2

Landscape of STEM Education Learning Opportunities: Federal, State, Local, and Regional Roles

Numerous educational reform¹ efforts at the federal and state levels have attempted to change the nature of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction and disrupt persistent patterns regarding students’ short-and long-term STEM outcomes. Yet structural features of the U.S. education system present barriers as well as opportunities for STEM education innovations to take root and scale. For instance, district and school leaders have limited time to create new systems and routines that boost educators’ capacity to teach STEM in ambitious ways. And teachers may lack opportunities to learn how to shift STEM pedagogical practices, or innovate, to serve all students in engaging, equitable ways. At the same time, individuals find ways to make positive change. Various actors, positioned across multiple levels of the education system and facing different institutional and organizational conditions, deploy their agency while enacting STEM innovations. These actors not only engage in different responsibilities but hold different levels of power and authority for motivating the implementation of various innovations.

___________________

¹ The development and implementation of innovations in Pre-K–12 STEM education sometimes intersects with larger reform efforts in U.S. education. Advancing significant reform initiatives, such as changing STEM teaching and learning as called for in the Framework for Next Generation Science Standards, typically depends on introducing and aligning a variety of specific innovations at different levels of the education system, such as new models of assessment, new curricula, and new professional learning programs for educators. As a result, some but not all innovations are also aligned with educational reforms, and the report may use the term reform in relation to such cases. The report does not refer to large-scale reform initiatives writ large as innovations in and of themselves.

This chapter begins with mapping the landscape of the public education system actors and the role of each one in STEM learning. For each level—federal, state, local, school, and regional—the chapter goes on to explain which actors engage in which types of activities related to STEM innovations and discusses how that shapes implementation. Throughout, the chapter explains the spheres of influence of various actors who affect the direction and depth of efforts to improve STEM teaching and learning.

MAPPING THE STRUCTURE OF U.S. EDUCATION SYSTEM

The structure of the U.S. public education system affects the implementation of STEM innovations. As represented in Figure 2-1, the education policy system includes organizations and actors situated at federal, state, district, and school levels. Outside of the formal system, there are also numerous organizations and actors interfacing with the education system at every level. As these policy actors design, authorize, monitor, and implement STEM reforms and innovations, their specific locations within this nested structure shape their agency, constraints, access to resources, and capacity to effect change. Policy actors frequently interface with one another, both through interactions that descend across levels such as setting mandates, offering incentives, or monitoring progress, and interactions that ascend across levels, such as reporting data or interpreting and framing policy directives from above. Additionally, the roles of regional actors in the STEM policy process are highlighted as they are linked to actors at various system levels through policy networks (Hodge, Salloum, & Benko, 2020). In some instances, regional actors engage system actors directly to shape policy agendas, advocate for specific policies, or support policy implementation; in other cases, they serve as bridges between implementing actors by facilitating the flow of information, resources, and expertise.

Examining the STEM learning ecology presented in Chapter 1, Figure 2-1 is focused on STEM policy actors. Each of the multiple, nested levels of the education system contains regulations, ideas, and resources related to STEM education innovations. However, different innovations are coupled to the policy system in diverse ways. Crucially, institutional and organizational elements permeate across levels of the system, shaping the nature of implementation. For instance, ideas and resources from the state level related to STEM innovations often move to the district and then school levels, shaping systems, practices, and outcomes. For example, federal accountability policies issue mandates regarding collecting and analyzing data on students’ mathematics proficiency. Individual states, however, make specific decisions and develop plans regarding which mathematics assessments and cut scores to use (Pelsue, 2017). Next, districts within a state make concrete decisions on preparing students for these mathematics

assessments and how to support teachers in teaching mathematics in particular ways. As a given STEM innovation moves through levels of the system, it may mutate in both its design and implementation.

Throughout this chapter with respect to the discussion of the various roles of the different actors, emphasis will be placed on how people within each level advance (or block) ideas and resources regarding STEM innovations to foster (or impede) change. To better understand successes in and barriers to STEM improvement, it is vital to consider how people and their ground-level, daily practices influence the dynamics and outcomes of STEM innovation efforts. What follows is a discussion of the various roles across the education system, starting with federal agencies before describing state, district, local, and regional actors.

FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CURRENT STEM EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES

At the federal level, various agencies play a role in Pre-K–12 STEM education improvement efforts, influencing the system for different audiences tied to specific priorities. And across the various actors at the federal level, even with similar priorities, there is not necessarily coordination of the programs across agencies. In this section, the committee focuses on the roles of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) and the current initiatives to improve PreK–12 STEM education.²

U.S. Department of Education (ED)³

Established in 1979 as a Cabinet-level agency through the U.S. Department of Education Organization Act, ED sets priorities and disburses funding to state education agencies (SEAs) as well as monitors state uses of federal funds. It also has taken up rigorous education research for practices to support high-quality teaching and learning. All of this is in service of supporting access to opportunity for each person, accomplished via the support of SEAs and initiatives to improve local school quality. ED currently operates under the governance of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a 2015 bipartisan reauthorization of the longstanding Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; see Chapter 3 for a deeper discussion). Although many different offices make up ED, particular attention is given to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

___________________

² These actors were specifically called out in the committee’s statement of work.

³ This section was developed from www.ed.gov

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)

OESE, comprising ten offices, serves as the primary federal policy interface with state departments of education in efforts to support and improve local K–12 education agencies. Box 2-1 outlines the roles and responsibilities of OESE paraphrased from the authorizing legislation.

A large part of federal support for state and local education agencies (LEAs) comes through funding through the Office of Formula Grants. To receive formula funds from ED, called Title or covered funds, states must submit plans. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have successfully submitted consolidated plans for funding, meaning that each of these agencies has adopted state-level math and science standards and aligned assessments, and provide targeted interventions to schools that underperform on state math assessments, among other non-STEM related indicators. Outside of basic formula funding, when annual congressional appropriations exceed the trigger amounts noted in each Title category under ESSA, the Office of Discretionary Grants and Supports Services develops and

administers competitive funding programs. Box 2-2 shows the kinds of funding available through ESSA as well as how funds are calculated and flow.

Separate from ESSA funding but still under the governance of OESE, Congress appropriated three rounds of funding for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER): Coronavirus Aide, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020, Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act of 2021, and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021. Each round flowed to SEAs in the same proportion as Title I-A funds; however, these funds were not constrained to ESSA guidelines. The first two rounds of funding were intended to support state and LEAs as they responded to challenges to teaching and learning amid COVID-19. ARP and ESSER focused primarily on

reopening and recovering from the impact. ESSER funding officially expired in September 2024.

In addition to the various funding mechanisms described, OESE also provides technical assistance through the Comprehensive Center Network (CCNetwork) and supports the sharing and scaling of effective practices across regions. The CCNetwork is made up of the National Comprehensive Center as well as 19 Regional Comprehensive Centers (RCC). Together, this network provides technical assistance to state, regional, local, and tribal education agencies (SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and TEAs) to build capacity in educational systems. The RCCs work closely with the states in their region to identify educational system needs before developing, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based solutions.

Institute of Education Sciences (IES)⁴

In 2002, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 expanded the research capability of ED through the establishment of IES. Currently operating directly under the supervision of the Secretary of Education, IES is organized into four centers: (a) National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), (b) National Center for Education Research (NCER), (c) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and (d) National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER; the most recent center as of 2004). IES aims to connect research, policy, and practice in education through the production of sustained, usable, and rigorous scientific evidence. Box 2-3 outlines the role and responsibility of IES; note that the authorizing legislation specifically calls out responsibilities related to mathematics and science teaching and learning. Congress appropriated $734 million to IES initiatives in 2023.

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE)

NCEE is made up of two divisions: The Evaluation Division, responsible for evaluating any ED programs, and the Knowledge Use Division, responsible for dissemination and technical assistance. The Knowledge Use Division operates within two teams: The Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) and the Knowledge Synthesis Team, which operates the What Works Clearinghouse, the National Library of Education, and the Education Resources Information Center.

The RELs collaborate with school districts, state departments of education, and other education stakeholders through research-practice partnerships to help generate and apply evidence, with the goal of improving learner outcomes. There are currently ten REL regions (see Box 2-4). The RELs engage partners in the design, execution, and evaluation of REL activities. The partnership activities are intensive, narrowly focused on a high-leverage topic within a specific state, and characterized by effective communication, cooperation, and mutual understanding of the context, content, and intended outcomes of the work. The work of the RELs is to produce clear, objective, and peer-reviewed research products designed to be actionable for partners and national audiences, including the development of toolkits that support the scaling up of best practices. RELs provide training, coaching, and technical support for use of research as well as work to disseminate research and evidence in a timely, accessible, and actionable manner. See Chapter 5 for additional discussion.

National Center for Education Research (NCER)

NCER, in pursuit of rigorous evidence about what works in education, employs several mechanisms to achieve its goals. Across initiatives,

___________________

⁴ This section summarized from https://ies.ed.gov/

NCER identifies, develops, and evaluates promising education innovations to support scale-up of the most effective practices, programs, or policies. Additionally, NCER promotes high-quality research through training in educational research. To stimulate research and development in context nationwide, NCER funds the creation of National Education Research and Development Centers (R&D Centers)—temporary R&D initiatives comprised of interdisciplinary teams housed at various universities and research engines nationwide. R&D Centers typically run for five years.

Although none of the 13 active R&D Centers pursues work related to STEM education or scaling effective practices, several of the 21 completed R&D Centers have produced research relevant to the committee. However, of the 34 funded R&D Centers since 2002, only a small percentage have been specific to STEM Education.⁵

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

NCES is one of 13 federal statistical agencies, and, like the Census Bureau, it collects and analyzes national longitudinal data for public use. This organization sets psychometric, statistical, and data confidentiality standards, collects statistical information through surveys, such as the National Teacher and Principal Survey, and provides technical assistance related to measurement and data systems, among other goals. Additionally, NCES is responsible for the biennial administration of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)—which measures student achievement in math and reading (as well as science in grades 4, 8, and 12)—with guidance from the National Assessment Governing Board and the cooperation of states.

As part of the technical assistance offered by NCES, the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program (SLDS) provides funding to states and territories to develop the interconnected data systems needed to gather information about teaching and learning broadly. Established under the Educational Technical Assistant Act of 2002, the intent is to promote more functional local and SEAs that can better respond to student performance and educator needs measured more reliably over time, filling in gaps to provide more resources toward disadvantaged students. Although SLDS grants are given to only a few states, any state can receive technical assistance from check-in calls to site visits from the SLDS State Support Team to help build robust data systems.

National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER)

Authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, NCSER is the newest division (with grant awards starting in 2006) within IES charged with researching the needs of and best practices to support students with disabilities, infants, and toddlers to improve services

___________________

⁵ The National Center on Cognition and Science Instruction operated from 2008 to 2013, prior to the formation and adoption of state-level science standards based on the 2012 Framework for K–12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC], 2012), to modify FOSS and Holt through iterative cycles of adaptation and then test them in two parallel large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCT). Likewise, the National Research and Development Center on Cognition and Mathematics Instruction housed at WestEd from 2010 to 2015 also modified middle grade math curricular materials and conducted large-scale RCTs. During the same timeframe, Vanderbilt University ran the National Research and Development center on Scaling Up Effective Schools to identify innovations that effectively enabled large urban schools to provide quality education for historically low-performing groups.

at scale. Like NCER, NCSER carries out its work through research grant programs, special education research and development centers, partnerships, research training programs, and research networks. A few notable projects have come out of NCSER, including several longitudinal studies (see Wagner et al., 2006 for an overview of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 and Carlson et al., 2009 for an overview of the Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study).

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)⁶

Within HHS, the Administration for Children and Families runs the Office of Early Childhood Development (ECD). This office supports (a) holistic efforts to meet the diverse needs of families across the country as they raise children from birth to school age and (b) recruits, prepares, and retains a strong workforce ready to meet the demands of the wide range of available programs.

Pertinent to the committee are the Preschool Development Birth through Five grants, funded by HHS but co-administered by ECD and the Office of Early Learning within ED, to promote strategic planning and coordination efforts across existing state programs. These grants are intended to support the transition from early childhood education to kindergarten across state systems by creating partnerships between systems to increase collaboration between Pre-K and elementary educators, align curricular strategies, and support family navigation between systems. Although not particular to content in its current iteration, there is room for discipline-specific support in future grant cycles.

Head Start uses a federal to local funding model to promote locally responsive early education programs for low-income families. Again, although this federal program does not support STEM specific outcomes, students enrolled in Head Start tend to have better high school graduation and college enrollment rates. More short term, Head Start shows content-specific benefits for enrolled students that, while statistically significant for students at the end of their programs, generally fade throughout early grades in elementary. In developing the workforce of early childhood educators across states, HHS has proposed an increase in Head Start worker salaries that could improve wages by up to $10,000 a year.

National Science Foundation (NSF)⁷

NSF is a federal grant-making agency that funds research related to teaching and learning in STEM. In particular, it supports both basic and

___________________

⁶ This section summarized from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd

⁷ This section summarized from https://new.nsf.gov/funding/find-by-directorate

applied research to progress science and engineering, promote societal wellbeing, and provide national defense. NSF is organized into Divisions within Directorates, with the Directorate for STEM Education and the Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) being the most pertinent to Pre-K–12 STEM education (see Box 2-5). In addition to the funding opportunities provided through the Directorates described next, NSF and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy support the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) and Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM) programs.⁸ These programs can play a critical role in highlighting individuals in LEAs and teachers who support innovative STEM programming to make change for students.

Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)

Although there are a number of different divisions within EDU, the Division on Equity for Excellence in STEM and the Division on Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL) lead the work most pertinent to this report.⁹ DRL “invests in improving STEM Education for people of all ages by promoting innovative research, development, and evaluation of learning and teaching across all STEM disciplines in formal and informal learning settings.”¹⁰ Within this Division, the Discovery Research Pre-K–12 (DRK12) and the EDU Core Research programs supports research and development to enhance STEM learning and teaching for Pre-K–12 students. The programs aim to award on average $50 million annually to roughly 50–60 exploratory, design and development, impact, implementation, measurement and assessment, or synthesis projects, in either teaching or learning strands.

Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships Directorate (TIP)

In the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, the same legislation that mandated the work of the committee, authorized the TIP Directorate. TIP has three broad focus areas: (a) fostering innovation and technology ecosystems, (b) accelerating research to impact, and (c) partnering to engage the nation’s diverse talent. Given the recent development of TIP, none of the activities to date has foregrounded public K–12 STEM education as an avenue to develop the STEM workforce.

___________________

⁸ See https://paemst.nsf.gov/ and https://paesmem.nsf.gov/

⁹ It is important to note that EDU/DRL also includes the Advanced Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program, which also funds programs that could be of interest to this study. However, because the funding more indirectly flows into formal Pre-K–12 education settings, it is not discussed in detail.

¹⁰ See https://www.nsf.gov/edu/drl/about.jsp

National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM)

Within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) exists to both advise the president on and coordinate among nearly 200 programs across roughly 20 federal agencies regarding science and technology–related affairs. OSTP supports the National Science and Technology Council, a cabinet-level advisory group liaising between Congress, federal programs, and the White House to both elevate current science and technology in policy decisions and to support consistency in vision and policy across the federal government. The council works in six committees, with CoSTEM

primarily responsible for coordinating STEM education efforts across federal programs.

CoSTEM was established in 2011 through the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and is responsible for coordinating STEM education efforts across federal programs. This is accomplished through setting the vision through the federal five-year strategic plan. The most recent plan, which was established in 2018 and active through 2023, pursued three goals: (a) Foundational STEM Literacy, (b) Broadening Participation in STEM, and (c) STEM workforce preparation through four pathways: (a) strategic partnerships, (b) interdisciplinary STEM,¹¹ (c) computational literacy, and (d) operational transparency and accountability.

Across federal agencies that are coordinated through CoSTEM, there are nearly 200 programs that focus on STEM education and workforce development.¹² In 2022–2024, an estimated $14.5 billion flowed from federal programs to support STEM education and transition to the STEM workforce. Of those investments, $4.75 billion impacted Pre-K–12 education either directly or indirectly and $1.7 billion supported efforts primarily for Pre-K–12 STEM education (see Annex Table 2A-1).¹³ Of those efforts, NSF ($814.4 million) made the largest investment, outpacing ED ($731.6 million) by $82.8 million. The next largest investment came from HHS under the National Institute of Health in the form of the Science Education Partnership Awards ($98.1 million), a competitive grant program that supports resources and authentic learning experiences aligned to state standards for STEM subjects.

ROLE OF STATES IN PRE-K–12 STEM EDUCATION

Although federal agencies do have some influence on state educational priorities and activities, each state has the power to direct its own education system with oversight from a variety of actors at each state level. State educational agencies (SEA) play crucial roles in education policy as they direct funding, respond to mandates from the federal government and their own state legislatures, and oversee compliance. SEA officials function as system actors who make decisions related to STEM innovations, including creating grant programs to prepare and develop STEM educators and vetting lists

___________________

¹¹ For more information, see the CoSTEM report Convergence education: A guide to trans-disciplinary stem learning and teaching available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Convergence_Public-Report_Final.pdf

¹² These programs support a variety of different STEM education initiatives either within schools or in out-of-school time settings, aimed at Pre-K–12, undergraduate, graduate, or transitioning students and/or educators.

¹³ Just over 40 of the 244 CoSTEM tracked investments went to formal Pre-K–12 institutions.

of approved mathematics and science instructional materials.¹⁴ Traditionally, within the Pre-K–12 space, those individuals who are responsible for decision making for Pre-K are separate from those responsible for decision making about what is happening within K–12. What follows is a discussion of the key state-level actors within the formalized Pre-K system followed by the K–12 state-level actors.

The Formalized Pre-K System¹⁵

Young learners are served through a diverse range of early childhood programs before they enter Kindergarten; these include private or religiously affiliated preschools, federally funded preschool programs such as Head Start, state-funded prekindergarten programs, childcare settings, and home daycares. Across the different preschool programs, access to and the quality of STEM learning experiences varies greatly, with children in public preschool programs serving lower income communities often having less access to high-quality STEM learning experiences and/or resources (e.g., Morgan et al., 2023; NASEM, 2024a; Piasta, Pelatti, & Miller, 2014).

Before delving into specific roles and responsibilities of states in supporting Pre-K education, there are a few contextual considerations. First, it is important to note that the wholistic approach to early childhood education has strengths and includes features that could in fact help address some of the challenges seen within K–12 (Larimore, 2020); for instance, preschool teachers often form home-school collaborations, draw from families’ insights and experiences, and create caring and collaborative classroom cultures, which have been found to be necessary and conducive for deeper STEM learning (NASEM, 2023, 2024a). At the same time, however, STEM has not been a focus of accountability initiatives in preschool, which often drive the attention given to curriculum and professional learning¹⁶ experiences provided to teachers. Similar to early elementary educators, preschool

___________________

¹⁴ State roles vary from state to state. Many do not have the ability to create their own grant programs. Further, only about half of the states have lists of approved instructional materials, whereas others leave these decisions entirely up to local districts.

¹⁵ Portions of this text were drawn from the commissioned paper by Connors-Tadros and Weisenfeld (2024).

¹⁶ The committee recognizes that, as evidence-based practices have evolved with regard to the most effective ways to enable teachers to expand their knowledge and refine their practice in support of students’ learning, there has been a shift away from short-term professional development workshops or passive lectures toward sustained, interactive learning experiences that include opportunities for educators to practice, customize, and reflect on how they can apply new learning in their schools and classrooms. The term “professional learning” is increasingly being used to refer to the latter approach. This report generally uses the term professional learning, in line with current best practices, except when describing the work of others, in which case their own terms and descriptors are retained.

teachers are rarely provided with high-quality professional learning opportunities to facilitate children’s STEM engagement and learning specifically and the support to integrate STEM learning into an increasingly crowded preschool curriculum as well as training on culturally responsive teaching practices (NASEM, 2024a).

Role of States

In the United States, state-level agencies manage a variety of early care and education (ECE) programs serving children from birth through age five (Franchino & Loewenberg, 2019), including publicly funded preschool programs (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2020). These agencies administer almost $40 billion in federal funding and more than $8 billion in state funding, plus other state investments for young children (before school entry), including preschool children (Connors-Tadros et al., 2021).

The state’s role in the education of young children before kindergarten is growing with the expansion of state-funded Pre-K increasing from 700,000 four-year-olds served in state-funded preschool programs in 2001 to its current peak of 1.63 million children in 2022–2023 (Friedman-Krauss & Barnett, 2024). The formal Pre-K early education system is unique, and distinct from childcare, in that its primary focus is on education grounded in child development and developmentally appropriate practice, focusing on the whole child and all domains of development and learning. Pre-K is authorized and funded separately from the K–12 system. Each state designs its Pre-K system through authorizing legislation, and funding, and determines eligibility, quality standards, and monitoring.

The governance of programs serving preschool children at the state level is highly variable and can be fragmented, partly due to the differing federal, state, and local funding sources and associated regulations (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2024). For example, in Alabama, three state agencies oversee five different programs serving preschool-aged children, and in Washington state, one state agency oversees five programs serving preschool-aged children (Education Commission of the States, 2020). An increasing number of states are moving to consolidate programs serving young children, before school entry, to increase access to programs and the efficiency of administering and funding programs, many of which have different federal, state, or local funding sources and regulations (Walsh, Smith, & Mercado, 2023).

Authority and Oversight of State Pre-K

The authority and oversight of state-funded Pre-K can be housed in different state agencies, such as the SEA, the state human services agency, a separate child-serving agency, and in a few cases, a public-private

partnership entity. For the 44 states and Washington, D.C. that operate state-funded Pre-K, the programs are administratively housed in the SEA in the majority of states. Though it varies greatly, authority for Pre-K within the SEA could allow for greater coordination and alignment of Pre-K with K–12 policy, including STEM-related standards or initiatives (policy alignment with STEM is discussed in more detail below.) For example, in Kansas, the state-funded preschool program is housed in the Early Childhood Unit, in the state Department of Education, Division of Learning, Special Education and Title Services.¹⁷ A unique example of coordinated decision making across state agencies is the West Virginia Universal Pre-K program,¹⁸ administratively housed in the SEA, but required by legislation to have shared leadership across the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the SEA.

Pre-K is administered by a separate state agency for young children in some states.¹⁹ These state agencies’ major purpose is to provide oversight to the state-funded Pre-K program and depending on the specific state legislation, coordinate with other programs for young children. A separate state agency elevates early childhood to a cabinet-level position, with similar authority to the state’s Secretary of Education. For example, the Alabama Department of Early Childhood Education²⁰ implements state-funded Pre-K and Head Start and other programs serving children from birth through age eight.

Less common is when state-funded Pre-K is housed in the health and human services department, currently in just three states (North Carolina, North Dakota, and Washington²¹ state); or oversight is located or co-located across several entities, as in South Carolina where authority for state-funded Pre-K is split between the SEA and First Steps²² which is both

___________________

¹⁷ See https://www.ksde.org/Agency/Division-of-Learning-Services/Special-Education-and-Title-Services/Early-Childhood

¹⁸ See https://wvde.us/early-and-elementary-learning/wv-universal-pre-k/

¹⁹ Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Oregon are examples of states that have set up a separate state agency to oversee Pre-K. In addition, Arizona’s First Things First program is overseen by the Early Childhood Development and Health Board; the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education oversees the Louisiana, 8(g) program; the Head Start Collaboration Office has authority over Minnesota Head Start; and the Utah State Board of Education, Department of Workforce Services, Office of Child Care oversees its state Pre-K program. For more information, see Friedman-Krauss et al. (2024).

²⁰ See https://children.alabama.gov/

²¹ One of the Pre-K programs, the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program operates under the authority of the Department of Children, Youth and Families, but the SEA has administrative authority over the other Pre-K program, Transition to Kindergarten.

²² See https://www.scfirststeps.org/

a state agency and nonprofit entity. The SEA oversees the public-school Pre-K programs, and First Steps oversees the community-based preschools.

Funding Sources and Funding Mechanisms of State-funded Pre-K

Funding for Pre-K programs is a combination of federal, state, and local dollars (Parker, Diffy, & Atchison, 2018). In 2022–2023, states spent on average, $7,277 per child (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2024). When adding other reported spending (not all states could report all funds), the state average per-child expenditures increased to $8,294 (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2024). This is much lower than the comprehensive Head Start program ($13,840 per child) and substantially lower compared to the average per-child K–12 spending of $18,426 (2022–2023) (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2024).

State dollars are typically general fund appropriations. Some states and cities use “sin taxes” such as lottery (Georgia), soda tax (Philadelphia), and tobacco/nicotine tax (California and Colorado) to fund Pre-K programs or quality services to support them. About a quarter of the state Pre-K programs use the school funding formula (SFF),²³ at least in part, to fund programs (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2024). To distribute funds, some programs use the same mechanism as the SFF, distributing state dollars to school districts who then subcontract with nonpublic schools to operate in mixed-delivery settings. Other states use grants to distribute contracts through a competitive bidding process, and others award contracts to any eligible provider.

Federal dollars come from several different U.S. departments, including ED for Title I and IDEA Part C and Part B and HHS for Head Start, Child Care Development Fund, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (NASEM, 2018). Each funding source has rules defining who is eligible to receive the funds, how the dollars can be used, and who is the direct recipient is. For example:

• Head Start funds flow directly to programs or agencies, not the state.
• Title I is controlled by public school districts that decide if it is used for Pre-K.²⁴

___________________

²³ For more information about school funding formulas and Pre-K, see Barnett, W. S., & Kasmin, R. (2018). Fully funding Pre-K through K–12 funding formulas. State Education Standard, 18(1), 22–28.

²⁴ For more information, see U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Serving children through Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended: Non regulatory guidance. https://oese.ed.gov/files/2024/02/Title-I-Preschool-Early-Learning-Guidance-Revised-2023-FINAL.pdf

• IDEA funding is targeted at children from birth to five with special needs.

Even though states do not administer federally funded Head Start programs, 13 states²⁵ supplement Head Start grantees in their states by extending the day, offering quality enhancements, or adding seats (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2024).

In addition, there are also temporary funding sources like the COVID-19 relief funds (CARES, ARP, Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund) and the Preschool Development Grants Birth through Five that some states have used to increase access to or enhance the quality of their Pre-K programs.

Coordination of State Policy for Pre-K

Given the multiple agencies that may have authority and oversight for programs and public funding before kindergarten entry, some states have formally established early care and education advisory committees. Though most may influence policy, they are typically advisory and do not have authority/oversight of programs. About half of states have a formal ECE collaborative/advisory committee to align and coordinate ECE services across ages and agencies (Education Commission of the States, 2020). Additionally, in some states, such as Kentucky, Illinois, and Rhode Island, the governor has established an office of early learning in the governor’s office to coordinate policy and funding across state agencies. Some state boards of education (SBOEs) also have authority over Pre-K (National Association of State Boards of Education, 2022), and many are increasingly providing leadership on Pre-K policy (Regenstein, 2023). For example, the Maryland State Board of Education²⁶ monitors, advises, and makes recommendations on education policy specifically outlined in its Strategic Plan, the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future,²⁷ which has a strong focus on early childhood education.

K–12 System Actors²⁸

Public K–12 schools serve approximately 49.4 million students, making it essential to understand how the system can address equitable STEM

___________________

²⁵ The 13 states that supplement their state’s Head Start programs are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

²⁶ See https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Pages/default-2023.aspx

²⁷ See https://blueprint.marylandpublicschools.org/

²⁸ Portions of this text were drawn from the commissioned paper by Woulfin and colleagues (2024).

educational opportunities for all students. Within the K–12 public education system, governors, state legislators, and state education officials from the SEA and SBOE, all play a critical role in shaping STEM initiatives and their successful implementation. State-level actors can prioritize the need for STEM innovations and reform efforts within their sphere of influence through policies, programs, and publicity. These actors also are critical in ensuring successful implementation of innovative STEM education through statewide coordination, funding, and evaluation (Zinth & Goetz, 2016).

Chief State School Officers (CSSO)

CSSOs are tasked with effectively leading the regulatory, administrative, and operational needs of schools. Notably, there exists variability in the titles and method of selections for their state education leader. Throughout the 50 states and territories, these leaders are referred to as commissioners or secretaries of education, or state superintendents of schools or public instruction. In 12 states, the CSSO is elected, while in the remaining 38, they are appointed by the governor, the SBOE, or a board of regents. CSSOs have much influence in the uptake of STEM innovations within the SEA and, increasingly, as public figures. As public leaders of education, CSSOs can bring significant attention to STEM innovations. For instance, a CSSO may visit schools to highlight innovative programs or engage with other districts or outside partners to facilitate partnerships associated with STEM initiatives. These activities elevate the importance of STEM innovation efforts, encouraging or motivating shifts in practice.

State Board of Education (SBOE)

The SBOE plays an important role in establishing statewide goals and supervision for a state’s public education system. The SBOE shapes STEM teaching and learning by adopting education regulations for state standards, assessments, curriculum, instructional materials and graduation requirements. Just as the selection and organization of CSSOs differs from state to state, so does the SBOE. Members of the SBOE may be elected or appointed and often have political and business ties within the state that can influence their actions and interests. The nature of members’ selection to the SBOE may influence their relationship to other state policy actors including the governor, CSSO, and members of the state legislature. The SBOE may adopt a unified set of legislative priorities with varying levels of influence and respond to the requirements of state legislative action that fall within its statutory authority (see Education Commission of the States, 2020). For example, in Washington state, the legislature created the STEM

pilot program to invest in access to laboratory space to support the SBOE-adopted graduation requirement of three science credits, two of which must be laboratory sciences (Noahr, Black, & Rogers, 2016). Actions by the SBOE can also bring attention to issues such as gender gaps in STEM and reviewing state standards and curricula on STEM (Young, VanGronigen, & Reynolds, 2019). SBOE may also recognize a state definition for STEM, or craft strategic plans to accomplish goals for state STEM education.

State Educational Administrators

State administrators also modulate STEM innovation efforts vis-a-vis the development and administration of grant programs. Many SEAs receive both federal and private grants targeting STEM innovations that they, in turn, award to LEAs. These grants not only provide critical resource support for LEAs, but also signal what and how schools prioritize STEM innovations. In other cases, SEAs might support STEM innovations by awarding grants to organizations outside of the LEA. In Indiana, the Higher Education Commission awarded $10 million in grants to different organizations, including colleges and universities, to recruit and retain STEM teachers (Indiana Commission for Higher Education, 2023). Whereas many state initiatives for supporting STEM innovations are funded through grants or partnerships with private foundations and corporations, some SEAs have begun to design, implement, and fund initiatives to support science achievement (Pruitt & Wallace, 2012).

Although the decision on the adoption and implementation of curriculum is often left to the LEA, state-level actors are increasingly enacting policy to shape local decisions. State legislatures, SBOE, and SEAs all influence LEAs by identifying and incentivizing the adoption of curriculum and high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) that align with the state education standards and academic goals. Some states, like Louisiana, have created rubrics to help LEAs identify HQIM and provide benefits for those who adopt materials designated as quality (Doan et al., 2022). These benefits include financial incentives and professional learning opportunities to strengthen teachers’ implementation of high-quality materials. Coordination among state actors supports a coherent instructional system of aligned learning standards, curriculum, HQIM, and teacher professional learning opportunities necessary to successful implementation of STEM education (Cherbow at al., 2020).

State administrators’ roles and responsibilities linked to assessment policies and programs can also shape STEM initiatives. Specifically, state educational administrators implement assessments that are aligned to their state standards, as federally required by ESSA. In mathematics, assessments occur annually for third through eighth grade students, while ESSA only requires students to be assessed in science three times, once in each of the 3–5, 6–9,

and 10–12 grade-bands. Results of assessments, along with school quality indicators, are publicly reported annually through a state report card. In high school, states choose to administer assessments as an end-of-course requirement or as specific biology, chemistry, or physical science tests. In Massachusetts, state leaders adopted a Science and Technology/Engineering test design that covers earth and space science, life science, physical science, and technology/engineering, which aligns with the state’s adopted STE curriculum framework (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2024). Some states that have adopted NGSS standards administer an assessment aligned to these standards.

Finally, state administrators also support innovations in STEM education by recognizing programs that support STEM achievement. North Carolina created its STEM Schools of Distinction program to recognize schools dedicated to providing quality STEM programs (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2024). Some states prioritize programs to recognize exemplary STEM students and facilitate opportunities to extend their STEM education through community programming and funding for postsecondary degree attainment. In Florida, the Sunshine State Scholars Programs recognizes exemplary STEM students and rewards students with both scholarships and unique STEM experiences to further their learning (Florida Department of Education, 2024). This program is supported through partnerships between the Florida Department of Education and private corporations, foundations, universities, and the Florida Lottery. These recognition programs bring important attention to innovative strategies for STEM education while providing evidence-based programs with the knowledge and investments to further their impact.

LOCAL-LEVEL ACTORS²⁹

Local-level actors within the K–12 system influence what happens within districts and schools. What follows is a discussion of the major players within each of these levels.

District

Educational systems vary considerably across dimensions—for example, across traditional public school districts and charter management organizations, or across localities (i.e., urban and suburban to rural contexts). Across diverse systems, district leaders play key roles in designing and implementing STEM innovations. Their activities range from framing ideas about and allocating funding for STEM programs and initiatives to

___________________

²⁹ Portions of this text were drawn from the commissioned paper by Woulfin and colleagues (2024).

recruiting and retaining STEM educators and staff and facilitating professional learning opportunities related to innovations.

Superintendents

The role of the superintendent has changed over the decades (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). Superintendents were once deemed to be teacher leaders who might have more closely supported STEM innovations through a more hands-on approach, but their scope has shifted to encompass larger, more complex political and operational responsibilities (Brunner, Grogan, & Bjork, 2002). Superintendents currently balance local interests with the challenges of political pressures as well as accountability-based reforms emanating from the state and federal levels (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). There has been documentation that the high pace of the work and increased demands associated with this shift in scope has led to turnover and ongoing instability in school district leadership (White, 2023).

For over 30 years, the focus on large-scale educational reforms has linked superintendents with these reform movements (Björk et al., 2014). As the face of the district, superintendents set a vision for the district and communicate this with the public, advocating on behalf of the community. Yet, amid demands for increased accountability, superintendents must also comply with legislative requirements. Superintendents typically champion reform efforts but must ensure any proposed innovations fit the district’s needs and priorities. Thus, superintendents operate as political actors and may promote STEM innovations by framing them to appeal to district educators, families, and community members.

Superintendents are also responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the district and may further support STEM initiatives by facilitating the hiring of proper personnel and setting goals for student outcomes. Depending on factors such as a district’s size, location, and organizational structure, specific central office STEM leadership roles as well as titles within districts may differ. More specific day-to-day tasks such as hiring, payroll, and resource distribution, are routinely delegated to a designated cabinet member or department of the district’s central office. Thus, while superintendents are broadly responsible for district operations touching upon STEM innovation efforts, in reality, they primarily act as CEOs, while central office staff are responsible for keeping the district running—and designing and enacting STEM improvement and reform efforts.

District Leaders

School districts carry out the directives of the superintendent, the school board, the county office of education, and the state and federal agencies at

play (Björk, 2005). Thus, district administrators hold multiple responsibilities related to setting and enforcing district policies, interpreting state and federal educational legislation, and ensuring that STEM initiatives are in alignment with this legislation.

District leaders play essential roles in the implementation of STEM innovations (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). For district-specific STEM initiatives, district leaders craft policies, guidelines, and programs from the ground up. In many cases, the policy-in-progress would be passed through multiple central office departments (i.e., the Office of Innovation, Office of Teaching and Learning, and Technology Departments) to ensure it fits the district requirements within each department and aligns with state and local curriculum standards. For larger-scale STEM initiatives, district leaders take steps for adopting the innovation to their district. Similarly, they help determine standards and develop or select appropriate curriculum and corresponding assessments to align with state curriculum standards and the intent of the proposed STEM innovation. They also support the implementation of STEM initiatives by setting professional learning requirements for educators and facilitating professional learning activities. Central office staff further manage the logistics of STEM innovation implementation by acquiring and distributing necessary materials, technology, and human capital to schools and classrooms (Lasky, 2004).

Larger-scale STEM innovations can be more difficult to fit to a district in a manner aligned with the intent of the organization who developed the STEM innovation. Each district has its own set of resources, policies, and challenges. Moreover, district administrators may interpret the intent or process of a STEM innovation differently than how it was created, leading to misalignments from implementation to outcomes. While a district’s perceived failure to implement a STEM initiative with fidelity may give the appearance of resistance to innovation, it may also be due to the district’s limited capacity to fully enact the innovation, either due to limited resources or local policymakers’ limited understanding of the intent of the innovation (Spillane & Callahan, 2000). See Chapter 4 for more discussion of fidelity.

School Boards

School boards often hold the power to make final decisions related to adopting STEM innovations. They may receive policy proposals from the superintendent/central office leadership, or a proposed program or innovation from an outside organization or community member. Additionally, school boards are responsible for setting the district budget, which affects how much money can be spent, where it can be spent, and how it can be used to advance STEM innovation efforts. Moreover, financial constraints shape the implementation of these innovations by setting limitations on

resources and personnel. Although school boards are tasked with allocating funds, they often do not have revenue-raising authority, so they seek approval from officials and depend on voter financing. School boards also hold regular public meetings to assess community priorities and public opinion. Historically, school board meetings are the primary venue in which parents and other interested parties in the community are invited to engage in the policymaking process (Björk, 2005). School boards thus act as both professional organizations (i.e., expected to support the superintendent and the district by enacting the “best” educational policies) and as representative bodies (i.e., tasked with responding to parent and community demands; Greene, 1992). When these roles conflict with one another, the process to implement a reform agenda or a particular innovation may lengthen as a policy undergoes several rounds of board review.

Some school boards are appointed by city or county officials, but most are elected by constituents. School board officials are largely elected in low-turnout and low-interest elections, with local school board elections typically reporting voter turnout no greater than 15 percent (Hartney & Flavin, 2011). Likely partially due to this low turnout, teacher unions—who otherwise have limited power in the policymaking process—are typically successful in campaigning on behalf of school board candidates (Moe, 2014).

Teacher Unions

A previous study on the political influence of teacher unions revealed that legislators overwhelmingly ranked their state’s teacher union as the most active, effective, and powerful interest group in the state capitol (Hrebnar & Thomas, 2004). However, this perception may be due to their success in recruitment and organizational processes rather than any measurable political outcomes (Bascia, 2000).

A set of critics claim that teacher unions impede STEM innovation because unions prioritize the wellbeing and security of their member educators above all else. However, unions often only appear hypercritical of innovations because teachers are often relegated to the periphery of policymaking and reform (Poole, 1999). Unions and their members are rarely invited to early conversations about new initiatives, and typically learn of them when the public does (Cowan & Strunk, 2014). Consequently, they are forced to quickly shift their attention and resources to supporting their member educators through the implementation process.

Unions may challenge innovative STEM initiatives over concerns of process, philosophy, and student outcomes, or over concerns regarding the content of the initiative or related implementation factors and conditions. Unions may also appear to be critical of STEM innovations that require a larger or more specialized labor force, or additional labor from

educators—particularly in the absence of additional support in the forms of compensation, training, and adequate hiring of proper personnel to comprehensively support implementation.

Despite a lack of agency in the development of most initiatives, educators are at the front lines of implementing STEM innovations in the classroom. Though unions may be vocally critical of a STEM initiative, in the long run, they are likely to support these efforts by creating, housing, and connecting teachers with resources (Bascia, 2000; Poole, 1999), such as professional learning opportunities (Bredeson, 2001). Some unions may even appoint specialized committees to participate in decisions about technology purchasing to support STEM innovations (Kochan, 2022). Unions may also be likely to support new innovations by proactively participating in reform movements—lobbying for provisions to protect workforce conditions alongside the implementation of a curricular innovation or broader school reform effort (Poole, 1999). By supporting educational initiatives in this way, unions may gain a modest amount of access to the political process, enabling them to advocate for the safeguarding of teachers’ rights in the face of educational change.

Schools

Principals

At the school level, principals make sense of policy directives from state and district leaders and employ a variety of leadership styles to manage the micropolitical processes of implementation among campus instructional staff (Donaldson & Woulfin, 2018; Horsford, Scott, & Anderson, 2019). Drawing on multiple competencies, including their understanding of state and local policies, discipline-specific STEM content knowledge, and capacities for leadership (Geiger et al., 2023), principals lead STEM policy implementation by framing and prioritizing STEM instruction, engaging and supporting staff to adopt STEM initiatives, buffering staff against onerous or intrusive reform elements, and fostering STEM-supportive school cultures and climates (Falloon et al., 2021).

As campus instructional leaders, principals frame, prioritize, and communicate expectations about teaching and learning to instructional staff (Terosky, 2016). Yet researchers have noted that principals’ diverse interpretations of STEM instruction differentially shape their messaging about STEM initiatives. Sterrett and colleagues (2018) observed that principals expressed a variety of understandings about the purpose and quality of STEM instruction, which influenced their approaches for providing feedback to teachers and planning teacher professional learning. Interestingly, research has shown that principals do often share a common understanding

of STEM education’s core elements, but even when this is the case, differences in their sensemaking about their leadership roles for STEM can lead to divergent messaging about curriculum, pedagogy, and student learning environments (Holmlund, Lesseig, & Slavit, 2018; Lochmiller, 2016). And because some principals possess limited understandings of STEM subjects and high-quality STEM instructional practices (Lochmiller, 2015; McNeill, Lowenhaupt, & Katsch-Singer, 2018), they might lack critical expertise in framing or prioritizing implementation of STEM innovations and reform efforts (Allen & Heredia, 2021).

Principals engage in numerous tasks to supervise and support STEM educators, including observing and providing feedback on classroom instruction (Rigby et al., 2017), setting campus budgets and schedules (Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 2018), buffering teachers from onerous or disruptive directives (Wenner & Settlage, 2015), and ensuring access to STEM programs, materials, and resources (Falloon et al., 2021). Principals who foster collaborative approaches to supporting educators tend to experience greater success in sustaining STEM innovations, as these models draw on teacher leadership and expertise to inform understandings of high-quality STEM instruction (Kubasko, Rhodes, & Sterrett, 2019; Sterrett et al., 2020).

Campus principals also influence STEM innovations through their efforts to shape school cultures and climates (Fullan, 2023). Specifically, when principals foster school cultures that prioritize relational trust, collaboration, and teacher and student risk-taking, they bolster the capacity of instructional staff to overcome the challenges that typically accompany the implementation of STEM innovations (Falloon et al., 2021; Lesseig et al., 2019; Waters & Orange, 2022).

Instructional Coaches

In addition to principals, instructional coaches, teacher leaders, and department chairs hold agency to shape the nature and outcomes of STEM innovations. These school-based instructional leaders influence teachers and their STEM instruction (Matsumura et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2020; Woulfin, Strunk, & Jones, 2023). There is mounting evidence that coaching can improve student outcomes in various content areas and for various outcomes (Kraft, Blazar, & Hogan, 2018).

Carrying out an educative role, coaches can develop teachers’ capacity to teach in ways aligned with STEM innovations (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Sarrell, Zelkowski, & Livers, 2024). Efficacious educative coaching practices include conducting robust, targeted conversations about curriculum, pedagogy, and students; setting improvement goals; and delivering evidence-based feedback on teachers’ STEM instruction (Russell et al., 2020). Gibbons and colleagues (2017) highlight how coaches build the collective capacity of teachers

by facilitating professional learning routines addressing the principles and practices of ambitious mathematics instruction. Coaches’ educative work occurs with individual teachers as well as groups of teachers. Moreover, as demonstrated by Sarrell and colleagues (2024), coaches play key roles in designing mathematics professional learning systems at the district and school levels.

By translating and mediating policy messages, coaches also play a political role. Based on their knowledge, prior experiences, and local conditions, coaches make sense of messages regarding STEM in varied ways (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). For example, coaches make sense of math assessment guidelines and NGSS-aligned instructional materials. Such interpretations influence coaches’ strategic communication, or framing, of STEM innovations. In turn, this framing affects how teachers, leaders, and other actors develop understandings of how and why to implement specific STEM innovations.

Importantly, coaches apply their agency to amplify particular ideas about STEM innovations, while downplaying others (Benford & Snow, 2000; Coburn, 2006). Their persuasive communication about innovations can influence how teachers and other individuals implement STEM instructional improvement efforts. For example, a math coach can point to problematic inequities in students’ math formative assessment results while facilitating a grade-level team meeting. Or a STEM coach can elevate the benefits of using lesson plans from their district’s NGSS-aligned science curriculum while giving feedback to a novice teacher. In both examples, coaches are highlighting certain aspects of a STEM innovation while downplaying others to advance particular types of change. Notably, coaches engage in framing STEM innovations in facilitating professional learning opportunities for teachers and may thus promote the uptake and sustained adoption of STEM innovations.

Teachers

Teachers interpret and respond to STEM innovations in varied ways. Based upon individual knowledge and experiences as well as collective learning opportunities, teachers make sense of messages about STEM innovation that influence implementation (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). In many districts and schools, teachers hold considerable discretion for what occurs day-by-day, or moment-by-moment, inside classrooms (NASEM, 2020). Even when provided a common curriculum or instructional framework (e.g., mathematics HQIM as designated by a state), teachers make many decisions about how to translate, or enact, the curriculum to meet student needs and fit local conditions (Hall & Hampden-Thompson, 2022; Lowell, Fogelman, & McNeill, 2024). The policy environment, however, affects educators’ degree of discretion (Penuel et al., 2009). In particular, accountability policies

that tightly monitor mathematics and English language arts standardized test scores constrain teachers’ agency, oftentimes narrowing their attention toward tested subjects or seeking to raise test scores to meet particular targets (Berliner, 2011; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Milner, 2013).

Collaborative spaces and networks play roles in promoting teacher agency to enact STEM innovations. First, professional learning communities (PLCs) provide time and routines for educators to share ideas about STEM teaching and learning, and to gain insights on how to refine their classroom practices (Mesa & Pringle, 2019; Townley, 2020); however, it is worth pointing out that how PLC time is allocated depends on school leadership. As discussed earlier, instructional leaders, such as coaches or department chairs, can facilitate PLC sessions, encouraging reflection, transparent communication, and sharing of resources and tools. Further, when teachers engage in PLCs, they form networks that enable the sharing of other ideas related to STEM instructional improvement. Building collective capacity matters for the degree to which teachers tinker or work strategically (Coburn, 2001), and supports the development of teachers’ professional agency for implementing and sustaining STEM innovations (Balgopal, 2020; Bonner, Diehl, & Trachtman, 2020).

Teachers also influence the implementation of STEM innovations through their enactment of teacher leadership practices. STEM teachers who develop leader identities not only experience a stronger sense of self-efficacy, but also develop supportive networks with colleagues to expand their collective instructional capacity (Park et al., 2024; Quaisley et al., 2023). When teachers develop a strengthened sense of self-efficacy, they also increase their ability to advocate for STEM education policies and improved teaching and learning conditions in their schools (Velasco, Hite, & Milbourne, 2022).

REGIONAL ACTORS

It is also vital to attend to many of the regional actors who shape the design and enactment of STEM innovations. From textbook publishers, professional learning providers, and professional societies to philanthropic foundations and industry partners, a broad array of regional actors are involved in steering and modulating innovations seeking to alter the quality of STEM teaching and learning (Hodge et al., 2019; Rowan, 2006). The sections below describe a STEM ecosystems approach to fostering connection between regional actors and those at the center of the education system; the special role of families and communities as regional actors; and the many other forms of connection that can grow among actors within the broader learning environment.

STEM Ecosystems

The STEM ecosystems approach has gained significant traction in a variety of states (see Chapter 5 for a broader discussion). The collective regional actors listed above, along with other actors within the educational system described in this chapter, have been characterized, as noted earlier, within a STEM learning ecology. The STEM learning ecosystem concept differs from the concept of STEM learning ecologies. While both focus on the interrelationship of multiple components of a learning environment, a description of STEM learning ecologies, positions the child at the center, STEM learning ecosystems concept, on the other hand, underpins and drives the formation of an intentional community of practice, which it situates at the center of the learning environment. The intentional formation of partnerships—including and especially with regional actors—is a defining part of a STEM learning ecosystem.

Definitions of STEM learning ecosystems focus on a multi-sectored constituency including formal and informal learning settings; suggest collaborative interactions and adaptability; identify purpose; and imply both tactical and strategic approached to achieving desired outcomes; and these learning ecosystems are meant to be sustained.

The STEM Funders Network along with its partners, the Afterschool Alliance, and the Teaching Institute for Exemplary STEM (TIES; See Box 2-6), define STEM ecosystems in this way:

The STEM Funders Network, an affiliation of grant makers seeking to “create equitable access to STEM learning experiences across the continuum for historically marginalized groups, such as underserved populations and under-resourced communities,”³⁰ set the formalized STEM ecosystem concept in motion in 2015 through a Communities of Practice initiative that aimed “to establish 100 STEM Ecosystems by 2020, bringing together school districts, afterschool providers, institutions of higher education,

___________________

³⁰ See https://stemfundersnetwork.org/who-we-are/

cultural institutions, businesses, and families to provide engaging, high-quality STEM learning opportunities.”³¹

The STEM ecosystems concept gained prominence at the federal level with inclusion in the White House OSTP STEM Education Strategic Plan (National Science and Technology Council, Committee on STEM Education, National Science & Technology Council, the White House, 2018, p. 10), which not only defines what STEM ecosystems are, but also identifies their many and varied actors. Increasingly, the STEM ecosystem concept has been used as an organizer of action around STEM learning at the state, regional, and local levels. State-sun STEM ecosystems can perform a number of different functions, as characterized by the example in Box 2-7.

There is substantial variability in efforts that seek to coordinate STEM learning across the various layers and actors within the STEM ecosystem. Some are designed to press on multiple levers given their positioning within state government and their available funding (e.g., Iowa and Alabama), whereas others are designed to push on levers at the family/community level (e.g., STEM NOLA).³² Chapter 5 provides a more detailed discussion of these examples.

Families and Communities

Families and communities themselves are also key regional and local actors throughout all levels of the landscape. Human learning is lifelong (learning occurs throughout life), life-wide (learning occurs across a range of activities one participates across home, schools, community

___________________

³¹ See https://overdeck.org/portfolios/spotlight/stem-funders-network-2/

³² See personal communications on December 7, 2023.

organization), and life-deep (learning cultivates particular values and social beliefs that impact how one acts in the world; Banks et al., 2007, pp. 12–13). Over the lifecourse, humans spend about only 18.5 percent of their waking hours in K–12 schools. A vast majority of their time is spent outside of school settings, learning new ideas, languages, and participating in new practices on outside-of-school time settings (Banks et al., 2007). As such learning begins with the lives of learners, and family members are key partners with deep expertise regardless of their preparation in formal STEM education (NASEM, 2024b). These are numerous examples of co-designing with family members, community members, researchers, and educators in which participants bring together diverse forms of expertise to provide more nuanced support across multiple forms of learning such as rich sensemaking repertoires, everyday practices, linguistic resources, family histories, and community values, in support of curriculum, teacher learning, and children’s learning in STEM (e.g., Booker & Goldman, 2016; Gomez, Kyza, & Mancevice, 2018; Ishimaru & Bang, 2022; Tzou et al., 2019). Families and communities play important roles in and bring key expertise to the landscape of STEM learning to support districts and school leaders (NASEM, 2024b).

Connections across Actors

In many ways, regional actors have set the stage, or laid the groundwork, for major STEM innovation efforts. First, STEM education organizations and professional societies, including NGSS Lead States, National Governors Association, and Council of Chief State School Officers have played crucial roles in drafting content standards and instructional frameworks related to Pre-K–12 mathematics and science. In the case of science standards development, NGSS Lead States emphasized their partnership with other regional actors (e.g., National Science Teachers Association, higher education faculty, scientists, business leaders)—while underscoring “no federal funds were used to develop the standards.” Turning to mathematics reform efforts, a set of regional actors with the financial support of the Carnegie Corporation of New York drafted Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (Garland, 2014). Thus, they shaped the direction of early-2010s math instructional reform efforts. This included partnering with curriculum designers to produce Common Core–aligned textbooks (Hodge et al., 2019).

Second, professional learning providers shape educators’ access to ideas about—and learning opportunities regarding—STEM innovations. Many educational systems and schools contract with professional learning providers to assist with facilitating professional learning for teachers as well as leaders. These providers often facilitate curriculum-linked workshops to build educator capacity, which may apply reform-oriented principles (Penuel et al., 2007). Hodge and colleagues (2019) issue the reminder that professional learning providers tend to follow supply-demand needs. In this manner, professional learning providers reinforce the approaches from curricula.

Together, the various regional actors help to support the implementation of STEM education innovations by helping to build individual and organizational capacity within the more formal Pre-K–12 education system.

SUMMARY

This chapter presented an overview of what is known about the formal Pre-K–12 education system. Overall, despite the variability in the purpose of the different actors, they play important roles in helping STEM education innovations to take shape and to scale. Each of the multiple, nested levels of the education system contain regulations, ideas, and resources related to STEM education innovations. And the various actors, positioned across the multiple levels of the education system, face different institutional and organization conditions as they deploy their agency while enacting innovations. These actors not only engage in different responsibilities but hold also different levels of power and authority for motivating the implementation of various PreK–12 STEM education innovations. Chapter 8 takes up these issues more.

Moreover, the formal Pre-K context is different from the formal K–12 education system and there is not clear alignment or coherence of policies, standards, and teaching practices from Pre-K into the K–12 system. Each state designs its own Pre-K system through authorizing legislation and funding, and determines eligibility, quality standards, and monitoring. Because of this, the governance is highly variable and fragmented. A few states and districts have developed a scalable and sustainable approach to integrating STEM fields through curriculum, professional preparation, and professional development of Pre-K teachers and administrators.

REFERENCES

ANNEX 2-1: TRACKED COSTEM FEDERAL PRE-K–12 STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS

TABLE 2A-1 CoSTEM Federal STEM Education Programs and Investments Directly or Indirectly Impacting Pre-K–12

NOTE: ^* Programs primarily for Pre-K–12 are bolded.

SOURCE: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2023-CoSTEM-ProgressReport.pdf

This page intentionally left blank.