciplines such as engineering, computer science, and mathematics and statistics (National Science Board, 2019).

How these goals can be addressed in different grade bands, inclusive of all learners, requires thoughtful design and implementation of practices and structures with a clear and intentional focus on equity while, at minimum, broadening participation for those who have been historically excluded from formal institutionalized STEM learning. This necessitates examining these disparities from a systemic lens, acknowledging the multiple barriers (e.g., structural inequities and cultural exclusion/narrow views of STEM) inherent in the system that can be observed at various levels (i.e., region, state, district, school, and classroom). That is, disparities in teacher expectations and other school- and classroom-level factors—such as access to adequate laboratory facilities, resources, and supplies—contribute to gaps in STEM achievement for underrepresented groups (National Research Council [NRC], 2011), as do the norms and practices of the discipline, and stereotypes and implicit biases (NASEM, 2021a, 2024). The culture of the school or district environment also plays an important role, with research showing that when school and district administrators are supportive of STEM education innovations, they can help to provide the necessary resources for activities and support to empower educators to enable high-quality STEM learning (NASEM, 2021b, 2022).

Despite all these STEM initiatives and the creation of various STEM programs, implementation depends on the availability of resources, time, knowledgeable educators, policies, practices, and buy-in from participants and decision makers throughout the education system. As a result, there is a need to understand better how these factors impact the scaling and sustainability of STEM education innovations across Pre-K through 12th grade, with attention to examples that have successfully addressed the potential barriers.

CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

Sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in response to a mandate within the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, the Board on Science Education (BOSE) of the National Academies convened an expert committee to examine the interconnected factors that foster or hinder the scalability of promising, evidence-based STEM education innovations and identify barriers and gaps in research (see Box 1-1). The 15-member Committee on Pre-K–12 STEM Education Innovations has extensive knowledge across STEM disciplines (science, engineering, mathematics, computer science, and data sciences) in various settings (rural and urban) with different spheres of influence (local, regional, and national). A subset of members works within out-of-school-time institutions that provide resources and services for formal Pre-K–12 settings, such as developing curriculum and providing professional development. Moreover, many committee members are trained scientists and mathematicians in addition to their work in education.

Many of the committee members deeply understand the broader policy landscape and have also been practitioners or worked closely with them. Committee members also bring a wealth of experience in developing programs designed to broaden participation in STEM, including designing systems, curricula, or policies that support the participation of traditionally marginalized and/or underresourced communities and students with disabilities. Their expertise covers the full spectrum of Pre-K–12 from early

STEM education to secondary school, with differing orientations to the STEM disciplines and the integration of STEM content.

STUDY APPROACH

The committee met five times over 11 months in 2023 and 2024 to gather information on the interrelated factors at local, regional, and national levels that can foster or hinder the scaling of promising, evidence-based innovations. During this time, the committee reviewed the published literature on its charge and had opportunities to engage with many experts. Additionally, the committee commissioned three papers and a larger landscape paper during the information-gathering phase; the latter served as the basis for the compendium.

Study Process

The committee deliberated and came to consensus on the best ways to respond to its charge. Evidence was gathered from presentations and a review of the existing literature. The committee requested a literature search by the National Academies research center for information on Pre-K–12 STEM education innovations since 2000 with particular attention to barriers and challenges with implementation. In this search, STEM was defined as the individual disciplines (science, mathematics, engineering), including computer science and data science, as well as interdisciplinary and integrated approaches (see deeper discussion of this issue in the subsequent section Defining STEM) and covered the spectrum from preschool/prekindergarten through 12th grade.

Over the course of this study, committee members benefited from discussions and presentations by the many individuals who participated in the three fact-finding meetings. At the first meeting, the committee had the opportunity to engage with the sponsoring agency, NSF, speak with congressional staffers involved in the genesis of the legislation for this consensus study, and hear from the U.S. Department of Education. These conversations allowed the committee to gain clarity on the statement of work and the issues that are of most interest to the sponsoring agency, to understand the motivations leading to the development of this congressionally mandated consensus study, and to hear about ongoing national-level STEM education innovation initiatives already underway. Through this discussion with the congressional staffers, it was made clear that Congress’s intention was for the report’s emphasis to be placed on the scaling and sustainability of promising, evidence-based innovations; this intention was coupled with a desire to understand why innovations are not scaling and what supports are needed for innovations that have the potential to scale to achieve that

goal. Subsequent meetings took up the theme of how to establish standards of evidence for what counts as a promising innovation as well as evidence that an innovation has scaled and has been sustained.

During the second meeting, the presentations centered on the broader system. The first panel began with taking an expansive view of the system, focusing first on STEM Ecosystems as an approach to leverage relationships across various stakeholders to solve a community-based problem and then on how states within a particular region can learn and share information about the implementation of high-impact practices (i.e., examining the work of the U.S. Department of Education’s Regional Educational Labs [RELs]³). The second panel examined state-led STEM initiatives from two angles: similar initiatives across different state contexts as well as two different initiatives deployed within the same state. This allowed the committee to consider how innovations can be activated throughout a system and the relationships that are leveraged, with attention to the local, more nuanced variability that exists. The final panel further honed in on a particular facet within the educational system—the development of STEM education innovations. In particular, the committee heard from researchers involved in developing specific STEM education innovations (Pre-K Mathematics and PhET Simulations) to interrogate how the developers sought to scale and sustain their evidence-based innovations, including the challenges faced and successes achieved.

The third and final fact-finding meeting, which was entirely virtual, examined teacher professional learning and what it means to center the needs of all students. On the first day, the panel focused on centering the needs of all students, elevating research on multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and engaging learners from Indigenous communities and tribal nations. On the second day, a set of panels presented evidence on professional learning. The first panel delved into innovations within preservice teacher preparation programs and the need for induction supports. The second panel examined in-service teacher professional learning innovations, focusing on programs and models that have shown widespread impact.

During the fourth and fifth meetings, discussions about the evidence engaged the full committee, and members shared their expertise in designing and implementing Pre-K–12 STEM education innovations. Throughout the committee’s deliberations, there was a constant tension between the large body of positive descriptive evidence, the lack of extensive causal evidence (particularly with respect to scaling and sustaining innovations), the impassioned calls for the expansion of Pre-K–12 STEM education innovations, and the numerous approaches for the implementation of innovations that

___________________

³ For more information on RELs, see www.ies.ed/gov/ncee/rel/about

have already been established. The committee worked to reconcile the perspectives to provide guidance to the field. This report synthesizes the committee’s findings based on the evidence reviewed and the expertise of its members.

The committee commissioned three papers to provide a more in-depth analysis of key issues. Sarah Woulfin (The University of Texas at Austin) and colleagues authored a paper analyzing the locus of control in U.S. educational policy. The paper examined the different actors within the K–12 state educational system with a particular focus on how these actors impact STEM teaching and learning (i.e., foster or serve as a potential barrier). Lori Connors-Tadros (National Institute for Early Education Research [NIEER]) and GG Weisenfeld (NIEER) provided a comprehensive overview of the U.S. Pre-K STEM educational policy landscape. The paper began with a discussion of how Pre-K is situated within the early childhood system and the implications for policy, governance and funding, and opportunities for STEM support in Pre-K programs. The final paper, by Sadhana Puntambekar (University of Wisconsin–Madison), focused on the historical context implementing promising tools and technologies within K–12 education and the implications for STEM learning.

Developing the Compendium

In addition to articulating the evidence on the interrelated factors that support promising, evidence-based innovations to scale, the committee was charged with developing a compendium of promising, evidence-based PreK–12 STEM education practices, models, programs, and technologies. The committee recognized that this was a major undertaking and commissioned the Education Development Center (EDC) to conduct a study to review the Pre-K–12 STEM education research literature and current landscape to identify innovative projects and projects with the potential for impact and scale.

The committee met several times with EDC to ensure that the development of the compendium would provide the committee with the insights that were needed to understand how the innovations approached scale and were able to sustain implementation successfully. As EDC conducted the work, they recognized that there would need to be a consistent set of standards and descriptors and that the innovations had to be consistent with the charge and have connections to formal public education settings. The development of the compendium also needed to be completed on a relatively short timeline. EDC developed a process whereby innovation developers or leaders were required to actively submit current program information via an online form to be considered for inclusion in the compendium. Although EDC did considerable outreach to lead people and organizations related

to potential innovations, not all responded while the submission process was open. As a result, the compendium is not a comprehensive catalog. Appendix B describes the methodology EDC employed to carry out this work, and Appendix C presents the compendium.

Because this process was limited by both time and available funds, the effort is not exhaustive nor was it guided by the more nuanced definition of scale articulated by the committee. Moreover, it is a snapshot that will undoubtedly change as new innovations are developed and others mature and gather more evidence. The process was designed with the idea that it could be the seed for an ongoing effort to collect and update notable resources—this is beyond the auspices of the National Academies or this committee. In its fact-finding and deliberations, the committee also considered prominent programs and resources for which information was available through other sources (e.g., published literature and the What Works Clearinghouse), in addition to those that were evaluated for the compendium.

Defining Key Terms

There were several terms that the committee had to grapple with in understanding and interpreting the charge; below is a deeper discussion of some of these terms.

Defining STEM

The committee spent substantial time thinking through STEM and the various ways in which the term has been used and its connotations. The acronym STEM refers broadly to the whole scientific enterprise—basic research, applications, workforce, education—by naming its major constituent fields together.

Science is a vast enterprise dedicated to the fundamental empirical study of the natural and experiential worlds, and the discovery and explanation of patterns and regularities. It comprises numerous subdisciplines, broadly divided into physical and biological sciences, with many different methodologies for systematically gathering and evaluating evidence. Becoming a scientist generally requires many years of theoretical study and empirical practice focused on some subdomain of science.

Technology has many forms and functions. Throughout the history of science, new technologies have drawn on scientific knowledge to produce increasingly powerful tools for observation and analysis that have vastly expanded the capacity of human senses. In this respect, technology, like engineering, is an applied science. More recently, the knowledge-building discipline corresponding roughly to computer science has emerged,

devoted to the study of algorithms, coding them, and digitizing information. Technologies based in these developments have expanded not just the physical capabilities of humans but also cognitive capacities. These can free human agents to rise to higher levels of performance. New developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have shown promise that it can not only provide technical support but also, sometimes, become a full partner in the discovery of new scientific knowledge. Because of technology’s many pathways and roles, it has no uniformly developed model for professional preparation.

Engineering is an applied science in that it uses scientific knowledge to design and build tools intended to serve social needs and desires, tools that, like technology, enlarge human capability. Engineering is the act of creating artifacts, processes, or systems that advance technology and address human needs using principles of the sciences, mathematics, computing, and operations. It involves the knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences (biological and physical) gained by study, experience, and practice that are applied with judgment and creativity to develop ways to utilize the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind. It requires a systematic and often iterative approach to designing objects, processes, and systems. While science education provides the knowledge and curiosity-driven practices to understand the world, collegiate engineering education is more like professional preparation, analogous to medicine or law.

Mathematics is a conceptual rather than an empirical field that also serves as an enabling discipline for all of science, engineering, and technology in that it provides concise and precise analytic language and models with which to quantitatively express scientific discoveries about the natural and built worlds. Moreover, purely deductive reasoning on these models can sometimes expand scientific knowledge beyond what is easily perceptible. Mathematics research, like scientific research, is basic and curiosity-driven. The fundamental distinction between mathematics and science is their contrasting models of reasoning: deductive versus inductive. Mathematics research is mostly done either in academic environments, where it is combined with teaching, or in mission-oriented contexts, using applications of mathematics to other fields, like computer science, biology, medicine, cryptography, image processing, etc.

STEM. In the 1990s, the linguistic assemblage of STEM was found to be a useful term in discussions of federal policy concerning education and the workforce, and it continues to be so used.⁴ It was originally SMET, reflecting the perceived order of importance of the fields; the change in 2001 to STEM has been attributed to Judith Ramaley, Assistant Director

___________________

⁴ It should be noted that the earliest uses of the phrase can be linked to a “STEM Institute” developed by Charles Vela in the 1990s (Raupp, 2019).

for Education and Human Resources at the NSF, who made the change “on aesthetic grounds and conceptual grounds” (Lyons, 2020, p. 226).

As Lyons (2020) described, using the acronym provided momentum in three ways. First, it provided the impression of a consolidation of resources, increasing the capacity for lobbying, media attention, and curriculum leverage. Second, it promoted engineering into curriculum conversations. Third, there is the power associated with the inclusion or exclusion of other disciplines (inclusion of Medicine [STEMM] or inclusion of Arts [STEAM]); however, this has been carried out piecemeal rather than considering how closely aligned conceptually the disciplines are. (See Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of how accountability has shaped STEM education and the prioritization of content areas within STEM.)

Visibly, these four fields are quite different in form, function, and practice. Yet they are substantially related and are deeply synergistic. Indeed, there are compelling arguments that many of the significant challenges we face in the 21st century may be most powerfully approached by integrated teams of professionals with deep expertise in various STEM disciplines. However, it does not automatically follow that Pre-K–12 curriculum and pedagogy also pursue full integration of all aspects of STEM. The common use of language like “STEM workforce” and “STEM education” tempts people to think that STEM is a singular entity, rather than an assemblage of related and interdependent components. In particular, some discussions of “integrated STEM education” seem to suggest (mistakenly) that STEM is itself a scientific subject. With respect to STEM education, there is a need to carefully consider and orchestrate the relationships among learning opportunities within the core individual disciplines and opportunities that integrate them in purposeful ways.

In practice, the integration of concepts, methods, and tools from different STEM disciplines has often been connected with particular pedagogies, such as problem-based learning and modeling (e.g., Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Lehrer & Schauble, 2012). While there may be some natural affinity, it is important to point out that the research on learning and teaching that supports these pedagogical practices is separate from the notion of integrating STEM disciplines, and does not require or depend on a commitment to combine content or tools from one or more STEM fields. Moreover, the core organizing concepts, bodies of interconnected knowledge, epistemologies, discourse, and practices within individual disciplines have distinctive characteristics and follow unique learning trajectories (NASEM, 2018). Research indicates that it is essential that students have sufficient opportunities to build these knowledge bases and competencies in systematic ways over multiple years (Clements & Sarama, 2021; Rich et al., 2020). This stands in contrast to a checklist mentality sometimes observed when teachers feel pressured by school administrators or curriculum pacing guides

to fit a lot of diverse content into the school day, and are encouraged to add different bits to an activity to “cover” math, science, technology, and language arts in a single class period. For example, the fact that students might use a tool to measure something while doing a science investigation and then write a paragraph describing their procedure and findings does not mean that they were engaged in systematically advancing their understanding and proficiency with important grade-band appropriate concepts and skills in each of these disciplines.

Taken together, the committee recognizes the variability in integration and also realizes that the evidence on the effectiveness of these integrated approaches is still emerging (English, 2016; National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & NRC, 2014). Thus, the committee does not subscribe to a single integrated approach. Instead, the group examined the evidence on STEM education innovations, including those located in individual domains and those that were designed to be integrated in some fashion.

Innovations

It was important for the committee to come to a clear understanding of what might be meant by “innovations” as it appears in the statement of work. One possible interpretation is the notion of novelty, something that is new. But as the committee reflected on the use of this word in the context of the charge—coupled with the language of promising, evidence-based practices, programs, models, and technologies—and following the conversation with congressional staffers, it was clear that a different frame would better serve the purposes of the present work. The committee came to use this word not just to connote the act of invention or a general change, but also as a capacious term to indicate the varied novel approaches, curricula, programs, methods of analysis, etc. that serve as the specific objects of analysis focused on in this report. The committee also connected innovation with progress and improvement, noting that even if an innovation might not be deemed wholly “new,” it might be new to some individuals, or the instantiation of an innovation might be new. As such, the committee defines an innovation as an idea or potential solution intended to positively alter one or more intended learning outcomes. This framing is consistent with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, which recognizes the inherent contradiction between developments that are innovations (new and untested) versus ones that are solidly evidence-based.⁵ The committee determined that for an innovation to be considered as promising, there needed to be some evidence

___________________

⁵ See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/about/definition.html

of its potential to scale and some evidence of beneficial impacts on student learning or teacher practice.

This led the committee to think not just about the individuals involved in the design or development of an innovation but also those who are involved in the implementation of the innovation. The committee identified four groups: beneficiaries (the recipients of the innovation), designers (those who design the innovation), enactors (those who directly enact the innovation), and enablers (those who support the enactors). This characterization allows one to recognize the ways in which an individual may wear multiple hats or have various roles in the innovation and that there can also be a shifting or handing off of roles over time (see Chapter 4 for a more nuanced discussion).

Scale and Implementation

The committee also discussed issues of scale and implementation. The statement of task asks the committee to consider barriers to widespread and sustained implementation of innovations and through the conversation with congressional staffers, as suggested above, emphasis on issues of scale was clarified as a driving motivation. The committee defined scale as the degree to which an innovation is enacted or implemented. The committee explored the ideas of implementation and scale through a framework offered by Coburn (2003) and discusses the conceptualization of scale and what it means for scaling innovation in Chapter 4. In particular, the committee defined scale as multidimensional. Although many discussions of scale focus solely on increasing number of participants (spread), the committee also considered dimensions such as depth of implementation (i.e., the extent to which the innovation is intended to create or entails substantial shifts in the core of educational practice), sustainability (i.e., innovation endures over time in the original and new contexts when the initial circumstances run their course), and ownership (i.e., extent to which knowledge of and authority over the innovation is deepened and expanded over time).

The committee defined implementation as the process by which actors enact a designed innovation in a particular context, in service of the intended learning outcomes, and can be understood in relation to the four dimensions of scale. In considering widespread implementation, the committee recognized that this could be accomplished by supporting the learning of a broader population in a specific setting than was initially engaged (e.g., “spreading” from one school in a district to a set of schools; from one set of students in an afterschool setting to a broader set of students) or supporting learning in additional settings from where the innovation was initially implemented (e.g., “spreading” to a different district, state). Sustained implementation meant that the implementation took hold over time,

even in the face of changes. These innovations could also include those developed for a particular population or to address a specific problem of practice that was not designed to spread beyond the intended context.

Attending to Equity

A critical issue in considering how innovations spread and are sustained in new settings and with new participants is understanding who gains access to new opportunities, how they are supported, and the degree to which new implementations continue to demonstrate effectiveness in serving the needs of different communities and groups of learners. If dimensions of equity and inclusiveness are not attended to, it is likely that patterns in the uptake of innovations in STEM education will replicate or even increase existing disparities.

Along with a variety of other resources, the committee drew on overlapping equity frameworks developed in two recent National Academies consensus study reports to focus and frame considerations of equity in relation to the scaling and sustainability of STEM education innovations. Science and Engineering in Preschool through Elementary Grades: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators (NASEM, 2022) outlined four approaches to equity: (1) increasing opportunity and access to high-quality science and engineering learning and instruction; (2) emphasizing increased achievement, representation, and identification with science and engineering; (3) expanding what constitutes science and engineering; and (4) seeing science and engineering as part of justice movements. Equity in K–12 STEM Education (NASEM, 2024) described five equity frames that can serve as decision-making guides: (1) reducing gaps between groups, (2) expanding opportunity and access, (3) embracing heterogeneity in STEM classrooms, (4) learning and using STEM to promote justice, and (5) envisioning sustainable futures through STEM.

In reviewing the scaling of innovations in STEM education, our committee encountered a variety of approaches exemplified in individual innovations, many of which expressed explicit goals with respect to equity. The large majority of innovations—particularly those with a long enough track record to have achieved some success in scaling and sustaining their innovations and in producing evidence to document their processes and outcomes—focused on expanding access and opportunity, including availability of social and material resources; and increasing achievement, representation, and self-identification as someone who can learn and participate in STEM. Some projects, especially those that have focused on particular sociocultural contexts or the needs of particular groups of learners, such as multilingual students or neurodivergent students, have explored ways of making STEM learning experiences more accessible to all students

(e.g., with emerging technologies) and have promoted a wider variety of ways in which children and youth can make sense of and find meaning in STEM concepts and practices. Projects focused on promoting justice and cultivating sustainable futures through STEM are generally more recent, and the committee found few examples that had specific evidence that could illuminate whether and in what ways issues of scalability or sustainability are different for these approaches.

Considering the Full Landscape of Learning Opportunities in STEM

In its work, the committee needed to describe implementation of innovations and the interrelated factors at local, regional, and national levels. Part of beginning that work was consideration of the variety of spaces in which an innovation can be designed and implemented, recognizing that this is different across the Pre-K–12 continuum. Although the committee prioritized STEM outcomes in formal education spaces, it was important to consider the variety of participants and actors engaged throughout the process including families, communities, business and industry, higher education, and out-of-school time organizations (i.e., STEM learning ecology). The committee began from a sociocultural lens to consider the dynamic forces at play that shape how individuals and collectives learn (see Figure 1-1). A sociocultural lens examines multiple levels of influence from the immediate surroundings to broader-culture, placed-based, and historical contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Nasir et al., 2020, 2021; Rogoff, 2003).

It is important to note that Figure 1-1 does not capture every kind of institution and the complex inter-institutional relations, but it provides a starting point to visualize the landscape in which learners move and participate. The layers within the system include:

• Place (light yellow): Place refers to the histories, futures, ideologies, values, and cultural practices of that place and in the context in which learning happens. Rather than a backdrop, place is the foundational base context of learning (NASEM, 2022), mediating everyday interactions in teaching and learning, community spaces, and various institutional norms at multiple levels.
• Learners within Classrooms and Homes (light yellow): Learners sit at the center. Children in Pre-K–12 education systems are the primary learners under this label; they are often the target end-beneficiaries of many STEM innovations and the focus of a program or model. Here, we use “learners” in the plural for two reasons. First, “learners” recognizes that humans learn in systems of dynamic sociocultural interactions that include other key social others such as teachers, peers, and families (Lee, Shin, & Bong, 2020). Learning is always relational, mutually constituted, social, cultural, and situated

• in place (NASEM, 2022). Learning conceptualized as a collective endeavor helps us to see the ways children learn across classrooms and homes (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003), in ways that individual views of learning and accomplishment often fail to account for. Second, the committee sees teachers as other key learners within STEM Pre-K–12 innovations, with teacher learning and leadership as important actors and levers in educational theories of change.

“Learners” and “place” are both colored light yellow to highlight ways the specificity of place within learning and interaction continually mediates children’s and teachers’ sensemaking and participation. STEM learning is always influenced by the situated histories, futures, natural, social, and built environments, cultural practices, ideologies, ethics, and politics of a particular place and time (NASEM, 2018, 2022, 2024).

• Schools and Communities (yellow): One layer out from the dynamic learning interactions in homes and classrooms are school and communities. School-level actors include educational leadership (e.g., instructional leaders, department heads, teacher groups, principals) whereas community actors include afterschool programs, clubs, parent groups, community centers, and faith-based groups in which families participate.

Together, these yellow circles learners within homes, classrooms, schools, and communities make up various parts of the microsystem of STEM learning.

Moving out in proximity to the learner are the more distal systems. These are sometimes referred to as the exosystem, which are interacting factors that more indirectly influence the development of learners.

• Local, State, and Federal Educational Agencies and Organizations (orange): Individual schools in the Pre-K–12 education systems are nested within, and are accountable to, school districts and state educational agencies, as governed by both state and federal law. They may also be impacted by national STEM education organizations and funders (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NSF, private and other philanthropic organizations).
• Local Institutions and Local Governments (blue): Children and their families are nested within broader systems of local institutions (e.g., neighborhood organizations, community centers, playgrounds), STEM-rich learning spaces (e.g., museums, libraries, other community groups), and county and city governments. Leaders, cultural brokers, and organizers play important roles in the adoption and dissemination of STEM education innovations both vertically within and horizontally across organizations (Akkerman & Bruining, 2016; Ishimaru et al., 2016).
• STEM Focused Institutions including Universities and Colleges and Economic and Technological Organizations (green): Two other key bodies of actors include (a) postsecondary institutions such as universities and colleges that support STEM learning and training of teachers as well as partnerships across the system, including professional societies, and (b) workforce development agencies, businesses, corporations/not for profits, philanthropies, and other economic and technological supports/tools for STEM learning within and beyond the classroom.
• Media (pink): Various media outlets play an important role in knowledge dissemination for Pre-K–12 STEM innovations. For innovations to scale, knowledge dissemination is a key factor that supports public engagement with STEM learning opportunities, documentation of impact, and spread within and across levels of the system.

Although these layers are described separately, this approach underscores the dynamic nature of development and how each layer is co-constituted and interconnected. That is, while federal and school district policies and priorities (exosystem) influence school practices in classrooms (microsystem),

what happens in classrooms at the microsystems level can also shape the local- or federal-level policies and discourses about what STEM is and related learning outcomes (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002).

The committee also considered the landscape when the unit of analysis is an innovation itself, rather than learners. From a lens of scale and sustainability, landscape here refers to the relationships among various Pre-K–12 actors, designers, and enablers within and across levels of the system, the ways various actors interact, and their spheres of influence. Given that the U.S. education system has a local locus of control (i.e., states, districts, and schools have the power to make decisions), the federal government plays an indirect role in education. And although schools are most directly responsible for educating students, what goes on in classrooms is influenced and affected by a variety of factors within and beyond a single school, district, and state, as decisions are made that influence how innovations can scale and sustain, the impact the innovations can have, and the tensions/misalignments that can arise within the system. In probing this tension, the committee examined how partnerships within the educational system can be a mechanism through which innovations can scale and be sustained, and considered the necessary supports needed for the various local contexts (e.g., building the necessary organizational and relational infrastructure) and the conditions that support or hinder its development, implementation, scale, spread, depth, and sustainability.

MAJOR FEATURES OF THE CURRENT CONTEXT

In addition to grappling with many of the complexities of the statement of work, the committee also recognized the need to acknowledge particular features of the current context that serve to shape the scale and sustainability of innovations: the changing student demographics and increasing demands on the teacher workforce and the rapidly evolving technological landscape. These factors are important to consider as opportunities to learn in Pre-K–12 STEM education are unevenly distributed and the experiences individuals have vary based on a myriad of factors (NASEM, 2024). What follows is a discussion of these features and their impacts on Pre-K–12 STEM education.

Changing Student Demographics and Increasing Demands on Teacher Workforce⁶

Over the past two decades, there have been a number of shifts that have impacted the expectations for Pre-K–12 teachers: policy shifts, an

___________________

⁶ This section draws heavily from the National Academies report on Changing Expectations for the K–12 Teacher Workforce: Policies, Preservice Education, Professional Development, and the Workplace (2020).

increasingly diverse student body, and the composition of the workforce itself. There have been marked changes with respect to the expectations for teachers in the classroom: they are required to attend to new curricular standards and participate in the selection and adaption of instructional materials, all while being held accountable for student performance (NASEM, 2020). There has also been an increasing emphasis on technology, both in terms of how teachers use technology as a vehicle for learning as well as for communication with families and as a medium for sharing ideas for educators (NASEM, 2020).

These increasing demands are happening while the diversity of the student population has rapidly shifted. The majority of students in U.S. K–12 schools identify as members of minoritized communities. As a result, teachers need to evaluate their teaching practices to ensure that they are creating environments that are supportive for all learners and foster trusting and caring relationships among students and with teachers (NASEM, 2020). This demand to create a learning environment that responds to the experiences of all students in combination with these compounded expectations for learning (given the policy shifts) call for innovative approaches to instruction that may differ substantially from their own experiences as students or their preservice education (NASEM, 2020).

Lastly, all of this is happening within the content of a hyper-localized teacher labor market that is seeing substantial staffing challenges and teacher turnover. Although teachers develop a number of valuable skills during their preparation, there still remains a mismatch in terms of the preparation teacher candidates seek out and the job opportunities available. A common finding across states is that staffing challenges are generally far greater for schools serving students living in poverty, students who are low-achieving, students of color, rural schools, those geographically far from teacher education programs, and in high-needs subjects, such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and special education (NASEM, 2020).

These longstanding issues can present challenges for the implementation of Pre-K–12 STEM education innovations. Although the subsequent chapters do not take these issues up in substantial detail, they connect to an important undercurrent that can have far-reaching impact, particularly the preparation of teachers and their perception as professionals in education.

Acknowledging the Rapidly Evolving Technological Landscape

The promise of technology is that, when used and implemented well, it could be a game-changer in K–12 classrooms: there would be equitable access for all learners to develop the skills needed to succeed, and teachers and schools would have the data available to make decisions about students’ learning, informing both individualized instruction and policies (see Chapter 6). It is important to remember that the use of technology in

schools and districts does not guarantee learning, but rather, is a tool that mediates it. Critical use of technologies in the service of learning requires continuous updates, integration with existing systems, and regular troubleshooting—all of which require ongoing professional development to build and expand professional capacity among teachers.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to work toward this goal through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding program, which many districts used to invest in educational software and systems (see Chapter 2). However, with ESSER funding having ended in September 2024, schools now have to make decisions about the best use(s) of the technology given the prospect of diminishing resources. This means districts, schools, and teachers are facing increased pressure to utilize the most up-to-date technology while many struggle with implementation, or are unable to quickly adapt. The growing inequities for school districts that have been historically underfunded will become more pronounced as the chasm around technology access and usage continues to widen, further disadvantaging students who already face significant educational barriers. Additionally, the pace of research cannot keep up with the changing technology, which leaves districts, schools, and teachers implementing technology without fully understanding the intended use or the potential impacts on learning as they do not have the necessary evidence to make evidence-informed decisions. The rapid evolution and increase of technology use in the classroom means that teachers must frequently adapt through professional development, mentorships, and time spent with colleagues to keep pace with the continuous growth, continually considering which technologies for what purposes.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report is intended to describe what is known about promising, evidence-based Pre-K–12 STEM education innovations and how those can be taken to scale and sustained. To understand the interconnected factors that foster and hinder successful innovations at local, regional, and national levels, the committee needed to first set the stage.

Chapter 2 characterizes the landscape of the public Pre-K–12 education system⁷ including the various actors at different levels of the system (federal, state, and local levels, including district and regional), including their roles and responsibilities.⁸ Building from an understanding of the system overall, the committee then describes the history of federal and national

___________________

⁷ Note that the scope of the committee’s statement of work is centered on formal education spaces. This resulted in a limited focus on informal learning.

⁸ Note that there is limited research on higher levels of the system. The committee draws on websites as appropriate.

STEM education improvements in Chapter 3, recognizing that many of the reforms were born out of a need to address concerns with the state of K–12 education and the implications for the competitiveness of the STEM workforce. In Chapter 4, the committee provides a framework for understanding what it means to scale and sustain a STEM education innovation. The chapter begins with articulating a multidimensional framework for conceptualizing scale and then goes on to discuss various approaches to scaling innovations.

Chapter 5 extends the discussion of scaling innovations by describing the inherent tensions that can exist between the landscapes of innovation and implementation. Central to understanding this landscape is recognizing that there is an important distinction to be made between the configurations of actors, decision makers, and financial resources that are typically involved in the development of evidence-based innovations as compared to the configurations that come into play as innovations are implemented, sustained, and spread across settings and populations. Together, these chapters provide an understanding of the current state of Pre-K–12 STEM education and the various actors at different levels of the system and what it takes to scale and sustain innovations—addressing bullet one of the committee’s charge.

To address bullet two, Chapter 6 highlights the evolving technological landscape, providing a discussion of how technology has had a profound impact on education, whereas Chapter 7 presents the findings from the compendium, emphasizing the factors that fostered and hindered successful implementation of the identified promising, evidence-based, Pre-K–12 STEM education innovations.

The report culminates in Chapter 8, which pulls together the various enabling and constraining factors highlighted throughout, discussing the affordances of durable systems that can allow for innovations to scale and sustain and the need for system change—addressing bullet three of the committee’s charge.

Building from the evidence covered throughout the report, Chapter 9 presents the committee’s consensus conclusions and recommendations, and identifies key areas for future research.

REFERENCES