2015 NATIONAL SURVEY ON STEM EDUCATION · 2015 NATIONAL SURVEY ON STEM EDUCATION Written and Published By Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. [email protected] SPONSORED BY

2015 NATIONAL SURVEY ONSTEM EDUCATION

Written and Published By

Interactive Educational Systems Design, [email protected]

SPONSORED BY

Research Report: Education Edition

MEASURE. ANALYZE. LEARN.

About the Educator Edition

This Educator Edition is sponsored by Vernier Software & Technology.

Vernier Software & Technology has been a leading innovator of scientific data-collection technology

for 34 years. Focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), Vernier is

dedicated to developing creative ways to teach and learn using hands-on science. Vernier creates easy-

to-use and affordable science interfaces, sensors, and graphing/analysis software. With world-wide

distribution to over 130 countries, Vernier data loggers are used by educators and students from

elementary school to university. Vernier’s technology-based solutions enhance STEM education,

increase learning, build students' critical thinking skills, and support the science and engineering

practices detailed in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Vernier’s business culture is

grounded in Earth-friendly policies and practices, and the company provides a family-friendly

workplace.

For more information, visit www.vernier.com

2015 RESEARCH REPORT: BUSINESS AND NON-PROFIT EDITION

National Survey on STEM Education

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ....................................................................... 4 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum: Currently and by Next Year .......................................................... 5 Elementary School STEM Implementation ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Middle/Junior High School STEM Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 6 High School STEM Implementation .................................................................................................................................................... 7 STEM Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ...................................................................... 7 Alternative STEM Programs Offered ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Instruction ...................................................................................................................... 9 Priority Objectives for Students in Science/STEM Courses ........................................................................................................... 10 Priority Experiencies for Students in Science/STEM Education ..................................................................................................... 10 Science Standards ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Overall Impression of the Next Generation Science Standards ..................................................................................................... 11 Strategy for Using Science Core Curriculum to Address New Science Standards .............................................................. 11 Top Priorities in Seeking New Instructional Resources for New Standards ......................................................................... 12 Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education ........................................................................................................................ 12 Teacher Professional Development for STEM Education ............................................................................................................... 13 Ways of Providing Teacher Professional Development .............................................................................................................. 13 Most Critical Professional Development Topics ........................................................................................................................... 13

Findings in Detail .......................................................................... 14 Respondents’ Roles in Science/STEM Education ............................................................................................................................... 14 Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible ...................................................................................................... 15 Status of State Science Standards ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Overall Impression of the Next Generation Science Standards ................................................................................................................... 17 Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Elementary Schools ..................................................................... 18 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Elementary School Science/STEM Staff ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Comparing District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors and Elementary School Science/STEM Staff .................................. 21 Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Middle/Junior High Schools ....................................................... 22 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Middle/Junior High School Science/STEM Staff .............................................................................................................................. 23 Comparing District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors and Middle/Junior High School Science/STEM Staff .................... 24 Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in High Schools ................................................................................. 26 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 26 High School Science/STEM Staff ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 Comparing District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors and High School Science/STEM Staff .............................................. 28 Aerospace Engineering Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ..................................... 29 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 29 Agricultural Science Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ............................................ 31 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Biomedical Technology Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ...................................... 33 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Career and Technical Education Programs Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year .................. 35 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Civil Engineering Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ................................................ 37 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Computer Science/Programming Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ................... 39 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 39 Energy and the Environment Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ............................ 41 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 41

Table of Contents Continued

Intro to Technology Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ............................................ 43 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 43 Robotics Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year ................................................................. 45 District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors ....................................................................................................................................... 45 Alternative STEM Programs Offered ................................................................................................................................................... 47 Priority Objectives for Students in STEM/Science Courses ........................................................................................................... 49 Priority Experiences for Students in STEM/Science Education ...................................................................................................... 51 Challenges Facing STEM Education ...................................................................................................................................................... 53 Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in the Upper Elementary Grades (Grades 4 and Up) ..................... 55 Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in Middle/Junior High Schools .............................................................. 57 Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in High Schools ........................................................................................ 58 Strategy for Using Science Core Curriculum to Address New Science Standards .................................................................. 59 Top Priorities in Seeking New Instructional Resources for New Standards ............................................................................. 61 Ways of Providing Teacher Professional Development .................................................................................................................. 63 Most Critical Professional Development Topics for New Standards .......................................................................................... 65

Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 67

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition Sponsored by Vernier Software & Technology

Page 1

INTRODUCTION In this report, Interactive Educational Systems Design (IESD), Inc., in

collaboration with STEM Market Impact, LLC, and MCH Strategic Data,

summarizes the findings from an online survey conducted during

November and December 2014. This survey of K-12 district and school

science and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) supervisors

and educators included questions on the following:

§ Overall impression of the Next Generation Science Standards

§ Implementation of STEM education in core curriculum by the 2015-

2016 school year

§ Types of STEM courses offered currently and by the 2015-2016 school

year

§ Types of alternative STEM programs offered

§ Priority learning objectives for students in their science/STEM courses

§ Priority learning experiences for students in their science/STEM

courses

§ Most important challenges facing STEM education

§ Teacher access to digital tools for science/STEM education

§ Strategy for using science core curriculum to address recently adopted

state science standards

§ Priorities in seeking new instructional resources related to recently

adopted science standards

§ Teacher professional development for STEM education1

1 The survey also included questions focusing on funding priorities, likely change in spend on STEM education, and funding sources for new STEM education initiatives, the results of which are presented in the Business Edition of the Report.


Page 2

This national survey is the fourth in a series of online surveys on STEM

education conducted by IESD, starting in 2010, with the most recent

survey conducted in 2012. Where noteworthy, a comparison to results

from previous surveys is reported.

A total of 5,002 educators from public districts and schools responded to

the survey.2 However, the number of respondents included in the analysis

for this report varies considerably by question.

§ Based on Question 1, results for subsequent questions were cross-

tabulated and analyzed by respondents’ roles in science or STEM

education—132 district-level science or STEM supervisors, 256 school-

level science or STEM supervisors, and 4,614 teachers. In some

instances, only supervisors or only district-level supervisors were asked

a question or included in the analysis.

§ Question 2 asked about the education level(s) for which respondents

were responsible or at which they teach. A subsequent set of questions

focused on implementation of STEM education at the elementary,

middle school/junior high, high school levels. For each of these

questions, results were reported for staff who work at the specific

school level.

§ Question 3 inquired about the current status of each respondent’s

state science standards—adopted the Next Generation Science Standards

(NGSS) (1,515 respondents), recently adopted non-NGSS standards

(623 respondents), or state science standards developed before the

2013-2014 school year (2,435 respondents). Where appropriate to the

focus of some questions, only respondents from states with recently

adopted standards (NGSS and non-NGSS) were asked the question.

2 Another 678 respondents were from private schools. However, data from the private school respondents are not included in this report, which focuses on public districts and schools only.


Page 3

The margins of error at the 95% confidence level varied depending on the

number of respondents to a question and/or in a particular sub-sample.

For example:

Sample Size Margin of Error Complete sample of 5,002 respondents (Question 4)

1.4%

Subsample of all 388 science/STEM supervisors, district or school level (Question 7)

4.9%

Subsample of 132 district level science/STEM supervisors (Questions 16a-c)

8.1%

Subsample of 311elementary school science/STEM supervisors and teachers who knew their STEM education implementation status (Question 5a)

5.5%

Subsample of 2,138 respondents from states that have recently adopted new state standards, NGSS or non-NGSS (Question 20)

2.1%


Page 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This executive summary presents key findings from an IESD national

online survey of K-12 district and school science and STEM supervisors

and teachers conducted during November and December 2014. This is

the fourth in a series of online surveys conducted by IESD in

collaboration with STEM Market Impact, LLC, and MCH Strategic Data. A

total of 5,002 educators responded to the survey, including 388

science/STEM supervisors and 4,614 science/STEM teachers.

Key Findings

§ Implementation of STEM Education in core curriculum. About one-

third of knowledgeable respondents reported implementation of

integrated STEM in the core curriculum at the middle/junior high and

high school levels. In contrast, about one-fourth of the district STEM

leaders but almost half of the school-level staff reported

implementation at the elementary level—likely reflecting STEM

implementation at the level of specific units of instruction in individual

elementary classrooms.

§ Science standards. About 80% of the respondents were familiar with

the Next Generation Science Standards, and of these, a majority had a

favorable overall, general impression. Only 6% of all respondents had a

negative impression.

Among respondents whose states recently adopted either the

Next Generation Science Standards or their own state science standards,

a majority plan to use their existing science core curriculum, either as

is with a cross-walk or alignment tool, or enhanced with new

supplemental resources. Less than 10% plan to purchase a new science

core curriculum. A majority of respondents from states with recently


Page 5

adopted standards said that incorporating project-based learning was a

priority for new instructional resources related to the new standards.

§ Project-based learning. Results across multiple questions in the survey

suggest that there is interest in incorporating project-based learning as

part of science/STEM education.

§ Technology. A majority of respondents identified several technology-

focused STEM courses their schools or districts currently offer or are

very likely to offer by the 2015-2016 school year. However, the most

frequently identified challenge facing STEM education was insufficient

available technology.

Regarding teacher access to digital tools for science/STEM, elementary

teachers in grades 4 and above most typically lack access, whereas

middle/junior and high school science/STEM teachers most typically

share digital tools among classrooms/labs.

§ Professional development. Teacher professional development (PD) was

a funding priority for many STEM leaders and educators, and many

perceived current PD for STEM teachers to be insufficient. About half

of the supervisors reported that their districts offer PD in

STEM/science for elementary school teachers. Among respondents

whose states recently adopted either the Next Generation Science

Standards or their own non-NGSS science standards, the PD topics

most commonly identified as critical for implementation of the new

standards were how to incorporate project-based learning (53.6%) and how

to incorporate engineering practices (40.3%).

Implementation of STEM Education in Core

Curriculum: Currently and by Next Year

IESD analysts determined that the most accurate picture of integrated

STEM implementation in courses, programs, or units came from


Page 6

district-level science/STEM supervisors and from school-level staff who

reported on the particular school level at which they work.

Elementary School STEM Implementation

§ District science/STEM supervisors. Of the district supervisors who

knew their STEM implementation status at the elementary school level,

more than one-third (38.7%) reported either that integrated STEM is

currently implemented (26.1%) or that it is very likely to be implemented by

next year (12.6%) at this level.

§ Elementary school staff. Of the elementary school staff who knew their

STEM implementation status, almost two-thirds (63.3%) reported

either that integrated STEM is currently implemented (46.6%) or that it is

very likely to be implemented by next year (16.7%) at this level.

§ The difference in reporting between these two groups might be

explained by school staff’s greater familiarity with STEM

implementation at the level of specific curriculum units (including cross-

curriculum units), whereas district supervisors are likely to be

reporting about whole courses and programs—which are less typical at

the elementary level.

Middle/Junior High School STEM Implementation


knew their STEM implementation status at the middle/junior high

school level, a majority (58.5%) reported either that integrated STEM is

currently implemented (31.7%) or that it is very likely to be implemented by

next year (26.8%) at this level.

§ Middle/junior high school staff. Of the middle/junior school staff who

knew their STEM implementation status, slightly more than half (52.9%)

reported either that integrated STEM is currently implemented (36.8%)

or that it is very likely to be implemented by next year (16.1%) at this level.


Page 7

High School STEM Implementation


knew their STEM implementation status at the high school level, a

majority (55.4%) reported either that integrated STEM is currently

implemented (34.7%) or that it is very likely to be implemented by next

year (20.7%) at this level.

§ High school staff. Of the high school staff who knew their STEM

implementation status, a majority (54.3%) reported either that

integrated STEM is currently implemented (38.2%) or that it is very likely

to be implemented by next year (16.0%) at this school level.3

Comparing STEM Implementation Across School Levels

Based on reporting by school staff at each school level, implementation of

integrated STEM seems to be greater in elementary schools than at

higher levels. This probably reflects STEM implementation at the level of

specific units of instruction in individual elementary classrooms.

STEM Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be

Implemented by Next Year

Based on information from district science/STEM supervisors:

§ A majority reported that their schools or districts currently offer

career and technical education programs (68.7%), computer

science/programming courses (65.2%), and intro to technology courses

(59.1%). In addition, about half (50.4%) indicated that they currently

offer robotics courses.

§ A majority indicated that their schools or districts either currently

offer or are very likely to offer computer science/programming courses

(74.8%), career and technical education programs (71.3%), intro to

3 The total is greater than the component percentages due to rounding.

The same 3 categories of STEM courses were identified by a majority of respondents to the 2012 National Survey as being offered in their schools or districts (career and technical education programs, intro to technology courses, and computer science/intro to programming courses). Compared to 2012, there was an increase of 10% of respondents or more who reported that their district currently offers career and technical education programs, robotics courses, and biomedical technology courses.


Page 8

technology courses (67.8%), and robotics courses (59.1%) by the 2015-

2016 school year. In addition, almost half indicated that they currently

offer or are very likely to offer biomedical technology courses (47.8%)

and energy and the environment courses (47.8%).

STEM Courses Currently Offered and Very Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

Alternative STEM Programs Offered

When science/STEM supervisors at the district and school levels were

asked whether their districts offer any of seven alternative STEM

programs, almost half reported that their districts offer:

§ Professional development in STEM/science for elementary school teachers

(46.6%)

§ STEM/science courses designed around project-based learning (PBL) (45.1%)

§ STEM/science partnership with an individual university or research institution

(45.1%)


Page 9

Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM

Education

District science/STEM supervisors reported on “teacher access to digital

tools for science/STEM education (e.g., probeware, sensors, data analysis

applications).” In general, the higher the school level, the more likely their

teachers were to have access to digital tools—usually shared among

classrooms/labs. Few district supervisors reported that most teachers have

a set of digital tools in their classroom/lab across the grade span.

§ Upper elementary grades. A majority (61.4%) reported that most

teachers do not have access to digital tools in the upper elementary

grades. Another third (33.3%) said most teachers share digital tools among

classrooms/labs in these grades. Very few (5.3%) indicated that most

teachers have a set of digital tools in their classroom/lab in these grades.

§ Middle/junior high schools. A majority (56.1%) reported that most

teachers share digital tools among classrooms/labs in middle school/junior

high. Almost one-third (31.8%) said most teachers do not have access to

digital tools in these grades. Only 12.1% indicated that most teachers have

a set of digital tools in their classroom/lab in these grades.

§ High schools. A majority (59.1%) reported that most teachers share

digital tools among classrooms/labs in middle school/junior high. Almost

one-fourth (23.5%) said most teachers do not have access to digital tools in

these grades. Only 17.4% indicated that most teachers have a set of

digital tools in their classroom/lab in these grades.


Page 10

Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education

Priority Objectives for Students in Science/STEM Courses Most frequently selected as high-priority overarching objectives for

students across their science/STEM courses4 were:

§ Understanding structure and function: the way in which an object or living

thing is shaped and its substructure determines many of its properties and

functions (56.7%)

§ Investigating and explaining causal relationships and the mechanisms by

which they are mediated (46.7%)

§ Observing and explaining patterns that guide organization and classification

(46.0%)

§ Tracking and understanding conditions under which energy and matter flows

into, out of, and within systems (41.1%)

4 These objectives were based on the “Crosscutting Concepts” listed in the Next Generation Science Standards. However, they were not identified in the survey as coming from the NGSS, so that the question would be appropriate for respondents from non-NGSS states.


Page 11

Priority Experiences for Students in Science/STEM Education

Most frequently identified as high-priority experiences to provide to

students in their science/STEM courses5 were:

§ Analyzing and interpreting data (70.6%).

§ Planning and carrying out investigations (59.0%)

§ Defining real-world problems to be solved through research and engineering

(46.1%)

§ Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (42.3%)

§ Designing solutions to real-world problems (37.5%)

Science Standards

Respondents were asked several questions related to state science

standards.

Overall Impression of the Next Generation Science Standards

§ About half (47.8%) of the respondents had a favorable overall, general

impression of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (a rating of

4 or 5 out of 5). One-fourth (25.0%) had a neutral impression (a rating

of 3), and only 6% had an unfavorable impression (a rating of 1 or 2).

§ 21.3% were not familiar with the NGSS. Of those respondents who

were familiar with the NGSS, a majority (60.7%) held a favorable view.

Strategy for Using Science Core Curriculum to Address New Science Standards

Respondents whose states recently adopted either the Next Generation

Science Standards or their own state science standards (but not

5 These experiences were based the “Science and Engineering Practices” listed in the Next Generation Science Standards. However, they were not identified in the survey as coming from the NGSS, so that the question would be appropriate for respondents from non-NGSS states.


Page 12

respondents whose states follow older standards) reported on their

strategy for core curriculum to address the new state standards.

§ A majority (56.1%) plan to use their existing science core curriculum,

but in two variations: 30.1% plan to use their existing core curriculum

as is, but with a cross-walk or alignment to new standards, while another

26.1% intend to use their existing core curriculum, but enhance with

new supplemental resources. 6

§ 22.4% will develop [their] own science core curriculum specifically designed

for the new standards.

§ Only 8.8% plan to purchase new science core curriculum specifically

designed for the new standards.

Top Priorities in Seeking New Instructional Resources for New Standards


Science Standards or their own science standards (but not respondents

whose schools follow older standards) also indicated their priorities for

new instructional resources related to these recently adopted standards.

Most often selected from a provided list were:

§ Incorporating project-based learning (61.0%)

§ Incorporating technology into the science curriculum (35.8%)

§ Incorporating science practices (35.5%)

§ Incorporating engineering practices (35.5%)

§ Addressing crosscutting concepts of science (i.e., concepts that run across

science disciplines) (32.4%)

6 The total is smaller than the component percentages due to rounding.


Page 13

Most Important Challenges Facing

STEM Education

The most commonly selected challenges facing STEM education in the

U.S. included the following:

§ Technology to support STEM education is insufficient (41.5%)

§ Class time is insufficient to adequately cover the subject discipline (37.9%)

§ Funding in K-12 specifically designated for STEM education is insufficient

(36.6%)

§ Professional development for STEM teachers is insufficient (33.2%)

Teacher Professional Development for STEM Education Two questions were asked about teacher professional development for

STEM Education.

Ways of Providing Teacher Professional Development

Supervisors at the school and district level reported on their schools’ or

districts’ main ways of providing teacher professional development for

STEM education for the 2015-2016 school year. About half of

respondents said they would use on-site workshops sponsored by the district

(53.6%) and conferences (45.9%).

Most Critical Professional Development Topics


Science Standards or their own science standards were asked to identify

the professional development topics they saw as the most critical for

science teachers in order to begin implementing the recently adopted

standards. The most commonly selected PD topics were how to

incorporate project-based learning (53.6%) and how to incorporate engineering

practices (40.3%).


Page 14

FINDINGS IN DETAIL

Respondents’ Roles in Science/STEM Education Respondents were asked to identify their role in science or STEM

education.

§ The vast majority of respondents (92.2%) identified themselves as

teachers.

§ 5.1% characterized themselves as school-level science or STEM supervisors.

§ 2.6% reported that they were district-level science or STEM supervisors.7

Figure 1. Respondents’ Roles in Science/STEM Education

(See Table 1 in the Appendix.)

7 The sum of the percentages is less than 100% due to rounding.


Page 15

Education Levels for Which Respondents Were

Responsible Respondents were asked to identify the education level(s) for which they

were responsible, and were directed to indicate more than one level as

applicable.

§ 58.4% were responsible for the senior high level.8

§ 41.3% were responsible for the middle/junior high level.

§ 8.7% were responsible for the elementary level.

Note that some respondents were responsible for multiple education

levels.

Figure 2. Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible


8 Throughout this report, “senior high” and “high school” are used as equivalent terms.


Page 16

Status of State Science Standards Respondents were asked the current status of their states’ science

curriculum standards:

§ About half (48.7%) reported that their state science standards were

developed before the 2013-14 school year.

§ 30.3% were from districts in states that have adopted the Next

Generation Science Standards.

§ Only 12.5% were from districts in states that have recently adopted new

science standards, but not the Next Generation Science Standards.

Figure 3. Status of State Science Standards



Page 17

Overall Impression of the

Next Generation Science Standards

Respondents were asked for their overall, general impression of the Next

Generation Science Standards (NGSS), using a scale from 1 to 5, in which 5

means “very positive” and 1 means “very negative.”

§ About half (47.8%) rated the Next Generation Science Standards favorably

(a rating of 4 or 5).

§ One-fourth (25.0%) of the respondents gave the NGSS a neutral rating

(a rating of 3).

§ Just 6% of the respondents viewed the NGSS unfavorably (a rating of 1

or 2).

About 1 in 5 respondents (21.3%) were not familiar with the NGSS. Of

those respondents who were familiar with the NGSS, 60.7% held a

favorable view of them.

Figure 4. Overall Impression of the Next Generation Science Standards



Page 18


Curriculum in Elementary Schools Respondents were asked for their districts’/schools’ status regarding

implementation of “courses, programs, or units that integrate STEM . . .

in core curriculum” at the elementary level by the 2015-2016 school

year.9

Given that the top-level results include many school-level staff responding

about a level in which they do not work, these top-level results do not

provide an accurate picture of STEM implementation at the elementary

school level. Instead, we present results for district-level science/STEM

supervisors and for school-level staff who work at the elementary level.

District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

§ Slightly less than one-fourth (22.0%) of the district-level science/STEM

supervisors reported that integrated STEM is currently implemented in

courses, programs, or units at the elementary school level.

§ 15.9% said they don’t know their districts’/schools’ STEM

implementation status at the elementary school level.

§ Of the district supervisors who did know their STEM implementation

status at the elementary school level:

o About one-fourth (26.1%) reported that integrated STEM is

currently implemented at the elementary school level.

o 44.1% indicated that in their districts/schools, integrated STEM

was likely to be implemented by next year at the elementary

school level, including 12.6% who said this was very likely.

9 This was part of a matrix item that asked respondents to answer separately for elementary, middle/junior high, and high school.


Page 19

o 29.7% said integrated STEM was unlikely to be implemented

by next year.

o More than one-third (38.7%) reported either that integrated

STEM is currently implemented or that it is very likely to be

implemented by next year at the elementary school level.

Figure 5a-1. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Elementary Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors Who Know Their Implementation Status

(See Table 5a-1 in the Appendix.)


Page 20

Elementary School Science/STEM Staff

§ 40.3% of the elementary-level respondents (including school

science/STEM supervisors and science/STEM teachers) reported that

integrated STEM is currently implemented in courses, programs, or units

at the elementary school level.


implementation status at the elementary school level.

§ Of the elementary-level respondents who did know their STEM

implementation status at the elementary school level:

o Almost half (46.6%) reported that integrated STEM is currently

implemented at the elementary school level.

o About one-third (33.4%) indicated that in their

districts/schools, integrated STEM was likely to be

implemented by next year at the elementary school level,

including 16.7% who said this was very likely.


by next year.

o Almost two-thirds (63.3%) reported either that integrated


implemented by next year at the elementary school level.


Page 21

Figure 5a-2. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Elementary Schools: Reported by School-Level Science/STEM Staff Working at the Elementary Level Who Know Their Implementation Status

(See Table 5a-2 in the Appendix.)

Comparing District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors and Elementary School Science/STEM Staff

§ Elementary school staff were more likely than district-level

science/STEM supervisors to report that integrated STEM is currently

implemented at the elementary school level.

§ Elementary school staff were less likely than district-level science/STEM

supervisors to indicate that integrated STEM was not currently

implemented but was likely to be implemented by next year at the

elementary school level.

Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Elementary Schools—District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors v.

Elementary School Science/STEM Staff

Implementation Status District

Science/STEM Supervisors

Elementary Science/STEM

Staff Currently implemented 22.0% 40.3%

Don't know 15.9% 13.6%

Likely to be implemented next year (as % of respondents who know implementation status)

44.1% 33.4%


Page 22


Curriculum in Middle/Junior High Schools Respondents were asked for their districts’/schools’ status regarding


in core curriculum” at the middle/junior high level by the 2015-2016

school year.10

As explained previously, the most accurate picture of STEM

implementation at the middle/junior high school level comes from

district-level science/STEM supervisors and from school-level staff who

work at this level.


§ 29.5% of the district-level science/STEM supervisors reported that

integrated STEM is currently implemented in courses, programs, or units

at the middle/junior high school level.

§ 6.8% said they don’t know their districts’/schools’ STEM implementation

status at the middle/junior high school level.


status at the middle/junior high school level:

o Almost one-third (31.7%) reported that integrated STEM is

currently implemented at the middle/junior high school level.

o Almost half (48.8%) indicated that in their districts/schools,

integrated STEM was likely to be implemented by next year at

the middle/junior high school level, including 26.8% who said

this was very likely.



Page 23


by next year.

o A majority (58.5%) reported either that integrated STEM is

currently implemented or that it is very likely to be implemented

by next year at the middle/junior high school level.

Figure 5b-1. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Middle/Junior High Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors Who Know Their Implementation Status

(See Table 5b-1 in the Appendix.)

Middle/Junior High School Science/STEM Staff

§ About one-third (32.7%) of the respondents at the middle/junior high

level (including school science/STEM supervisors and science/STEM

teachers) reported that integrated STEM is currently implemented in

courses, programs, or units at their level.


implementation status at the middle/junior high school level.

§ Of the respondents who work at the middle/junior high level and who

did know their STEM implementation status:

o Slightly more than one-third (36.8%) reported that integrated

STEM is currently implemented at their level.


Page 24

o More than one-third (38.6%) indicated that in their


implemented by next year at their level, including 16.1% who

said this was very likely.

o About one-fourth (24.6%) said integrated STEM was unlikely

to be implemented by next year.

o Slightly more than half (52.9%) reported either that integrated


implemented by next year at the middle/junior high school level.

Figure 5b-2. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Middle/Junior High Schools: Reported by School-Level Science/STEM Staff Working at the Middle/Junior High Level Who Know Their Implementation Status

(See Table 5b-2 in the Appendix.)

Comparing District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors and Middle/Junior High School Science/STEM Staff

§ District-level science/STEM supervisors were more likely than

middle/junior high school science/STEM staff to indicate that integrated

STEM was not currently implemented but was likely to be implemented

by next year at the middle/junior high school level.


Page 25

Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Middle/Junior High Schools—District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors v.

Middle/Junior High School Science/STEM Staff

Implementation Status District


Middle/Jr. High Science/STEM

Staff Currently implemented 29.5% 32.7%

Don't know 6.8% 10.9%

Likely to be implemented next year (as % of respondents who know implementation status)

48.8% 38.6%


Page 26


Curriculum in High Schools

Respondents were asked for their districts’/schools’ status regarding


in core curriculum” at the high school level by the 2015-2016 school

year.11

As explained previously, the most accurate picture of STEM

implementation at the high school level comes from district-level

science/STEM supervisors and from school-level staff who work at this

level.


§ Almost one-third (31.8%) of the district-level science/STEM supervisors

reported that integrated STEM is currently implemented in courses,

programs, or units at the high school level.

§ 8.3% said they don’t know their districts’/schools’ STEM implementation

status at the high school level.


status at the high school level:

o About one-third (34.7%) reported that integrated STEM is

currently implemented at the high school level.

o 41.3% indicated that in their districts/schools, integrated STEM

was likely to be implemented by next year at the high school

level, including 20.7% who said this was very likely.



Page 27

o Almost one-fourth (24.0%) said integrated STEM was unlikely


o A majority (55.4%) reported either that integrated STEM is

currently implemented or that it is very likely to be implemented

by next year at the high school level.

Figure 5c-1. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in High Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors Who Know Their Implementation Status

(See Table 5c-1 in the Appendix.)

High School Science/STEM Staff

§ About one-third (34.1%) of the respondents at the high school level

(including school science/STEM supervisors and science/STEM

teachers) reported that integrated STEM is currently implemented in

courses, programs, or units at their level.


implementation status at the high school level.


Page 28

§ Of the respondents working at the high school level who did know

their STEM implementation status:

o More than one-third (38.2%) reported that integrated STEM is

currently implemented at their level.

o More than one-third (37.0%) indicated that in their


implemented by next year at their level, including 16.0% who

said this was very likely.

o About one-fourth (24.8%) said integrated STEM was unlikely


o More than half (54.3%) reported either that integrated STEM

is currently implemented or that it is very likely to be implemented

by next year at the high school level.

Figure 5c-2. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in High Schools: Reported by School-Level Science/STEM Staff Working at the High School Level Who Know Their Implementation Status

(See Table 5c-2 in the Appendix.)

Comparing District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors and High School Science/STEM Staff

There were no noteworthy differences.


Page 29

Aerospace Engineering Courses Currently Offered

and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

Aerospace engineering courses was one of nine STEM course categories

for which respondents were asked which are “currently offered or likely

to be implemented” in their schools/districts by next year (the 2015-2016

school year).12

Given that the top-level results include many school-level staff responding

about STEM courses typically offered at a level in which they do not

work, these top-level results do not provide an accurate picture of STEM

courses currently offered or plans to offer such courses. Instead, we

present detailed results for district-level science/STEM supervisors.


§ Very few (9.6%) of the district-level science/STEM supervisors reported

that aerospace engineering courses are currently offered in their

districts.

§ Very few (10.4%) indicated that aerospace engineering courses were

not currently offered but were likely to be offered by next year.

§ About two-thirds (64.3%) said aerospace engineering courses were

unlikely to be offered by next year, including 55.7% who said this was

very unlikely.

§ 15.7% said they don’t know.

12 This was part of a matrix item that asked respondents to answer separately for each of the listed STEM courses.


Page 30

Figure 6a. Aerospace Engineering Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

(See Table 6a in the Appendix.)


Page 31

Agricultural Science Course Currently Offered and

Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

Agricultural science was one of nine STEM courses for which

respondents were asked which are “currently offered or likely to be

implemented” in their schools/districts by next year (the 2015-2016

school year).13

As explained previously, the most accurate picture of STEM courses

currently offered and of plans to offer such courses comes from district-

level science/STEM supervisors.


§ Almost one-third (32.2%) of the district-level science/STEM supervisors

reported that agricultural science is currently offered in their districts.

§ Very few (10.4%) indicated that this course was not currently offered

but was likely to be offered by next year.

§ Slightly less than half (45.2%) said agricultural science is unlikely to be

offered by next year, including 41.7% who said this was very unlikely.




Page 32

Figure 6b. Agricultural Science Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

(See Table 6b in the Appendix.)


Page 33

Biomedical Technology Course Currently Offered

and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

Biomedical technology was one of nine STEM courses for which



school year).14






biomedical technology is currently offered in their districts.

§ 18.3% indicated that this course was not currently offered but was

likely to be offered by next year.

§ Slightly more than one-third (36.5%) said biomedical technology is

unlikely to be offered by next year, including 27.8% who said this was

very unlikely.




Page 34

Figure 6c. Biomedical Technology Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

(See Table 6c in the Appendix.)


Page 35

Career and Technical Education Programs

Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented

by Next Year

Career and technical education programs was one of nine STEM course

categories for which respondents were asked which are “currently

offered or likely to be implemented” in their schools/districts by next

year (the 2015-2016 school year).15





§ More than two-thirds (68.7%) of the district-level science/STEM

supervisors reported that career and technical education programs are

currently offered in their districts.

§ Very few (11.3%) indicated that this course was not currently offered

but was likely to be offered by next year.

§ 13.9% said career and technical education programs are unlikely to be

offered by next year.




Page 36

Figure 6d. Career and Technical Education Programs Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

(See Table 6d in the Appendix.)


Page 37

Civil Engineering Courses Currently Offered and


Civil engineering courses was one of nine STEM course categories for

which respondents were asked which are “currently offered or likely to

be implemented” in their schools/districts by next year (the 2015-2016

school year).16





§ Less than one-fourth (22.6%) of the district-level science/STEM

supervisors reported that civil engineering courses are currently offered

in their districts.

§ 14.8% indicated that such courses are not currently offered but are

likely to be offered by next year.

§ Almost half (47.0%) said civil engineering courses are unlikely to be

offered by next year, including 40.0% who said this is very unlikely.




Page 38

Figure 6e. Civil Engineering Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

(See Table 6e in the Appendix.)


Page 39

Computer Science/Programming Courses

Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented

by Next Year

Computer science/programming courses was one of nine STEM course

categories for which respondents were asked which are “currently

offered or likely to be implemented” in their schools/districts by next

year (the 2015-2016 school year).17





§ Almost two-thirds (65.2%) of the district-level science/STEM

supervisors reported that computer science/programming courses are

currently offered in their districts.

§ 19.1% indicated that such courses are not currently offered but are

likely to be offered by next year, including 9.6% who said this is very

likely.

§ Only 10.4% said computer science/programming courses are unlikely to

be offered by next year.




Page 40

Figure 6f. Computer Science/Programming Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

(See Table 6f in the Appendix.)


Page 41

Energy and the Environment Course Currently

Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next

Year Energy and the environment was one of nine STEM courses for which



school year).18






energy and the environment is currently offered in their districts.

§ 18.3% indicated that this course is not currently offered but is likely to

be offered by next year, including 8.7% who said this is very likely.

§ Almost one-third (31.3%) said energy and the environment is unlikely

to be offered by next year, including 24.3% who said this is very unlikely.




Page 42

Figure 6g. Energy and the Environment Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

(See Table 6g in the Appendix.)


Page 43

Intro to Technology Course Currently Offered and


Intro to technology was one of nine STEM courses for which



school year).19





§ A majority (59.1%) of the district-level science/STEM supervisors

reported that intro to technology is currently offered in their districts.

§ Another 12.2% indicated that this course is not currently offered but is

likely to be offered by next year, including 8.7% who said this is very

likely.

§ 18.3% said intro to technology is unlikely to be offered by next year,

including 13.0% who said this is very unlikely.




Page 44

Figure 6h. Intro to Technology Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

(See Table 6h in the Appendix.)


Page 45

Robotics Course Currently Offered and Likely to

Be Implemented by Next Year

Robotics was one of nine STEM courses for which respondents were

asked which are “currently offered or likely to be implemented” in their

schools/districts by next year (the 2015-2016 school year).20





§ About half (50.4%) of the district-level science/STEM supervisors

reported that robotics is currently offered in their districts.

§ About one-fourth (25.2%) indicated that this course is not currently

offered but is likely to be offered by next year, including 8.7% who said

this is very likely.

§ 18.3% said robotics is unlikely to be offered by next year, including

14.8% who said this is very unlikely.




Page 46

Figure 6i. Robotics Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year

(See Table 6i in the Appendix.)


Page 47

Alternative STEM Programs Offered District-level and school-level supervisors (i.e., all respondents except

teachers) were asked whether their districts offer any of seven

alternative STEM programs.

§ Almost half of the respondents reported that their districts offer:

o Professional development in STEM/science for elementary school

teachers (46.6%)

o STEM/science partnership with an individual university or research

institution (45.1%)

o STEM/science courses designed around project-based learning (PBL)

(45.1%)

§ About one-third indicated that their districts offer:

o Regional STEM hubs or networks that include K-12 districts, higher

education institutions, businesses, community organizations, non-

profit organizations, and/or museums (37.9%)

o Project Lead The Way STEM courses (31.2%)


Page 48

Figure 7. Alternative STEM Programs Offered: Reported by District- and School-Level Science/STEM Supervisors



Page 49

Priority Objectives for Students in Science/STEM

Courses Respondents were asked which of seven overarching objectives were

their highest priorities for students across their science/STEM courses;

respondents could choose up to three objectives.21

§ The objective chosen by the greatest number of respondents was

understanding structure and function: the way in which an object or living

thing is shaped and its substructure determines many of its properties and

functions (56.7%).

§ Other objectives frequently selected as priorities included:

o Investigating and explaining causal relationships and the

mechanisms by which they are mediated (46.7%)

o Observing and explaining patterns that guide organization and

classification (46.0%)

o Tracking and understanding conditions under which energy and

matter flows into, out of, and within systems (41.1%)

21 These objectives were based on the “Crosscutting Concepts” listed in the Next Generation Science Standards. However, they were not identified in the survey as coming from the NGSS, so that the question would be appropriate for respondents from non-NGSS states.


Page 50

Figure 8. Priority Objectives for Students in Science/STEM Courses



Page 51

Priority Experiences for Students in

Science/STEM Education Respondents were asked which of nine experiences were their highest

priorities to provide to students in their science/STEM courses;

respondents could choose up to four experiences.22

§ The experience most frequently identified was analyzing and interpreting

data, with fully 7 in 10 respondents selecting this experience as a top

priority (70.6%).

§ The other experience selected by a majority of respondents was

planning and carrying out investigations (59.0%)

§ Additional experiences that were selected by more than one-third of

the respondents include:

o Defining real-world problems to be solved through research and

engineering (46.1%)

o Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (42.3%)

o Designing solutions to real-world problems (37.5%)

22 These experiences were based on the “Science and Engineering Practices” listed in the Next Generation Science Standards. However, they were not identified in the survey as coming from the NGSS, so that the question would be appropriate for respondents from non-NGSS states.


Page 52

Figure 9. Priority Experiences for Students in Science/STEM Education



Page 53

Challenges Facing STEM Education Respondents were asked which of 11 different challenges facing STEM

education are the most important; respondents could choose up to three

challenges.

§ The most commonly identified challenges were as follows:

o Technology to support STEM education is insufficient (41.5%).

o Class time is insufficient to adequately cover the subject discipline

(37.9%).

o Funding in K-12 specifically designated for STEM education is

insufficient (36.6%).

o Professional development for STEM teachers is insufficient (33.2%).

§ Four other challenges facing STEM education were selected by more

than 20% of the respondents:

o Number of qualified STEM education teachers is too low (26.7%).

o STEM education in K-8 is lacking or inadequate (25.3%).

o Recently adopted science standards (Next Generation Science

Standards or state-specific) will require new curriculum resources

(core and/or supplemental) (21.1%).

o Recently adopted science standards (Next Generation Science

Standards or state-specific) will require teacher professional

development and support (20.5%).


Page 54

Figure 10. Challenges Facing STEM Education


Note: Survey Questions 11 through 15 focused on funding priorities, likely change in spend on STEM education, and funding sources for new STEM education initiatives. The results of these questions are presented in the Business Edition of the Report.


Page 55

Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM

Education in the Upper Elementary Grades

(Grades 4 and Up)

District-level science/STEM supervisor were asked about “teacher access

to digital tools for science/STEM education (e.g., probeware, sensors,

data analysis applications)” in the upper elementary grades (grades 4 and

up).23

§ A majority (61.4%) of the responding district-level science/STEM

supervisors reported that most teachers do not have access to digital tools

in the upper elementary grades.

§ One-third (33.3%) said most teachers share digital tools among

classrooms/labs in these grades.

§ Very few (5.3%) indicated that most teachers have a set of digital tools in

their classroom/lab in these grades.

23 This was part of a matrix item that asked district-level science/STEM supervisors to answer separately for upper elementary, middle/junior high, and high school. School-level science/STEM supervisors and science/STEM teachers were not asked this question.


Page 56

Figure 16a. Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in Upper Elementary (Grades 4 and Up): Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

(See Table 16a in the Appendix.)


Page 57

Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in Middle/Junior High Schools

District-level science/STEM supervisors were asked about “teacher access to digital tools for science/STEM education (e.g., probeware, sensors, data analysis applications)” in middle school/junior high.24

§ A majority (56.1%) of the responding district-level science/STEM supervisors reported that most teachers share digital tools among classrooms/labs in middle school/junior high.

§ Almost one-third (31.8%) said most teachers do not have access to digital tools in these grades.

§ Only 12.1% indicated that most teachers have a set of digital tools in their classroom/lab in these grades.

Figure 16b. Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in Middle/Junior High Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

(See Table 16b in the Appendix.)



Page 58

Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in High Schools District-level science/STEM supervisors were asked about “teacher access to digital tools for science/STEM education (e.g., probeware, sensors, data analysis applications)” in high school.25

§ A majority (59.1%) of the responding district-level science/STEM supervisors reported that most teachers share digital tools among classrooms/labs in high school.

§ Almost one-fourth (23.5%) indicated that most teachers have a set of digital tools in their classroom/lab in these grades.

§ 17.4% said most teachers do not have access to digital tools in these grades.

Figure 16c. Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in High Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

(See Table 16c in the Appendix.)



Page 59

Strategy for Using Science Core Curriculum to

Address New Science Standards Respondents whose states recently adopted either the Next Generation

Science Standards or their own state science standards (but not

respondents whose states follow older standards) were asked what their

strategy for core curriculum will be to address the new state standards.

Across all respondents:

§ 30.1% plan to use their existing science core curriculum as is, but with a

cross-walk or alignment to new standards.

§ 26.1% intend to use their existing science core curriculum, but enhance

with new supplemental resources.

§ 22.4% will develop [their] own science core curriculum specifically designed

for the new standards.

§ Only 8.8% plan to purchase new science core curriculum specifically

designed for the new standards.


Page 60

Figure 17. Strategy for Using Science Core Curriculum to Address New Science Standards: Reported by Respondents from States with Recently Adopted New Science Standards



Page 61

Top Priorities in Seeking New Instructional Resources for New Standards Respondents whose states recently adopted either the Next Generation

Science Standards or their own science standards (not respondents whose

schools follow older standards) were given a list of 10 priorities in

seeking new instructional resources related to recently adopted science

standards. Respondents were asked which were their top priorities and

could select up to three.

§ Respondents’ most frequently identified priority was incorporating

project-based learning, which was selected by 61.0% of respondents.

§ Four other priorities were chosen by about one-third of respondents:

o Incorporating technology into the science curriculum (35.8%)

o Incorporating engineering practices (35.5%)

o Incorporating science practices (35.5%)

o Addressing crosscutting concepts of science (i.e., concepts that run

across science disciplines) (32.4%)


Page 62

Figure 18. Top Priorities in Seeking New Instructional Resources for New Standards: Reported by Respondents from States with Recently Adopted New Science Standards



Page 63

Ways of Providing Teacher Professional

Development District- and school-level supervisors (not teachers) were asked which of

six ways would be their schools’ or districts’ main ways of providing

teacher professional development for STEM education for the 2015-2016

school year; respondents could choose up to three answers.

§ About half of the respondents said they would use:

o On-site workshops sponsored by the district (53.6%)

o Conferences (45.9%)

§ On-site workshops provided by professional organizations or universities was

the only other way of providing teacher professional development

chosen by more than 1 in 5 respondents (22.9%).


Page 64

Figure 19. Ways of Providing Teacher Professional Development: Reported by District- and School-Level Science/STEM Supervisors



Page 65

Most Critical Professional Development Topics for

New Standards Respondents whose states recently adopted either the Next Generation

Science Standards or their own science standards (not respondents whose

states still follow older standards) were given a list of 11 professional

development topics and asked which they saw as the most critical for

science teachers in order to begin implementing recently adopted science

standards; respondents could select up to three professional

development topics.

§ The most frequently selected PD topic was how to incorporate project-

based learning (53.6%).

§ How to incorporate engineering practices was chosen second most often

(40.3%).

§ Four other topics were selected by more than one-fourth of the

respondents:

o How to incorporate technology into the science curriculum (30.6%)

o Learning about crosscutting concepts of science (i.e., concepts that

run across science disciplines) (30.0%)

o How to incorporate science practices (29.4%)

o How to assess student learning (26.8%)


Page 66

Figure 20. Most Critical Professional Development Topics for New Standards: Reported by Respondents from States with Recently Adopted New Science Standards



67

Appendix: Data Tables

Table 1. Respondents’ Roles in Science/STEM Education

Q1 Total Public School

Respondents What is your role in K-12 science or STEM education? % n District-level science or STEM supervisor 2.6% 132 School-level science or STEM supervisor 5.1% 256 Science or STEM teacher 92.2% 4614 I do not work in K-12 Science or STEM education 0.0% 0 Other 0.0% 0

Total of respondents 5680 Statistics based number of response 5002 Filtered 678 Skipped 0


68

Table 2. Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible


Respondents

For which education level(s) are you responsible, or at which level(s) do you teach? (Please select all that apply.) % n

Elementary level 8.7% 434

Middle/junior high level 41.3% 2066

Senior high level 58.4% 2923

Other (please specify) 1.2% 59


Other

100 lvl college

4th and 5th grade

5th & 6th Grade

6th Grade

9th-12th grades (high school)

Ad Hoc Instructor University- Wisconsin Stevens Point

also labs for pre-k 3 through 5th grade

Also summer engineering camps for students from grades 5-8

and advance placement

AP Physics

AP/DC Biology

College

College

College

college

College

college

college

college

College

college

College adjunct

College Advanced Placement Biology

College and Adult PD

college dual enrollment

College in High School

College professor (part time)

College... I train teachers to teach PLTW courses


69

College/ university

Community College

Community College

Community College

community college

Community College

Community College

community college instructor

Community College level

Community College, Biology

concurrent enrollment in local community college

dual credit advanced science classes

Dual credit courses with local university

Dual Credit for College Chemistry credit

dual credit introductory college classes

Dual Enrollment class

Dual enrollment College Chemistry

dual enrollment college classes

dual enrollment for college chemistry in h.s. classroom

Graduate

High school

I also teach a college level Env. Sci. course

I teach grades 5 and 6 and am the science curriculum committee co-chair

I teach IB Diploma Programme courses, so I do not follow a state-mandated curriculum.

I teach Science and Math

IB certified/4 yrs experience

Intermediate Building 5/6

Middle/High STEM Innovation Charter School

PreK

Pre-k

preschool

Professional Development for pre-service teachers and informal and formal science educators

School enrichment programs

science specialist 11-8 in a charter school

teacher PD

Teacher Professional Development

Teacher workshops too

Tutor post-secondary NCAA Div I athletes

Undergraduate University

university

University

University Faculty for Education MA and BA programs

University sometimes


70

Table 3. Status of State Science Standards


Respondents

Which of the following best describes the current status of your state’s science curriculum standards? % n

Our state has adopted the Next Generation Science Standards. 30.3% 1515

Our state recently adopted new science standards (this school year or last year), but not the Next Generation Science Standards. 12.5% 623

Our state science standards were developed before the 2013-2014 school year. 48.7% 2435

Don’t know 8.6% 429



71

Table 4. Overall Impression of the Next Generation Science Standards


Respondents

What is your overall, general impression of the Next Generation Science Standards? % n

5—very positive 14.7% 736

4 33.1% 1656

3 25.0% 1248

2 4.7% 236

1—very negative 1.2% 62

I am not familiar with these standards. 21.3% 1064

Combined 4 and 5 47.8% 2392

Combined 1 and 2 6.0% 298



72

Table 5a-1. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Elementary Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors Who Know Their Implementation Status1

Q5a District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors

The next set of questions focuses on your district’s or school’s status regarding STEM programs, courses, and initiatives. Which of the following best reflects your implementation of courses, programs, or units that integrate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in core curriculum by next year (the 2015–2016 school year)? (If you don’t have direct knowledge about a school level, please choose “don’t know.”)

Elementary school % n

Currently implemented 26.1% 29

Very likely to be implemented by next year 12.6% 14

Somewhat likely to be implemented by next year 31.5% 35

Somewhat unlikely to be implemented by next year 17.1% 19

Very unlikely to be implemented by next year 12.6% 14

Likely (somewhat and very likely) combined 44.1% 49

Unlikely (somewhat and very likely) combined 29.7% 33

Total of respondents 5680

Statistics based number of response 111 Filtered 5548 Skipped 0

1 Percentages were recalculated after eliminating respondents who answered “Don’t know.”


73

Table 5a-2. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Elementary Schools: Reported by School-Level Science/STEM Staff Working at the Elementary Level Who Know Their Implementation Status1

Q5a Elementary Level


Elementary school % n












74

Table 5b-1. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Middle/Junior High Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors Who Know Their Implementation Status1

Q5b District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Middle/jr.high school % n












75

Table 5b-2. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in Middle/Junior High Schools: Reported by School-Level Science/STEM Staff Working at the Middle/Junior High Level Who Know Their Implementation Status1

Q5b Middle/Jr. High Level


Middle/jr.high school % n












76

Table 5c-1. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in High Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors Who Know Their Implementation Status1

Q5c District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


High school % n












77

Table 5c-2. Implementation of STEM Education in Core Curriculum in High Schools: Reported by School-Level Science/STEM Staff Working at the High School Level Who Know Their Implementation Status1

Q5c Senior High Level


High school % n












78

Table 6a. Aerospace Engineering Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6a District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors

Which of the following STEM courses are currently offered or likely to be implemented in your school/district by next year (the 2015-2016 school year)? (If you don’t have direct knowledge about a course, please choose “don’t know.”)

Aerospace engineering courses % n

Currently offered 9.6% 11

Very likely to be offered by next year 3.5% 4

Somewhat likely to be offered by next year 7.0% 8

Somewhat unlikely to be offered by next year 8.7% 10

Very unlikely to be offered by next year 55.7% 64

Don't know 15.7% 18


Unlikely (somewhat and very unlikely) combined 64.3% 74



79

Table 6b. Agricultural Science Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6b District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Agricultural science % n






Don't know 12.2% 14





80

Table 6c. Biomedical Technology Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6c District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Biomedical technology % n






Don't know 6.1% 7





81

Table 6d. Career and Technical Education Programs Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6d District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Career and technical education programs % n






Don't know 6.1% 7





82

Table 6e. Civil Engineering Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6e District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Civil engineering courses % n






Don't know 15.7% 18





83

Table 6f. Computer Science/Programming Courses Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6f District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Computer science/programming courses % n






Don't know 5.2% 6





84

Table 6g. Energy and the Environment Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6g District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Energy and the environment % n






Don't know 11.3% 13





85

Table 6h. Intro to Technology Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6h District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Intro to technology % n






Don't know 10.4% 12





86

Table 6i. Robotics Course Currently Offered and Likely to Be Implemented by Next Year: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q6i District-level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Robotics % n






Don't know 6.1% 7





87

Table 7. Alternative STEM Programs Offered:

Reported by District- and School-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q7 District- and School-Level


Does your district participate in or implement any of the following? (Please select all that apply.) % n

Regional STEM hubs or networks that include K-12 districts, higher education institutions, businesses, community organizations, nonprofit organizations, and/or museums? 37.9% 147

STEM/science partnership with an individual university or research institution 45.1% 175

Project Lead The Way STEM courses 31.2% 121

Online STEM/science courses provided by a third-party organization 13.7% 53

STEM/science courses designed around project-based learning (PBL) 45.1% 175

Mobile STEM centers (e.g. vans, trucks, buses) that share STEM experts and resources 9.8% 38

Professional development in STEM/science for elementary school teachers 46.6% 181

Other alternative STEM/science programs (please specify) 17.8% 69


Other alternative STEM/science programs

"Maker Education"-movement curriculum

"parnterships" w/ science org's

5 trained STEM teachers in the district through an MSP grant

a district level middle school STEM initiative and a high school level STEM certificate program at one of our three high schools

Academies/ Magnet Programs

After school STEM programs funded through grants

an occassional conference is supported

Annual event called Stamford STEMfest

AP Capstone - we will work with Biotechnology

Arduino and first robotics

BioMedical Science curriculum 6th - 12th grade

CAD?CAM Engineering Technology

CATE

Climate Change Presentation at our school

Club

CSCS/Next Generation at CSUN

Curriculum integration

District STEAM Challenge

Do not offer

Ecobot Challenge, STARBASE


88

Engineering is Elementary

Engineering Design Challenge Competition

Engineering Fair for Middle School Girls twice a year




FIRST Robotics

FIRST Robotics, SEAPerch, EIE.

FLL

FOSS/STC Science Kits

Hybrid AP Biology (shared regionally), Hybrid Anatomy & Physiology (shared regionally), after school STEM Clubs for 6-8, Summer STEM Camps for 5-9

In house STEM program

integration with in-house maker space

internships and apprenticeships with local businesses

IQWST pilot programs in various schools through UF program

ITEA standard based programs K-12

Laser

Math Science Bridge Program C3

NEATEC nanotech program

new courses

none

none

none

none

None

NONE

None

none

None

none

None

none of the above

none of the above

None Yet

not sure

Our current MST prgram (math, science and technology) integrates these disciplines in a cross-curricular fashion.

Our school has a partnership with a local aquarium. I have also coordinated ongoing activities and fieldtrips with museums & other organizations.

Our school has a science resource position which serves all the students and focuses on STEM and hands-on activities.

Participation in regional activities and competitions

Partnerships with informal educaton

professional development in STEM for middle- and high school teachers

Robotics


89

Robotics for students in grades 2-12

Robotics in Extra-Curricular Clubs (FIRST)

Robotics, Sea Perch, etc...

School-based STEM focus

science and math magnet programs

science olympiad

Science Olympiad

Science Olympiad FIRST Robotics collaboration with commercial venture conducting research for new product

Science Olympiad / Science Club

Science Olympiad and ISEF

Science Olympiad, Robotics, and Legos Robotics

SECME Clubs are run as STEM iniatiatives

specific courses

staff created

STEM 101

STEM Academies

STEM across the curriculum/trans-disciplinary

STEM CLUB after school

STEM Co-hort and STEM Elementary school

Stem teacher quality institute through Washington University.

Students from University come and teach about engineering for a day

teacher created curriculum using TEACH ENGINEERING website resources

TSA club VEX Robotics club

Units within Science Courses focusing on STEM

We are in the planning stages for 2016-17

we have a STEM club in our school

We have our own STEM program

We have written curriculum for our own STEM courses.


90

Table 8. Priority Objectives for Students in STEM/Science Courses


Respondents

The next set of questions focuses on some of your priorities for science/STEM education. Which of the following over-arching objectives are your highest priorities for students across their science/STEM courses? (Please select UP TO 3 choices.) % n

Observing and explaining patterns that guide organization and classification 46.0% 2300

Investigating and explaining causal relationships and the mechanisms by which they are mediated 46.7% 2334

Recognizing how changes in scale, proportion, or quantity affect a system’s structure or performance 15.5% 775

Defining systems and system models 29.9% 1497

Tracking and understanding conditions under which energy and matter flows into, out of, and within systems 41.1% 2056

Understanding structure and function: the way in which an object or living thing is shaped and its substructure determines many of its properties and functions 56.7% 2837

Understanding stability and change: for natural and built systems alike, conditions of stability and determinants of rates of change or evolution of a system 30.0% 1501

None of the above 2.7% 134



Other

1) recognizing patterns and using them to determine relationships between variables 2) being able to visualize what's occurring at the particulate level in order to predict the behavior of chemical species during chemical and physical processes 3) using evidence from data to justify or explain

Ability to break apart, define, and solve problems.

Actually doing student lead investigations

addresses some in physics and computer classes

Agriculture

All medically related life sciences

all of the above

All of the above. We are retooling our curriculum in all subjects to meet all of NGSS stndards

All of them.

an engineering design process

Application exploration

Applying and evaluating scientific knowledge in current events on a local, national, and global scale.

Approaching a new and novel problem with critical thinking. Evaluation of evidence and research, bias, as support of scientific claims.

Are you kidding? These kids are 12 years old!

Argumentation


91

Argumentation (claims and evidence)

asking questions and defining problems

Becoming a lifelong learner capable of collaborative conversation

becoming active problem solvers instead of passsive learners

becoming more numerate

being able to draw conclusions from data

Being able to identify and apply the fundamental concepts that make up the scientific framework of knowledge.

Being able to use previous knowledge to apply to new situations without freaking out

Biological Evolution

Biological systems interact and these systems and their interactions possess complex properties.

biomedical engineering

body systems, chemistry, DNA

building storm safe models of homes for fl.

career awareness

Climate change, habitat loss, biodiversity, GMO's

college ready in a particular science field

completing independent research projects for magnet students

Connecting classroom work to real world applications of science

connecting science to STEM careers

connecting/comtemplating theory with hands-on experiences in the laboratory, then communicating results through writing

Creating objects/machines suitable to achieve stated purpose

creating projects which apply STEM knowledge

Creativity in computer science & engineering

Critical Thinking and Problem solving

Critical thinking and problem solving

Critical thinking skills

Critical thinking, logical reasoning, basic inquiry

Current events and issues and their relationships to science

Defining problems

design and redesign phases of engineering

Design process and problem solving

Design process, critical thinking, problem-solving

designing new technologies

Develop passion for learning

developing an understanding of what real science looks like.

Developing problem solving skills.

district dictates what we are to teach

Don't know. Not enough knowledge about NEXT or district's directives.

Ecosystem connections

Elementary level, general, Earth, Physical, AND Life sciences

Engineering Design

Engineering Design Process

engineering design process. Most of yours are not "overarching," they are subtopics


92

Engineering Problem Solving Cycle and 21st Century Skills

Engineering process.

Environmental Issue Investigations

evaluating validity of data in supporting a claim

Evolution and population genetics

Explain how processes effect humans on Earth

exploring careers in STEM

Familiarity with executing a process of iterative design for both building and experimentation

Generating creative ideas for solving problems. Testing ideas methodically and then discarding or retaining them.

Global health issues and technology

Having actual STEM professionals determine what STEM in school should look like - NOT education professionals.

having basic science literacy

Having students see real-world connections between classroom and STEM careers.

Help students prepare for college and world of work through self guided learnign experiences.

How cool science is

How to systematically solve problems.

Human Impact on systems

Implementing STEM into our schools

independent research projects- IJAS standards used

inquiry and methods to successfully perform that task

Inquiry based labs

Introducing a new way of problem solving

Investigating and Questioning our World through Science and Technology

It is impossible to single out 3. All these crosscutting concepts weave together to make authentic STEM teaching.

It's hard to teach students advance skills if they haven't mastered the basics

Learning how to learn, to communicate and to clearly express concepts.

Learning how to learn: instead of just "learning" facts, learn to investigate.

Learning sophisticated methods of analyzing measurements and standard error.

Learning to use coorporative learning to solve scientific problems

leed certification. alternative energy

life science is my area of focus

Literacy- Reading and Writing for Science

looking at evidence, determining causes, exploring possibilities, research and experimentation

Making it better after testing it!

Matter and Physical Properties, Earth and Space

Measurement and Data Collection

memorizing vocabulary terms for MCAS testing

modeling and designing systems

my goal is to get my students to "think" for themselves

new employee not sure

no idea; I am not involved in this process.

Not really sure, I don't teach the stem class

Not sure. I don't teach the STEM classes offered


93

nursing and healthcare

Other Biology topics

Our highest priority is implementation do the NGSS. Your examples above greatly resemble the Cross Cutting Concepts of NGSS.

our school district's focus is on graduation at all costs; little concern for students actually knowing anything

Passing the state mandated end of grade test (unfortunately)

positive experiences learning about and trying technology.

preparation for college level courses with the basics

Prioritizing experience and hands-on projects, including CAD programs.

Problem solving

Problem solving

Problem solving & troublshooting

problem solving and designing within constraints

Problem solving skills and critical thinking

problem solving that requires higher order thinking skills

problem solving, risk taking, critical thinking

process of combining engineering and science

Processes and underlying reasons (why) in math.

Quantifying the changes

Recognizing evidence in scientific practice

Recognizing how and when science/STEM concepts impact everyday experiences

Science GPS Standards

Science is a human endeavor. It is something we do and can do.

Science Problem Solving, Inquiry or Problem Based Learning

Science Process Skills

science process, field studies, engineering

scientific method and inquiry skills

Scientific Method and Process Skills

scientific methodology

self-reliance, student ownership of project-based passion-driven learning, dexterity, application of science in service to human needs/concerns

Showing kids that science and STEM are interesting and exciting topics.

skills such as using supporting evidence, mathmatical skills such as graphing, statistics, research, resourcefulness, team work, collaboration to solve current problems with science

Solving real world problems

STEM is only offered at certain schools. Not mine

Student Research Optimal Harvest Rate of Algae for Bio Fuel, Large unit .

stupid question, all 7 are important

Taking learned knowledge (STEM) incorporate it into their everyday lives

Teaching problem solving strategies

The problem solving process as it relates to technical problems.

the scientific method

The standards need to be brief enough yet deep enough to be covered in 70% of course delegated minutes of instruction. The othe 30% will be dedicated to the investigation component of the course.


94

These are not directly in curriculum.

This is a poorly constructed question! We currently integrate ALL the Crosscutting Concepts into our MS Science curriculum.

Understanding and application of the Engineering Process;

understanding changes in life through time

Understanding connections between disciplines; how everything can be viewed through a STEM lens.

Understanding inter-relationship of physics, biology, chemistry

Understanding questions

Understanding science and how to do science.

understanding the engineering design cycle

Understanding the link between science, math, technology

Understanding the problem solving process

Understanding the propertries of matter

Understanding the use of science in modern society

Using evidence,theory and logic to construct novel systems

using innovation and knowledge of science to design solutions that will improve our community

Utilizing the engineering design process

Water quality monitoring (creating tools to do this)

Working collectively in a project setting with th emultiple facets of engineering to produce a final and functional producet.

writing scientifically


95

Table 9. Priority Experiences for Students in STEM/Science Courses


Respondents Which of the following experiences are your highest priorities to provide to students in their science/STEM courses? (Please select UP TO 4 choices.)

% n Formulating research questions 16.8% 841

Defining real-world problems to be solved through research and engineering 46.1% 2307

Planning and carrying out investigations 59.0% 2949

Analyzing and interpreting data 70.6% 3532

Using mathematics, information and computer technology, and computational thinking in science investigations 28.0% 1400

Constructing explanations for observed scientific phenomena 31.4% 1570

Designing solutions to real-world problems 37.5% 1876

Engaging in argument from evidence 29.7% 1488

Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information 42.3% 2116

None of the above 0.6% 30



Other

Ability to read and comprehend science information

Again, we are concentrating on NGSS...your above statements resemble the Science and Engineering Practices portion of NGSS.

All of the above to one degree or another

Background knowledge needed to understand the living world.

building models, both computational and physical

collaboration

controlling variables

covering the basics

Critical thinking and problem solving

developing innovation strategies and understanding how to bring an idea into reality - business and science

development of imagination, creativity, ability to recognize issues both caused and solved by human engineering, multiplicity of design solutions

Evaluating information on the internet and past research, drawing own conclusions based on previous research

exposing students to what STEM and STEM careers are

Exposure to various phenomena

Gain a deeper understanding of science

Getting them STEM opportunities

Giving students a FUNDAMENTAL understanding of math concepts


96

giving students what they need for an experiment and they have to think about how they are going to get it to work; I find it's all about the ability to THINK

Hands on experiences and manipulatives

Hands on experiences to lead to science concepts

hands on, engaging activities in real world situations

hands-on experience programming building, testing, problem solving programs

how to read and write and do basic arithmetic

I am sorry, we focus on all the above except none of the above

I do most of these already

I don't know

I have to say that all of the above are my highest priorities, because each one of the options mentioned are so critical.

In and of themselves, if everything listed above were to be implemented in a course, the time left for thorough coverage of the academic standards will be minimal at best. Until we can realistically say these are the foundational academic standards for any given course, trying to do everything asked for leaves room for a cursory coverage of the material at best and weak STEM projects. I took my high school solar boat racing team to Monaco last summer to compete in the Solar1 World Cup Solar Boat Championships. Do you think we covered anything other than everything surrounding this trip?: Soft skills, Engineering Design Process, Fund raising, community outreach, transportation and lodging logistics, electrical theory, construction and attention to detail, and the list goes on, but we only focused everthing around ONE idea. These kids' lives have been forever changed.

Inventing things

Knowing the difference between science and psuedoscience.

Learning and application

modeling real world problems

More hands on and exposure to trades=Jobs!!!

New standards reduce potential to be in depth

not sure

passing the state mandated end of grade test (unfortunately)

Passing the State STAAR test

problem solving

providing hands-on experiences for kids to mess around with real things of their natural world.

Reading information about a topic

showing growth on the state exam

solving problems

Teaching mathematics as a language and removing the fear of it.

These SEP's are the basis of my teaching; emphasis varies depending on the topic. However, like the Crosscutting Concepts, all are critical to authentic STEM education.

Uncomfortable with the question -- ALL the practices are interdependent. They don't stand alone

Understand the use of models in Science

Understanding and implementing a design process

understanding connections in the world around them

Understanding the nature of science and the philosophy of science

use of appropriate tools strategically


97

Table 10. Challenges Facing STEM Education


Respondents

Next, we'll address challenges facing STEM education and implementation of STEM In your opinion, what are the most important challenges facing STEM education in the U.S.? (Please select UP TO 3 most important challenges.) % n

Best practices for STEM education are not clearly defined. 18.7% 937

Number of qualified STEM education teachers is too low. 26.7% 1335

Technology to support STEM education is insufficient. 41.5% 2078

Professional development for STEM teachers is insufficient. 33.2% 1662

Recently adopted science standards (Next Generation Science Standards or state-specific) will require teacher professional development and support. 20.5% 1027

Recently adopted science standards (Next Generation Science Standards or state-specific) will require new curriculum resources (core and/or supplemental). 21.1% 1057

Class time is insufficient to adequately cover the subject discipline. 37.9% 1895

Number of students who pursue STEM careers after graduation is too low. 7.4% 368

STEM education in K-8 is lacking or inadequate. 25.3% 1268

Funding in K-12 specifically designated for STEM education is insufficient. 36.6% 1833

Science education will not be adequately funded unless it is tested and schools are held accountable for performance. 10.4% 518



Other

1)Lack of multicultural education knowledge/strategies; 2) misunderstanding of what STEM education is (too often, biology is ignored)

A strong traditional science education is more valuable to college graduates.

Administration acceptance of the overarching STEM practice in all subject areas

Administration is not supportive of STEM. Science has low priority in my school

administration support, undervaluing STEM

administrative support

All focus is on common core to the exclusion of STEM

All of the above

American culture as a whole has only a passing interest in science, and only when it supports their predetermined ideas. Lack of scientific thought in this country as a whole makes it hard to implement in children.

Analysis and critical thinking are higher level thinking skills and are difficult to teach and assess.

AND class time is not long enough, PD and technology is lacking

anti-intellectual politics

Anti-science culture in the US

Applied math is not taught at lower grades (only pure math)


98

because of additional content, need to find ways to integrate into current courses

Broad based literacy & life experiences is a limiting factor in student perfomance

Challenges include misunderstandings around what STEM is and how technology, engineering, and mathematics can be combined in a science classroom to build students' STEM competencies; too much emphasis is placed on students going into engineering when the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the number of engineers won't increase that much BUT the number of nurses and home health aides will dramatically increase. We need to focus on problem-solving and scientific thinking and not so much on engineering. Over half the STEM graduates can't find a job in their field!!!

class size - 34-36 students makes STEM implementation difficult

Class size in unrealistic. I currently have a class of 31 8th graders.

Class size is too big.

class size too large

class sizes (small and individual) AND time are lacking

Class sizes and student load is too high - this year I will be teaching nearly 180 students

class sizes are too large

Class sizes are too large for rich writing and data collection experiences

class sizes are too large for safe investigations

class sizes are too large for teacher to conduct meaningful investigations. Plus standardized testing dictates the amount of time the teacher has to teach the content and we don't have a second to spend on non tested areas.

Class sizes are too large to encourage and evaluate good STEM practices. My average size 8th grade class is 32 students. You can't effectively monitor 16 pairs of students and larger group sizes reduce each student in the group from engaging necessary skills.

Class sizes are too large!!

Class sizes are too large. When a science class is over 24 it greatly diminishes the ability of the students to engage in open-ended inquiry and receive adequate support from the teacher.

Class sizes of above 25 students per class

Class sizes too large to effectively do STEM

classroom space

Compensation for STEM teachers is far to low to attract the best and brightest college college grads

COMPETES FOR TIME WITH STATE STANDARDS

Concept of STEM focuses on wrong questions and is based on a faulty premise

Connecticut is stilled tied to CAPT science standards therefore I have to teach those state standards first.

connections to real world applications

constantly changing expectations and standards

Convincing policy makers and educational leadership that STEM is different from non-STEM. They are not equivalent in terms of "seat" time for students and "preparation" time for teachers.

Courses are not geared toward STEM. STEM can't be in all classes. These need to be seperate classes.

Cross curricular projects are difficult due to required teachings not aligning time-wise

Current state tests do not match STEM requirements

Current students lack a STEM background and have to catch up

Daily schedules make truly interdisciplinary STEM work difficult

Defining STEM - this is a HUGE problem.

designated expectation for STEM is too low and limited, too much government involvement in education

District curriculum mapping and benchmarks don't allow flexibility to integrate math/science

districts don't provide the adequate time for teachers to learn the STEM system properly to effectively implement the program. Time is a major factor.

Early Curriculum does not promote science curiosity.


99

Education leaders and policy makers have misguided notions of STEM ed and thus fantastical goals for both students and teachersi

Educational Leadership's lack of understanding of STEM and best practices of STEM

Engineering is difficult to integrate into science courses.

EOC that affects job security and pay scale.

Equity of resources for students who are traditionally under-represented in the STEM fields

Even when tested and proved, science will not be funded, on English and Math.

few chemistry concepts covered

Finding time for Teachers to receive Professional Development

funding

Funding for necessary equipment is lacking

Funding in general (lack of)

Funding is not adequate across all districts - some districts will thrive in STEM as they have the resources to support the efforts; others will continue to fail due to financial hardships.

Funds are limited for materials needed.

Genuine public and political will to make the U.S. a leader in STEM education.

Grade Level requirements not fully aligned with stem, not fully applicable to modern required knowledge base

Greedy corporations are sending STEM jobs offshore, and are making STEM careers unattractive by squeezing salaries and keeping people running scared. The tea partiers keep touting the need for more STEM workers to ensure a high supply of workers so they can keep salaries low. I do not encourage students to pursue STEM careers.

Having real science and math application in the STEM courses

High focus on testing and performance reduces the time for real learning

High stakes State test do not reflect/measure NGSS, so it's difficult to not "teach to the test"

Holding to traditional views of schooling

I do not agree with the curriculum format for the NGSS.

I do not feel STEM education best meets the needs of elementary students on the level some wish for it to be implemented. I think students at this level need to develop basic concepts of science through small "activities and explorations" vs huge STEM projects that do not help in any way with state test mandates.

I feel very strongly about this: The classes science teachers are expected to teach changes every year causing teachers to scramble to put together new curriculum or bone up on content they might not have taught in a few years. This changing of preps every year does not allow a teacher to become a master teacher in their content area. I now work in CTE and clearly see the benefit of teachers being in a position to hone their craft and their teaching skills.

I have found difficulties in getting professionals and people associated with real science opportunities to have connections with the classroom

I noticed the choice of more testing....kids are tested enough as it is, WE DON'T NEED MORE TESTING, we need teachers working with the kids, not just constant testing.

I see excellent opportunities in elite suburban schools but small urban schools or large urban school are often not supported from outside sources

I think some of the STEM standards are not for the general high school population

Implementation of current state standards is lacking flexibility

In high school the class time is shortened by so many extracurricular functions

In our district, money goes into the math but not into the science, technology, or engineering

inadequate funding

Inadequate funding for public schools overall

incredibly board - hard to fit it all in and get the basics

inquiry is very important however I believe the loss of instructional time for problem solving with math in physics for example will suffer as there is so little time left. I feel like I can't go in depth like I used to for how to solve problems in


100

physics. I do more labs however, I always did labs... to me we have watered down the academic requirements of the curriculum and our students will suffer in college when it comes to the fundamentals of solving problems mathmatically in science. There has to be a ballance and I do not feel the current standards stress this.

insufficient materials or space for project (goes with funding to a degree)

insufficient number of teachers to manage more courses

Insufficient Planning Time

issues of access and equity for women and minorities in STEM

It hasa been my experience that the NGSS standards are ALL focused on teachers with no experience. I have actually seen schools denying veterans training! One reason I am negative about the NGSS

It is offered as an elective and some kids don't take it seriously.

Kids cannot read, write, or calculate at grade level, nor apply info for cause and effect

Lack of a common definition of STEM litearcy

Lack of administrative support

Lack of community/societal support of STEM importance

lack of fundamental reasoning why STEM is important and should be taught

lack of school-wide focus on STEM; we can only talk about reading and writing school-wide

Lack of student interest

Lack of supporting material to use in classrooms.

Lack of Trained elementary science teachers

large class sizes

Large public distrust of science

Less testing, UC almost dumped the SAT. Smarter Balance has not been given yet, so how do we know what the answers mean. Get real.

limited school budget and space

Little science in elementary grades and large classes make hands-on activities difficult.

Longer class periods

making stem separate from other science courses instead of included within physics, chemistry, biology, etc

Managing materials and supplies is difficult given traditional instructional periods and spaces

Many chemistry concepts are completely left out. We don't feel that not teaching over half the current curriculum at all is an option.

misinterpretation of what STEM purposes

mix of students in class, those who do not care and disrupt those who would like to learn

money

Motivated individuals not attracted to the field because pay is poor.

need engineers teaching pre-engineering courses

need evidence that colleges will accept these classes

Needs to made more of a priority. Integration of language arts and math not used to its potential. Many K-6 grade teachers do not make it a priority because they, either, don't have time enough with the other demands made of them, do not understand the concepts/lack confidence, don't have time enough for the set up, or focus is too much on language arts.

Next Generation Science Standards are not adopted in my district

NGSS asks students to think in new and more rigorous ways. Some NGSS-aligned instruction is more engaging to students, but the more authentic tasks are more rigorous, and students find them very challenging. I find that the shift to NGSS-SEP-aligned instruction is really sorting my students into those who can persevere at a challenging task, and those who are not willing to. So, I feel like the greatest challenge facing educators today is in getting our students to take risks, accept difficult tasks, and persevere in the face of rigor. It will require a climate shift, rather than a curriculum shift.

NGSS does not align to already established courses in high school I.e. biology, chemistry and physics.


101

NGSS is weak on engineering. Massachusetts has improved the Engineering standards in its revised NGSS standards

NGSS needs to be broken down to clarify the skills/knowledge students should learn at each grade level. Our district has a curriculum that they do professional development on that "covers the NGSS" but teachers do not understand the standards in order to CHOOSE appropriate materials for their group of students.

NGSS standards are vague for physical sciences as compared to life sciences

NGSS standars are too vauge

NGSS still contains politically motivated areas - especially "Global warming"

no science lab supplies and classes too large

None

Not all teachers comfortable with background knowledge and skills to teach STEM.

not enough emphasis on elementary education, leaders seem ignorant to the necessity to train ill-prepared elementary teachers while engaging students while they still have that natural propensity for science.

not enough staff to develop additional courses

Not enough time in the day to balance all the demands

Not familiar with STEM because our school does not offer

not implementing at this time

not sure

Not taught in elementary schools due to the rigid programs in math and language arts based on standardized test results

number of students of color and girls who pursue STEM careers after graduation is low

NYS Regents requirements for graduation

Our district did not adopt the NGSS which focus on STEM - that is a challenge!

our goal should be to get kids excited about STEM, curriculum is too dry and hardly anyone is letting kids just try it, fail at it, learn from their mistakes, try things from their own creativity/designs. It shouldn't be "curriculum-ed to death" if you want kids to like it.

Our middle school focuses on the core subjects of just ELA, Math and then social studies and science.

our state is developing its own new core standards

PA state standards are linked to teacher evaluations and graduation requirements; currently they do not focus on STEM

Parent support is lacking

Parents of students don't see the jobs in STEM that everyone is promising.

Pay scales do not hire nor keep the best instructors.

Pervasive negative attitudes towards critical thinking in current society

planning time is insufficient

Political blow-back towards national standards and science

POLITICAL CONSERVATIVES! :(

political issues regarding science

POLITICS

Poor outreach to the voting public about the value of STEM

Preparation time is limited to gather resources for inquiry-based lessons

Preparing materials for labs and breaking labs down requires more time than there is in a school day.

principals have goals for test scores not STEM understanding

Priority is on reading and math not science due to the high stakes testing

Professional development, too many teachers reluctant to change , wishing to regress to old best practices.

Public perception - science vilified in global warming and evolution; huge gap between science and general public knowledge; religious interference; US still uses English measurements........arghhhhhh!!

Public schools are currently focused on the LOWEST students at the expense of more capable students.


102

Putting students in ability-appropriate classes so that they can understand and succeed. (Placement testing in high school math)

Qualified teachers leaving the profession for better pay/benefits comparable to their eduction/skill set

Real-World experiences needed for STEM teachers

Recently adopted science standards will be implemented without the proper field testing, and without a logical roll-out pattern (youngest grades first, followed by older grades in subsequent years)

Requires a fundamental shift at the organization level. In a small school, this means less focus on other disciplines in order to focus on STEM. This would require new curricula, new teachers, and loss of current curricula and faculty.

Resources simply not available - labs need to be equipped and functional

Room for STEM electives in student schedules, and student interest in STEM in high school

school administrators pushing students with little aptitude and interest into upper level science/math courses just because it looks good on paper

School Districts tend to focus on Literacy and Mathematics, but not on Science

schools schedules are not setup to foster indepth investigations

Science classes have been teaching STEM for years - seems too much like the current "buzz" word used to get funding

Science education in K-5 is not adequate. There is a lack of space, time, and materials in Jr. High for proper lab investigaitons.

Science Education is lowest priority among core content subjects.

science instruction is not consistent K-6.

Science is generally taught mainly in testing years and not much prior to that, we need to have more vertical alignment and follow up on lower grades teaching it.

Severe lack of funding in schools

Small School - Limited Time/Teachers/Resources

Small schools don't have the infrastructure to provide the resources necessary to provide adequate STEM education

smaller schools - # teachers available for elective courses

societal attitudes dismissing science

Socio-economic Inequality

Special education requirements will pose an extreme challenge

Specifically most STEM funding is for CTE or voc ed STEM not public school K-8 STEM

Standardized assessments focus on memorization rather than critical thinking, therefore pressure for teaching content can be higher than teaching problem solving and critical thinking.

Standardized testing interferes with creative instruction.

Standardized testing is content driven rather then skill

State assessments must change to allow for students to develop and carry out authentic, real world investigations rather than regurgitation of memorized facts.

State exams are a direct contradiction of important STEM skills and literacy must be taught to children who cannot read and write.

State standards that are in addition to the NGSS are so specific, it limits the flexibility of teachers to do longer, different or unique projects. Schools that are already teaching STEM, but not EXACTLY how the standards are laid out, need major overhauls of curriculum to align the subject matter. It's a bit overwhelming and sad to give up things that seem to be working well, but to be penalized for not doing it the exact same way as every other school.

State tested standards don't align with STEM education

STEM content has been below age appropriateness

Stem courses assume a knowledge base that students do not have. Students do not have sufficient ability to really do anything worhtwhile

STEM curriculum is in our state is not really STEM, just focuses on technology and puts students in front of a computer for a year.


103

STEM curriculum is often lame and unrealistic. I am not convinced that we are really teaching the skills that students will need to succeed in STEM careers.

STEM education in K-5 is absent

STEM education in K-5 is given insufficient class time to engage in meaningful learning

STEM is currently being used as a buzz word and many claim they are doing it when they really haven't changed their curriculum.

STEM is not the answer.

STEM is not well defined and ignores basic science

STEM is viewed with disdain as a new emphasis on Science/Math--not as it really is. Need GOOD PD for understanding.

STEM labs are not out together well

STEM principles are not integrated into popular culture in a way that values them for their own sakes, as opposed to a novelty or a political talking point.

STEM standards are FAR too general

STEM teachers do not have a supporting lab management personnel.

STEM teachers in K-8 don't typically have a scientific background or comfort with the material.

STEM teachers underpaid for their work, high expectations

Still being held accountable to current state standards

stocking and storage of open-ended building materials and tools in a school setting, local sourcing for industrial by-products ie. repurposing sources for wheels and tubes and undefined waste gizmos for classroom constructions. local options for tinkering materials with educators in mind similar to "RAFT" and "wemagination". educator-friendly events at makerspaces

Student apathy and unwillingness to work

Student interest in STEM is not present (with the exception of a minority) in American high school students. Education continues to decline because we don't reach STUDENTS. Stop throwing money and professional development at us. It's nice, thank you. But STEM is "uncool" and "too hard."

student skill level inadequate for higher skill STEM courses

Student struggles with design and redesign, and higher level thinking application.

Students are apathetic about learning and working on the 'hard stuff'. Culturally the US is more interested in entertainment, than education. This attitude trickles down to our students who have parents and communities who focus more on the football team, than their kids learning.

Students are not motivated to work hard.

students are not required to think; the value of failing at something and then being force to figure it out is completely gone.

Students are unable to think critically to synthesize overarching principles. Students can not read and understand material.

students come to us without a reasonable background to approach anything but the basics in class

Students lack basic skills needed to process NGSS

students need basic skills first

students/parents who have been taught by tranditional methods struggle with inquiry designed lesson. They want a single "correct" answer.

stupid state and national political leaders will continue to give lip service to STEM while inadequately funding it

Support from administration to make STEM a priority and recognize how STEM supports literacy development

Support from parents, making education a priority

Teach the historical narrative. Teach history of philosophy of science.

Teacher interest and motivation

Teacher prep time (within contract) is insufficient to adequately develop STEM curriculum AND provide sufficient feedback to students.

teacher prep time is insufficient

teachers are not part of the process at all


104

Teaching profession is not providing a living wage in my state, STEM teachers find better paying jobs elsewhere

Teaching to the test

techers are not trained in STEM

testing eats up too much time. Schools cant afford it.

Testing Science is not the answer, but as long as the Math and Reading are given priority because of their testing, science will be ignored

testing trumps STEM education

The biggest influencer is the student's environment outside of school. Research shows this. All of the nonsense surrounding ngss and cc are just a distraction

The content is not differentiated enough.

the desire to be a 'passing school' under NCLB underminds education

the focus is the state mandated end of grade test (unfortunately)

The foolish (political posturing) emphasis on overly testing our students (i.e., the PARCC) and the loss of class instructional time as a result. STOP WORRYING ABOUT TESTING AND START FOCUSING ON TEACHING OUR KIDS!

The hours to get a STEM teaching liscense is too high if you are not fresh out of college or chaning careers from industry

The importance of STEM in any career path or life discipline is not valued and understood

The most important is an antiquated education system focusing on mediocrity and the liberal arts approach, instead of career pathway focus.

The Next Generation Science Standards are not adequate to teach the basics in classes such as Chemistry and Physics and will put our students behind in the competitive engineering and medical schools.

The Noah had an ark filled with dinosaurs tea party politicians that control politics in many states.

The only emphasis in the schools is on Language Arts and Mathematics for state funding due to state testing.

The portrayal of science and scientists in the media regarding politically or economically unfavorable findings is difficult to overcome.

The regents level courses in NY do not give us the latitude we need to delve into the Stem Area! Get rid of the regents exams and we can teach the courses how they SHOULD be taught!

the rigor of the stem classes does not prepare the students for the next level

The standards are artificial constructs.

The student has to be willing to learn and expend the energy and time to think about problems. The teacher has to be enthusiastic about what they are teaching, something which cannot come from a science degree. Starting at the middle school level, science teachers should have a science degree, BS, BA, or MS even more so than an education degree.

There are too many students in a single class.

There is no priority for STEM classes and there never will be in our current system

there used to be too much content to 'cover' leading to loss of time for true STEM opportunities

this will be just another flash in the pan other directive initiative.

Those directing implementation have NO IDEA what STEM is

Time & resources to actually implement NGSS correctly & successfully

Time for existing teachers to prepare for class is too low.

Time is devoted to other initiatives rather than implementing a comprehensive stem program.

time to put together the materials and look over units is insufficient

Time to retool classes to meet new standards

Too many objectives for a single year of Chemistry or Physics

Too many other initiatives and focuses in our schools to do justice and give a full fledged effort to implementing STEM

Too many standardized test demands interfere with teaching STEM

Too many standards in one subject area. (mile wide, inch deep curriculum)


105

Too many standards, assessments, teacher & admin requirements to allow good teachers to develop their own good education practices.

too many students

Too many US students don't value their educational opportunities.

too much curricula to do

too much emphasis on mindless and (or) inappropriate tests

Too much politics & religion in selecting science curriculum.

Too much Technology, not enough of the basic science understandings

Training teachers to give up rout memorization and move to investigations

Transfer students can not be integrated effectively.

Trying to cover too much material -- not able to go in-depth

Trying to fit education into neat packages if one size fits all students doesn't meet students where they are and help them question and integrate knowledge to become strong inSTEM.

Unclear alignment of NGSS to subjects in high school

unrealistic: if students could solve real world problems they could get a job already they need to understand the basics and how these relate to real world issues but not solve real world issues

Very difficult for students to make up this work when absent.

very few people know what STEM should be. Best Practice may fit but this is mainly eduspeak and means little to most

very limited notcavaliable to all students

When compared to the workload of other teachers, science teachers are underpaid for the extra work and preparation.

WI State politics

With everyone's input, a little of everything has been left in the standards. Until we understand that less is more, and truly move in this direction, our STEM programs will only be survey courses at best. If every STEM project became an inter/intra-district or interregional competition, the quality of everything involved in that one event would increase exponentially: community involvement, soft skills, engineeering design process, excellence in design and construction, and so on.

Yes, I checked funding already but I can't stress this enough. My class is SO Expensive!

You need to allow us more, so many can be picked


106

Table 16a. Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in Upper Elementary (Grades 4 and Up): Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors1

Q16a District-Level Science or STEM

Supervisors

Next, we’ll focus on instructional tools and resources for science and STEM education. At each school level listed below, what is the most typical situation regarding teacher access to digital tools for science/STEM education (e.g., probeware, sensors, data analysis applications)?

Upper elementary (grades 4 and up) % n

Most teachers have a set of digital tools in their classroom/lab 5.3% 7

Most teachers share digital tools among classrooms/labs 33.3% 44

Most teachers do not have access to digital tools 61.4% 81


1 The gap in table numbering is due to questions which were asked on the survey including funding priorities, likely change in spend on STEM education, and funding sources for new STEM education initiatives, the results of which are presented in the Business Edition of the Report.


107

Table 16b. Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in Middle/Junior High Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q16b District-Level Science or STEM

Supervisors


Middle/jr. high % n


Most teachers share digital tools among classrooms/labs 56.1% 74

Most teachers do not have access to digital tools 31.8% 42



108

Table 16c. Access to Digital Tools for Science/STEM Education in High Schools: Reported by District-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q16c District-Level Science or STEM

Supervisors


High school % n


Most teachers share digital tools among classrooms/labs 59.1% 78 Most teachers do not have access to digital tools 17.4% 23



109

Table 17. Strategy for Using Science Core Curriculum to Address New Science Standards: Reported by Respondents from States with Recently Adopted New Science Standards

Q17

Respondents from States with Recently Adopted New State

Standards

Which of the following best describes the strategy for core curriculum (e.g., textbook series, kit-based program) your district or school is most likely to follow in order to address your state’s recently adopted science standards? % n

Use our existing science core curriculum as is, but with a cross-walk or alignment to new standards 30.1% 643

Use our existing science core curriculum, but enhance with new supplemental resources 26.1% 557

Purchase new science core curriculum specifically designed for the new standards 8.8% 189

Develop our own science core curriculum specifically designed for the new standards 22.4% 479




Other

A combination of the first three options listed above.

As a private school, we don't have to meet state standards, but we are developing a new curriculum to address many of the same issues the NGSS were meant to address.

at this time it is undecided, possibly keep as is but with cross-walk

California has strongly suggested the integrated NGSS model for middle school, so we will use some of the existing curriculum and are busy developing new curriculum for the ecology standards.

Combination of purchase new core curriculum and designing a core curriculum to meet new standards

Combination of supplemental resources and development of new curriculum on site

combo: purchase for lower grades(K-9) and supplement at 10-12

Current science curriculum already aligned with NGSS

Decide when the textbook options are presented. We don't want to loose the curriculum that we have because so many concepts were completely left out. However, NGSS is expanded in order for textbooks to preserve the content then we would purchase new books.

develop a curriculum for the first time

Developing a plan this year

Each teacher will have to develop their own curriculum, just like literacy in math. We all reinvent the wheel. There is no set curriculum in any subject in elementary because not one curriculum actually meets the common core/Ark. Science Standards/Next Science Gen. Standards.

expect teachers to find a way to reach new standards with no additional funding or support

expect teachers to supplement current curriculum without being given additional resources


110

Follow state guidelines as they are developed

For now, use existing core curriculum and enhance. For future, purchase new textbooks when available

Honestly, my district is struggling to figure out what science teaching/learning will even look like in the near term/long term. There IS no strategy or vision right now.

I don't think our admin understands what the NGSS and STEM really entail so they have no clue about how to implement. Their plan is for us to do it on our own time and dime.

I have redesigned the life sciences to fit, but physical science is using existing curriculum with new resources

i write my own grants to do stem

if it involves money, we most likely will do nothing to replace outdated texts and supplemental materials

Implement IB core curriculum for grades 11 and 12

Left up to individual teachers to accomplish

MOsto likely nothing since Boston Public Schools don't have any money towards science.

need to buy new books soon anyway, so will get new materials aligned with NGSS. otherwise would be doing option 1

no funding so basically "lip service"

No Strategy has been proposed.

our current program exceeds the adopted standards

our district doesn't always align with the state standards for grade levels

our district has purchased a text that is aligned to the ngss

Our district hasn't made any plans for new curriculum

Patch work what little resources we have to meet the new standards

PLTW Curriculums ROCK!!!!!!

Quality professional development with the resources we have

State curriculum for NGSS is presently being designed

the district will probably do nothing...I will try to use existing curriculum and supplement with resources found online

There is no plan.

There seems to be no support for stem, everything in our district currently focuses on common core

They have not mentioned anyway they are going to give us supplies for the new NGSS

Use a combination of our current resources while designing our own curriculum for the new standards

Use Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education (CASE) curriculum to meet science standards and include stem curriculum

Use excisting materials for NGSS curriculum

Use existing sci. curriculum and expect individual teachers to find supplemental resources with their own time

Use our existing science core curriculum, but enhance with renewable resources for labs and projects to integrate in the classroom

waiting to see what resources are available to align with California's middle school adoption plan. Not aligned well with National NGSS

We do not currently have curriculum that adresses all of the standards, let alone the new ones, so we will continue to create our own lessons...(Science is not a priority and there isn't money to fund a new curriculum for it)

We do not have a curriculum. Teachers pull from many sources to create lessons/"curriculum"

we don't have a well articulated curriculum and do not have to follow the state standards, so it will be unlikely to be implemented formally at all

We don't use textbooks.

We have a strict textbook adoption process that has a 6year cycle. We do have some peripheral resources through discoveryeducation and explorelearning.

We have purchased new science core curriculum and also using existing parts of our core science curriculum as supplement


111

we hired a stem teacher that visits a few times a year to do one-off projects that can be completed in one class period. There is no continuity within the different projects and there is not enough time to design/build/test/modify.

We recently purchased curriculum that is aligned

we will both use past curricula, purchase new curricula when available and are currently developing units as part of a grant with a near-by university

We will Use our existing science core curriculum as is, but with a cross-walk or alignment to new standards but I would prefer for us to purchase new curriculum

Whatever is cheapest

whatever is cheapest

Who knows, the district has no solid plan for implementation to the best of my knowledge.


112

Table 18. Top Priorities in Seeking New Instructional Resources for New Standards: Reported by Respondents from States with Recently Adopted New Science Standards

Q18


Standards

Which of the following are your top priorities in seeking new instructional resources (core curriculum or supplemental) related to your recently adopted science standards (NGSS or state-specific)? (Please select UP TO 3 priorities.) % n

Incorporating project-based learning 61.0% 1305

Incorporating science practices 35.5% 760

Incorporating engineering practices 35.5% 760

Addressing the disciplinary core ideas 16.9% 362

Addressing crosscutting concepts of science (i.e., concepts that run across science disciplines) 32.4% 692

Incorporating technology into the science curriculum 35.8% 766

Making connections to the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics 11.4% 244

Making connections to the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts 10.8% 230

Assessing student learning 24.9% 533

Addressing the needs of special populations (ELL, Special Ed, Gifted/Talented) 16.0% 343

New instructional resources are not needed. 1.1% 24



Other

access to data for the ES research standards

adding to the project-based science and engineering practices we have in place.

Addressing and making connections cross content

As an independent school, we aren't bound to the state-adopted standards, but we are evaluating them to see if we can gain anything of value from them.

Career and Agribusiness Relationships

Covers all the content that we currently teach in chemistry in order to properly prepare our students for college.

Engaging curricula that includes practices and core ideas and cross-cutting concepts and has interesting performance standards -- want to add that this interchangeable use of NGSS andSTEAM is inaccurate.

Guided Inquiry Lab equipment and training

Having the up to date instructional resources

health care reseach materials and units

I question the adoption of the new standards - so to support them is questionable

I would like professional development around project based learning.


113

incorporate non-digital technology for hands-on fabrication of prototypes

incorporating blended learning preactices

Incorporating cultural based practices and ideas

making connections to Common Core State Standards in ALL areas

Meeting popular (testable) requirements; keep up with area schools

My class is laid out for me so I do not have options

Online text and homework capability

Quality professional development

Real- world applications

Requalify English teachers that are not qualified to help the students read science material... English lesson are always related to science history not content

Stocking labs and trying to figure out how to keep the disrespectful kids from destroying the equipment on purpose.

stopping social promotion in grade school, making sure all students coming to middle school can read and write at minimum a 4th grade level, smaller class sizes

strong reading and writing connections to support Science standards for the common core

Students don't think about the world around them, they stare at devices. And ebooks are not the answer. Need appropriate, unit pieced curriculum

training on technical equipment like CNC machines

we have "adopted" ngss but are not approaching this transformation in a systematic way. it is very frustrating.

we need books or ebooks

why science is only tested and taught every 3 years


114

Table 19. Ways of Providing Teacher Professional Development: Reported by District- and School-Level Science/STEM Supervisors

Q19 District- and School-Level


Finally, we’ll focus on teacher professional development for science/STEM education. Which of the following will be your school or district’s main ways of providing teacher professional development for STEM education next year (2015-2016 school year)? (Please select UP TO 3 main ways.) % n

Conferences 45.9% 178

On-site workshops sponsored by district 53.6% 208

On-site workshops provided by professional organizations or universities 22.9% 89

On-site workshops provided by instructional resource vendors 10.8% 42

Web-based PD provided by professional organizations or universities 16.8% 65

Web-based PD provided by instructional resource vendors 11.1% 43




Other

County PD days - led by county employees

Curriculum review meetings

district workshops at STEMM school/hub

district's choices are ineffective and a waste of valuable teacher time

Evening and Saturday workshops - We are not allowed to pull teachers during the school day for PD

Grants to individual teachers for summer research opportunities.

Hands on training at CT Science Center

Indvidual teachers finding their own PD.

Instructional Coach will provide PD

MSP

networking at events like Science Olympiad and Science fairs

not much is provided

not offered

nothing at all. Not important to my district because it is not Math or ELA common crap state standards

off site PD for those teachers who volunteer,

off site workshop through local organizations

Off-site workshops provided by universities

On site workshops provided by STEM coach

On-line courses

On-site PLC and Lesson Study.


115

On-site teacher lead presentations

on-site workshops provided by experienced STEM educators

on-site workshops provided by Michigan Math/Science Centers Network

on-site workshops provided by school faculty with STEM expertise

our district is not concerned with STEM education and therefore, will most likely spend money of sports instead

PD facilitated onsight staff

Read a book

Regional STEM Initiative for K-8 , none for HS

regional workshops

Teacher discretion

teacher self-education

Teachers are "on there own" to attend any PD to better Understand STEM

Teachers teaching teachers within the department

There will be no districtt sponsored Professional Developement. It will be up to the teacher.

They don't provide it specifically, we must seek it out

Time for individual research and reading

Two hours from a utility-sponsored organization in March 2015. Common core math & ELA are the only PD priorities in my school.

Very little emphasis on STEM, more emphasis on STAAR testing

Web based by district personel

Web-based PD sponsored by district and collaborative learning team investigations

Workshops provided by educational service districts.

Would like to say for sure: conferences; web-based; on site!


116

Table 20. Most Critical Professional Development Topics for New Standards: Reported by Respondents from States with Recently Adopted New Science Standards

Q20


Standards

Which professional development topics are the most critical for science teachers in order to begin implementing recently adopted science standards (NGSS or state-specific)? (Please select UP TO 3 topics) % n

How to incorporate project-based learning 53.6% 1147

How to incorporate science practices 29.4% 629

How to incorporate engineering practices 40.3% 861

Understanding content of the disciplinary core ideas 20.9% 446

Learning about crosscutting concepts of science (i.e., concepts that run across science disciplines) 30.0% 641

How to incorporate technology into the science curriculum 30.6% 654

Making connections to the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics 10.0% 213

Making connections to the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts 8.8% 188

How to assess student learning 26.8% 573

Addressing the needs of special populations (ELL, Special Ed, Gifted/Talented) 19.0% 406

How to select instructional resources 9.8% 210



Other

A check up person who will insure all teachers of lower level classes are teaching the standards which are required at that grade level so that students entering the 5th grade will have some vocabulary and science background to build upon.

aligning district curriculum to state tests (current curriculum is not aligned to state tests, or next gen standards, and either district needs new curriculum or find a way to make teaching 6th 7th and 8th grade easier)

assessment of project based learning and how to use formal assessment with project learning

blended learning practices

Collaboration across disciplines, courses

Days to plan and familiarize themselves with the program and fewer professional development days.

district funding in teacher pay and retention of talented STEM teachers

Funding to afford access to resources for science and engineering practices

Getting the class size down from 30 students- which is way too high to effectively implementing STEM

Giving time for teachers to discuss and work together

good question I'm not sure I have an answer to offhand

Guided Inquiry Labs


117

Having the correct curriculum and instructional materials

health care reseach equipment and supplies

How to adopt, develop, and adapt with out additional funds.

How to create a lesson sequence to meet the Performance Expectation

how to easily incorporate science into the elementary classroom, getting elementary teachers comfortable with teaching science and the ease and effectiveness with which it can be taught, also how to facilitate teams, teach in teams and formative assessments and change on a moments notice. how to guide and not tell through inquiry and have students have multiple outcomes

how to fight useless evaluations from state

How to get all of the content AND the Standards taught in the same amount of time.

How to get students to be accountable for their future

How to incorporate science labs without equipment

How to incorporate STEM within time constraints

how to not lose the basic foundational skills while pursuing new initiatives

How to pay for it, and what to remove to fit it in. The test has not changed.

How to properly scaffold PBL to make measurable progress in learning CONTENT (not just how to use some technology or build with toothpicks!)

INADEQUATE MONEY

Inquiry based teaching

Making career connections in Agribusiness

making connections to BOTH math and ELA common core standards

more high functiioning technology (probes, tablets etc)

Need teachers who have a science background.

Need to know the standards

Not enough time to teach all of the curriculum

Opportunities for working in labs doing science research.

released items that directly assess standards

Restructuring of the curriculum necessary to cover NGSS

Students need to be held accountable for destroying resources. They are just warned and that is the end.

text based resources aligned to new standards

The GOAL of NGSS : making SENSE of the world. STEAM is about applying that sense-making

the last standards that I saw were vague and at the high school level did not follow age as it should

This will vary from teacher to teacher. What ever is done should adjust to individual needs.

Time Full year courses intead or semester classes

Time to find additional resources and plan lessons

Time to plan the flow of NGSS in our district. There are no clear edicts on how they will work.

time to select instructional resources

TIME, TIME, TIME. You've got to allow us to clear our plates to develop this. It's great stuff, but trying to develop and integrate new material requires time and resources.

training in GIS and statistics teaching strategies

training new and current teachers.

Understanding real-world application of their content practices

We have a nation of ill-prepared elementary teachers. Start inspiring them to teach science!!!!! Provide PD, get administrators TRAINED in science/science knowledge as most are clueless.

The Educator Edition is sponsored by Vernier Software & Technology.

www.vernier.com

Documents

2015 NATIONAL SURVEY ON STEM EDUCATION · 2015 NATIONAL SURVEY ON STEM EDUCATION Written and Published By Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. [email protected] SPONSORED BY