3

History of Federal and National STEM Education Improvement Efforts

A focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is not new.¹ Since the 1950s, there has been increasing emphasis on building a skilled STEM workforce with various federal and national initiatives designed to spur improvements in K–12 STEM education. As these efforts continued and evolved, an emphasis on expanding and improving STEM education persisted (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990, 1993; Council on Competitiveness, 2005; National Governors Association, 2007; National Science Board, 2007; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST], 2012). Over time, the goals for STEM education have expanded beyond primarily acting in service of economic prosperity (including workforce development) to also include national security, cultural enrichment, and civic engagement. These expanded goals have led to increasing calls to document and understand how to increase students’ performance and persistence in STEM fields more broadly (National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC], 2014; NRC, 2011, 2013; PCAST, 2010).

Historically, as highlighted in Chapter 2, the U.S. federal government plays an influential role in education as the control of education is at the state and local levels (Rippner, 2015). Even today, the federal government exerts limited control over schooling, with few direct throughlines to communities and classrooms (Bowman, 2017). Yet researchers and practitioners point

___________________

¹ Although we are using the word STEM throughout this chapter, it is worth noting that the term did not come into play until 1990 (see Chapter 1 and Raup, 2019).

to multiple ways that federal legislation, guidance, and leadership affect local systems and activities. Several important drivers within the education system have been targeted in the work associated with improving STEM education, including the creation of standards documents, professional development networks, and curricula (NAE & NRC, 2014), all of which have increased attention to the teaching and learning of these subjects.

This chapter provides an overview of the history of federal and national attempts to improve K–12 STEM education, starting with the launch of Sputnik through the more recent wave of reforms.² The discussion is organized in four sections marking important milestones, sometimes linked to landmark legislative shifts; these sections include:

• 1958–1983: Launch of Sputnik to A Nation at Risk
• 1983–2001: From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind
• 2001–2015: No Child Left Behind to Every Student Succeeds Act
• 2015–Present: The Current State of STEM Education

Each section describes the intended shifts and goals for K–12 education more broadly in STEM education in particular,³ including a discussion of some of the levers (i.e., policies for standards, assessments, and accountability; curriculum; professional learning; and state/district systemic capacity building) as appropriate, and, when possible, the evidence of impact for the initiatives.

LAUNCH OF SPUTNIK TO A NATION AT RISK (1958–1983)

Although national security is not typically seen as a primary objective of public education, the launch of Sputnik during the Cold War accelerated a significant educational response that had begun at the start of the Cold War. The United States Congress enacted what can now be seen as the inaugural significant shift in STEM education, known as the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, and continued with a new wave of reforms through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.

The NDEA of 1958, which was managed by the U.S. Department of Education (ED; created in 1867), spurred several important initiatives to enhance

___________________

² The committee primarily focuses on K–12 as many of the legislative shifts that have an impact most related to STEM education are in that arena. There have been a number of notable moves in early childhood, but the focus has not been on STEM education in the same way.

³ It is worth noting that most of the legislative shifts primarily call out science and mathematics, particularly for K–12. Engineering only entered the mainstream discourse in K–12 with A Framework for Science Education (NRC, 2012). There were a few states that had engineering in their standards a few years prior (Massachusetts including engineering with science standards in 2003), but implementation was limited.

STEM education in the United States, particularly in science and mathematics, by providing funding for STEM education at all levels, including fellowships for boosting the number of skilled engineers and scientists. There were ten major provisions within NDEA. Title VII of this act also facilitated the use of emerging technologies, promoting the development and use of educational television and other media to enhance STEM teaching and learning in and outside the classroom (Flattau et al., 2006). Title III is most closely related to the committee’s statement of task. It provided states with funds to strengthen mathematics, science, and foreign language instruction, which included better equipment and materials, along with professional development⁴ for teachers (Jolly, 2009). Congress funded Title III at $70 million over a four-year period (1958–1962), with an additional $5 million to be provided for supervisory and related services (P.L. 85-864).

A distinguishing characteristic of this reform movement was a focus on collaborative efforts between teachers and researchers, as seen in the provisions in Title III that focused on instruction. Rather than being passive recipients of content and strategies, teachers were treated as fundamental contributors to the process and funded accordingly or otherwise supported (Dow, 1997). As a result, teacher professional learning was intended to ensure that educators would implement up-to-date curricular resources in their own classrooms, stay current with the advancement in STEM, and adopt new teaching methodologies.

Flattau and colleagues (2006) conducted a review of NDEA. Their analysis revealed that Title III programs reached nearly every state and local agency in the country and expanded the number of specialists working for educational agencies. State surveys conducted in the 1960s suggested that better equipment and teacher education contributed to students’ increased interest in mathematics and science; however, the surveys also indicated that states did not have a satisfactory way to evaluate their programs (Gaarder, 1966).

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was the federal government’s first foray into public K–12 education and specifically authorized the federal government to equalize educational opportunities of all children by directing federal education dollars to the most disadvantaged children living in poverty (Paul, 2016). ESEA was enacted after the Civil Rights Act and the same year as the Voting Rights Act, serving “as a vehicle to promote federal, state, and local cooperation, support students’ civil rights, and expand access to quality educational opportunities” (DeBray et al., 2023). The legislation strengthened the federal government’s ability to help states’ efforts both to address racial discrimination in public education and to provide technical assistance and support to districts seeking to desegregate public schools.

___________________

⁴ As a reminder, we are using the language in federal legislation.

The shift in federal categorical programs (seen in both NDEA and ESEA) necessitated the creation of federal and state administrative capacities to oversee the administration of the programs and ensure state compliance (McGuinn, 2015; Paul, 2016). ESEA offered new grants to districts serving low-income students, federal grants for textbooks and library books, funding for special education centers, and scholarships for low-income college students. Additionally, the law provided federal grants to state educational agencies to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education.

Title I is a program created by ED as part of ESEA and is designed to distribute funding to schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families; this accounts for 5/6ths of the total funds authorized by ESEA (Paul, 2016). The other programs included:

• Title II, supporting school libraries and textbook acquisition for both private and public schools, preparing and training teachers, and funding of preschool programs
• Title III, mandating educational programming even when school was not in session
• Title IV, funding educational research and training
• Title V, supplementing grants to state departments

Disseminating Educational Innovations

A part of Title IV funding was the authorization of the establishment of a network of large-scale labs that have a focus on basic research and the development and dissemination of educational innovations. This network is run out of the U.S. Department of Education’s Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) program which is administered through the Institute of Education Science (IES) National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE).⁵ Although the goals for the program have changed over time (see Box 3-1), the RELs have collaborated with school districts, state departments of education, and other education stakeholders to help generate and apply evidence, with the goal of improving learner outcomes.

The work of the REL program, as described in Chapter 2, is intended to complement other ED programs. In particular, the RELs coordinate with the Comprehensive Centers⁶ and the Equity Assistance Centers⁷ by conducting rigorous applied research and development work and integrating and

___________________

⁵ The text for this section is derived from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/About

⁶ For more information see https://compcenternetwork.org/

⁷ For more information see https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/program-and-grantee-support-services/training-and-advisory-services-equity-assistance-centers/

building on that research and development work with high-quality training, coaching, technical support, and dissemination to ultimately improve learner outcomes.

Emphasis on Curriculum Development

In responding to the legislative shifts described above, there were significant investments in National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded curriculum projects (through Instructional Materials Development [IMD] grants) such as the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC),⁸ the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS),⁹ the Chemical Education Material Study

___________________

⁸ See https://archivesspace.mit.edu/repositories/2/resources/1118

⁹ See https://bscs.org/about/our-story/

(CHEM Study),¹⁰ the Earth Science Curriculum Project (ESCP),¹¹ and the School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG).¹² Whereas the science curricula prioritized inquiry-based learning approaches and emphasized conceptual understanding of science over rote memorization of facts, changes on the mathematics side introduced new teaching approaches and resources, with an emphasis on a deeper understanding of mathematics concepts and problem-solving skills. The IMD grants required curriculum developers to forge partnerships with major publishing companies to ensure scale and sustainability of NSF’s investments.¹³

Additional development efforts in new math and science curricula included Project 2061, led by AAAS, which focused on reforming K–12 science education. Project 2061 emphasized more integrated interdisciplinary curricula that connected scientific concepts across disciplines and grade levels, moving away from rote memorization towards deeper understanding.¹⁴ Elementary Science Study (ESS) also emerged during this period, with a focus on hands-on, inquiry-based learning that included kits with science materials, along with teacher and student guides. However, especially at the secondary grades, these national curricular investments in the sciences resulted in the siloing of subjects and curriculum by discipline, leading to a lack of interdisciplinary integration and collaboration in STEM education (Yee & Kirst, 1994). Meanwhile, over time, ESS faced funding challenges: it launched with substantial funding through ESEA, which allowed for the development and scaling of this curriculum, but as federal funding priorities shifted and resources became scarcer, sustaining the program, both in the material resources and teacher education, was not feasible.

Development of the National Assessment of Educational Progress

Alongside NDEA and ESEA, the 1960s also saw an increased interest in data-gathering. During the early 1960s, the U.S. Commissioner of Education recognized the need for a national assessment that could provide data regarding students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities.¹⁵ The assessments first took place in 1969, known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and focused on citizenship, science, and writing. In 1986, the NAEP was revised to develop new assessments and long-term trend

___________________

¹⁰ See https://archives.sciencehistory.org/repositories/3/resources/124

¹¹ See https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2640&context=istj

¹² See https://dbpedia.org/page/School_Mathematics_Study_Group

¹³ Many of these early funded curricular efforts (e.g., FOSS, STC) are still in use today and are being updated to meet the evolving demands of standards.

¹⁴ See https://www.aaas.org/programs/project-2061

¹⁵ For reference, see https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/timeline.aspx

assessments in reading, mathematics, and science. The NAEP is still in use today and has changed to align with evolving standards and understandings of how people learn in addition to ensuring the efficiency of its processes and credibility of results.

Changing the Landscape of Special Education

The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), which was passed in 1975, changed the landscape of special education in the United States. ED created IDEA in response to a need for a structured special education system with the main goal of offering a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Through the enactment of this legislation, schools could no longer marginalize students with disabilities. For states to receive funding, they must develop policies and submit a detailed plan that focuses on creating a free and appropriate public education; the amount of funding awarded is based on the number of children with disabilities. A key component of IDEA is that guardians serve as advocates for their child’s rights and needs. However, it is worth noting that despite the intention by Congress to ensure that all disabled children have meaningful access to educational opportunities, Black students, students of color, and student from low-income, less-resourced communities continue to be underserved (Davis, 2021).

FROM A NATION AT RISK TO NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (1983–2001)¹⁶

In 1983, NCEE released the report A Nation at Risk. The report called for reform to public school education to address the inadequate quality of American education. The report made several recommendations, including the following:

1. All students seeking a high school diploma have a foundation in the “five new basics” (e.g., four courses in English, three in mathematics, three in science, three in social studies, 0.5 credit in computer science)
2. Schools adopt more “rigorous and measurable standards” and higher expectations for student performance and conduct
3. Schools devote more time to teaching the new basics (e.g., longer school days, longer school year, more efficient use of school day)

___________________

¹⁶ Portions of this text were derived from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/IASA/newsletters/profdev/pt2.html#:~:text=The%20Eisenhower%20Program%20authorizes%20support,learning%20in%20mathematics%20and%20science

4. Improvement to teacher quality including higher standards for teacher preparation programs, competitive teacher salaries, 11-month contracts, differentiated career ladders, allocation of resources to teacher-shortage areas, incentives for drawing highly qualified applicants into the profession, and mentoring programs for novice teachers (Park, 2022)

This report drew attention to the importance of education policy and served to provide the impetus for a number of comprehensive school improvement measures, including the academic-standards movement and a focus on school accountability (Weiss, 2003).

The decade following A Nation at Risk saw changes to legislation in response to the 1993 National Assessment of ESEA Title I (Paul, 2016). Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA; which reauthorized ESEA) and Goals 2000: Educate America Acts¹⁷ of 1994 codified national education goals and offered grants to states that committed themselves to specific plans for systemic reform of K–12 education. IASA attempted to coordinate federal resources and policies with the preexisting efforts at the state and local levels to improve instruction for all students through three major changes to Title I: (a) adding math and reading/language arts standards to be used to assess student progress and provide accountability; (b) reducing the threshold for schools to implement schoolwide programs from 75 percent poverty to 50 percent and giving schools a longer time to use federal funding from multiple programs to dispense funds at a school wide level; and (c) giving more local control overall so that federal officials and states could waive federal requirements that interfered with school improvements.

Taken together, these shifts elevated the need for public school reform by focusing on the need for standards, addressing teacher professional learning needs, supporting state-wide initiatives, developing leaders, enhancing informal science education programs, and expanding educational technology.

Standards-Based Reform Efforts

IASA and Goals 2000 called for the development of national standards in core subjects and encouraged states and localities to adopt these standards and align their curricula accordingly. States and districts responded to this policy environment by undertaking a variety of curricular and structural reforms, including raising graduation requirements, offering more advanced courses, and adopting new textbooks to improve the quality of instruction

___________________

¹⁷ The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, P.L. 103-227, became law on March 31, 1994.

(Hamilton, Stecher, & Yuan, 2008). Massell (1994) analyzed many of these efforts and concluded that they failed to produce widespread improvement in part because of lack of coherence and failure to communicate a common understanding of what was expected to be taught. This led to conversations about further systemic reform efforts that included standards for what students were expected to learn; assessment and teacher training aligned to the standards; and restructured governance (Smith & O’Day, 1991).

From this period, frameworks like the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards and the National Science Education Standards emerged, providing clear guidelines for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level (NRC, 1996).¹⁸ By the early 2000s, every state in the United States had adopted a system of standards and assessments and was using this system as an accountability mechanism to promote school improvement; however, fewer than one-half were in full compliance with IASA standards (Hamilton, Stecher, & Yuan, 2008). With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 (NCLB, described in more detail in the next section), which mandated states to develop standards and aligned assessments in reading and math, the federal government assumed an increased role in stimulating this nationwide reform effort.

Policy researchers (McDonnell & Weatherford, 2016) have noted that the political dynamics at play when federal legislation or policy is drafted and enacted around issues like standards and accountability systems are different from the political dynamics that emerge when states and local education agencies attempt to interpret and implement the policies or comply with federal mandates. Drafting and passing federal legislation, for example, usually occurs within a relatively compact timeframe with a limited number of national actors in a well-defined decision-making venue. Implementation, in contrast, entails decisions and actions involving many more actors in a large variety of contexts (each individual state as well as LEAs) over a much longer period of time. Different sets of interest groups are likely to organize and mobilize during the extended implementation phase. Understanding and anticipating the political aspects of implementation can have significant implications for the long-term sustainability of reform efforts.

Professional Development Opportunities

Improved teaching and learning were central in both IASA and Goals 2000. Both provided new opportunities for enhancing teachers’

___________________

¹⁸ These standards framework documents influenced curricula development and adoption across the country and laid the groundwork for the most recent iterations of standards-based reform initiatives including the Common Core State Standards as well as the Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

skills to enable all students to reach high academic standards. ED played a central role in creating professional development opportunities for school staff through the Eisenhower Professional Development Program (Title II of ESEA). In particular, this program authorized support for professional development for teachers in core academic areas but emphasized improving teaching and learning in mathematics and science. To receive funding, states had to show plans that illustrated their goals in helping teachers receive sustained, high-quality professional development tied to high content standards (as well as their performance indicators and timelines for meeting program goals). The legislation also emphasized the flexible and creative uses of materials. For example, professional development resources could be combined to address school-wide professional development needs as opposed to narrowly defined needs.

A Focus on Systemic Initiatives

The NSF’s systemic initiatives (1990–2008) promoted education reform in math and science through cooperative working arrangements or partnerships among SEAs, colleges and universities, and business and citizen groups. These initiatives included the Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI), which begun in 1990, the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) in 1993, and the Rural Systemic Initiative (RSI) in 1994, and targeted curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional development for teachers, and state policies as areas of potential reform. These initiatives focused more broadly on a collective of schools/districts within a geographically-defined region. They afforded some autonomy and could “nudge” the schools, school districts, and communities in the defined geographic region into alignment toward achieving desired study outcomes in mathematics and science.

Statewide Systemic Initiatives

In 1990, NSF created the SSI Program. Funded projects were to align various parts of the system to produce comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained change.¹⁹ This approach was to address perceived limitations of past reform efforts, such as targeting isolated components of the system

___________________

¹⁹ The facets to be considered as part of systemic reform included “curriculum learning goals; content, instructional materials, and practice; assessment; teacher recruitment and preparation; professional development of teachers, administrators, and others” and “organizational structure and decision making, allocation of resources, articulation within the system, and accountability” (Heck & Weiss, 2005, p. 1).

(as previously addressed) or multi-pronged reform efforts that were tied too closely with a single individual or funding source (Heck & Weiss, 2005). Thus, this initiative aimed to implement comprehensive reforms at state and local levels through the promotion of high-quality, standards-based STEM curricula by focusing on developing and implementing high-quality standards, curriculum, assessment, and professional development (see Figure 3-1). Each SSI needed to articulate a clear and shared vision while devising ways to scale up interventions, develop new leaders and stable sources of funding, and tend to the politics associated with large-scale education reform (Heck & Weiss, 2005).

From 1991 to 1998, NSF funded 26 SSIs in amounts up to $2 million per year for five years. A subset (4) of the SSIs terminated early, and several others (8) received funding for an additional five-year phase (8). A review of the program conducted by SRI in 1998 revealed that while each SSI was able to coordinate efforts affecting a number of different components of the education system, the most successful had very ambitious and comprehensive plans and were able to carry them out effectively to achieve significant impact (Zucker & Shields, 1998). Those initiatives that were less successful had designs that were too narrow and/or experienced problems with implementation, quality control, or management. Even in the most successful of SSIs, the impacts were uneven and were unable to go to scale. As such, SSIs provided a mechanism for scaling up STEM improvements but could not fully solve the problem (Zucker & Shields, 1998).

Urban Systemic Initiatives

Beginning in 1993, NSF initiated the USIs, which focused on the largest cities with the greatest numbers of students living in poverty. Through 1996, a total of 21 urban sites received funding in four yearly cohorts with each site receiving a five-year award of $15 million dollars. A study by Borman and colleagues (2002) revealed that mathematics achievement in the schools studied improved, reducing the achievement gap as compared to relatively affluent, predominantly White schools. Changes in school culture brought about by the activity of the USIs led to changes related to improved student outcomes; when teachers viewed themselves as learners and believed their students could achieve, improved student outcomes were likely.

Rural Systemic Initiatives

The RSIs were launched in 1994 with more than $140 million invested through 2008 in 30 RSIs to improve mathematics and science education in rural areas within the United States. RSIs sought to raise educational standards within rural schools and to address challenges associated with poverty, economic deprivation, geographic isolation, teacher turnover, and lack of resources in order to enhance the quality of life for rural residents (Harmon & Smith, 2012). A review of the RSI projects revealed three challenges that RSIs were able to respond to: leadership capacity, teacher recruitment and retention, and policy actions.

Leadership Development

The National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution founded the National Science Resources Center (NSRC)—now called the Smithsonian Science Education Center (SSEC)—in 1985. In 1990, NSRC secured an NSF IMD grant to develop curriculum called Science & Technology for Children (STC), in collaboration with a major curriculum publisher who marketed and distributed the STC kits and teachers’ materials to states, districts, and schools. The Smithsonian Institution then went on to develop an influential leadership development program. The Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) model, funded by NSF in 1994, was developed by the Smithsonian Science Education Center (formerly NSRC until 2010, when the Smithsonian took over the Center full-time) to create a framework for systemic reform using STC and other similar materials. LASER is a systemic approach to science learning and teaching based on five infrastructure pillars: research-based curriculum, differentiated professional development, administrative and community

support, materials support, and assessment. The SSEC designs leadership development programs and resources to move leaders representing education, government, and business through a strategic process of science education reform.²⁰ This process is aligned with the SSEC’s theory of action (see Figure 3-2). The LASER model is still active today and has been validated through a 5-year study funded by the ED’s Investing in Innovation (i3) program (Zoblotsky et al., 2017).

Informal Science Education²¹

NSF played a pivotal role in transforming science education through substantial funding that supported the expansion of science centers. The NSF’s Informal Science Education program, active from 1983 to 2012, aimed to enhance public understanding of science and technology, provide lifelong learning opportunities, support nontraditional educational environments, and encourage collaboration among institutions. The program

___________________

²⁰ See https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/factsheets/smithsonian-science-education-center

²¹ For more information about the emergence of informal learning environments, see the 2009 National Academies report on Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits.

was instrumental in driving innovation in science education methods and tools, leveraging emerging technologies and interactive experiences to engage the public meaningfully (NRC, 2009). Notably, initiatives like the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISEnet) exemplified these goals by fostering public awareness and engagement in nanoscale science. NISEnet connected science museums, research centers, and educational institutions, creating engaging and accessible science education experiences that have left a lasting impact on public understanding of STEM (St. John et al., 2009).

Educational Technology

Federal initiatives have played a pivotal role in integrating new technologies into Pre-K–12 STEM learning. These efforts have seen remarkable advancements, promising benefits, and significant challenges. The seeds of this transformation were planted in the late 1950s and early 1960s when NSF began funding groundbreaking curricula such as BSCS, Chemical Systems, and CHEM. These programs introduced high school students to innovative educational tools like videos and specialized classroom apparatus. For younger students, kits like FOSS revolutionized science instruction by bringing hands-on learning into elementary classrooms. These early efforts laid the foundation for a new era of educational technology.

Fast-forward to 1997, when NSF recognized the increasing overlap between learning concepts and emerging technologies. This realization led to the creation of the Learning and Intelligent Systems (LIS) program. The LIS program funded 25 research projects and three Learning Technologies Centers to explore how new computer and communication technologies could enhance learning and teaching. The program focused on integrating theoretical research with practical experiments, developing tools for real-world application, and advancing our understanding of learning processes.

Building on this momentum, NSF launched the Advanced Learning Technologies (ALTs) centers in 2005. These centers aimed to drive innovations in STEM education through extensive research and development. The ALTs facilitated institutional commitments and field-building activities, although the program ended after five years, limiting its long-term impact. As these initiatives unfolded, the benefits of educational technologies became increasingly apparent. Tools like PhET Simulations supported innovative classroom instruction by providing interactive and engaging science learning experiences (see the compendium in Appendix C for a detailed description). Technology also fostered digital literacy, offering students and teachers diverse learning experiences that encouraged critical thinking about the role of technology in society. Over time, students have gained

access to vast digital resources, enabling hands-on learning and real-world problem-solving (see Chapter 6 for more discussion).

Moreover, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 noted the importance of technology and specified that the role of technology in education be one of the primary foci of IES’s work (NASEM, 2022). IES competed Education Technology as a separate topic from 2008 to 2020, but not in 2021 or 2022—with the rationale that education technology plays a central role across all topic areas. For more discussion on this topic, see the 2022 National Academies report The Future of Education Research at IES: Advancing an Equity-Oriented Science.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND TO THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (2001–2015)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, passed into public law in 2001, was a re-authorization of ESEA and marked a number of critical changes in the federal education policy landscape by significantly increasing the role of states in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. The core of NCLB was to improve student achievement through annual standardized assessments of student learning, thereby quantifying education progress and making schools accountable for student performance. Specifically, NCLB required that all U.S. public schools test and report student achievement in mathematics and English language arts annually in grades 3–8 and once in high school; science testing was required once in each grade span (i.e., elementary, middle, and high school). Additionally, schools were required to report results for the student population overall as well as for specific subgroups of students (i.e., English learners, students in special education, students from low-income families, and students from racial/ethnic minoritized groups). If schools missed their state’s annual achievement targets for two or more years—either for all students or for a particular subgroup—it led to a cascade of increasingly serious sanctions (e.g., allow students to transfer, offer free tutoring, state intervention).

NCLB, in addition to requiring standards, closing achievement gaps, assessments, and data collection, also required that every classroom have a “highly qualified” teacher. By “highly qualified” it meant that every teacher should hold a bachelor’s degree, have state licensure or certification, and demonstrate knowledge of the subject that they teach. When assessing teachers’ ability to demonstrate knowledge, states had latitude in that determination. As such, there was variability across states in the tests used as well as the determination of what constituted a passing score (Birman et al., 2007). Furthermore, the law required that these highly qualified teachers be evenly distributed among wealthier schools and those with high concentrations of poverty.

By 2009, there remained continued concern about the low levels of educational attainment in schools and the potential impact on the U.S. global economy. To stimulate the economy—including education—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) was passed. One part of this legislation was a competitive grant program named RTTT; see Box 3-2 for an overview of the aims and plans for educational reform. RTTT was launched and administered through the U.S. Department of Education and was the key player in assisting states in writing their applications by offering technical assistance.

Accountability and High-Stakes Assessment

NCLB ushered in a new era of high-stakes assessment in mathematics (and science), which established and solidified accountability systems. This was achieved in two primary ways through the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act in the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002.²² First, NAEP was required to conduct national and state

___________________

²² P.L. 107-279 Title III, section 303.

assessments at least once every two years in reading and mathematics in grades 4 and 8. Second, for states and local education agencies to receive Title I funding, plans needed to include intent to participate in the biennial state NAEP assessment.

State accountability systems provided transparent data for instructional improvement, made visible the learning gaps across equity groups, and encouraged innovations in assessment practices. However, most states relied heavily on assessments that were affordable, efficient, and easily standardized: these are generally easy-to-score multiple-choice and short open-ended questions that assess recall of facts. And assessments that are used as benchmarks of progress, and even those embedded in curriculum, often use basic and efficient paper-and-pencil formats (NRC, 2001). This led to national and state assessment programs exploring new directions in assessment. In particular, two multistate consortia received grants under the RTTT assessment program to develop assessments aligned to standards: the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC; Olson, 2020).

With the movement over the past two decades toward setting challenging academic standards and measuring students’ progress in meeting those standards, educational assessment has played a greater role in decision making. This has led to questions concerning whether current large-scale assessment practices are yielding the most useful kinds of information for informing and improving education. Meanwhile, classroom assessments, which have the potential to more directly enhance instruction and learning, are not being used to their fullest potential. As a result, there is a need to consider the purpose and goals of the assessment (e.g., is a given assessment intended to evaluate individual students’ progress? Teacher effectiveness? Evaluation of a curriculum or program? School- or district-level performance? Effectiveness of a policy?). Given this variability in purposes and goals and variability in assessment modalities and strategies, a 2001 National Academies report acknowledged that it is important to strive for alignment between the assessment purpose/goal and modality/strategy (NRC, 2001). More recent studies have gone on to conclude that developing assessment programs that meet the goals of the changing standards presents complex conceptual, technical, and practical challenges, including cost and efficiency, obtaining reliable results from new assessment types, and developing tasks that are equitable for students across a wide range of demographic characteristics (NRC, 2014).

Despite providing more transparency in student learning, the provisions of NCLB also had unintended consequences. The intense focus on math assessments led to a narrowing of the curriculum, with teachers

often feeling pressured to “teach to the test,” disproportionately impacting schools that were not meeting state standards (Au, 2007; Cawelti, 2006; Olson, 2020; Ravitch, 2010). Science learning became even more deprioritized, especially when schools did not meet the accountability measures set forth by NCLB. As a result, instructional time and resources were frequently diverted from science to focus on improving math and reading scores, further marginalizing science education (Blank, 2013). Although ESSA eased some of the high stakes associated with NCLB and RTTT, the increased focus on student performance and achievement have fundamentally altered STEM education. Overall, high stakes assessments still have disproportionate influence; assessments are frequently used beyond their intended purposes; and high-quality, well-conceived assessment is expensive and difficult to do at scale.

Focus on Teacher Quality²³

RTTT also focused on increasing teacher quality and achieving equity in teacher distribution but went beyond teacher quality as defined in NCLB to include a focus on teacher effectiveness. It did this by giving higher scores to proposals that included teacher performance evaluations based on student achievement. States responded by creating educator evaluation systems that considered student achievement data alongside teacher observations and other sources of evidence of student learning. These teacher evaluations systems had direct consequences for teachers (NASEM, 2020). Federal initiatives have notably improved teacher quality through targeted professional development and support. Programs like the Noyce Scholarship have successfully recruited talented STEM professionals into teaching.²⁴ Enhanced collaboration through initiatives like Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) and Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT), as discussed below, has led to innovative teacher training and professional development approaches.

Centers for Learning and Teaching

In recent history, the NSF’s investment in the CLT program was designed to support innovation in STEM educator development and practice. The 12 projects awarded between 2000 and 2003 focused on advanced preparation for STEM educators and meaningful partnerships among education entities, including universities, school systems, and informal

___________________

²³ This section was developed based on NASEM, 2020.

²⁴ See https://www.nsfnoyce.org/

education organizations. The program aimed to renew and diversify the cadre of leaders in STEM education, increase the number of K–16 educators capable of providing high-quality STEM instruction and assessment, and conduct research into nationally important STEM education issues, such as the nature of learning, effective teaching strategies, and the outcomes of reform policies.

The CLTs introduced into the NSF education directorate the center model of five-year funding with the potential for renewal for a full ten-year program that research units at NSF use to drive advancement in a field. The various topics and partnerships present in the center awards were beneficial for advancing implementable STEM education innovation in a field characterized by many different and incoherent programs and initiatives. Unfortunately, the program ended after the first five years, and there was no opportunity to support the renewal option. This national disinvestment in supporting STEM teacher development shifts responsibility for support to the states, often resulting in uneven and inequitable opportunities for teachers to sustain their learning.

Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) Program

From 2002 to 2016, the MSP program aimed to improve student achievement in math and science by enhancing teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skills. The program was reauthorized as part of the America COMPETES Act of 2007 and provided additional appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The NSF MSP coordinated efforts with ED’s MSP program. MSP fostered valuable partnerships between K–12 schools and higher education institutions (see Figure 3-3). As described by Yin (2008), more than 140 MSP projects had been funded, which led to observed impacts in partnership-driven work; teacher quality, quantity, and diversity; challenging courses and curricula; impacts on students; evidence-based design and outcomes; and institutional change and sustainability.

In 2014, NSF merged the MSP program with the Computing Education for the 21st Century and relaunched it as the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, including Computing Partnerships (STEM+C) program. Moreover, in 2015 with the passage of ESSA, ED’s MSP program authority was repealed and a new block grant program was established—the Student Success and Academic Enrichment Grants program (Title IV block grants). Although this includes STEM education activities, given the structure and style of the program, funding for STEM is indistinguishable from funding for other authorized activities (Granovskiy, 2018).

Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program²⁵

The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, established in 2002, has been another key initiative. It aims to recruit STEM professionals and recent graduates to become K–12 teachers, particularly in high-need school districts. The program consists of four tracks: (a) Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarships and Stipends; (b) NSF Teaching Fellowships; (c) NSF Master Teaching Fellowships; and (d) Noyce Research. Through these programs, NSF encourages partnerships between two-year and four-year institutions. While the program has attracted many talented individuals, it struggles with limited funding and needs ongoing support and mentorship to improve retention rates.

Teacher Quality Partnership Grants²⁶

The Teacher Quality Partnership Grants, initiated in 2008 and authorized in Title II of the Higher Education Act, focus on improving the quality of new teachers through innovative preparation programs that

___________________

²⁵ See https://www.nsfnoyce.org/

²⁶ See https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-discretionary-grants-support-services/effective-educator-development-programs/teacher-quality-partnership/about-us/ and https://aacte.org/federal-policy-and-legislation/teacher-quality-partnership-grants/

emphasize clinical experience and partnerships between universities and school districts. The program is funded out of ED’s Office of Innovation and Improvement. These grants have supported the development of residency programs that align closely with schools and district’s needs. In the current funding cycle, the competition includes four competitive priorities: (a) increasing educator diversity; (b) supporting a diverse educator workforce and professional growth to strengthen student learning; (c) meeting student social, emotional, and academic needs; and (d) promoting equity in student access to educational resources and opportunities. Although some research has suggested improvement in the quality and retention of teachers and in the quality of students’ learning experiences and achievement; scaling these programs has been difficult due to varying levels of commitment among partner institutions and the need for sustained funding.

FROM EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT TO NOW: THE CURRENT STATE OF STEM EDUCATION (2015–PRESENT)

ESSA of 2015 established federal responsibility for investing in education, reinforced access to high-quality education for all students, maintained an expectation of state accountability to its lowest performing schools, and prioritized evidence-based and place-based local innovations. ESSA employs a logic model that holds that state-level measurement of disaggregated student achievement data based on progress toward common academic standards, and state-level accountability systems designed to funnel funds and technical assistance toward schools with lowest achievement together lead to more consistent opportunities to learn across school contexts, even as schools and districts maintain autonomy over decisions closest to teaching and learning. Specific to STEM subjects, the law requires state standards and aligned assessments in both math and science, while the federal government only requires states to include student progress toward math proficiency in their accountability systems. ESSA makes no specific mention of computer science or engineering education.

The passage of ESSA reframed conversations about how federal funding and accountability could be leveraged to promote more equitable systems of education for all students. It eased some of the high stakes associated with NCLB’s accountability requirements and RTTT’s educator evaluation systems, which had increased focus on student performance and achievement. Specifically, it offered states more flexibility in their assessment systems, including expanding assessment formats to include performance assessments. And, unlike the RTTT competitive grant program, which cemented the outsized role of summative assessment in asking states to use data from state assessments to evaluate teacher effectiveness and guide educational decisions, ESSA relaxed these requirements.

However, relaxing these requirements lead to less clarity for states in the planning process to know what needs to be included for approval, resulting in fragmentation (Olson, 2020). For example, ESSA contains statutory language requiring state plans to be “ambitious,” but the law and ED’s regulations do not define what is meant by ambitious (McGuinn, 2019). Additionally, although states continue to assess students annually, there is increased latitude in using alternative assessments rather than standardized end-of-year tests; declines in the usage of assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards (i.e., PARCC and SBAC) have also been noted (McGuinn, 2019). There has also been growing interest in states designing assessment systems that better reflect and support the daily work of students and teachers in classrooms (Olson, 2020). Through these efforts, additional research could aid in providing better ongoing information about student progress while giving teachers more guidance on how to adjust instruction.²⁷

The role of technology in assessment is not new, but this has accelerated since NCLB (see Chapter 6 for more discussion of the emerging frontiers and artificial intelligence). The use of technology-based assessments can lead to:

• obtaining finer-grained, continuous data on individual students’ learning behavior and progress while learning is taking place;
• generating very large datasets from many students to model learning in specific domains;
• being fully embedded in ongoing learning (including the use of active assessments as a form of learning);
• being used adaptively to customize learning for individual students; and
• allowing modes of presentation and interaction that can get beyond standardized multiple choice tests and be adapted for students with learning differences.

However, there is still progress to be made in this area to realize the potential of technology-based assessments.

SUMMARY

Overall, it is clear that there has been a long history of education reforms that have had impact on the teaching and learning of STEM disciplines in the United States. Early initiatives like NDEA and ESEA made

___________________

²⁷ Some states that have been part of these innovations include Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.

significant advancements in leveraging science and mathematics curricular resources to improve STEM education at scale. From there, NCLB and ESSA ushered in the standards-based reform movement, which attempted to promote widespread changes in curriculum, teaching, and assessment practices. The passage of NCLB marked critical changes to the federal education policy landscape and significantly increased the role of states in holding states and schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. Throughout the different efforts, attention has been paid to different levers in the system: standards, curriculum, professional development, building capacity within leaders and state systems, as well as assessment and accountability.

However, across all the different pushes, while there have been pockets of success and real change to systems, there have also been unintended consequences and failures to sustain momentum and progress by withdrawing or diverting funding. Curricular resources showed promise as a key tool for instructional improvement, but their potential to drive transformative and sustained improvement in STEM learning is limited without continuous, long-term funding and easy-to-manage distribution channels (see Chapter 6). Standards and accountability in assessments had the potential to lead to impact on student learning but focus on high-stakes assessments in mathematics (and English language arts) resulted in a narrowing of curriculum and teachers feeling pressured to “teach to the test.” Moreover, this shift also resulted in changes in the prioritization of STEM content, with increased emphasis on mathematics and deprioritization of science and engineering (as observed in reduced instructional time and resources). Lastly, although federal initiatives have advanced integrating educational technologies in STEM education, enhancing learning experiences and fostering digital literacy, work is still needed to address challenges in professional development, infrastructure, and prioritizing education goals over technological novelty.

REFERENCES