INNOVATE

A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics in California Public Education

A report by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson’s STEM Task Force

May 2014
Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation
Publishing Information
INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics in California Public Education,
A Report to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction was prepared under the direction of the Professional
Learning Support Division, California Department of Education. This publication was originally edited by
Faye Ong and John McLean, working in cooperation with Jim Greco, Senior Fellow, STEM Initiative. The Glen
Price Group provided additional editing and final report preparation support. The report is published by the
Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 11501 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 200, Dublin, California 94568
and distributed under the provisions of the Library Distribution Act and Government Code Section 11096.

© 2014 by the Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation

all rights reserved

This publication is available for download at http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/documents/innovate.pdf.

Notice
The guidance in INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics in California
Public Education, A Report to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction is not binding on local educational
agencies or other entities. Except for the statutes, regulations, and court decisions that are referenced herein, the
document is exemplary, and compliance with it is not mandatory. (See Education Code Section 33308.5.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER FROM STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TOM TORLAKSON . . . . . . . . . . 2

LETTER FROM ASSEMBLYWOMAN SUSAN BONILLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
STEM Education in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The STEM Task Force: Primary Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. STEM EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN CALIFORNIA: THE CONTEXT . . . . . . . . 7

1.1. Defining STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2. STEM in Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3. Access to STEM in California Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4. STEM and The Changing Landscape of Learning and Assessment in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1. Professional Learning: Current Status of STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2. Professional Learning: The State’s Future Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3. Professional Learning: Key Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.1. Curriculum and Instruction: Current Status of STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2. Curriculum and Instruction: The State’s Future Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3. Curriculum and Instruction: Key Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4. STUDENT ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1. Student Assessment: Current Status of STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2. Student Assessment: The State’s Future Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3. Student Assessment: Key Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5. BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.1. Business and Community Partnerships: Current Status of STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2. Business and Community Partnerships: The State’s Future Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3. Business and Community Partnerships: Key Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6. STEM EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA: A CALL TO ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

8. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

10. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
10.1. The STEM Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
10.2. STEM Task Force Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

11.0 FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

STEM Task Force Report | 1

 Fellow Californians:

One of my first acts as State Superintendent of Public Instruction was to convene a team of teachers,
parents, and business, labor, and community leaders to candidly assess where we are, set ambitious
goals about where we want to be, and describe in some detail a shared vision for how to get there. That
team worked together and created A Blueprint for Great Schools. The recommendations from that
report led to a closer look at key concerns facing California public education: civic education, educator
excellence, education technology, schools of the future, and science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM).

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla and I convened California’s first STEM Task Force for kindergarten
through grade twelve. The 54-member task force brought together classroom teachers, district
and school administrators, leading academics, the state’s business community, and legislative
representatives. To lead this effort, I chose two authorities on STEM education: Dr. Herb Brunkhorst,
chair of the department of science, mathematics, and technology education at California State
University, San Bernardino; and Dr. Susan Hackwood, a professor of electrical engineering at the
University of California, Riverside, and executive director of the California Council on Science and
Technology.

We charged them with three tasks. First, explore the status of STEM education in curriculum,
instructional practices, professional learning, student testing, existing resources, and community and
business partnerships. Second, assess the state’s future needs. Third, recommend a blueprint on
how to improve teaching, learning, and access to STEM-related courses and careers for students in
kindergarten through grade twelve.

The report provides readers with the opportunity to consider the recommendations and take action
to put in place a cohesive STEM education system that produces exceptional results and exceptional
students. The recommendations are intended for all students, not for a select few. Implementation
of the recommendations must address English learners and students with special needs, including
academically advanced students.

As with A Blueprint for Great Schools, the recommendations of the STEM Task Force are sobering.
They reflect how diminished resources, difficult circumstances, and shifting policy choices over the
years have diminished the opportunities for all students at all grade levels to benefit from science,
technology, and engineering education.

The introduction to the report includes the task force’s definition of STEM education and the difficulties
the task force faced in defining STEM education. Faced with the same dilemma as others who have
tried to define STEM education, the task force decided that the definition was not as important as
providing the guiding principles or characteristics that would distinguish STEM education in California
from STEM education in other states.

2 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
There is also cause for great hope and optimism for STEM education. Many sound strategies are
proposed in the report and hold great promise for our students, educators, and schools—including
ones that have already proven effective in California. Some areas need further study, discussion, and
debate and would require, in some cases, changes in law to carry out. Others merely need nurturing
and support to achieve lasting results.

The recommendations of the task force are invigorating and inspiring. Some may take longer to
accomplish than others. But together, they offer a vision of what STEM education can be in California.

This report was not written to sit on a shelf. It is imperative that it become a plan of action, unifying
us with focus and purpose. We must invest our very best thinking, our very best efforts, and—above
all—our very best people in improving the quality and level of STEM education in California public
schools. We need to do so for the future of our students, their schools, and the economic future of
California.

A STEM education is not only about the future, it is about today. Over the past 10 years, growth in
jobs involving STEM fields was three times greater than that of non-STEM occupations. STEM jobs
are expected to continue to grow at a faster rate than others in the coming decade. STEM-related
industries are a major economic component of California’s economy. It is important that California’s
students have access to courses that prepare them for postsecondary education and careers in
STEM. Students and teachers in the twenty-first century must have the skills and abilities today to
succeed.

Sincerely,

Tom Torlakson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
 A Message from Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you very much for your time, work, and willingness to share ideas to create Innovate: A Blueprint
for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education in California Public Education.

I would like to commend State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson for his leadership in
ensuring the success of all California students. From his work on bringing together teachers, students,
parents, and labor and business leaders to create A Blueprint for Great Schools to spearheading the
STEM Task Force, Tom is doing an incredible job of bringing all available resources to our students.

When the STEM Task Force convened on May 24, 2012, it was quite an honor to participate in discussions
and conversations with task force members. The following report demonstrates the commitment,
partnership, and great collaboration of the task force members. My Select Committee on Increasing
the Integration of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math in Education in California K–14 Schools
will carry on your efforts and continue to work with all of you to ensure the successful integration of
STEM curriculum in every school in California.

The STEM Task Force report and its recommendations can become the catalyst for greater partnerships
for student success. Together, we will strengthen California’s position as the global leader for creating
the technological products, systems, and services that will sustain our health, security, and economic
prosperity.

Sincerely,

Susan A. Bonilla
Assemblywoman, 14th District of California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STEM EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA
To be successful, California’s efforts to improve schools and raise student achievement must include advancing our
students’ understanding of STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Through STEM education,
students learn to become problem solvers, innovators, creators, and collaborators and go on to fill the critical
pipeline of engineers, scientists, and innovators so essential to the future of California and the nation. Recognizing
both the urgency of the state’s need to improve support for STEM teaching and learning and the unprecedented
opportunities emerging from the current renaissance in public education, the STEM Task Force calls upon policy
makers, business leaders, philanthropists, educators, and all Californians to take the actions necessary to realize
this future vision:

California leads the world in STEM education, inspiring and preparing all of its students to seize the
opportunities of the global society through innovation, inquiry, collaboration, and creative problem solving.

Fortunately, as this report is being written, California is in the midst of significant, positive educational change
that has the potential for supporting major advances in STEM education, including: the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the forthcoming implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS), the transition to a student assessment system aligned with the new content standards, the new Career
Technical Education standards, and the innovation made possible through the implementation of the Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF). Taken together, these efforts provide a unique and unparalleled opportunity to enhance
STEM education in California. When considered in conjunction with the accelerating demands for a skilled STEM
workforce in our state and the nation, the economic and social imperatives for providing high-quality STEM
education become self-evident.

STEM education includes four specific disciplines—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—in an
interdisciplinary and applied approach. But STEM is far more than this and is best viewed in terms of its attributes,
which transcend the four disciplines. STEM teaches and trains students to engage in critical thinking, inquiry,
problem solving, collaboration, and what is often referred to in engineering as design thinking. These stand out as
skills that all students, workers, and Californians will need to be successful in college, career, and life.

As a core requirement for careers in some of the fastest-growing industries, STEM is closely linked with our nation’s
economic strength in the global economy. Scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians are largely
responsible for creating the products, systems, and services that support our health, security, economic prosperity,
and quality of life. To ensure that the nation and, more specifically, California, continue to fill the demand for
technically skilled workers and innovators in all fields of work, California must embrace STEM teaching and
assessment practices, curriculum, and policies that expand STEM opportunities for all California students.

THE STEM TASK FORCE: PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

The California STEM Task Force was charged by California State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) Tom
Torlakson and Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla with drafting a new vision and direction for STEM education in the
state, paying particular attention to remedying issues of access to high-quality learning experiences and professional
STEM workforce needs. The task force, made up of teachers and administrators from K-12 and higher education as
well as leaders of partner organizations, explored the current status of STEM education, assessed the state’s future
needs, and developed recommendations for improving teaching, learning, and access to STEM-related courses and
careers for K-12 students.1 This report details the results of the task force’s work and calls upon California’s policy
makers and educators to ensure the realization of seven strategic action areas:

STEM Task Force Report | 5

 1. Public Awareness: Create a broad-based campaign to convey the importance of STEM education and
ensure the availability of sufficient resources and public support to realize the vision for STEM education in
the state.

2. Resources: Increase resources for STEM learning from all stakeholders (government, business, communities)
through additional and reallocated government funding, in-kind support, multi-sector participation,
philanthropy, and innovative public/private partnerships.

3. Access: Make access to high-quality STEM experiences and programs universal to all K-12 students through
a variety of opportunities in school, expanded learning, and community partnerships through informal,
formal, and digital pathways.

4. Framework: Establish a K-12 STEM framework for teaching and learning that identifies the sequence of
STEM knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward developing college, career, and life readiness skills and that
aligns with the CCSS, NGSS, and associated curriculum frameworks.

5. Professional Learning: Adopt policies and standards for quality STEM professional learning, development,
and training to guide support systems at the state, regional, and local levels.

6. Assessment and Accountability: Integrate STEM into assessment and accountability systems in a
cohesive, meaningful, and innovative fashion, taking advantage of the entire suite of assessment tools
available to, and under development by, the state and LEAs at this time.

7. Guarantee the Availability of High-quality STEM Educational Materials and Resources: Ensure that
state, regional, and local STEM programs can identify and access excellent learning resources.2

Supporting students’ development of key STEM competencies is central to our state’s future economic and social
vitality, contributing to innovation, economic development, and competitiveness in the global economy. Perhaps
more importantly, the STEM competencies of active problem solving, open inquiry, experimentation, collaboration,
and dialogue help ensure an open and just society. California has long been recognized as a leader in STEM
innovation, and it is now time for California to lead the nation in advancing STEM education. To do so, we must
rapidly mobilize the necessary statewide political and social will to make high-quality STEM education for all
students a reality.

6 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
1. STEM EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN
CALIFORNIA: THE CONTEXT
“STEM is gaining increasing attention and support at both federal and state levels, for a number of
reasons. First, the nation needs to increase the number of experts in STEM fields to drive innovation
and keep the country competitive in the global economy. ‘If America is going to compete for
the jobs and industries of tomorrow, we need to make sure our children are getting the best
education possible,’ said President Obama recently. Second, the U.S. needs STEM-literate citizens
who are knowledgeable enough in STEM subjects to understand, assess, and interpret basic data
reported in the news and make informed choices in the marketplace. Third, the U.S. Department
of Commerce reports that business and industry do not have enough candidates to fill key jobs in
STEM fields, and they are resorting to hiring candidates from other countries to fill these positions”
(White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2012).

1.1 DEFINING STEM EDUCATION

In the 1990’s the National Science Foundation united science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and
created the STEM acronym—a strategic decision made by scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians
to combine forces and create a stronger political voice. STEM education, however, is much more than a convenient
integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; it is an interdisciplinary and applied approach
that is coupled with real-world, problem-based learning. STEM education integrates the four disciplines through
cohesive and active teaching and learning approaches. We now understand that these subjects cannot and should
not be taught in isolation, just as they do not exist in isolation in the real world or the workforce.

The Four STEM Disciplines Described

Science is the study of the natural world, including the laws of nature associated with physics, chemistry,
and biology and the treatment or application of facts, principles, concepts, and conventions associated
with these disciplines. Science is both a body of knowledge that has been accumulated over time and
a process—scientific inquiry—that generates new knowledge. Knowledge from science informs the
engineering design process.

Technology, while not a discipline in the strictest sense, comprises the entire system of people and
organizations, knowledge, processes, and devices that go into creating and operating technological
artifacts, as well as the artifacts themselves. Throughout history, humans have created technology to
satisfy their wants and needs. Much of modern technology is a product of science and engineering, and
technological tools are used in both fields.

Engineering is both a body of knowledge—about the design and creation of human-made products—and
a process for solving problems. This process is design under constraint. One constraint in engineering design
is the laws of nature, or science. Other constraints include time, money, available materials, ergonomics,
environmental regulations, manufacturability, and reparability. Engineering utilizes concepts from science
and mathematics as well as technological tools.

Mathematics is the study of patterns and relationships among quantities, numbers, and space. Unlike
in science, where empirical evidence is sought to warrant or overthrow claims, claims in mathematics are
warranted through logical arguments based on foundational assumptions. The logical arguments themselves

STEM Task Force Report | 7

 are part of mathematics along with the claims. As in science, knowledge in mathematics continues to grow,
but unlike in science, knowledge in mathematics is not overturned, unless the foundational assumptions
are transformed. Specific conceptual categories of K-12 mathematics include numbers and arithmetic,
algebra, functions, geometry, and statistics and probability. Mathematics is used in science, engineering
and technology.

Source: Adapted from National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009.

STEM Further Defined by Competencies

While the STEM disciplines above define categories of knowledge, STEM is equally defined by learning strategies
and competencies. It is strongly associated with skills, abilities, work interests, and work values (Carnevale,
Melton, and Smith, 2011). Skills include foundational content skills, such as mathematics; processing skills, such
as critical thinking and self-awareness; and problem solving skills, such as evaluating options and implementing
solutions. Abilities are defined as enduring personal attributes that influence performance at work, such as
creativity, innovation, reasoning, and oral and written communication. Work values are individual preferences
for work outcomes, such as recognition, responsibility, or advancement. Work interests are defined as individual
preferences for work environments such as environments that are artistic, enterprising, or conventional. There is a
growing demand for these competencies throughout today’s economy beyond the traditional STEM occupations,
highlighting the importance of implementing a broad STEM strategy across K-12 education in America (Carnevale
et al., 2011).

Moreover, readiness for a career in STEM is more than skills, abilities, work interests, and work values. It is a
convergence of these with self-knowledge, adaptability, and a commitment to lifelong learning that make students
ready to “achieve a fulfilling, financially-secure and successful career” in an “ever-changing global economy”
(Career Readiness Partner Council, n.d.).

Defining STEM Education for California

One of the first assignments the STEM Task Force undertook was the development of a definition of STEM education
for California. Many educators know what STEM stands for, but few may have thought much about what it means
(Gerlach, 2012). A definition proposed by Tsupros, Kohler, and Hallinen (2009) refers to STEM as an interdisciplinary
approach to learning in which rigorous academic concepts are coupled with real-world lessons. Students apply
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in contexts that connect school, community, industry, and
the global enterprise, enabling the development of STEM literacy and, with it, the ability to compete in the new
economy. At the K-12 levels, STEM has focused, to date, on science and mathematics; technology and engineering
have not been prominent in the curriculum. At the undergraduate level, STEM education has focused on the
knowledge, skills, and aptitudes in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In the career
and technical education field, it has focused on workforce development issues. Research has also demonstrated
a strong correlation between success in the arts and success in STEM. A major challenge of the task force was,
therefore, to begin to clarify what the STEM acronym actually means for K-12 educational policies, programs, and
practices in the state of California.

In an attempt to capture the spirit of both the education and workforce communities, the task force developed the
following definition:

8 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
 K-12 STEM education encompasses the processes of critical thinking, analysis, and collaboration in
which students integrate the processes and concepts in real world contexts of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, fostering the development of STEM skills and competencies for
college, career, and life.

STEM Literacy
Rodger Bybee’s seminal article, Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision, clearly articulated the basis for STEM
education planning, noting, “Now is the time to move beyond the slogan and make STEM literacy for all students
an educational priority” (Bybee, 2010, p. 31).

In keeping with Bybee’s vision, several policy, government, and educational groups have worked to identify specific
goals for STEM education. These include the National Research Council Committee on Highly Successful School
or Programs for K-12 STEM Education, 2011; The California Space Education and Workforce Institute, 2011; The
Alliance for Regional Collaborations to Heighten Educational Success, 2008; and the California STEM Learning
Network, 2013. Generally, these goals have been divided into either educational goals, such as increasing the STEM
proficiency of all students, or workforce goals, such as expanding the number of students entering postsecondary
education and the STEM workforce. Both sets of goals are intended to enhance the global competiveness of the
U.S. economy and help Californians achieve economic security.

A number of professional organizations in STEM have developed working definitions of STEM literacy in each of
their content areas, while acknowledging the integrated and interrelated nature of STEM education. The National
Governors Association, the College Board, Achieve, Inc., and STEM professional organizations have recommended
ways to demonstrate the connections between STEM domains:

• Scientifically literate students use scientific knowledge not only in physics, chemistry, biological sciences,
and earth/space sciences to understand the natural world, but they also understand the scientific need for
existing and new technologies, how new advances in scientific understanding can be engineered, and how
mathematics is used to articulate and solve problems.

• Technologically literate students understand that technology is the innovation with or manipulation of
our natural resources to help create and satisfy human needs and also to learn how to obtain, utilize, and
manage technological tools to solve science, mathematics, and engineering problems.

• Students who are literate in engineering understand how past, present, and future technologies are
developed through the engineering design process to solve problems. They also see how science and
mathematics are used in the creation of these technologies.

• Mathematically literate students not only know how to analyze, reason, and communicate ideas
effectively; they can also mathematically pose, model, formulate, solve, and interpret questions and
solutions in science, technology, and engineering.

Through problem/project-based learning situations, students weave together and communicate their understanding
of STEM concepts. Concepts that were once taught in isolation become tangible and relevant to their daily lives.
Integrated approaches to K-12 STEM education in the context of real-world issues can enhance motivation for
learning and improve student interest, achievement, and persistence. These outcomes have the potential to increase
the number of students who consider pursuing a STEM-related field.

STEM Task Force Report | 9

1.2. STEM IN SOCIETY
The future needs of global business and industry are evolving dramatically. According to the U.S. Bureau of Statistics
(2013), STEM jobs are expected to grow over the next five years by 21.4 percent (versus 10.4 percent growth in
the overall job market). Even students who do not seize the STEM jobs of the future will be asked to evaluate
and vote on complex issues that require strong scientific competence. They will also be consumers of ever more-
sophisticated technologies.

The growth of jobs in California requiring STEM proficiency is on the rise. In California in 2012, there were
approximately five people searching for every available job. Meanwhile, there were 1.5 STEM jobs available for
every job seeker (Change the Equation, 2012). Workers with STEM skills are scarce across the entire economy and
too many workers lack the competencies necessary for success in the current and future labor market (Carnevale,
Smith, and Strohl, 2010). By 2018, it has been estimated that 92 percent of traditional STEM jobs will require at
least some postsecondary education and training. Close to two-thirds of STEM job openings will require bachelor’s
degrees or above (65 percent). By 2018, the remaining roughly 35 percent of the STEM workforce will consist of
those with sub-baccalaureate training, including 1 million associate in arts degrees, 745,000 certificates in related
fields, and 760,000 industry-based certifications (Carnevale et al., 2010).

While the demand is growing, research has clearly established that students in the United States are not adequately
prepared for these jobs and responsibilities. Data from the Programme for International Student Assessment,
collected by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, confirms that students in the United
States are less proficient in science than many of their worldwide counterparts.3 In an international exam given to
15 year-old students, the United States performed below average in mathematics in 2012 and ranked twenty-sixth
out of thirty-four countries. The United States ranked seventeenth in reading and twenty-first in science. While
the U.S. spends more per student than most countries, this does not translate into better performance. The U.S.
also has a below-average share of top performers. Students in the United States have particular weaknesses in
performing mathematics tasks with higher cognitive demands, such as taking real-world situations, translating
them into mathematical terms, and interpreting mathematical aspects of real-world problems (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012).

As a result of these weaknesses, California employers often rely on foreign-born workers to fill available STEM jobs.
Foreign-born workers account for 17 percent of all United States STEM workers, compared with 12 percent in the
labor force as a whole (Carnevale, Rose, and Hanson, 2012).

According to an annual report by American College Testing (ACT), the college admissions testing company, more
female high school test takers indicate an interest in STEM careers than their male counterparts (ACT, 2013). This
interest, however, does not translate into STEM-related degrees once they are in college. Although women are
more likely to hold a college degree than men, they are less likely to have studied in a field that would prepare
them for STEM careers. In engineering, only 15 percent of degree holders are women (Buttice and Rogers, 2013).
By graduation, men outnumber women in most science and engineering fields; in some fields, women earn only
20 percent of the bachelor’s degrees (National Science Board, 2010).

African Americans and Latinos are also underrepresented in STEM occupations, relative to their share of the
workforce. In 2011, African Americans made up 11 percent of the workforce, and Hispanics 15 percent. However,
their representation in STEM fields were 6 and 7 percent, respectively (Landivar, 2013). National organizations
like the Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Foundation place high priority on
diversifying the nation’s STEM workforce, while acknowledging the deep issues that must be confronted (George,
Neale, Van Horne, and Malcom, 2001).

10 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
1.3. ACCESS TO STEM IN CALIFORNIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Many of California’s students lack consistent access to high-quality STEM education. Although the importance of
STEM learning has been widely acknowledged, several factors have limited access to STEM education: the focus on
English language arts and skill-based mathematics required by No Child Left Behind; insufficient focus on science
as well as on STEM education in the classroom; lack of access to high-quality STEM materials and instruction;
insufficient opportunities for students to engage in hands-on, inquiry based learning; and insufficient professional
preparation by teachers at all levels. These factors are discussed in the chapters that follow.

California’s population is highly diverse, yet it is known that students living in poor urban or rural areas and many
students from underrepresented groups lack access to high-quality STEM education. This has resulted in lack of
proficiency that disproportionately impacts students of color.

The state has not closed the persistent achievement gap among racial and ethnic groups in math and science.
Eighth graders in California have made gains in mathematics on the 2013 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), also known as “the nation’s report card.”4 Most students have far to go to reach a score of 299,
NAEP’s cutoff for “proficient” performance. The average score for all students was 273, for African American
students 258, and for Hispanic students 263 (NAEP, 2013).

On the grade 8 NAEP science assessment, only 22 percent of California students tested proficient or above, and 47
percent tested below basic in science. In 2011, 39 percent of white eighth graders reached the proficiency level in
science while only 8 percent of African American students and 11 percent of Hispanic students reached that level
(NAEP, 2013).

One consequence of California’s lack of access to STEM education for all students is that the STEM workforce
does not reflect the demographics of the state. This is also true at the national level; minorities continue to be
underrepresented in STEM occupations relative to their position in the labor market as a whole.

1.4. STEM AND THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT IN

CALIFORNIA
The current confluence of groundbreaking educational movements in California—the adoption and implementation
of the Common Core State Standards, the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards, the transition to
a new statewide assessment system, changes in Career Technical Education Standards, and the innovation made
possible through the Local Control Funding Formula—combine to provide a unique and unparalleled opportunity
for furthering STEM education and excellence.

Adoption and Implementation of the Common Core State Standards

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts and mathematics, adopted by the California
State Board of Education in August 2010, describe what students are expected to learn in each grade or course
for both subjects, as well as what students are expected to learn to demonstrate literacy in history, social science,
and other technical subjects. Since 2010, forty-four states have adopted the CCSS for English language arts and
math. This consistency helps all students prepare for college and career, even if they change schools or move to a
different state. Teachers, parents, and education experts designed the standards to prepare students for success
in college and the workplace, and the new content standards focus on understanding and abilities rather than
knowledge and information recall.

California Career Technical Education and English language development (ELD) standards are also aligned with
the CCSS. This facilitates access as well as integration and articulation across subject matter, grade levels, and

STEM Task Force Report | 11

secondary school departments and ensures that English language learners are not marginalized and are able to
participate in mainstream educational offerings.

Adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), adopted by the State Board of Education in 2013, reflect how science
is done in the real world through Scientific and Engineering Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Disciplinary Core
Ideas. The NGSS integrate science, technology, and engineering throughout the K-12 curriculum and correlate with
the CCSS in English language arts and mathematics. Implementation of the NGSS in California is scheduled in three
phases: 1) Awareness (2013-2015); 2) Transition (2015-2016); and 3) Implementation (2016-2017).

The NGSS will bring science instruction up-to-date by emphasizing a deeper focus on incorporating science and
engineering practices, and applying crosscutting concepts within and across the scientific disciplines of Earth and
Space, Life, and Physical Science. The NGSS also provides a coherent progression of learning from kindergarten
through grade 12, so students learn step-by-step the knowledge and skills they need for college and careers.
State Board of Education president, Mike Kirst, emphasized the importance of the NGSS adoption, “The Next
Generation Science Standards represent a huge leap forward for California’s students and our schools. Scientific
innovation remains at the core of the California economy, and schools play a huge role in equipping the workforce
of tomorrow” (California Department of Education, 2013).

Transitioning to a Future Statewide Assessment System

AB 484 (Bonilla), signed into law on October 2013, establishes California’s new student assessment system,
now known as the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), which replaces
the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program. CAASPP will better integrate teaching, learning, and
assessment by providing teachers and schools access to a full suite of assessments, including both summative
and interim assessments and formative tools through the new Smarter Balanced assessment system. In addition
to providing annual summative assessments, this system will provide teachers with actionable information and
resources to help guide instruction on an ongoing basis. The provisions of AB 484 took effect on January 1, 2014,
with field-testing conducted in Spring 2014.

Through an assessment system that builds on the CCSS and NGSS as its foundation, California will be able to assess
student achievement in a way that is substantially different from approaches used in the past. The CCSS will not
only be incorporated into curriculum and instruction; they will be at the core of the CAASPP. Through the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium, California is developing and field-testing a cohesive and adaptable assessment
program, which highlights building and assessing critical thinking skills, aligning closely with the desired STEM
attributes. Assessments for the NGSS will build on the success of the Smarter Balanced assessments and also
include performance tasks that would assess students on knowledge and skills used to address complex, real-world
scenarios.

Adoption and Implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula

The 2013-14 California budget replaces the previous K-12 finance system with a new Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF). For school districts and charter schools, the LCFF creates base, supplemental, and concentration
grants in place of most previously existing K-12 funding streams, including revenue limits and most state categorical
programs.

As part of the LCFF, school districts, County Offices of Education, and charter schools are required to develop,
adopt, and annually update a three-year Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), beginning on July 1, 2014,
using a template adopted by the California State Board of Education. State priorities on the LCAP template include

12 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
“Implementation of State Standards,” which now include the NGSS and CCSS as well as “Conditions for Learning:
Course Access.” The statute requires the inclusion of parents, including parents or legal guardians of targeted
disadvantaged pupils, in the planning and implementation of the LCFF at the District level. LCAP planning therefore
provides an opportunity for teachers, administrators, parents, and community members to have a voice in shaping
the NGSS and CCSS rollouts in their communities and ensuring that they include STEM competencies.

“Today, I’m signing a bill that is truly revolutionary,” said Governor Brown on signing the historic school funding
legislation. “We are bringing government closer to the people, to the classroom where real decisions are made and
directing the money where the need and the challenge is greatest. This is a good day for California, it’s a good day
for school kids and it’s a good day for our future” (State of California, Office of the Governor, 2013).

Career Technical Education as a STEM strategy

In preparing students for college and careers, Career Technical Education (CTE) provides a strong option for
development of STEM competencies and skills. STEM knowledge and skills are also essential to many fields such as
health care and biotechnology, manufacturing and product development, transportation, and energy and utilities.

Career Technical Education offers students the opportunity to explore and experience careers in the STEM industries.
It can also prepare students for beginning technical level STEM employment and help them to construct a realistic
postsecondary education plan based on knowledge and experience in their chosen STEM field. The federal Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, one of the primary sources of funding for CTE in California
and the country, requires that recipients of this federal funding provide CTE programs of study that align secondary
and postsecondary courses and programs, address industry needs, integrate academic with CTE knowledge and
skills, and offer dual credit when appropriate— all desired components for students pursuing college and careers
in STEM. CTE programs of study frequently prepare students for industry-recognized certification, in addition to
preparation for the workforce and for success in postsecondary education. Providing students with knowledge,
skills and certifications that are of value to, and recognized by, business and industry allows them the option of
employment in STEM jobs while they continue their STEM education. Some students would not be able to continue
their education without this fiscal support. CTE offers engaging, relevant curriculum and provides students the
ability to explore potential careers, prepare for college, and apply academic and workplace knowledge and skills,
creating a highly effective STEM learning environment (National Association of State Directors of Career Technical
Education Consortium, 2013).

STEM Task Force Report | 13

2. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
In 2012, SSPI Torlakson and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing jointly convened the Educator
Excellence Task Force, co-chaired by Professor Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University and Long Beach
Unified School District Superintendent Chris Steinhauser. The task force’s report, Greatness by Design (2012, p.
9), lays out a comprehensive agenda for successful development of California’s educator workforce, and makes a
strong case for ongoing professional learning:

“The critical need for investments in teacher and principal learning has been made clear over and
over again in efforts aimed at educational change. Those who have worked to improve schools
have found that every aspect of school reform – the creation of more challenging curriculum,
the use of more thoughtful assessments, the invention of new model schools and programs –
depends on highly-skilled educators who are well supported in healthy school organizations.”

Building on this important foundation, the STEM Task Force analyzed the current status of California’s STEM
professional learning systems and developed recommendations for improvements with the awareness
that, “In the final analysis, there are no policies that can improve schools if the people in them are not
armed with the knowledge and skills they need” (California Department of Education, Educator Excellence
Task Force, 2012, p. 9).

2.1 PROFESSIONAL LEARNING: CURRENT STATUS OF STEM EDUCATION

Defining Professional Learning

Studies have shown that professional learning most closely linked to improved student learning: a) focuses on
teachers understanding the content they will teach; b) is sustained over time; and c) provide opportunities for
professional dialogue and critical reflection (Weiss et al., 1999; Zucker, Shields, Adelman, Corcoran, and Goertz,
1998; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). As Smith (2001) writes: “Professional development of teachers should
be situated in practice.” The everyday work of teaching should become the object of ongoing investigation and
thoughtful inquiry (Ball and Cohen, 1999). Greatness by Design (2012) explains that high-quality professional
learning is connected to practice, focused on student learning, and aligned with school improvement efforts.
Professional learning opportunities should be ongoing and include externally provided professional development
opportunities as well as job-embedded activities such as common planning time and collaborative opportunities
to examine student work or tools for self-reflection. Together, these opportunities contribute to increased teacher
knowledge and the resulting changes to instructional practices that support and enhance student learning. Lois
Brown Easton (Easton, 2008) contends:

“It is clearer today than ever that educators need to learn, and that’s why professional learning has
replaced professional development. Developing is not enough. Educators must be knowledgeable
and wise. They must know enough in order to change. They must change in order to get different
results. They must become learners, and they must be self-developing.”

Professional Learning Resources

Given the critical value of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge (Zeidler, 2002), continued
professional learning is paramount in promoting student learning in STEM disciplines. Unfortunately, professional
learning opportunities for teachers and administrators have severely decreased over the past ten years and are
virtually nonexistent in many schools. Funding for professional learning in California has been significantly reduced
as a direct result of budget cuts and indirectly as a result of professional learning funds being redirected to fill

14 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
other budget gaps. More than half of the districts across California report that they have eliminated or significantly
reduced professional learning opportunities that had previously been provided to teachers.

Of the four STEM disciplines, professional learning opportunities for science, technology, and engineering in
California are particularly sparse. In a 2011 study of elementary teachers in California, Dorph and her colleagues
found that only about one-third felt very prepared to teach science and more than 85 percent had not received
any science-related professional development in the past three years. Likewise, more than half of California middle
school science teachers surveyed rated the lack of professional learning environments as a major or moderate
challenge for quality implementation (Hartry, Dorph, Shields, Tiffany-Morales, and Romero, 2012). More clarity is
needed in defining the most effective ways to teach engineering in K–12 classrooms (National Research Council,
2009).

There is a growing consensus that teachers require a base level of knowledge and skills, with subject knowledge
deep enough and instructional methods broad enough to deliver a high-quality curriculum to each student (National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2007; Wilson, 2011). Teacher quality is one of the most important
influences in student achievement and learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Thus, a key to the implementation
of high-quality STEM programs is that teachers have deep content-area knowledge, particularly in science and
mathematics. This content-area knowledge will also be crucial in meeting the demands of the CCSS and NGSS.

The adoption of the CCSS and NGSS will require sweeping changes in curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
The new standards focus on deeper understanding and application of content as well as higher-level skills and
abilities that were not emphasized in the previous California standards. In order to enable students to meet the
new standards, instructional practices across content areas must be deepened. Under the new standards, STEM
instruction will require more hands-on and project-based learning. This offers prime opportunities for exploration
of integrated teaching and learning programs utilizing the unique potential of three different but related learning
environments: informal, expanded learning, and the K-12 regular school day. Each of these provides unique
resources that have historically been siloed. Integrating the learning opportunities across all three of these areas
will open new doors for collaboration and resource sharing that will benefit educators as well as students.

Current Assets and Practices

Despite the challenging context that has existed for the last decade, California has developed and sustained assets
and practices that continue to provide professional learning opportunities to educators statewide. For example,
although it has received numerous budget cuts, the California Subject Matter Project (CSMP) has continued to
provide content-based professional learning. CSMP was created in 1988 and reauthorized in 2011, demonstrating
the California legislature’s commitment to supporting educators’ ongoing professional learning. The CSMP is a
regional network of nine discipline-based projects, including mathematics and science, which provides professional
learning opportunities through the creation of communities of practice across ninety sites statewide. Similarly, the
K-12 Alliance is a statewide network within WestEd’s Mathematics, Science, & Technology Program that has provided
professional learning in science and mathematics for more than twenty-eight years. The California Science Teachers
Association and the California Mathematics Council support annual conferences in which educators learn about
new policies and take home practical experiences to use in the classroom. Other examples of statewide professional
learning opportunities are those provided by the County Offices of Education (COE). These opportunities are often
provided regionally through COE’s curriculum and instruction steering committees (CISC). There are CISCs for
STEM components including mathematics, science, and technology that identify professional learning needs and
provide professional learning activities.

The CDE has been facilitating a professional learning grant program under NCLB Title II Part B called the CA
Mathematics and Science Partnership Grant Program. This program has been successful in helping teachers learn
STEM content as well as teaching strategies. This year the grants required recipients to begin the conversation on

STEM Task Force Report | 15

STEM by integrating at least two of the content areas. The CDE is hoping to learn more about STEM education
through these programs.

Another developing and important source of professional learning opportunities involves informal learning contexts
such as science museums. For example, two San Francisco Bay Area institutions, the Lawrence Hall of Science and
the Exploratorium, conduct professional development programs.

Recent events in California demonstrate the growing interest in STEM education. In February 2014, The California
STEM Summit, convened by the California STEM Learning Network, was held in Santa Clara. The summit is the
state’s foremost gathering of leaders from PK-12 formal and informal education, higher education, business and
industry, government, and science-rich education institutions focused on STEM education. The Summit brought
these stakeholders together to advance a common agenda for increasing quality, equity, and innovation in STEM
education throughout California. The 2013 STEM Symposium, convened by the CDE, was attended by over 2,000
people including educators, administrators, parents, and other key stakeholders focused on STEM professional
learning, curriculum and instruction, and partnerships. The CDE also convened two other events in 2013 that
focused on STEM: the 33rd Annual State Migrant Parent Conference, attended by 700 parents, and the Migrant
Summer Leadership Institutes for 200 students and 40 parents. These events included a focus on fostering interest
in STEM fields among participating students.

A good example of promising professional learning practices that build on existing public and private assets is the
Orange County STEM collaboration, known as the OC STEM Initiative. This collaboration of sixteen funders, the
Orange County Department of Education, THINK Together, Tiger Woods Learning Center, and Discovery Science
Center has successfully developed a regional STEM ecosystem that provides both programmatic experiential
learning opportunities for educators and promotes the integration of all disciplines and learning platforms. This
collaboration was recently highlighted by the National Research Council in its STEM Is Everywhere convening in
February 2014, as well as in the Noyce Foundation report, How Cross- Sector Collaborations are Advancing STEM
Learning (Traphagen and Taill, 2014). OC STEM also participates actively in the statewide Power of Discovery:
STEM2 initiative.

2.2. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING: THE STATE’S FUTURE NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Need to Re-examine Teacher Preparation Programs

A thorough examination of teacher preparation programs was outside of the purview of the working group.
However, the group recognizes that in order for in-service STEM professional learning to be most successful,
there must be outstanding STEM pre-service teacher preparation. Recent publications have examined the topic of
teacher preparation in depth. Greatness by Design (2012) provides detailed recommendations for how to recruit,
train, and support outstanding teachers in California. STEM Can Lead the Way (Read, 2013) examines STEM
teacher preparation specifically and identifies changes that need to be implemented in the current credentialing
system to develop outstanding STEM educators.

Necessary Resources
The amount of time allotted for professional learning is a local decision. In a financial crisis, resources for professional
learning are often one of the first items sacrificed to balance the budget. If STEM education is to be a priority,
some of the funding for education must focus specifically on STEM professional learning. Greatness by Design
(2012) recommends dedicating a consistent share of the state education budget to professional learning. Another
approach to securing necessary resources may be to integrate state support with the business and philanthropic
communities that have historically supported STEM-expanded learning opportunities.

16 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
As educational funding is beginning to be restored across the state, opportunities to utilize this funding for professional
learning are emerging. As a result of AB 86, which appropriated funds specifically for the implementation of newly
adopted state standards (including the new science standards), $1.25 billion became available for the 2013-14
and 2014-15 school years. Language in the bill indicates specifically that these funds may be used for professional
learning.

Need for STEM Professional Learning Standards

Standards are important indicators of excellence (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995; Kaser and Bourexis,
1999). As yet, there are no standards for providers of STEM professional learning; moreover, there are no standards
for any provider in the integration of these subjects. Consequently, school districts and educators have no guidelines
to identify quality professional STEM learning providers.

Need and Opportunity for STEM Capacity Building

Given the positive change and momentum in California public education described above, we have a current
opportunity to create an educational system that builds STEM instructional capacity, yielding strong returns on
investment for many generations to come. Creating an environment that allows educators to continue to learn
and pursue self-development will build the capacity to provide better STEM learning opportunities for students.

At the state, regional, and local levels the capacity to develop, implement, and support ongoing professional
learning must be in some cases strengthened and, in others, rebuilt. The focus of this work should now be placed
on the formulation and implementation of the actual strategy to move forward based on building capacity in two
interrelated domains:

1. STEM knowledge and skills for instructional (pedagogical) practice. Capacity building should focus
on instruction, relative to the CCSS and NGSS (capacities for which strong exemplars exist but that are not
currently strong in the state) for all within the educational system, from teachers, to para-professionals such
as after school educators, to school principals and administrators; and

2. Leadership knowledge and skills necessary to mobilize and support instructional practice on a wide
scale. This could include creating collaboratives and other mechanisms for individuals and groups to learn
from each other as they do this work and developing leadership capacity at all levels to mobilize educators
and administrators. It should also include making data on effective practices and on student learning
central to this work.

2.3. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establish and/or support, with consistent funding, a variety of high-quality STEM professional learning
opportunities led by trained professional learning providers that increase state, regional, and district
capacity for delivering excellent STEM education.

2. Adopt policies and standards for quality STEM professional learning to provide guidance at the state,
regional, and local school levels.

3. Implement a system of periodic review of state STEM-related professional learning practices to monitor
effectiveness and provide flexibility.

A full set of recommendations from all sections of the report is available in Appendix 10.2.

STEM Task Force Report | 17

3. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
STEM curriculum and instruction promotes active, collaborative, and meaningful learning, which supports mastery
of skills and expands horizons. According to the National Research Council (2011), curriculum and instruction
in elementary education should focus on generating interest in the STEM disciplines by exposing all children to
engaging applications in STEM areas, building on what they know and on their interests. Every child should enjoy
learning and want to be fully engaged in science through hands-on inquiry and in mathematics through solving
of authentic problems. Technology should be an integral tool in schools to support learning through multiple
means: researching, modeling, communicating, interpreting, and displaying. The ideal secondary school learning
environment would engage students in interdisciplinary work and project-based learning using real-world contexts
(Larmer and Mergendoller, 2012).

3.1. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: CURRENT STATUS OF STEM EDUCATION

The Impact and Legacy of No Child Left Behind

In 2001, the nation’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB). At its core, NCLB aims to raise student achievement as well as state and school-based accountability for
student progress (Education Week, 2011). To measure student achievement, NCLB requires states to conduct
student assessments in reading/English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science. While ELA and mathematics
assessments are required in grades 3-8 and once between grades 10-12, science assessments are only required
three times: once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school. Currently, in California,
science is assessed in fifth, eighth, and tenth grades. As a result, NCLB has been criticized for narrowing the
curriculum to largely English language arts and mathematics at the expense of other subjects. Research conducted
by the Center on Education Policy found that since NCLB was enacted in 2002, 62 percent of school districts
across the nation increased instruction time for ELA and mathematics by as much as three hours per week. Fifty-
three percent of these districts reduced science instruction time by at least 1.25 hours per week (McMurrer, 2008)
and one study indicated that 40 percent of teachers surveyed reported that they taught science for less than one
hour each week. Both teachers and administrators agreed that limited time for science instruction was the most
significant challenge to providing science instruction. Beyond instructional time, only 11 percent of elementary
school principals surveyed indicated that it was very likely that students would be receiving high-quality science
instruction at his/her school and, conversely, 12 percent indicated it was very unlikely that students would receive
high-quality science instruction (Dorph et al., 2011). As continued budget shortfalls necessitated decreased overall
learning time, classroom time dedicated to subjects outside of ELA and mathematics were disproportionally reduced
to enable ELA and mathematics instruction to be maintained at current levels.

Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards

Both the CCSS and NGSS represent a shift in K-12 content standards from remembering and recalling information to
demonstrating students’ depth of knowledge within and across content areas, including understanding, applying,
and analyzing.5 The NGSS reflect the interconnected nature of science by addressing student engagement in three
dimensions: 1) Science and Engineering Practices; 2) Crosscutting Concepts; and 3) Disciplinary Core Ideas. The
NGSS focus on deeper understanding of content and application of content: “…the focus is on the core ideas – not
necessarily the facts that are associated with them. The facts and details are important evidence, but not the sole
focus of instruction” (Achieve, 2013, p. 4). In addition to traditional science subjects, engineering and technology
are integrated into the NGSS, based on a two-fold rationale: 1) Science, engineering, and technology are often all
required to address major world challenges that may motivate students to study these subjects; and 2) A number
of abilities are common across these three subject areas, allowing the study of one to increase proficiency in the
others (Achieve, 2013).

18 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
STEM in Expanded and Informal Learning
Students learn not only in the classroom but also in the real world, and the importance of expanded, informal,
and K-12 regular school day learning integration has been emphasized recently by the 2011 convening of the
Committee on Integrated STEM Education by the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research
Council (NRC), and the NRC convening, STEM is Everywhere. The most effective STEM education takes place where
expanded, informal learning, and K-12 regular day instruction are integrated and the unique potential of each
of these environments is fully leveraged for high-quality STEM education, often referred to as STEM ecosystems.
Figure 1 below provides a graphic representation of integrated expanded learning, informal learning, and K-12
regular school day environments.

Figure 1

In late 2011, the CDE created the After School Division (ASD), implementing a recommendation from A Blueprint
for Great Schools (2011) and emphasizing expanded learning as a priority. Shortly after its formation, the ASD
launched a strategic planning process that culminated in the finalization and publication of the division’s strategic
plan, A Vision for Expanded Learning in California (California Department of Education, After School Division,
2014). The ASD’s plan defines expanded learning as “those programs conducted before and after school, summer,
and intersession learning programs, that focus on developing the academic, social, emotional and physical needs
and interests of students through hands-on, engaging learning experiences” (2013, p.4). This definition includes
those programs that have previously been referred to as after school and out-of-school.

California provides approximately $500 million for expanded learning programs. That commitment, in conjunction
with some federal funding, supports more than 4,400 expanded learning programs at school sites with the
capacity to serve more than 420,000 students each school year (California After School Network, 2013). The U.S.
Department of Education currently provides California with over $120 million per year through the 21st Century

STEM Task Force Report | 19

Community Learning Centers program (21st CCLC), which the CDE administers through a competitive grant
process. The U.S. Department of Education has made STEM a priority for the 21st CCLC program and, as part of
that commitment, technical assistance is available online at the Youth For Youth website, which includes a section
dedicated to STEM resources. The U.S. Department of Education has also begun planning for the rollout of national
technical assistance for STEM in expanded learning programs.

The ASD’s strategic plan emphasizes enhanced learning program quality and integration between expanded
learning and K-12 regular day instruction. Through its “Expanded Learning/K-12 Integration” initiative, the ASD
will seek to strengthen the connection between regular school day instruction and expanded learning. The aim is
to enable expanded learning programs to align activities and learning content with classroom instruction, including
the CCSS- and NGSS-aligned instruction.

Private foundations have also developed expanded learning STEM initiatives. For example, the S.D. Bechtel,
Jr. Foundation, the Noyce Foundation, and the Samueli Foundation have invested in STEM expanded learning
through The Power of Discovery: STEM2 initiative. This initiative is managed as a partnership between the California
Afterschool Network and the California STEM Learning Network and provides expanded learning programs “with
the tools and resources to implement quality STEM learning opportunities” (Power of Discovery: STEM2, n.d.).
As of March 2014, The Power of Discovery: STEM2 initiative has provided support to over 1,000 publicly funded
expanded learning programs.

Current Assets and Practices

Across the state, a few outstanding programs exist at the secondary level that demonstrate how to tie STEM learning
to technical and vocational education, including California Partnership Academies, California’s Career Technical
Academies, Project Lead the Way, and Linked Learning. The California Partnership Academy program integrates
disciplines and prepares students for college and careers. The program has been in existence for twenty-six years
and has demonstrated research-based success. It is funded through general and federal funds through competitive
grants, and there are over 500 of these schools located within high schools.

Career Technical Academies are programs of study that involve a multiyear sequence of courses that integrate
core academics with technical and occupational knowledge to provide students with a pathway to postsecondary
education and careers in a number of career fields including public service, business, health, engineering, green
energy, agricultural science, auto technology, and media.

Project Lead the Way is an in-school STEM curricular program for elementary, middle, and high school students that
also offers a comprehensive professional development model for teachers.

One example of an innovative engineering curriculum is Engineering is Elementary (EiE). As of January 2014, more
than 61,000 teachers and 4.5 million students in schools and districts across all fifty states have used EiE. The
twenty-unit curriculum is designed for grades 1-5 and provides project-based engineering activities that connect to
and support the CCSS and NGSS. All units begin with a “storybook” about a child who solves a real world problem.
The units include hands-on learning activities. The storybooks integrate both literacy and social studies with the
engineering curriculum and help provide students context for how STEM subjects relate to their lives, while the
hands-on activities provide students opportunities to deepen and apply their learning.

Research has shown that those students participating in EiE demonstrated more interest in and understanding of
engineering and technology than those students in the control group who participated in related science lessons
but not in the EiE curriculum. While pre-test measures indicated that males were more likely than females to be
interested in engineering careers, post-test measures indicated that females’ interest increased after participation
(LaChapelle, Phadnis, Jocz, and Cunningham, 2012; Jocz and Lachapelle, 2012).

20 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
In addition to regular school day and expanded learning programs, nonprofit organizations have launched statewide,
national, and international campaigns encouraging K-12 teachers and students to devote time to STEM topics. For
example, the California STEM Learning Network works with regional networks and other partners around the state
to advance statewide STEM initiatives that build high-quality STEM teaching and learning. Nationally, the STEMx
network is a grassroots organization of nineteen states that share, analyze, and disseminate STEM educational
tools.

In addition, there are efforts being made to increase support for providing more computer science and coding
opportunities specifically, as many K-12 schools do not currently offer computer science classes. One example is
Code.org, an international web campaign to collect digital signatures in support of every student in every school
having the opportunity to learn computer science. The Code.org website provides interactive online coding courses
and challenges for teachers and educators such as “Hour of Code,” which encourages teachers to reserve one hour
of classroom time for an introductory lesson on coding and computer science. Ultimately, Code.org’s motivation
stems from projections that, while the number of computer science students will increase by 2020, the number
of computing jobs will increase at a much greater rate, resulting in 1 million more jobs than trained employees by
2020.

3.2. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: THE STATE’S FUTURE NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Need for High-quality Instructional Materials

California confronts several barriers to providing access to the essential, high-quality educational materials necessary
for effective STEM education. One is the need to revise existing materials to ensure that they align with and support
the new CCSS and the NGSS. It is the state’s role to develop the curricular framework and review instructional
materials. This process has been completed for mathematics and has begun for the NGSS.

The recent proliferation of STEM materials ironically represents another barrier to access. Many existing educator
resource exchanges provide access to lesson plans and other classroom materials that contain STEM-related
resources. For example, a search for science and technology resources on one popular education resource exchange
resulted in almost 22,000 user-generated resources. However, these materials vary widely in terms of quality and
efficacy. In the absence of clear guidelines to evaluate what constitutes high-quality STEM materials, educators are
faced with the significant challenge of sifting through thousands of resources to assess quality.

High-quality educational materials must, by definition, include a digital component as well. The challenges to
deepen and apply knowledge across content areas provided by the CCSS and NGSS demand tools that will help
facilitate this learning and some of those tools will be digital. Instructional materials need to evolve beyond simply
being digitized. Technology will need to be meaningfully incorporated into instructional approaches to prepare
students to be college and career-ready and enable them to develop real world skills and abilities.

Necessary STEM Integration

STEM education is often distilled down to one or two disciplines. A school with a robotics program may identify as
a STEM school or another STEM curriculum may focus on science and mathematics education, omitting technology
and engineering education entirely. It is most common for the T and the E of STEM to be overlooked and missing
(Miaoulis, 2009). This lack of integration regrettably shortchanges students who need experience applying
mathematics and science to problem-solving fields like engineering in order to flourish in today’s workplace.

Opportunities within the Newly Adopted State Standards

The CDE has demonstrated its commitment to STEM in a number of ways including the establishment of a STEM
office to help focus system-wide on STEM education. The work of this task force as well as the SSPI’s STEM

STEM Task Force Report | 21

symposium focused on classroom strategies for implementation to further support the development of STEM
learning opportunities. Given the system-wide support for STEM as well as the recent adoption of the CCSS and
NGSS, the field-testing of the Smarter Balanced assessments for ELA and mathematics, and the $1.25 billion
devoted to the CCSS and NGSS implementation, it is clear that the time to fully integrate STEM into teaching and
learning practices is now. It is time to increase instructional time for core subjects such as science and mathematics
as well as technology and engineering, but clear linkages must be drawn to develop integration among the
disciplines.

Opportunities to Involve Parents and Caregivers

Curriculum and instruction strategies must consider the essential role of parents and caregivers in their children’s
STEM education. Parents may feel ill equipped to support their children’s STEM learning, and the shift to new content
standards will likely magnify this feeling. Fortunately, many expanded learning organizations, some universities,
and some community-based organizations, including the Parent Institute for Quality Education and PTAs, provide
STEM training for parents. Currently, these resources are limited and could be expanded.

Parents and caregivers as well as teachers and other key STEM stakeholders have the opportunity to be involved in
how Local Control and Accountability Plans address STEM within state priority areas #2 (Implementation of State
Standards) and #7 (Conditions for Learning: Course Access). This involvement provides parents and caregivers an
opportunity to learn more about STEM and have a voice in how it can be integrated into the school’s curriculum.

3.3. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establish a K–12 STEM Framework for teaching and learning that identifies the sequence of STEM knowledge,
skills, and attitudes toward developing skills for career and college readiness, and that incorporates the
CCSS, NGSS, and associated curriculum frameworks.

2. Establish a rubric for determining the quality of STEM instructional materials.

3. Establish recommended minimum amounts of instructional time per week for STEM topics. A portion of
this instructional time should focus on science, technology, and/or engineering in addition to mathematics.

4. Establish a framework for the integration of experiential learning between the K-12 regular school day and
expanded learning opportunities.

A full set of recommendations from all sections of the report is available in Appendix 10.2.

22 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
4. STUDENT ASSESSMENT
4.1. STUDENT ASSESSMENT: CURRENT STATUS OF STEM EDUCATION

Transitioning to a Future Assessment System

The passage of AB 484 in October 2013 establishes California’s future statewide assessment system, the California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), which replaces the previous Standardized Testing
and Reporting (STAR) Program. This transition will take several years to complete. For the 2013-14 school year,
STAR testing of English-language arts and mathematics will be replaced by field-testing of the Smarter Balanced
summative assessments in grades 3-8 as well as grade 11. In 2014, the California Standards Test for science will
continue in grades 5, 8, and 10 as required by federal law.

While the prior standards and assessment system concentrated on proficiency, the CCSS and NGSS are more
focused on expanding students’ depth of knowledge in relation to college and career readiness. The CCSS and
the aligned Smarter Balanced assessments seek to prepare students for college and careers in the 21st century by
focusing on building and assessing critical thinking skills (Torlakson, 2013). These standards require that students
demonstrate the ability to apply knowledge and related assessments must also model high-quality performance
tasks.

Integrating Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

The assessment transition underway represents part of a philosophical shift from a “test-and-punish” to an “assess-
support-and-improve” framework, which is coming into particular focus as California implements the CCSS
and, later, the NGSS. Within this new statewide framework, there is an expanded focus beyond just summative
assessments to include interim as well as formative assessment tools. In addition to the annual Smarter Balanced
summative assessments, districts will also have access to a “suite” of Smarter Balanced interim and formative
assessment tools. An effective assessment system incorporates both summative and formative assessment tools
and implements them discerningly to address and answer specific questions. For example, summative assessments
might include end of the year standardized tests. Data from these assessments are important for identifying
evidence of achievement and for broader system accountability purposes. Formative assessments provide teachers,
students, and parents with ongoing information regarding how learning is progressing. Evidence gained from
formative assessment tools such as quizzes, observations, classroom discussions, and/or student projects will be
used by teachers to guide instruction and by students—individually and/or in groups—to reflect on and evaluate
their own learning. By integrating both summative and formative tools, assessment becomes more integrated with
the overall process of teaching and learning by providing relevant and timely insight into the learning process as
well as evidence of achievement (National Research Council, 2013a).

The state will develop assessments for the NGSS to be on par with ELA and mathematics Smarter Balanced
assessments, including both summative as well as formative assessment tools. As part of this process, stakeholder
input will be collected on when and what to assess. Current plans call for the NGSS assessment recommendations
to be presented to the State Board of Education early in the 2015 calendar year.

Current Assets and Practices

As this report is being written, LEAs are beginning the Spring 2014 field-testing of Smarted Balanced summative
assessments for ELA and mathematics. By engaging in this field-testing, the state seeks to ensure that results from
the final Smarter Balanced assessments are valid, reliable, and fair.

STEM Task Force Report | 23

The recent report from the National Research Council Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science
Standards (2013) collects and examines best practices for assessing the three-dimensional science learning inherent
to the NGSS. For example, sixth-grade students in the Detroit public school system learned about biodiversity
by observing and recording all animals and signs of animals in the schoolyard. As the data were combined, the
teacher gathered information about the students’ abilities to collect and record data. Students were then asked to
construct an explanation to the question: Which zone of the schoolyard has the greatest animal biodiversity? Finally,
for the end-of-unit assessment, the teacher presented students with excerpts from a different class data collection
summary and asked them to construct an explanation, as they did earlier with their own data about animals in the
schoolyard. This example illustrates the integration and effective use of both formative and summative assessment
tasks.

4.2. STUDENT ASSESSMENT: THE STATE’S FUTURE NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Necessary Support for the Future Assessment System

Transitioning from the STAR system to the CAASPP requires not only newly developed assessment practices but also
a shift in the way that assessment is conceptualized. In order for the transition to be truly successful, there must be
widespread support for the concept that assessment is integral to learning and for the move to an “assess-support-
and-improve” system that focuses on capacity building. High-quality formative assessment tools are crucial to such
a system and demonstrated local support for these will be necessary in order to sustain their development and
dissemination and potentially shape the development of the NGSS assessments. Lessons learned from the Smarter
Balanced field tests in the spring of 2014 will also inform assessment practices and recommendations for the NGSS.

Opportunities within the Transition to a Future Assessment System

The implementation of AB 484 provides an opportunity to integrate STEM into the state’s assessment system in
meaningful and efficient ways. AB 484 requires the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) to provide
recommendations to the State Board of Education on how to expand the assessment system to include other
content and/or methodologies. For example, content areas may include science and technology and assessment
options may include grade span, matrix-sampling, performance tasks and/or, in the larger system, the creative use
of portfolios, digital badges, etc. The SSPI’s report on assessment provides the following as an example of potential
ways to expand the assessment system:

“For example, the 2016 assessment calendar could include a technology portfolio in grade five, a history–
social science assessment in grade seven that includes constructed-response items, and a chemistry locally-
scored performance task. The 2017 assessment calendar might include a computer-based science test in
grade four and a visual arts performance task in grade eight. This approach would have the benefit of
addressing the concern that limiting the assessment system to those ESEA required assessments narrows
curriculum to ELA and mathematics while also acknowledging the fiscal constraints to developing and
administering assessments in other subject areas” (Torlakson, 2013, p. 44).

Teachers across California are designing creative formative assessments that let them measure their students’ ability
to apply STEM concepts. Shifting away from multiple-choice tests, many teachers are re-envisioning the assessment
process as a project-based learning experience. They are having their students use social media to connect to other
students and the larger community of STEM professionals. Students are designing and building authentic real world
projects that can solve community-based problems, often alongside local engineers who give them a career-based
perspective. Teachers are having their students create presentations that not only incorporate STEM concepts in
an integrated approach, but also celebrate their students’ ability to express innovation, creativity, and individuality.

24 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
4.3. STUDENT ASSESSMENT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Consult with STEM teachers and other key STEM stakeholders in the development of the recommendations
for assessing grade level and curricular content areas beyond those required by the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.

2. Develop meaningful ways to integrate STEM into the emerging assessment system in a cohesive and
innovative fashion, taking full advantage of the entire suite of assessment tools available to the state
and LEAs at this time. This should encompass including STEM assessment recommendations as California
implements AB 484.

A full set of recommendations from all sections of the report is available in Appendix 10.2.

STEM Task Force Report | 25

5. BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
5.1. BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS: CURRENT STATUS OF STEM
EDUCATION

Partnerships: Expanding and Enhancing Opportunities for STEM Learning and Application
Traditionally, most STEM instruction has taken place in K-12 science and mathematics classes. Additional STEM
education has been available to students outside of the regular school day in two ways: structured expanded
learning programs such as afterschool programs, and informal learning opportunities at institutions such as
museums, parks, libraries, and other community-based organizations. Multiple STEM learning environments
provide more options for student learning as well as opportunities for partnership. Business and community
STEM partnerships can play a critical role in creating meaningful connections between curriculum taught in the
classroom and practical applications outside of school. Together, K-12, and expanded and informal STEM learning
opportunities can create an ecosystem in which students develop higher-level STEM skills and knowledge inside
and outside of the classroom, and increase their readiness for college, careers, and life.

In California, a broad array of business, philanthropic, and community partnerships have been formed in the
interest of supporting and expanding STEM education. Many of these partnerships are crucial for the financial and
in-kind support they provide. The financially driven relationships are commonly seen in the sponsorship or hosting
of individual events or activities like science fairs, awards banquets, or fund-raising galas. While these partnerships
are valuable, a variety of STEM learning stakeholders have organized more integrated and sustainable partnerships
including:

• Regional cross-sector STEM networks to engage students, parents, teachers, local education agencies,
and community organizations and businesses to address regional needs in STEM education through
information and resource sharing, including online platforms. Examples include the California STEM
Learning Network, Regional Networks, Power of Discovery: STEM2, and others.

• Career readiness/exploration programs for K-12 students that integrate academic and career technical
education through business partnerships that provide job shadowing, mentoring, internships, and more. The
nationally recognized MESA (Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement), and California Partnership
Academies are two examples that have been replicated across the state and the nation.

• Professional development initiatives that provide opportunities for STEM educators to advance
their capacity to teach STEM subjects. The Industry Initiatives for Science and Math Education, began
as a partnership between a consortium of San Francisco Bay Area companies and the Lawrence Hall of
Science at the University of California, Berkeley, and is now statewide. The California Science Project
is a collaboration with K-12 and higher education science educators that provides high-quality science
instruction focusing specifically on the needs of English learners, students with low literacy, and students
in poverty. The California Mathematics Project is similarly structured across the state with a comparable
mission in mathematics. Together, they provide an infrastructure for science and mathematics professional
development and have eighteen and twenty regional sites across the state respectively.

• Local partnerships that vary by community, depth of programming, and support and may be coordinated
by the local County Offices of Education, Chambers of Commerce or Workforce Investment/Development
Boards. Local businesses, community organizations, and schools may form partnerships with each other
to advance initiatives such as small grant/scholarship and internship programs for students. An example
is Super STEM Saturday, an annual, free, one-day event in Oceanside, California, that invites and engages
young students and families to explore STEM through hands-on activities. It is the result of a partnership

26 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
 between The Classical Academies, a local public school charter, California State University, San Marcos, and
the San Diego Festival of Science of Engineering (Super STEM Sunday).

• Informal learning opportunities offered by informal learning institutions such as museums, libraries,
parks, and community-based organizations, among others. These informal learning institutions are playing
an increasingly important role (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, and Feder, 2009) by providing students with
experiences that are different from what happens in the classroom and allow them to participate in clubs
or competitions (such as FIRST Robotics), and in a variety of STEM activities based on their personal interests
(Bell et al., 2009). Informal learning institutions also provide parents, family, and the larger community the
opportunity to participate in STEM experiences alongside students. Business and community partnerships
can also facilitate and supplement ongoing professional learning for STEM educators. Perhaps more than
any other element of STEM education, informal learning institutions are best able to reach populations of
underserved students based on their intimate knowledge of and work with the local community, including
leveraging resources and partners. A major drawback of informal STEM learning, however, can be that
student participation is voluntary and exposure more episodic. The last point here is important to consider.
While a single participation or interaction may change a student’s attitude toward STEM, it is more likely that
attitude, interest, academic and career trajectory, and content knowledge will be affected by partnerships
that provide extended exposure to STEM opportunities. Programs organized to offer both breadth and
depth and those in which the partners understand they are engaged in an ongoing process can produce
excellent results.

Current Assets and Practices

California has many assets to draw upon as it moves forward with improving STEM education. With just over 13
percent of the STEM jobs in the U.S., California is home to many STEM industries and businesses, large and small,
that depend on a skilled and trained workforce and have a vested interest in increasing the supply of a highly
qualified workforce (Wright, 2011). These businesses have expertise and resources that are assets in existing or in
developing new STEM learning partnerships.

Additionally, a number of established and emerging regional STEM networks and partnerships, have laid
the foundation for strong collaborations and partnerships. Established and emerging state, regional, and
programmatically-focused STEM learning networks (California STEM Learning Network, The Power of Discovery:
STEM2) provide a model of current best practices in STEM business and community partnerships. Some common
characteristics they share include being:

• Cross-sector, linking partners from government, business, STEM learning institutions (K-12, expanded, and
informal programs), and other community organizations and nonprofits;

• Highly collaborative in designing and implementing projects/initiatives, engaging at the organizational and
individual level, making sure that educators and parents are part of the conversation;

• Focused on providing high-quality STEM learning opportunities that align with the CCSS and NGSS as well
as future workforce needs;

• Involved in research and advocacy to continuously learn about and promote what works and ensure that
STEM learning is a statewide policy priority and sustainable;

• Hubs for communication, learning, and sharing; and

• Responsive to local and regional community needs, and leverage local assets and resources.

STEM Task Force Report | 27

While these regional networks have been successful to date, a more formal assessment of what is working across
all types of STEM learning partnerships would be valuable and assist with the institutionalization and dissemination
of promising practices in STEM business and community partnerships.

Towards a True “STEM Learning Ecosystem”

A recent report commissioned by the Noyce Foundation (Traphagen and Taill, 2014) examined cross-sector
collaboration and partnerships among K-12 and expanded learning programs and informal STEM education
programs. The report describes a new approach to STEM learning: STEM learning ecosystems. These ecosystems
may include a variety of environments that together create a “rich array of learning opportunities for young people”
(Traphagen and Taill, 2014, p. 3). The unique contributions of the individual organizations deliver integrated STEM
learning for all participants. The ecosystem metaphor is relevant in that “diverse, individual actors are interconnected
in symbiotic relationships that are adaptive and evolve over time” (Traphagen and Taill, 2014, p. 10).

Researchers found that STEM learning ecosystems have the potential to build children’s scientific practice skills and
knowledge through multiple exposure and experience; develop children’s interest in and enthusiasm for STEM over
time using a variety of both formal and informal practices; assist children in building complex skills including solving
real world problems; and foster diverse and inter-connected STEM learning experiences especially for those children
historically under-represented in STEM.

The research identified three building blocks of STEM learning ecosystems:

1. K-12 school or school system with leadership that values cross-sector collaborations;

2. After-school program or other organization with the capacity to collaborate effectively within and across
other formal and/or informal learning environments; and

3. Strong STEM-expert institutions that can provide content and resources for STEM experiences for teachers,
students, and families (Traphagen and Taill, 2014).

The Noyce Foundation (Traphagen and Taill, 2014) report highlighted two emerging ecosystems in California: the
California Academy of Sciences, Science Action Clubs in San Francisco, CA; and the Orange County STEM Initiative.
The success of these models could provide important elements for a more comprehensive statewide STEM learning
ecosystem.

5.2. BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS: THE STATE’S FUTURE NEEDS AND
OPPORTUNITIES

Need for Guidance in the Partnership Development Process

While it is recognized that partnerships among educational institutions, the community, and businesses are crucial
to expanding STEM learning for educators and students, bridging the gap between various partners remains a
challenge. A few factors that create initial barriers are effective communication, infrastructure, and opportunities
for potential partners to collaborate. For some educators, approaching potential business and industry partners can
be intimidating due to perceived differences in the priorities of industry (profit) and education (people). Additionally,
finding the time to approach businesses and cultivate partnerships is challenging when many educators struggle to
keep up with their own classroom or school administration duties. For industries, knowing who, when, and how to
approach potential partners in the education field can be similarly challenging. Creating a dynamic support system
to connect and catalyze the development of STEM partnerships would be beneficial for all involved.

28 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
Need for Sustained Funding and Resources
The ability to sustain successful partnerships and programs remains challenging in these difficult economic times.
Small, locally successful programs are often supported primarily by their communities and are highly sensitive to
fluctuations in funding and in-kind resources. Foundations and corporations have shown interest in funding STEM
programs, but a statewide strategy for sustained funding is urgently needed. A statewide strategy could include
legislated incentives for businesses and industry to partner with the educational system to provide and leverage
resources for better STEM learning opportunities for students, educators, and their communities.

Need for Data Collection and Analysis

While many STEM partnerships and expanded learning programs exist, information about their efficacy is
inconsistent at best. A comprehensive approach to collecting data about the partnerships and programs, and
assessing their outcomes (return on investment for business, enrollment and graduation rates in STEM vocational
and academic programs for all students, employment numbers, etc.) is necessary to understanding the current
state of STEM learning in California and improving it. Data collection and analysis can indicate where partnerships
and programs are having success and need support, and set the stage for effective policy and advocacy for STEM
learning opportunities. In their report Monitoring Progress Toward Successful K-12 STEM Education (2013b),
the NRC developed fourteen indicators to monitor progress and provide data to better understand K-12 STEM
implementation.

Change the Equation, a national nonprofit dedicated to mobilizing the business community to improve the quality
of STEM learning, has a brief, The Next Frontier for Data, which summarizes the data it wished it had in analyzing
the state of STEM learning for its own series of state and national reports (Change the Equation, 2012). This brief
could act as a starting point or framework for California’s own data collection. Collecting and analyzing key data
will help California create a healthy statewide STEM ecosystem that evolves and is responsive to the needs of
educators, students, and partners.

Opportunities to Deepen STEM Learning

The new CCSS and NGSS require the deepening and application of content knowledge and crosscutting concepts.
The teaching and learning of such concepts requires hands-on and inquiry-based practices. Within the NGSS
specifically, there is a focus on K-12 science education reflecting real world interconnections in science. Partnerships
between businesses, schools, and community organizations that provide expanded and informal STEM education
opportunities can offer students and educators more ways to learn and integrate STEM knowledge and skills.

5.3. BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Advocate for policies and legislation that provide incentives for the creation and sustainability of partnerships,
Career Technical Education opportunities, and hands-on learning opportunities through on-the-job training
such as internships, research opportunities, summer employment, and shadow days (for younger students).

2. Establish the ability to access and exchange information statewide regarding STEM partnerships in order to
track outcomes and support partnership creation and development.

3. Regularly conduct and disseminate a qualitative analysis (interview/survey) of STEM learning partners across
the state for lessons learned and best practices in developing successful partnerships on a range of topics
including communication, funding, and implementation.

A full set of recommendations from all sections of the report is available in Appendix 10.2.

STEM Task Force Report | 29

6. STEM EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA:
A CALL TO ACTION
Many generations have walked through the doors of California’s public education system from preschools to colleges
and universities. They found excellent educators ready to guide them, and they emerged ready to contribute to the
state’s economic, social, and political progress. Key to this success has been California’s historically unprecedented
investments in state and local educational infrastructure and capacity.

Today, California is in the midst of sweeping education changes. The state is rolling out the Common Core State
Standards, the Next Generation Science Standards, and a new assessment system. Voters approved a temporary
statewide tax increase, Proposition 30, which provides additional funding to schools after years of spending cuts.
The Legislature has adopted a new school funding system (the Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF) that shifts
resources to school districts that enroll large numbers of students living in poverty and English learners, while
granting local districts tremendous control over their budgets and spending. These positive changes lead to the
inescapable conclusion that public education in California now stands at a crossroads: decisions taken today will
influence students, educators, and schools for generations to come.

Given the pivotal importance of STEM education for California’s future, described in detail in this report, the
time has come for California to take advantage of the new winds of change to prioritize STEM disciplines and
approaches in all dimensions of our state’s educational system. California must ensure that our future education
systems successfully provide students with the STEM education they urgently require for success in college, career,
and life. This is not a passing fad or a short-term endeavor–-as we transform our capacity to deliver quality STEM
education, we must recognize that this is a long-term effort. We must think of these challenges and opportunities
in terms of decades, not a few months or years. The commitment to STEM education must be ongoing and must
transcend single budget and election cycles. It must also be understood in terms of an educational continuum
with students and teachers prepared for the transition to the next part of the education structure. Whether this
state can meet its STEM workforce needs depends on whether its preschoolers are ready for elementary school,
elementary students are ready for middle school, its middle school students are ready for high school and its high
school graduates are ready for postsecondary education and the workplace. And our STEM teachers must be ready
to help those students achieve as they move along the continuum.

The effort required to achieve quality STEM education for all students will be significant but the rewards will be
exponentially greater. California can and should lead the world, becoming again the state that cultivates human
ingenuity and intelligence to fuel our economy and create a sustainable, healthy environment. This report provides
a roadmap to that future and urges concerned state policy makers, leaders, and community members to take
immediate action to make it a reality.

6.1. A VISION FOR STEM EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA

The vision proposed by the task force for STEM education in California is by necessity bold. In the year 2020,
current third-graders in California will be entering high school. All students who are now seventh-graders will be
enrolled in colleges or universities or entering the workforce. Will they be prepared to major in STEM subjects and
fill the critical pipeline of engineers, scientists, and innovators so essential to California’s future? Will they possess
the STEM skills and attributes that our workforce demands? Will they have the habits of mind that make them
successful in the world? Our ability to answer these questions in the affirmative is linked to the actions we take and
the investments we make today to realize this future vision:

30 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
California leads the world in STEM education, inspiring and preparing all of its students to seize
the opportunities of the global society through innovation, inquiry, collaboration, and creative
problem solving.

While the state has pockets of STEM education excellence, the current status of STEM education in
California remains far from optimal. This is attributed to several factors: a lack of resources; the need for
more robust teacher-preparation programs; outmoded STEM curriculum and instruction; an emphasis on
assessing achievement in knowledge retention terms rather than college- and career-readiness; and a lack
of STEM-rich learning environments for students and educators as well as the infrastructure or processes
that promote more cross-sector collaboration and partnerships.

Integrated, positive change to address all of those factors and the development of a holistic and
comprehensive STEM strategy for the state of California requires new resources. Key stakeholders must
cultivate the political will necessary to propel STEM education to the top of the priority list by raising
awareness of the importance of STEM to the future of our state.

STEM Task Force Report | 31

7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Realizing the STEM Task Force’s bold vision requires bold action. Building from our analysis, the task force
recommends action in each of the seven primary strategic areas outlined below bringing the potential for both
short-term impact and the longer-term realization of the full vision (see Figure 2 below):

Figure 2

The STEM Task Force recommends aggressive strategic planning and the rapid mobilization of people and resources
to ensure effective implementation in these action areas. Table 1 outlines these strategic action areas and the most
critical next steps as this planning work translates the task force’s vision to reality.

32 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
TABLE 1: STEM TASK FORCE STRATEGIC ACTION AREAS AND PRIORITY NEXT STEPS
Strategic Action Area Summary Description Priority Next Steps
1. Increase STEM Create a broad-based campaign • Identify campaign partners and
Public Awareness to convey the importance of STEM leadership
education and ensure the availability of • Identify priority audiences
sufficient resources and public support
• Identify priority messages
to realize the vision for STEM education
in the state.
2. Increase STEM Increase resources for STEM learning • Advocate for increased state and
Resources from all stakeholders (government, federal funds earmarked for STEM
business, philanthropy, communities) • Advocate for STEM as a local priority
through additional and reallocated through participation in the LCAP
government and philanthropic process
funding, in-kind support, multi-sector
• Advocate for legislative incentives
participation, and innovative public/
to businesses to partner in STEM
private partnerships.
learning environments
3. Increase STEM Make access to high-quality STEM • Identify barriers to and opportunities
Access experiences and programs universal for access
to all K-12 students through a variety • Participate in local LCAP processes to
of opportunities in school, expanded ensure STEM inclusion
learning, and community partnerships
through informal, formal, and digital
pathways.
4. Establish a Establish a K-12 STEM Framework for • Identify the sequence of STEM
STEM Learning teaching and learning that identifies the learning from K-12
Framework sequence of STEM knowledge, skills, • Identify high-quality STEM materials
and attitudes toward developing college, that support the developing K-12
career, and life readiness skills and that STEM Framework
incorporates the CCSS, NGSS, and
associated curriculum frameworks.
5. Enhance STEM Adopt policies and standards for • Promote collaborative and
Professional quality STEM professional learning, professional learning at all levels
Learning development, and training to guide • Increase opportunities for educators
systems at the state, regional, and local and administrators to access STEM
school levels. learning in the public and private
sectors
6. Integrate STEM Integrate STEM into assessment and • Identify high-quality STEM formative
into Developing accountability systems in a cohesive, and summative assessment tools
Assessment and meaningful, and innovative fashion,
Accountability taking advantage of the entire suite of
Systems assessment tools available to, and under
development by, the state and LEAs at
this time.

STEM Task Force Report | 33

 TABLE 1: STEM TASK FORCE STRATEGIC ACTION AREAS AND PRIORITY NEXT STEPS
Strategic Action Area Summary Description Priority Next Steps
7. Guarantee the Ensure that state, regional, and local • Identify trusted sources of high-
Availability of STEM educators can identify and access quality materials
High-Quality STEM excellent learning resources. • Inventory existing high-quality
Educational materials
Materials and
• Develop a system to identify and
Resources
exchange high-quality materials

While the task force would like to applaud the efforts taken to date by the California Department of Education,
and highlight its instrumental role in realizing California’s STEM vision, the needs and opportunities in front of us
dictate that the work ahead be undertaken and initiated at state, regional, and local levels by all concerned public
and private stakeholders.

34 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
8. REFERENCES
Achieve. (2013) Next Generation Science Standards: Appendix A – Conceptual Shifts in the Next Generation
Science Standards. Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.nextgenscience.
org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20A%20-%204.11.13%20Conceptual%20Shifts%20in%20the%20Next%20
Generation%20Science%20Standards.pdf

ACT. (2013). The Condition of STEM 2013: California. Retrieved March 27, 2014, from http://www.act.org/
stemcondition/13/pdf/California.pdf

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of
professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook
of policy and practice. 3-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A., (Eds.). (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments:
People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Buttice, M. K. & Rogers, P. (2013). California’s Gender Gap in STEM Education and Employment. CRV Short Subjects:
CA Women and Girls Series. S-13-019. California Research Bureau.

Bybee, R. W. (2010). “Advancing STEM Education: A 20/20 Vision.” Technology and Engineering Teacher 70, no.
1: 30–34.

California After School Network. (2013). State of the State of Expanded Learning in California: 2012-2013. Davis,
CA: UC Davis School of Education, Center for Education and Evaluation Services. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from
http://www.afterschoolnetwork.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/state_of_the_state_web.pdf

California Department of Education, After School Division. (2014). A Vision for Expanded Learning in California.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/
ba/cp/documents/asdstrategicplan.pdf

California Department of Education, Educator Excellence Task Force. (2012). Greatness by Design: Supporting
Outstanding Teachers to Sustain a Golden State. Sacramento: California Department of Education.

California Department of Education, Transition Advisory Team. (2011) A Blueprint for Great Schools. Retrieved
March 18, 2014 at http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/documents/yr11bp0709.pdf.

California Department of Education. (2013). State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Announces State Adopts Next
Generation Science Standards [Press release]. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/
yr13rel82.asp

Career Readiness Partner Council. (n.d.). Building Blocks for Change: What it Means to be Career Ready. Retrieved
March 27, 2014, from http://careerreadynow.org/docs/CRPC_4pagerB.pdf

Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Hanson, A. R. (2012). Certificates: Gateway to Gainful Employment and College
Degrees. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements
Through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

Carnevale, A., Melton, M. & Smith, N. (2011). STEM State-Level Analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Center on Education and the Workforce.

STEM Task Force Report | 35

Change the Equation. (2012). Vital Signs. The Next Frontier for Data: The More We Know, the More We Can
Do to Improve STEM Learning. Washington, DC: Change the Equation. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://
changetheequation.org/sites/default/files/Next%20Frontier%20for%20Data%20FINAL.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence.”
Education Policy Analysis Archives 8, no. 1.

Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of
reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.

Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., & McCaffrey, T. (2011). High Hopes—Few Opportunities:
The Status of Elementary Science Education in California. Sacramento, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning at WestEd.

Easton, L.B. (2008). “From Professional Development to Professional Learning”(p. 756). Phi Delta Kappan, 89(10),
755-759.

Education Week. (2011). “No Child Left Behind.” Education Week. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from http://www.
edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/

George, Y. S., Neale, D. S., Van Horne, V., & Malcom, S. M. (2001). In Pursuit of a Diverse Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics Workforce: Recommended Research Priorities to Enhance Participation by
Underrepresented Minorities. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and National
Science Foundation.

Gerlach, J. (2012). “NSTA Report, STEM: Defying a Simple Definition,” NSTA WebNews Digest, April 11, 2012.
Retrieved February 10, 2013, from http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=59305

Hartry, A., Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., & Romero, V. (2012). Untapped Potential: The Status of Middle
School Science Education in California. Sacramento, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at
WestEd.

Jocz, J., & Lachapelle, C. (2012). The Impact of Engineering is Elementary (EiE) on Students’ Conceptions of
Technology. Boston, MA: Museum of Science.

Kaser, J. S., & Bourexis, P. S. (1999). Enhancing Program Quality in Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.

Lachapelle, C. P., Phadnis, P. S., Jocz, J., & Cunningham, C.M. (2012). The Impact of Engineering Curriculum Units
on Students’ Interest in Engineering and Science. Engineering is Elementary. Museum of Science, Boston. Retrieved
March 25, 2014, from http://www.eie.org/sites/default/files/research_article/research_file/2012-ea_narst_paper.
pdf

Landivar, L. C. (2013). Disparities in STEM Employment by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: American Community Survey
Reports. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved March 27, 2014, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/
acs-24.pdf

Larmer, J. & Mergendoller, J.R. (2012). 8 Essentials of Project Based Learning. Buck Institute for Education. Retrieved
March 25, 2014, from http://bie.org/object/document/8_essentials_for_project_based_learning#

McMurrer, J. (2008). NCLB Year 5: Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific
subjects. Center for Education Policy.

36 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
Miaoulis, I. (2009). Written Statement of Ioannis Miaoulis, Ph.D., Submitted to the Presidential Council of Advisors
for Science and Technology. Boston, MA: National Center for Technological Literacy. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from
http://legacy.mos.org/nctl/docs/MOS-NCTL_Miaoulis_Testimony.pdf

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K–12 Education:
Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium. (2013). CTE is Your STEM
Strategy. Retrieved March 27, 2014, from www.careertech.org

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2007). 55,000 Reasons to Believe: The Impact of National Board
Certification on Teacher Quality in America. Arlington, VA: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common
Core State Standards in Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,
Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
Content/3/G/A/1/

National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013a). Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2013b). Monitoring Progress Toward Successful K-12 STEM Education. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010 (NSB 10-01). Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators.
OECD Publishing. Washington, DC: OECD.

Power of Discovery: STEM2. (n.d.) “Overview of The Power of Discovery: STEM2.” Retrieved March 6, 2014, from
http://powerofdiscovery.org/whatispodstem2

Read, T. (2013). STEM Can Lead the Way: Rethinking Teacher Preparation and Policy. California STEM Learning
Network. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://cslnet.org/wp-content/themes/twentyeleven/pdf_upload/album/
document/STEMCanLeadTheWayReport.pdf

Smith, M. S. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teacher of mathematics. Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

State of California, Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. (2013). Governor Brown Signs Historic School Funding
Legislation [Press release]. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18123

The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). About the Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from http://
nationsreportcard.gov/about.asp

STEM Task Force Report | 37

Torlakson, T. (2013). Recommendations for Transitioning California to a Future Assessment System. A Report by
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/suptrecrptjan13.pdf

Traphagen, K., & Trail, S. (2014). Working Paper: How Cross-Sector Collaborations are Advancing STEM Learning.
Noyce Foundation. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from http://www.noycefdn.org/documents/STEM_ECOSYSTEMS_
REPORT_140128.pdf

Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM Education: A Project to Identify the Missing Components.
Pittsburgh, PA: Intermediate Unit 1 and Carnegie Mellon.

U.S. Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Retrieved on January 19, 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/

Weiss, I. R., Gellatly, G. B., Montgomery, D. L., Ridgway, C. J., Templeton, C. D., & Whittington, D. (1999). Local
Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement, Year Four Cross-Site Report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research
Inc.

White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2012). President Obama Announces Plans for a New, National Corps to
Recognize and Reward Leading Educators in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math [Press Release). Retrieved
March 27, 2014, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/17/president-obama-announces-
plans-new-national-corps-recognize-and-reward-

Wilson, S. (2011). “Effective STEM Teacher Preparation, Induction, and Professional Development.” Paper prepared
for the 2011 National Research Council workshop Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches
in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Washington, DC. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from http://
sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/bose/dbasse_080128

Wright, J. (2011). States with Largest Presence of STEM-Related Jobs. New Geography. Retrieved March 25, 2014,
from http://www.newgeography.com/content/002463-states-with-largest-presence-stem-related-jobs

Zeidler, D. L. (2002). “Dancing with Maggots and Saints: Visions for Subject Matter Knowledge, Pedagogical
Knowledge, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Teacher Education Reform.” Journal of Science
Teacher Education 13, no. 1: 27–42.

Zucker, A. A., Shields, P. M., Adelman, N. E., Corcoran, T. B., & Goertz, M. E. (1998). A report on the evaluation of
the National Science Foundation’s Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

38 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work of the STEM Task Force would not have been possible without the commitment of the task
force members and the support of the California Department of Education, identified in the tables below.
Additional support was provided by the following California Department of Education personnel: Lupita
Cortez Alcalá, Michelle Center, Craig Cheslog, Jim Greco, Stacey Hernandez, Phil Lafontaine, Kelly Madsen,
Karen Martin, and Karen Shores.

The Glen Price Group (www.glenpricegroup.com) provided writing, facilitation, research, and logistical
support for the work of the STEM Task Force. Generous financial support was provided by the James Irvine
Foundation. The Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation provided financial and logistical support.

This document was not prepared or printed at taxpayer expense.

STEM TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Herb Brunkhorst, Professor Emeritus of Science Education and Biology, California State
University, San Bernardino
Co-Chairs
Susan Hackwood, Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Riverside;
Executive Director of the California Council on Science and Technology

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
Kathy DiRanna, Executive Director, WestEd’s K-12 Alliance
Co-Chairs
Gerald Solomon, Executive Director, Samueli Foundation
Arthur Beauchamp, Professor of Education, University of California, Davis
Robert Becker, California Teachers Association representative, Downey Education Association
Doug Dall, Principal, Clark High School, Glendale Unified School District
Rowena Douglas, Director of Educational Outreach, Exploratorium
Anna Gaiter, Director of Professional Development, California Science Center
Members Susie Hakansson, Executive Director (retired), California Mathematics Project
Joe Head, CEO, SummerHill Homes
John Knezovich, Director, University Outreach and Science Education, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory
Rick Pomeroy, School of Education, University of California, Davis
Maria Simani, Executive Director, California Science Project
CDE
Tony Quirarte, Education Programs Consultant
Support

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Emilio Garza, Assistant Principal, Foshay Learning Center
Co-Chairs
Kathlan Latimer, President, California Mathematics Council

STEM Task Force Report | 39

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
Jeff Davis, Program Coordinator, STEM in OST Programs, California After School Network
Jon Dueck, Mathematics and Science Consultant, Fresno County Office of Education
Zack Dowell, Faculty Instructional Design and Development Coordinator, Los Rios Community
College District
John Galisky, Teacher, Lompoc Unified School District
Members
Diana Glick, representative for Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan
John Lamb, Sergeant Major, Director, STARBASE Youth Program, California National Guard
Robin Mencher, Director, STEM Resources, KQED
Jacqueline Rojas, Teacher, Californians Together
Mark Sontag, Curriculum Coordinator, Irvine Unified School District
CDE
Darrell Parsons, Education Programs Consultant
Support

STUDENT TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

Lewis Chappelear, Teacher, James Monroe High School, Los Angeles Unified School District
Co-Chairs
Suzanne Nakashima, Teacher, Yuba City Unified School District
Aida Buelna, Superintendent, Esparto Unified School District
Arron Jiron, Program Officer, STEM Projects, S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Members
Patricia Rucker, Member, California State Board of Education
Nancy Taylor, K-12 Science Coordinator, San Diego County Office of Education
CDE
Jim Miller, Education Programs Consultant (retired)
Support

BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Oscar Porter, Statewide Executive Director, Mathematics, Engineering and Science Achievement
Co-Chairs (MESA), University of California Office of the President
Alison Wiscombe, PTA Representative, California State PTA
Ruchit Agrawal, Representative for Congressman Mike Honda
Karen Flammer, Senior Science Advisor, Sally Ride Science and Sally Ride Science Camp
Linda Galliher, Vice President Public Policy, Bay Area Council
Christi Harter, Coordinator, K-12 Options and Innovative Programs at Spokane Public Schools
Sheila Jordan, Superintendent, Alameda County Office of Education
Members
Leroy Tripett, STEM Coordinator, Intel Corp
Mark Walker, Head of Philanthropy, Applied Materials
Willie B. Williams, Regional President, National Technical Association
Mark Wyland, Senator, California Senate
Tom Zazueta, CEO, Coakley Hagerty
Joyce Hinkson, Director, Outreach and Technical Assistance Network, Sacramento County Office
CDE
of Education
Support
Stacey Hernandez, Education Programs Consultant

40 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
RESOURCES
Elizabeth Babcock, Chief Public Engagement Officer and Roberts Dean of Education, California
Co-Chairs Academy of Sciences
Christopher Roe, CEO, California STEM Learning Network
Muhammed Chaudhry, President and CEO, Silicon Valley Education Foundation
Gina Dalma, Program Officer, Silicon Valley Community Foundation
LaTonya Derbigny, Director, School and Student Accountability, Vallejo Unified School District
Richard Farnsworth, Manager, Education Outreach, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Members (retired)
Curren Price, Senator, California Senate
Bruce Roberts, Natomas USD Board Member, California School Boards Association
David Seidel, Manager of Elementary and Secondary Education Programs, NASA/Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
CDE
Monique McWayne, Education Programs Consultant
Support

TASK FORCE MEMBER AT LARGE

Member The Honorable Susan Bonilla, California State Assembly

STEM Task Force Report | 41

10. APPENDICES
10.1. THE STEM TASK FORCE
In May 2012, State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) Tom Torlakson and Assemblywoman Susan
Bonilla invited 54 educators, administrators, and leaders of partner organizations to serve as members
of the STEM Task Force. The Task Force was charged with making recommendations to the SSPI on the
direction science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education should take in California,
paying particular attention to remedying issues of access to high-quality learning experiences and meeting
STEM workforce demands.

At the beginning of his term of office in 2011, the SSPI brought leaders from across California—teachers,
parents, community members, labor and business leaders—to form his Transition Advisory Team and share
their thinking about education in the state. The Transition Advisory Team identified key issues impacting
students, schools, districts, and the California Department of Education (CDE) and set goals to address them.
The resulting report, A Blueprint for Great Schools (2011), provides vision and direction for California’s
education system, including a focus on twenty-first century learning, meeting the needs of the whole
child, and rebuilding the ranks of California’s teachers with resources and respect. Recommendations in the
report prompted the State Superintendent to initiate the formation of the STEM Task Force.

Task Force History

The STEM Task Force set out to explore the status of STEM education in the areas of professional learning; curriculum
and instructional practices; assessment; business and community partnerships; and resources.

The effort was co-chaired by Dr. Herb Brunkhorst, Professor Emeritus of Science Education and Biology, California
State University, San Bernardino and Dr. Susan Hackwood, University of California, Riverside Professor of Electrical
Engineering and Executive Director of the California Council on Science and Technology. Task force members
included teachers and administrators from K-12 and higher education as well as leaders of partner organizations.
The CDE staff provided strong support to the work of the task force.

How the Task Force Organized its Work

Five working groups met in person and by conference call to address five key areas—curriculum and instruction,
testing and assessment, professional learning, business and community partnerships, and resources— and to
develop recommendations for the SSPI.

1. The curriculum and instructional practices work group reviewed the status of STEM education and
made recommendations on how to improve instructional practices and engage more students in STEM-
related fields.

2. The student testing and assessment work group recommended state and local STEM-related testing
and assessments that measure applied learning in real-world situations and identified what constitutes
high-quality STEM programs and disciplines.

3. The professional learning work group identified the status of existing professional learning and
recommended new support that provides high-quality professional learning opportunities to educators of
STEM-related courses and disciplines.

42 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
 4. The business and community partnerships work group identified community and business partnerships
and recommended how these partnerships, including those in informal learning settings, can support and
engage students in STEM education.

5. The resources work group identified existing resources and recommended the development and
dissemination of additional resources to assist schools in developing STEM programs that are relevant and
engaging to students.

The STEM Task Force members assessed the state’s future needs and created a blueprint for improving teaching,
learning, and equal access to STEM-related courses and careers for K-12 students. The public was invited to
contribute information—including resources and research—to the Task Force via the Brokers of Expertise Web site
at CommentSTEM.myboe.org.

An initial report was prepared in May 2013 at the same time as major new developments in K-12 education in
California were evolving. In March 2014, the task force chairs and working group co-chairs met to update the
report and align it with these new developments: Common Core State Standards implementation, Next Generation
Science Standards adoption, the state’s student assessment system under transformation, and the state’s adoption
and rollout of the Local Control Funding Formula. 

The Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation engaged the Glen Price Group (GPG), an independent
consulting group with prior experience working with the CDE task forces (A Blueprint for Great Schools, Greatness
by Design) to coordinate and implement the final revisions to the STEM Task Force report.

10.2. STEM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 2: Working Group Recommendations
STEM Task Force Vision
California leads the world in STEM education, inspiring and preparing all of its students to seize the
opportunities of the global society through innovation, inquiry, collaboration, and creative problem
solving.
Professional Learning
Establish and/or support, with consistent funding, a variety of high-quality STEM professional learning
opportunities led by trained professional learning providers that increase state, regional, and district capacity
for delivering excellent STEM education.
Adopt policies and standards for quality STEM professional learning to provide guidance at the state, regional,
and local school levels.
Implement a system of periodic review of state STEM-related policies to monitor effectiveness and provide
flexibility.
Curriculum and Instruction
Establish a K–12 STEM Framework for teaching and learning that identifies the sequence of STEM knowledge,
skills, and attitudes toward developing skills for career and college readiness, and that incorporates the CCSS,
NGSS, and associated curriculum frameworks.
Establish a rubric for determining the quality of STEM instructional materials.
Recommend minimum amounts of instructional time per week for STEM topics. Additionally, recommend that
a portion of this instructional time focus on science, technology, or engineering.
Establish a framework for the integration of experiential learning between the K-12 regular school day and
expanded learning opportunities.

STEM Task Force Report | 43

Table 2: Working Group Recommendations
Student Assessment
Consult with STEM teachers and other key STEM stakeholders in the development of the recommendations
for assessing grade level and curricular content areas beyond those required by the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
Develop meaningful ways to integrate STEM into the emerging assessment system in a cohesive and innovative
fashion, taking full advantage of the entire suite of assessment tools available to the state and LEAs at this
time. This should encompass including STEM assessment recommendations as California implements AB 484.
Business and Community Partnerships
Advocate for policies and legislation that provide incentives for the creation and sustainability of partnerships,
Career Technical Education opportunities, and hands-on learning opportunities through on-the-job training
such as internships, research opportunities, summer employment and shadow days (for younger students).
Establish the ability to access and exchange information statewide regarding STEM partnerships in order to
track outcomes and support partnership creation and development.
Regularly conduct a qualitative analysis (interview/survey) of STEM learning partners across the state for lessons
learned and best practices in developing successful partnerships on a range of topics including communication,
funding, and implementation.

44 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
11. FOOTNOTES
1. See Appendix 10.1 for the task force charge and key activities.

2. Chapter Seven, Recommendations and Next Steps, provides further discussion of each of these
recommendations. Each of the task force’s working groups also created recommendations that are
described in the chapters that follow and are closely aligned with the overarching goals. A full set of
recommendations from all sections of the report is available in Appendix 10.2.

3. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (French: Organisation de
coopération et de développement économiques, OCDE) is an international economic organization of
34 countries founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade.

4. The NAEP is the largest nationally representative assessment of what America’s students know and can do
in various subject areas. Assessments are conducted periodically in mathematics, reading, science, writing,
the arts, civics, economics, geography, U.S. history, and beginning in 2014, in Technology and Engineering
Literacy.

5. For example, the 1997 content standards for measurement and geometry mathematics in grade 3 specify
that students must be able to identify, describe, and classify polygons (including pentagons, hexagons,
and octagons) and identify attributes of quadrilaterals (e.g., parallel sides for the parallelogram, right
angles for the rectangle, equal sides and right angles for the square). In contrast, the CCSS for geometry
in mathematics in grade 3 requires that students, understand that shapes in different categories (e.g.,
rhombuses, rectangles, and others) may share attributes (e.g., having four sides), and that the shared
attributes can define a larger category (e.g., quadrilaterals). They must also recognize rhombuses, rectangles,
and squares as examples of quadrilaterals, and draw examples of quadrilaterals that do not belong to any
of these subcategories (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010).

STEM Task Force Report | 45

46 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
STEM Task Force Report | 47
48 | INNOVATE: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in California Public Education
California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cde.ca.gov