NC STEM Plan 2035

FORWARD-LEANING EDUCATION:
NORTH CAROLINA STEM PLAN FOR 2035

2 FORWARD-LEANING EDUCATION
FORWARD-LEANING EDUCATION:
NORTH CAROLINA STEM PLAN FOR 2035

North Carolina STEM Plan for 2035 3
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 5
BOTH/AND, NOT EITHER/OR.................................................................. 6
PROGRESS SINCE 2010.............................................................................. 10
ECONOMY REWARDS THINKING SKILLS........................................... 13
EVOLUTION OF THE VISION.................................................................... 16
CONNECTION THROUGH THE “HIDDEN CURRICULUM”..............20
INTEGRATING WITH HUMANITIES.......................................................22
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES.................................................................24
BUILT-IN BARRIERS.....................................................................................27
MULTIPLE-CHOICE TESTS...........................................................................29
LEARNING TIME FOR TEACHERS............................................................32
LEARNING TIME FOR STUDENTS...........................................................34
LET INGENUITY LOOSE..............................................................................36
A VISION FOR TRANSFORMATION.....................................................38
THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE.......................................................................40
THE TEACHER EXPERIENCE........................................................................43
ASSESSING TO PROMOTE SUCCESS.....................................................45
A COUNCIL TO DESIGN AND DRIVE.....................................................47
BIG OBJECTIVES FOR A BIG STATE........................................................50
APPENDIX.......................................................................................................54
CONTENTS

“I did then what I knew how to do.
Now that I know better, I do better.”
—Maya Angelou

In the 21st century society and economy, STEM education
necessarily must instill the values of creativity,
communication, and collaboration.
Opening this report with quotations from an iconic
poet-author and a celebrated blues singer-songwriter
—not your usual STEM sources—is intended as both
inspiration and a signal for an enlarged vision of STEM
education. The purposes of this report are to document
recent progress, to confront bluntly barriers to providing
high-quality STEM education, and to summon North
Carolina into a decade of sustained transformation of
schooling from kindergarten through high school.
North Carolina’s civic, business, and government leaders,
along with professional educators, must recast and update
education to support the teaching and learning of 21st
century skills. They must strive continuously to transform the
state’s education system to meet the profound demands of life
and work amid the march of technological innovations
and acceleration in the acquisition of knowledge.
The tasks immediately ahead surely require improved
teaching of content and skills in the critical fields of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The
STEM disciplines prepare young North Carolinians to
thrive in an age of computer automation, big data, energy
capture and use, artificial intelligence, and quantum
computing that will reshape society and the world of work.
These challenging times also require a shift in STEM
education away from teaching and learning focused on
memorizing facts and performing oversimplified skills, and
toward comprehensive education that enhances students’
critical thinking, historical knowledge, and ethical
sensibilities.
As North Carolina enters its third century of state-
sponsored public schooling, the moment cries out for
the state to do better with what it knows better.
“The beautiful thing about
learning is that no one can
take it away from you.”
—B.B. King

BOTH/AND,
NOT
EITHER/OR

“History demonstrates that
societies thrive the more
that people possess both
high-level skills for economic
empowerment and a shared
understanding of the values
and dynamics of citizenship.”
Thus, the North Carolina Science, Mathematics, and
Technology Education Center calls for an expanded
vision for STEM education that seeks to teach students
with more engaging instructional strategies and to build
students’ self-confidence as problem-solvers. The center
describes its two-pronged objective as teaching with
“strategies that engage minds” and teaching students “to
know what to do, when they don’t know what to do.”1
Yet, history demonstrates that societies thrive the more
that people possess both high-level skills for economic
empowerment and a shared understanding of the values
and dynamics of citizenship.
In today’s economy, STEM-infused companies need
executives, managers, and employees with a range of
skills—both technical “hard-skills’’ and human relations
“soft-skills.“ They need people who can master the
details of day-to-day work and the manipulation of
technology in the digital age, and who can comprehend
the wider context of the world in which they live.
Debates over education often posit an either/or choice
in defining primary goals: Job training versus academic
learning; democratic citizenship versus economic
efficiency; individual freedom versus social order.

It is in pursuit of an expanded vision—and to contribute to
the deliberations and debates over real change in the
state’s schools—that the North Carolina Science,
Mathematics, and Technology Education Center proposes
a STEM Education Plan for 2035. The plan consists of four
high-level strategies:
STRATEGY 1: Re-Invest in High-Quality STEM
Education Programs. The innovative, dedicated, and
effective STEM education programs currently providing
education and leadership in North Carolina need to be
supported and expanded.
STRATEGY 2: Support Educators in Using 21st
Century STEM Instructional Practices. The broad-
based goal of creating instructional environments that
engage minds and teach advanced thinking skills should
drive all future designs, decision-making, and support for
educators.
STRATEGY 3: Redesign School Operations to
Remove Barriers to Effective Education. As difficult
as system change may be, the time is now to recognize
and address how standardized tests and inflexible school
schedules have become barriers.
STRATEGY 4: Deepen Citizen and Community
Support for 21st Century STEM Education.
Communicate to all North Carolina citizens, especially
parents, the values and benefits of STEM education for
students and for the state’s economy.
To guide systemic transformation over this decade and
next, the STEM Education Plan 2035 also proposes a
North Carolina STEM Education Council. The state needs
a “keeper of the vision,” a source of credible analysis for
policymakers, and a vehicle for converting ideas into
action across the state’s 100 counties.
STEM EDUCATION PLAN FOR 2035
Re-Invest in High-Quality STEM
Education Programs
Support Educators in Using 21st Century
STEM Instructional Practices

Options for a structure and scope of work for the council
appear in Figure 2 (on pages 52-53) This report now
turns to a brief account of the state’s recent progress in
STEM education, an exploration of societal dynamics that
have contributed to the evolution of the vision of STEM
education, a hard look at systemic practices that impede
high-quality STEM education, and a sketch of what a
system for high-quality STEM education might look like.
As North Carolinians consider a high-quality STEM
education for the future, they might ponder the words of
President John F. Kennedy, who intensified the U.S.-Soviet
space race, which had a spin-off effect in elevating
science and math in American schools in the mid-20th
century. “Let us think of education as the means of
developing our greatest abilities,” said Kennedy, “because
in each of us there is a private hope and dream which,
fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and
greater strength for our nation.” The former president’s
remark makes an essential point: An education is both an
individual good and a common good.
Redesign School Operations to Remove
Barriers to Effective Education
Deepen Citizen and Community Support
for 21st Century STEM Education
The state needs a ‘keeper of the vision,’ a source of credible
analysis for policymakers, and a vehicle for converting ideas
into action across the state’s100 counties.”
“

PROGRESS
SINCE 2010

“As ‘STEM education’quickly became a
well-known term across the state, an
infrastructure for advancing the three
priorities began to take shape.”
As “STEM education” quickly became a well-known term
across the state, an infrastructure for advancing the three
priorities began to take shape.
The State Board of Education adopted a defined set of
characteristics of high-quality STEM schools and programs.
A formal program to recognize “STEM Schools of
Distinction” was initiated.
Organizations delivering high-quality STEM education
professional development to educators emerged.
The North Carolina State University College of Education
built an entire STEM Education department.3
Economic development leaders teamed with school
districts and community colleges to improve alignment
between the emerging skills needed by regional
employers and the capacity of schools to bring new
learning opportunities to students.
(See appendix A on page 54 for an accounting of
selected STEM education activities that have taken place
across North Carolina since 2010.)
The plan recognized an evolving labor force in North
Carolina, resulting from demographic, economic, and
skills-related trends to which the public education system
needed to adapt. At that time—and still today—
companies reported difficulty finding qualified workers
for STEM-related jobs.2
Creation of the 2010 plan marked a moment in
North Carolina when the state’s recent incarnation of
STEM education work began to take shape. The plan had
a dual mission: to connect isolated examples of excellent
STEM education and then to spread those models across
North Carolina.
Three priorities guided the efforts through the
2010-2020 decade:
PRIORITY 1: Increasing student, educator, and
institutional STEM achievement.
PRIORITY 2: Gaining and sustaining broader
community understanding and support for education
innovations that support the state’s economic needs.
PRIORITY 3: Connecting, leveraging, and increasing
STEM resources across public and private sectors to
improve North Carolinians’ economic future.
In 2010 the North Carolina State Board of Education
approved the Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education Strategic Plan.(See Figure 1 on page12)

FIGURE 1: FRAMEWORK FOR THE 2010 NORTH CAROLINA SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN
PRIORITY GOALS RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
Increasing our student,
teacher and institutional
STEM achievement
• Increase student interest in
STEM fields and in
continuing their education
• Increase STEM achievement
of K-12 students
• Increase the graduation rate
of students in STEM
programs
• Decrease postsecondary
remediation rates
• Increase the number of
teachers prepared and
delivering integrated STEM
education
1. Adopt a set of attributes for STEM schools and programs, aligned
with 21st century skills to assist public and private organizations to
align, coordinate, and advance STEM skills for all students.
2. Identify a set of measurable indicators along the education-to-
workforce continuum to guide the current and future
implementation of the STEM Strategic Plan.
3. Implement a designation for STEM schools and programs,
aligned with the STEM attributes, to drive the goals and
measures outlined within this STEM Strategic Plan.
4. Identify high-quality tools and supports—such as rubics,
self-assessments—to enable schools, programs, and businesses
to advance consistent understanding and application of the
adopted STEM attributes.
5. Advance professional development for pre-service and
in-service educators aligned with the integrated pedagogy and
project-based learning methods of STEM teaching and learning.
Gaining and sustaining
broader community
understanding and
support for the needs
of a knowledge-based
economy
• Increase community
understanding, awareness,
and support for the
economic challenges
• Increase the connections,
partnerships, and growth
of high-quality programs,
schools, and tools
6. Coordinate a public awareness campaign to 100 counties
utilizing public/private partnerships, to inspire and engage
North Carolina citizens in this economic challenge.
7. Identify and convene leading programs, partners, and schools
to advance and highlight best practices to every county.
8. Provide a one-stop action-oriented web-based resource for
students, teachers, parents, and businesses to access and get
involved in STEM learning.
Connecting, leveraging,
and increasing STEM
resources across public
and private sectors to
improve our citizens and
their economic future
• Increase returns on public
and private investments in
STEM education
• Align and coordinate the
investments of public and
private sector partners to
scale high-quality programs
efficiently
9. Invest public and private funds over the next 10 years to scale
effective STEM programs, policies, and practices throughout
every economic development region of North Carolina.
10.Identify and fund a public/private partner for the coordination,
evaluation, and monitoring of STEM education programs and
initiatives.
1
1. Incentivize collaborations based on evidence-based policies,
programs, and practices that greatly increased the number of
students gaining STEM skills and continuing in STEM fields of work.
12. Establish a formal STEM Council to facilitate and coordinate the
implementation of North Carolina’s STEM Education Strategic
Plan.

ECONOMY REWARDS
THINKING SKILLS

North Carolina students born in the 21st century will
graduate into a world significantly different than the
society that their parents and grandparents entered in the
20th century. Two decades ago in a State of the South
report, MDC, the Durham-based non-profit research
organization, sought to capture the essence of the shift
from low-wage, low-skill manufacturing and farming to
service-information-technology enterprises. The declining
economy had people employed to “make things, drive
things, dig things, lift things, or pick things.’’ The emerging
economy “is rewarding those—regardless of race,
gender, and ethnicity—who have the ability to think
things.” State of the South | MDC (mdcinc.org)
If that was true when those words were published in 1998,
they are even more so today. Evidence comes by way of
recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and a
Pew Research Center analysis. BLS reports that STEM
occupations “are projected to grow over two times faster
than the total for all occupations in the next decade”—
8.0 percent by 2029, compared with 3.7 percent for all
occupations.
“Even though many STEM occupations are expected to
enjoy faster than average employment growth in the
2019–29 decade, high demand for computer
occupations is largely behind the expected increase in
STEM employment in the next decade,’’ says BLS. “As
consumers and businesses increasingly participate in the
digital economy, connect devices to the internet, and store
more sensitive data online, the demand for specialized
computer occupations will increase notably. As a result,
employment of information security analysts, software
developers, and computer and information research
scientists is expected to grow at a robust pace over the
next decade from 2019 to 2029.”
Drawing on BLS data, the Pew Research Center reports
strong growth anticipated in STEM occupations,
“particularly epidemiologists, medical scientists,
biochemists and biophysicists, and biological technicians,
among others.” But Pew also reports that “Black and
Hispanic workers remain underrepresented in STEM jobs
compared with their share of the U.S. workforce.”
EMPLOYMENT IN STEM OCCUPATIONS, 2021 AND PROJECTED 2031
(NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS)
Occupation
Employment,
2021
Employment,
2031
Employment
change, 2021–31
Percent employment
change, 2021–31
Median annual
wage, 20211
Total, all occupations 158,134.7 166,452.1 8,317.4 5.3 $45,760
STEM occupations2
9,880.2 10,944.2 1,064.0 10.8 $95,420
Non-STEM occupations 148,254.5 155,508.0 7,253.5 4.9 $40,120
1 Data are from the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics program, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wage data cover non-farm wage and salary workers and do not cover the
self-employed, owners and partners in unincorporated firms, or household workers.
2 Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) occupations include computer and mathematical, architecture and engineering, and life and physical science occupations, as well as
managerial and postsecondary teaching occupations related to these functional areas and sales occupations requiring scientific or technical knowledge at the postsecondary level. For more
information, see www.bls.gov/oes/topics.htm#stem.
Source: Employment Projections program, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
6 FACTS
about America’s STEM
workforce and those
training for it
Black and Hispanic workers are
underrepresented in STEM jobs relative to
their shares in the U.S. workforce as a whole.
1
Black and Hispanic graduates are
underrepresented among degree recipients
in STEM fields compared with their share of
all degrees.
2
Source: www.pewresearch.org

“STEM workers enjoy higher median earnings than those
in other, non-STEM occupations,” according to Pew. “In
2019, median earnings for full-time, year-round workers
ages 25 and older in a STEM job were about $77,400.
The comparable median for workers in other, non-STEM
occupations was $46,900.”
While STEM education progress has been made in North
Carolina in the first two decades of the 21st century, the
dynamics of the Information Age, a sprawling and
evolving global economy, and a growing research
consensus about new instructional approaches combine
to push the state’s educators and education leaders to
reexamine and refresh STEM education.
In addition to providing educational pathways into jobs in
STEM fields, proponents of STEM education have now
recognized the value of an expanded vision—that is, to
give students opportunities to develop habits of mind to
solve modern-day societal problems regardless of
whether tied specifically to a type of job. Indeed, “STEM
skills” are used across a wide variety of fields.4
Now and into the near future, STEM education focuses on
teaching students with more engaging instructional
strategies and on building students’ abilities as problem-
solvers. STEM instructional environments are not loose and
unstructured. These environments do not entirely abandon
traditional instruction, as teachers continue to apply
techniques such as direct instruction, domain-specific
instruction, and scaffolding.5
Still, what’s now envisioned
are carefully designed approaches to help students learn
rigorous content and develop advanced skills through
collaborative projects, transdisciplinary problem-solving,
and guided inquiry.
PROJECTED PERCENT CHANGE BY SELECTED COMPUTER OCCUPATIONS, 2019-29
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
All computer
occupations
Computer and
information
research scientists
Software developers
and software quality
assurance analysts
and testers
Information
security analysts
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The share of women is uneven across
STEM job types.
3
Women have made significant gains in life
science and physical science jobs, but
other areas have seen few increases.
4
Women earn a large share of degrees in
health-related and life science fields, far
fewer in other STEM areas.
5
STEM workers typically earn more than those in
other jobs, with the highest median pay for Asian
men and the lowest for Black and Hispanic women.
6

EVOLUTION OF
THE VISION

“Closing STEM gaps with
technical education and skills
training was a worthwhile
goal and remains so today.“
Employers reported that they could train new employees
on specific “hard skills’’ needed for their particular
company, but it was much more difficult, if not impossible,
to train new employees on the so-called “soft skills’’ of
critical-thinking and relational thinking. These complex
aptitudes and capabilities take years of experiential
learning to develop. Schools could address the state’s
economic and societal needs by inculcating “soft skills”
earlier and applying them in instruction more often.
Thus, quickly, the vision for STEM education has evolved
further, expanding from filling specific labor pool gaps to
teaching students a broader set of skills demanded by 21st
century life. This evolution came partly in response to
pressures resulting from a scarcity of potential employees
with broad-based 21st century competencies and STEM-
related skills. Companies needed employees who could
think critically, solve problems, and analyze data. They
also wanted to find people who had the social and
emotional skills to manage customer and business
relationships and work constructively and collaboratively
with colleagues.8
Labor-force data identified a variety of specific
knowledge sets—such as mechanical knowledge or
mathematical knowledge, and more technical skills, like
those of machinists and electricians—that were too scarce
among North Carolinians. In addition, general STEM-
related skills—critical thinking, technology design, and
systems evaluation—were in demand across a wider
variety of sectors around the country.6
In a rapid response, an emphasis on the need for STEM
education gained traction in North Carolina and the
nation. Many education plans and programs were
implemented to provide students with technical education
for in-demand knowledge and skills to close labor-force
gaps in North Carolina. Closing STEM gaps with
technical education and skills training was a worthwhile
goal and remains so today.
Nevertheless, more and more employers in North
Carolina and across the nation were raising an alarm
about their difficulty in finding enough people who had
the skills to participate successfully in their companies.7
In its early stage, North Carolina’s STEM education
focused on preparing students for on-ramps into STEM
industry jobs that were already available or that would
become available within the decade.

In 2012, the National Research Council was charged with
more clearly defining “21st century competencies,”
determining how they relate to each other, how they relate
to academic knowledge, determining what is known
about their market value, and summarizing what is known
about how to cultivate these skills.9
In 2016 the federal
government launched national education efforts to build
21st century competencies alongside STEM learning.10
National organizations like The Partnership for 21st
Century Skills gained attention for working to close the
gap between the knowledge and skills students were
learning in schools and the additional knowledge and
skills they needed in their workplaces and communities.1
1
Of course, concerns over insufficient critical thinking,
communication, collaboration, and creativity skills are not
entirely new. John Dewey, the philosopher and education
reformer, was a leading voice in a chorus of concerned
thinkers during the industrial revolution of late 19th and
early 20th century.12
As the National Research Council
stated in 2012, these competencies had been valuable for
centuries. Still, the modern vision of STEM education arose
because the proportion of people needing mastery of
these competencies had dramatically increased in the
stream of industrial and technological revolutions following
World War II.13
A rising demand for critical thinking and interpersonal
communication skills has been driven by the cumulative
effect of large societal transformations accelerating during
the end of the 20th century and into the 21st. These
transformations have included the advance of
globalization, increased automation in manufacturing,
development and production, and the seismic transition of
human society out of the industrial age and into the
Information Age. This Information Age is characterized by
a historically rapid wave of life-altering changes arising
from the internet and computing. Information is being
digitally assembled and stored at accelerating rates, and
digital tools for using information to solve problems and
generate value are constantly being invented, innovated,
and brought to scale. Digital and communications
technology shapes at-home lifestyles, schooling, politics,
governance, indeed in some way almost every aspect of
human society.14
This digital dynamic alters opportunities for work across
the globe, including right here in North Carolina. As many
companies and organizations work now within a vast array
of information and the opportunities digitization affords,
more people need information literacy and broader skills
to evaluate the quality of information and to participate
adeptly in work and civic life.15
Instead of straightforward,
linear, and sequential skills—as provided in today’s
educational model—the marketplace has increasingly
demanded analytical, synergistic, creative, and relational
thinking and skills.16
Today’s manufacturing jobs look less like traditional line
work and more like computer programming work.17
Workers are as likely to wear crisp, ironed shirts as denim
dungarees. Machines, robots, and artificial intelligence
progressively perform routine tasks formerly done by
people.18
Factory work consists of time monitoring,
directing, repairing, and reprogramming robots and
machines.
Many repetitive, relatively simple, and even dangerous
tasks will continue to be turned over to automation and
artificial intelligence. This shift will focus the work of people
onto efforts humans do best—non-routine reasoning,
defining abstractions, interpersonal teamwork, as well as
nimble physical work.19
To prepare young people,
education systems need to pivot to developing skills for the
type of work that they will be doing, and stop spending their
time preparing them for work that machines will be doing.
Schools could address the state’s economic and
societal needs by inculcating ‘soft skills’ earlier
and applying them in instruction more often.”
“

American companies have increasingly employed
educated individuals around the globe to execute business
transactions, solve problems, and analyze operations.
Global staffs use cloud computing and other digital tools.
Educating more individuals for problem-solving and
creative competency is a smart macro-economic strategy.
It will strengthen the entire North Carolina economy by
helping position the state as an innovation leader.20
While advanced research is called for to measure direct
causal links, a significant body of research has found that
individuals who possess analytical, synergistic, creative,
and relational thinking and skills will likely have better
outcomes, financial and otherwise, as adults.21
With a
broad base of skills aligned to Information Age work,
individuals are positioned to match their abilities to a wide
variety of organizations and fields of endeavor. As the
state increases the quantity and the quality of employment-
ready citizens, it also increases its attractiveness to
companies as a place to do business. Once again,
stronger education serves both individuals and the
economy, a personal good and a common good.
When paired with social and emotional competencies such
as self-awareness, self-management, and responsible
decision-making, 21st century skills also provide individuals
with the capacity to leverage the tools and opportunities of
the Information Age to engage in work of their own and
start their own businesses. The entrepreneurial, small
business sector will continue to be a critical part of the
economy as globalization advances and evolves.
Educational experiences that provide students with a
variety of flexible skills better prepare them for
employment in an economy that is increasingly contracted
and part-time.22
This so-called “gig economy” is
characterized by part-time, freelance work that uses
digital platforms to provide customers with short-term
services—for example, graphic designers on professional
services platforms. The gig economy also includes
independent freelance contractors, writers, artists, business
consultants, and tutors. Before the coronavirus pandemic,
almost one-third of workers in the United States had their
primary labor in “gig” alternative arrangements. As such
arrangements persist, the state and nation will face the
challenges of addressing significant economic and social
structural issues posed by this sector.23
Consumer preferences and expectations also drive
labor-market shifts. Consumers increasingly demand
products and services that are crafted, distinctive, and
personalized, providing opportunities for those who can
add value through specialization and creativity.24
Supporting students to develop their design skills, hone their
creative abilities, and enhance the human experience
through individually crafted work prepares them to apply
their own skills to real-life opportunities.
A rising demand for critical thinking and
interpersonal communication skills has been
driven by the cumulative effect of large
societal transformations accelerating during
the end of the 20th century and into the 21st.”
“

CONNECTION
THROUGH THE
“HIDDEN CURRICULUM“

“The vision of STEM education
has evolved to answer this
grand call to meet the big issues
of the mid-21st century.”
include: a global refugee crisis, chronic human diseases
that strain resources for care, and the ongoing threats of
nuclear, chemical, biological, and cyber warfare created
by the intersection of advancing technologies and human
behaviors.
Of course, the K-12 education system will not be able to
respond fully in the short term to such daunting challenges.
Still, these are all realities on which global society is
increasingly focused, and, therefore, on which STEM
education is increasingly focused as well. After all, young
students must be prepared to address them as they learn
more in higher education and many move into jobs that
make a difference. Preparation of the next generation
requires students to learn rigorous content, to have
interdisciplinary understanding, to gain critical thinking and
creativity skills, as well as to exercise collaboration and
teamwork. The vision of STEM education has evolved to
answer this grand call to meet the big issues of the
mid-21st century.
As society increasingly recognizes the realities and
challenges of the Information Age, the education system
subsequently reflects that growing understanding. This
connection between the broader social consciousness
and education policy has been described as a “hidden
curriculum.”25
New findings in science, technology, and engineering
become rationale for education modifications.26
Today,
for example, slowing the rate of climate warming due to
human activity presents possibly the greatest challenge
before contemporary society. Experts estimate this urgent
crisis must be alleviated in 10 to 20 years. In 2008, the
United States National Association for Engineering
identified 14 “Grand Challenges for Engineering”—
significant societal problems that will require advanced
skills to solve. The 14 challenges range from providing
access to clean water and managing the nitrogen cycle,
to engineering better medicines, to providing personalized
learning, and reverse-engineering the brain. Additional
global challenges that society is gradually prioritizing
A growing consciousness of the wider societal benefits
of a more robust STEM education has come into play.

INTEGRATING
WITH HUMANITIES

“Research and study in the humanities
train students to scrutinize and to
deepen their understanding of a
technology-infused world.”
individual and group psychology and behavior; the
changing nature of human work in an automated world;
and the sparking of tensions between cultures as
globalization evolves.
Research and study in the humanities train students to
scrutinize and to deepen their understanding of a
technology-infused world. Humanities empower them to
make moral and ethical judgments—and to understand
the implications for their families, local communities and
the wider world. Experiences that integrate STEM and
humanities prepare young people for the duties of
innovation, self-determination, and democratic citizenship
in the 21st century.28
Thus, the importance of forging connection between
STEM and humanities—history, literature, anthropology,
philosophy, economics, sociology, political science—has
also become clearer. Knowledge attained in the humanities
is increasingly seen as vital by employers and societal
leaders.27
Teams of engineers and technologists must not
only be able to design and build products, but they must
also be able to understand, imagine, and reflect upon the
human and social implications of technological devices.
Critical ethical questions emerge as technological
innovations push social boundaries. Examples of
boundary-pushing: the engineering of human and animal
genomes; the development and application of artificial
intelligence; the use of social media to manipulate both
Powerful societal forces have pressured advocates of
STEM education to widen their focus; their vision now is
to teach students how to think, not what to think.

INSTRUCTIONAL
STRATEGIES
?
?
?

“Problem-based learning allows
students to acquire knowledge and
skills through a facilitated process of
solving a complex problem for which
there is no single correct answer.”
Problem-based learning allows students to acquire
knowledge and skills through a facilitated process of
solving a complex problem for which there is no single
correct answer.30
Typically the problems are more
narrowly structured or shorter in duration than project-
based topics.31
In both problem- and project-based methods, students
often apply various iterative cycles of inquiry and creation:
design cycles, experimentation cycles, engineering cycles,
computational thinking cycles, and other “ways of
knowing.”32
Researchers have studied these types of learning
experiences, and here are key findings:
•When students are more engaged, they are more likely
to understand and retain learning from what they
experience.33
Through project-based learning, a well-established
practice, students gain knowledge and skills by working
for an extended period to investigate and respond to
complex questions, problems, or challenges relevant to
students’ experiences and communities. Students engage
in the work with careful support and guidance from
teachers. Students learn and practice such skills as
calculating acceleration and writing persuasively within
the context of a substantive six-to-eight weeks project. PBL
Works, one of the leading project-based learning program
providers in the country, gives examples of stimulating
questions that drive such projects:
• How can humans safely explore Mars?
• How do game designers create movement and action
in their scenes?
• How can we redesign a public space to make it more
environmentally sustainable?29
Research evidence points to two instructional strategies
likely to enhance the effectiveness of STEM education:
project-based learning and problem-based learning.

• Science investigations and engineering design
challenges tend to engage students, and thus more
often increase students’ conceptual knowledge,
reasoning, and problem-solving skills compared to
direct instruction.34
•General problem- and project-based learning
approaches increase student engagement by providing
authentic learning experiences and by focusing
students on long-term goals.35
•Instructional strategies that mimic the complexity of
real-world thinking and problem-solving result in higher
levels of student learning. For example, researchers
have found that when students participate in complex
learning opportunities similar to those of professionals,
students gain higher levels of understanding and skill.36
•Learners best acquire the skills for applying their current
knowledge to new problems when they experience
challenging tasks that require multiple representations
of concepts, questioning, and explanation, while also
receiving guidance to examine their own thinking.37
•Preliminary research evidence suggests that instruction
that integrates content across subjects—similar to how
professionals connect knowledge across disciplines
—increases learning.38
Problem-based and project-based approaches also
provide opportunities for self-directed, collaborative, and
relevant environments for learning. A growing body of
research on student motivation has found that students
learn more when they have more autonomy and choice
and, therefore, can direct their own learning and develop
self-regulation skills.39
When students engage in
cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and peer
learning, research shows that their social and emotional
learning—for the 21st century skills like communication and
collaboration—increases as well.40
Drawing from the
fields of cognitive science and anthropology, researchers
have found that learning is cultural in nature, and applies
to all learners throughout life. Instructional practices for
problem-solving and critical thinking that leverage
students’ cultural practices can facilitate increased
engagement, motivation, and learning.41
A growing body of research on student
motivation has found that students learn more
when they have more autonomy and choice
and, therefore, can direct their own learning
and develop self-regulation skills.”
“

BUILT-IN
BARRIERS

A full exploration of troublesome components that make
reorienting instructional methods difficult to achieve is
beyond the scope of this report. Still, it’s important to
highlight three barriers for North Carolina educators and
policymakers to address in the near term:
State and national evidence has demonstrated that
systemic barriers stand in the way of enhanced STEM
education.42
Despite increased programming, high-quality
STEM learning opportunities—inquiry-based, integrated,
connected to the real-world, and collaborative—are still
relatively scarce in classrooms across North Carolina.
While formal research has not been funded to document
both gains and scarcity, it is widely known that North
Carolina students are still primarily taught mathematics and
science in disciplinary silos. Furthermore, most students
pass through their school years without much exposure to
engineering and technology. Teachers in STEM subjects
often have little choice but to use direct instructional
methods that do not adequately connect to real-world
problems. It has become increasingly clear that the
process of scaling (i.e., spreading out) high-quality STEM
education faces significant challenges.43
Amid the progress of the past decade, a significant
problem emerged: how to bring advanced STEM
education up to scale.
“State and national evidence
has demonstrated that systemic
barriers stand in the way of
enhanced STEM education.”
High-stakes standardized tests that
leave little room for advanced
learning.
Insufficient non-instructional time for
teachers to plan, learn, and master
new curriculum and instructional
techniques.
School schedules incompatible with
project- and problem-based
learning, experimentation, and
design.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE
TESTS

The adverse effects of employing easy-to-use but faulty
measurements have been amplified by tying consequences
to the results—such as funding for schools; job security for
teachers, principals, and superintendents; educational
opportunities for students; and communication to parents and
to the public. The power of make-or-break incentives to
influence individual and organizational behavior is immense,
bearing on decisions and behavior on a daily basis.47
Standardized testing is particularly consequential for
effective STEM education. As a powerful force in
classrooms, it pushes schools and classroom teachers to
focus on teaching students to memorize tested facts and
repetitively to perform tested tasks.48
Teaching-to-the-test,
thus, becomes the guiding dynamic, taking precedence
over providing students with more engaging, relevant, and
challenging learning opportunities.
Consider, for example, how multiple-choice design induces
teachers to dismantle complex science concepts (say, how
an ecosystem functions) into disconnected, more easily
tested facts (definitions of decomposers, herbivores, and
carnivores). Low-level learning takes precedence over
deeper, more nuanced, and holistic understanding of the
fundamental reality.49
As the National Academy of
Sciences Committee on a Conceptual Framework for
New K-12 Science Education Standards wrote in 2012,
That standardized tests are a problem for the education
system is not a new concept, but its true nature and scope
are not always well understood or acknowledged.
Multiple-choice tests are not inherently problematic.
Rather, at issue is using these tests to serve functions for
which they were not designed.45
The current use of tests conflicts with the simple fact that all
learning assessments are inaccurate to varying degrees.
The totality of knowledge and skills that a student possesses
at any time is larger in scope, and vastly more complex,
than one test can sufficiently measure. Professional
educators know this basic fact; educational researchers
and assessment designers know it; parents know it
intuitively. Results from a single test should never be used as
the sole measure of a student’s knowledge or abilities at
any point in time.46
Incomplete and potentially inaccurate judgments of
student learning made on the basis of end-of-year
standardized tests, unfortunately, are not limited to
occasional, low-stakes decision-making. Over time, test
scores have become a dominant measure of school
productivity and student learning used up and down the
education system—from instructional decisions between
teacher and students, to school-level decisions, to district-
level operational decisions, to state-level policy decisions.
The broad and singular use of high-stakes, standardized,
multiple-choice tests to measure learning creates
cumulative damage.44
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS: NORTH CAROLINA,
ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 2010-16
2010
%
of
Students
in
High-Poverty
Schools
Note: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) defines high-poverty schools as those in which 75% or more students are eligible for free or reduced-priced meals.
Data sources: National Center for Education Statistics; PolicyLink/USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE). (n.d.). National Equity Atlas. www.nationalequityatlas.org.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
14.9%
40.5%
14.9%
39.6%
8.9%
34.2%
7.9%
33.7%
6.0%
29.2%
5.0%
25.2%
4.4%
25.4%
Students of color White students

“Currently, K-12 science education in the United States ... is
not organized systematically across multiple years of school,
emphasizes discrete facts with a focus on breadth over
depth, and does not provide students with engaging
opportunities to experience how science is actually done.”50
In mathematics as well, ease of testing and grading has
moved teachers to focus predominantly on requiring
recalling facts and procedures instead of having students
master higher-order tasks necessary to develop
mathematical understanding.51
Most advanced STEM
skills like design, analysis, and evaluation are not and
cannot be measured on multiple-choice tests.52
The same
is true for important soft skills like leadership, self-
awareness, perseverance, creativity, and teamwork.53
Furthermore, most annual tests in kindergarten through
eighth grades measure mathematics and English language
arts, contributing to dramatically reduced instructional time
for science.54
Opportunities for students to experience
engineering design, computational thinking, or technology
learning are crowded out when not measured on
consequential standardized tests.
The system has reached to such a point that instruction
devoted to those types of knowledge and skills is penalized.
The environment for most teachers, schools, and districts
poses risks—both real and perceived—if too much time is
spent teaching higher-order content and skills that are not
tested. A teacher or a school must ask, “Is it worth
substituting instructional time devoted to explicit instruction
on tested content, for which we are held accountable, with
instruction on advanced content that is not on the test and
for which we are not held accountable?”
Similarly, risks are imposed if an educator deviates from a
course of action that has already produced sufficient
testing results. A teacher or a school must ask, “Is it worth
trying something challenging that we have never done
when what we have been doing has been good enough
and most parents seem happy with our results?” Faced with
such choices, districts, schools, and teachers often stick
with status quo that most reliably produce satisfactory and
nominally “acceptable” results on the high-stakes tests.55
As now applied, testing and accountability pressures
typically operate most forcefully on high-poverty schools,
of which North Carolina has more than 800. Across the
state, including both rural and metropolitan communities,
four out of 10 children live in poverty-level or lower-
income households. A growing body of evidence suggests
that even more teaching-to-the-test instruction takes place
in high-poverty schools compared to schools with large
enrollment of middle-class and affluent students.56
Testing-related pressures collectively function as a reason
why creative STEM-related instruction, successful in certain
schools, do not spread easily to classrooms and schools at
a large scale.57
The circumstances and support that enable
teachers and schools to experiment with innovative instruction,
while being protected from negative consequences, are not
shared broadly across the state’s 2,400 public schools. For
the vast majority of schools, more advanced teaching and
learning are often squeezed into the scraps of instructional
time left after the annual tests. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that teachers often save interesting projects for
the small window of time “after the test.”
GRADE-LEVEL PROFICIENCY RATES FOR ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS
AT HIGH- AND LOW-POVERTY SCHOOLS, 2017
2010
%
of
Students
in
High-Poverty
Schools
Note: The NCES defines low-poverty schools as those in which 25% or fewer students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. High-poverty schools are defined as those in which 75% or more
students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Data source: LPI analysis of North Carolina Department of Public Instruction data.
2013 2015
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
61%
Low-poverty schools High-poverty schools
41%
60%
33%
61%
20%

LEARNING TIME
FOR TEACHERS

“Opportunities for teachers to learn
for extended periods within their
daily work and as part of a group of
teachers are the most effective.”
tends to be of limited effectiveness. Opportunities for
teachers to learn for extended periods within their daily work
and as part of a group of teachers are the most effective.60
Asian and European nations structure teachers’ schedules
to allow for persistent professional development:
collaborative planning, curriculum development, and
learning among teachers. The United States provides very
little such support.61
Some analyses have found that
teachers in the United States spend 80% or more of their
total working time in front of students. In contrast, teachers
in high-performing nations spend 50% to 60% of their time
directly instructing students.62
The National Commission on Time and Learning reissued in
2005 a report titled Prisoners of Time with findings that
remain relevant. “Educators [in America] do not have the
time they need to do their job properly,” the commission put
succinctly.63
The limited learning time provided to teachers
hampers their ability to absorb and implement advanced
instructional approaches. Students get shortchanged when
their teachers are shortchanged in professional development.
Teachers must also make instructional moves on the spot
that individualize the learning process for students, who—in
addition to their inherent uniqueness—also evolve
intellectually and emotionally at different rates over time. In
the process of orchestrating their classroom, some estimates
have found, teachers make roughly 1,200-1,800 decisions
per day, or around 150-225 decisions per hour.58
Making changes to such complex work takes time and the
freedom to tinker. A large body of literature has found that
for teachers to incorporate project-based, problem-
solving or other STEM-instruction techniques, they need
time to reflect and to learn. They need time to engage in
their own reading and research, to learn from colleagues,
to create well-thought-out lessons, to assess students
thoughtfully, and to adjust their instructional plans.59
Like other hands-on professions, teaching is best learned
on the job—surgeons cannot learn how to complete a
surgery by listening to a lecture, and teachers cannot learn
new instructional techniques simply by watching a
PowerPoint presentation. Time spent in one-off workshops
Teaching is often compared to a craft. It is also a profession.
Teachers engage in complex activities that combine content
knowledge, pedagogical dexterity, and relational skills to
create and execute lessons for their students.

LEARNING TIME
FOR STUDENTS

“Problem-based learning allows
students to acquire knowledge and
skills through a facilitated process of
solving a complex problem for which
there is no single correct answer.”
increase the frequency with which teachers covered more
topics in depth, used hands-on learning approaches, and
engaged in higher-quality assessment practices.67
Many
but not all teachers prefer block scheduling.68
There are, however, mixed results on student learning, with
research sometimes finding improvements, sometimes no
changes, and sometimes that traditional schedules yielded
better student learning results.69
Mixed results could be
attributed to challenges in the study designs, including the
fact that schools that switched to block scheduling often
did not change any of their instructional paradigms
(maintaining lecture and low-level learning content work
now for longer periods of time) and that many of the
studies used standardized tests to measure student
learning (a weak instrument as discussed in this report).70
Despite mixed findings on block-scheduling, practical
knowledge, plus research from the cognitive and learning
sciences, points to providing students with extended learning
time as more likely to produce deeper learning and
advanced skills. Every class does not need to be 90 minutes,
but neither should every class be 50 minutes. Flexible
scheduling may not be easy to structure, but school schedules
should be structured in ways that promote opportunities to
enhance student learning—and more schools should do so.
To be sure, discussion about the length of both school days
and class periods has droned on for decades—during the
scheduling reform efforts of the 1970s and during the 1980s
and 1990s whole-school reform movement. And yet today,
elementary and middle schools typically follow traditional
schedules with class periods roughly 50 minutes, with actual
time spent on learning usually around 35-40 minutes.
Researchers have found that students need longer periods
to complete an experience of deep learning, curiosity, or
exploration at meaningful levels of complexity.65
When
teachers guide students through investigations or
experiments spread across multiple days, the learning
experience becomes disjointed. Teachers have reported
that their daily class schedules often make it difficult, if not
impossible, for them to implement new, more advanced
instructional approaches.66
Today’s most innovative schools
feature flexibility—they have a variety of scheduling
approaches, often leveraging the benefits of both shorter
and longer class periods as they build their schedules to
achieve student learning goals, not the other way around.
Formal research on flexible schedules has not been
conducted on a meaningful scale yet. But tentative lessons
can be drawn from research into block-scheduling, which
entails placing an entire school into roughly 90-minute class
periods. Some studies found that longer class periods did
North Carolina’s system does not provide sufficiently for
extended class periods that foster in-depth learning,
particularly in elementary and middle schools.64

LET INGENUITY
LOOSE

of teachers do not have enough time to learn them
sufficiently, discuss them with their colleagues, try them out,
and refine them in practice. Teachers will not consistently
use high-quality STEM education activities and instructional
approaches if class periods are simply too short. Even
proven school-level and district-level STEM education
efforts will stall if the pressures from high-stakes testing
remain unabated. A conscious, active policy approach
envisioned in the 2035 plan would create the possibility of
an education designed for the 21st century to reach every
student in every classroom across North Carolina.
Relying on every educator to work against existing pressures
and inertia is an unrealistic approach to the already
challenging enterprise of education. Instead, a STEM
education approach that recognizes and removes systemic
barriers while creating and maintaining a framework of
standards and accountability will open opportunities for
teachers and schools to create and innovate.
STEM-infused professional development for teachers will
not translate into widespread, meaningful changes for
students so long as the testing regime imposes too much
risk for schools and teachers. New instructional practices
will not be implemented in classrooms if the vast majority
North Carolina, to be sure, has an array of schools and
teachers who manage through ingenuity and special
circumstances to knock down or creatively circumvent
barriers of tests and time.
“Relying on every educator
to work against existing
pressures and inertia is
an unrealistic approach to
the already challenging
enterprise of education.”

A VISION FOR
TRANSFORMATION

“How can North Carolina’s
education system create STEM
instructional environments
that engage minds and teach
advanced skills?”
The driving purpose of initiatives envisioned by the North
Carolina STEM Education Plan for 2035 is to encourage
educators and policymakers to do the hard but important
work of generating answers to such questions as:
Fundamental goals of the entire system would evolve from
an orientation toward teaching students low- and mid-
level content and skills to an orientation toward teaching
high-level content and skills.
Students would have more frequent opportunities to
practice cooperative work, to learn the social and
emotional skills for work and life such as persistence,
self-reflection, self-management, collaboration, empathy,
and shared responsibility. Students would more fully
develop their capacity to apply critical thinking,
experimental methods, design thinking, technical practices,
disciplined reading and research, and metacognition—
having more confidence to “knowing what to do when
you don’t know what to do.”
Today’s STEM education seeks to increase the frequency
of instructional environments in which learning is:
• Integrated;
• Inquiry-based;
• Connected to the real world;
• Collaborative; and
• Aligned to individual student needs.71
Schools that provide teaching and learning experiences
envisioned in the 2035 plan would have different
orientation and priorities than currently prevailing in
North Carolina’s education system.
How can North Carolina’s education system
create STEM instructional environments that
engage minds and teach advanced skills?
1
How can key barriers to robust STEM
education be removed and appropriate
supports established?
2
How can STEM education work be
continuously communicated to North
Carolina citizens who did not attend schools
with such learning environments when they
were children?
3

THE STUDENT
EXPERIENCE

explicit instruction, individual study and practice,
computer-mediated learning, and group problem-solving
and discussion have all been shown to be effective in
various circumstances.”73
As the National Academy of
Science’s Committee on Integrated STEM Education
observed, “more integration isn’t necessarily better,” but
some is necessary.74
Selection of instructional methods is too often framed as
simplistic, or even false, choices: either teach phonics or
teach whole-language; either teach procedural
mathematics or teach conceptual mathematics; either use
inquiry-based instruction or direct instruction; either
students memorize everything, or students memorize
nothing.
Schools would not suddenly abandon all direct instruction,
scaffolding, memorization work, or practice of low- and
mid-level skills. Rather, learning experiences would be
constructed so that students acquire valuable low- and
mid-level content and skills along the way to developing
more complex skills.72
Relying too heavily on a singular instructional approach—
including those for higher-order skills—is not supported by
research, by the knowledge of educators, or by common
sense. As explained by the National Research Council’s
Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century
Skills, “The current synthesis based on available evidence
does not dictate a particular pedagogical approach as
uniformly superior. Scaffolding, modeling, guided inquiry,
In STEM-infused environments, students would still
“learn facts,” but this knowledge would be in service to
comprehending concepts far more important for students
to understand—learning that expands understanding of
the forces of change around them and that contributes
more to making informed choices in life.
“Relying too heavily on a singular
instructional approach—including
those for higher-order skills—is
not supported by research, by the
knowledge of educators, or by
common sense.”

A better designed system would leverage multiple tools for
teaching students. In such a system, for example, students
would read about the process of photosynthesis; then they
would apply what they learned to design their own
experiments. Students would not only memorize
multiplication tables, but also would be exposed to the
conceptual ideas behind multiplication. Students would
experience direct instruction in microeconomics, would
read novels, would write papers on history, and would
learn state government processes—allowing them to
connect and combine their fluency across disciplines to
address real-world problems.
Such applied learning experiences would not be
occasional instructional flourishes in an otherwise whole-
class, memorization-driven, single-subject learning
paradigm. Instead, they would be regular, consistent
approaches, operating as an integral part of the entire
system and available to every student.
A better designed system would leverage
multiple tools for teaching students. In such a
system, for example, students would read
about the process of photosynthesis; then they
would apply what they learned to design
their own experiments.”
“

THE TEACHER
EXPERIENCE

Teachers, studies consistently show, constitute the school-
based factor with the most impact on student learning.75
Teachers can best make decisions about when and how to
use different instructional tools in response to the moment-
to-moment needs of their students, as individuals and as a
class. A framework of standards and accountability would
be built to guide educators’ work. Still, it would be careful
to avoid stifling their productivity and creativity.
Learning standards in STEM subjects would be grounded
in what educators and education scholars know about
how students learn. Standards would not be so “packed”
that teachers’ only choice is to move as fast as possible so
that all the material is covered in a defined time frame.
Teachers would be held accountable for appropriate
STEM learning outcomes
—including advanced content
knowledge, critical thinking skills, technical skills, and
social and emotional skills. Teachers would be evaluated
with tools and processes designed to enhance their
delivery of high-quality instruction—such as multiple
classroom observations, expert evaluators, multiple
sources of data, meaningful and timely critique, and
feedback connected to professional development.76
An overarching commitment would be to set up teachers
for success in 21st century learning environments.
Incoming teachers would have passed through educator
preparation programs that equip them for the work,
instilling mindsets and practices for instruction that is
integrated, inquiry-based, connected to the real-world,
and that supports students’ social and emotional
development. Also, the state and school districts would
make a variety of ongoing, high-quality professional
development opportunities available to teachers throughout
their careers. In the interests of their students’ advancement,
teachers should have increased time for lectures, seminars,
roundtables, and similar options covering fundamentals of
STEM instruction, project-based learning, collaborating
with businesses and industries, and content sessions that
update teachers on cutting edge innovations in STEM
fields that they can pass on to students—discoveries in the
bio-medical fields, innovations in quantum computing
technologies, or new physical and chemical discoveries
about the composition of the universe.
In the evolved environments envisioned here, schools
would be structured for ongoing, job-embedded growth
in teacher skills. Teachers would see themselves on a
learning trajectory from their earliest days when they are
still honing their classroom craft, to their later years as
veteran educators who have mastered the work and can
lead others. Schools would provide the time and structures
for teachers to create well-thought-out lessons to assess
students, to adjust their plans, and especially to learn from
each other.
A system to produce 21st century STEM education
experiences for all students would be designed, at its
most fundamental level, to invest in and leverage the
craftsmanship of its educators.
“An overarching commitment would be
to set up teachers for success in 21st
century learning environments.”

ASSESSING TO
PROMOTE SUCCESS

Early-career teachers would have passed through educator
preparation programs that train them for a regimen in which
teacher-created assessments and cycles of feedback are
regarded as fundamental and frequently used skills required
of teachers. With schedules that provide teachers more
noninstructional time, they would collaborate, create their
own assessments aligned to state standards, examine their
students’ work, and make instructional adjustments—thus
providing students with timely specific assessment and
instruction, not generalized from a centralized, state-
administered cycle of assessment that by its very nature
often lacks relevancy to an individual student.
Schools and teachers would remain accountable for
meeting state and district expectations and goals in
student achievement. But they would have more freedom
and flexibility to reach those targets by adapting their
pedagogy to make progress in their local communities
and students.
Indeed, a system that strives to evolve along the lines of
the 2035 plan would have the sophistication to recognize
differences among its schools and students—and to adapt
its responses accordingly. Such a system would encourage
and support its schools eager to try innovative approaches
to STEM education. Simultaneously, its educators and
policymakers would recognize and address the challenges
of schools with insufficient access to teachers with
backgrounds in STEM education, or without high-level
STEM courses and content,85
or without sufficient access to
instructional materials. A STEM education system would be
designed to recognize and appropriately respond to
well-documented structural inequities—geographic, social,
economic—and the varying assets and needs among its
schools and students.86
Its framework would place higher value on formative
assessments, cycles of feedback between teacher and
student, and student self-assessment and agency—all of
which have been found to be powerful tools for increasing
student achievement.78
Multiple-choice, high-stakes, standardized tests for
accountability purposes would be administered in STEM
subjects only a few times across a student’s career, in
alignment with the practices of some of the world’s highest
performing education systems.79
These tests would serve
as one tool within a more comprehensive and well-
articulated approach, which would entail assessments that
use open-ended questions and tasks, performance-based
evaluations, and other measures of learning.80
While a
few states and school districts have experimented with
portfolios, “senior projects,” and other performance-based
constructs for decades, such assessments are not common,
often used only at the high-school level, and rarely in a
formal, state assessment framework.81
Opportunities have opened up, leveraging digital
technology, to enable students and educators to assess
learning based on performances and open-ended tasks.
Information Age companies are creating platforms that
manage digital portfolios and digital mastery-based
transcripts.82
The over-weighting of student test scores in evaluating
teacher effectiveness for personnel decisions provides a
cautionary tale. Weak accountability design still plays out
in classrooms today.83
The 2035 plan envisions that
aggregated test results would be used to guide STEM
education operations and administration only if the validity
and reliability of a particular measure had been carefully
determined; systems would evolve thoughtfully toward
multiple measures with appropriate weights assigned.84
Assessment in a STEM-infused environment would
function as a tool weighted more heavily for informing
student learning and teacher instruction, and less on
high-stakes accountability.77

A COUNCIL TO
DESIGN AND DRIVE

“How can North Carolina’s
education system create STEM
instructional environments
that engage minds and teach
advanced skills?”
The STEM Plan for 2035 proposes the organizing of a
North Carolina STEM Education Council as a vehicle for
moving systemic transformation forward. (A proposed
structure for the council’s work is in Figure 2 on pages
52-53.) The basic framework consists of two features:
1) a leadership council and 2) design teams. The activities
outlined in Phases II and III are intended as preliminary
ideas for positioning the leadership council and design
teams as the initiators of action steps to achieve high-
quality STEM education for all students.
In addition, the plan envisions that the teams would
maintain continuity through state and local election cycles,
as well as faculty and administrative turnover. The plan
establishes a realistic timeframe, providing multiple years
for appointing committees, creating transformation plans
and designs, building relationships with key stakeholders,
conducting pilots, revising plans, all the while establishing
communications with citizens across North Carolina.
This will require deliberation, research, and debate over
how to balance priorities and to make necessary tradeoffs.
Such a large effort—achieving real changes in the working
environment for teachers to achieve real changes for student
learning—will take determined and thoughtful work.
The prime goal is systematic transformation over the course
of a decade through four basic strategies:
•Support and expand innovative and effective STEM
education that already exists in schools across North
Carolina.
•Support educators in developing and using 21st
century STEM practices that engage minds and teach
advanced thinking skills.
•As difficult as system transformation may be, remove
built-in barriers to infusing STEM education into the
day-to-day life of schools.
•Communicate effectively to and build support among
parents, business executives, policymakers, and all
North Carolina citizens.
The North Carolina STEM Education Plan for 2035
calls on the education system, a critical institution in a
democratic society, to work toward multiple objectives
at the same time systematically.

The council and design teams will be structured to include
participants representative of the state’s citizenry and its
educational ecosystem. Teachers will be involved, as will
principals and school district administrators. The plan
envisions involvement of state and local policymakers,
business executives, faculty at public and private
universities, leaders of community colleges, officials of
non-profits, and parents. Indeed, North Carolina has a
deep and experienced talent reservoir to draw from.
Changing components of an education system requires
attention to the balance between flexibility and focus:
flexibility to respond to the inevitable interconnectedness
of the system and focus on achieving specific change
goals. During design and development, the leadership
council and design teams, of course, would inform their
decisions with competent research and data, findings from
studies of progress, or its lack, among students, schools,
districts, and statewide. This process will include applying
findings from measures of structural inequities—
geographic, social, economic—to inform the development
of pathways for students and schools.
Changing components of an education
system requires attention to the balance
between flexibility and focus:
flexibility to respond to the inevitable
interconnectedness of the system and
focus on achieving specific change goals.”
“

BIG OBJECTIVES
FOR A BIG STATE
2035

A strong forward-leaning education system alone cannot
reform all social, economic, and cultural forces that shape a
society; and yet, schools, colleges, and universities can exert
a deep-down, long-term influence on the direction of societal
change. Since the founding of the nation, U.S. leaders,
especially including North Carolinians, have considered an
educated citizenry as vital to promoting progress.
The education community, the business community, the
public, and many political leaders understand that traditional
notions of schooling, overly focused on passive rote learning,
no longer suffices in the 21st century. A redesign of STEM
education is imperative to promote engaged, active learning
so that more North Carolinians can successfully participate
in the 21st century economy and society.
Which bring this report back to where it began—with the
sharp insight of Maya Angelou when she famously said,
“When you know better, you do better.” Now that North
Carolina knows better how to do education, it is time for
North Carolina to do better.
The business community has long identified the need for
employees more skilled and creative in problem-solving,
critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. They
want and need employees who are more self-directed
and capable of working with others.
As a leading state in the United States, North Carolina has
the educational wherewithal to prepare more of its young
people to solve real-world issues and some of society’s
grand challenges: non-polluting sources of energy and
transportation, sustainable agriculture and food
distribution, cleaner water, medical discovery and access
to health care, affordable housing, and overcoming
inequities and discord. These and other challenges must
be creatively addressed through various means, not least
of which is education. North Carolina can elevate its
contribution to creative problem-solving with an education
system focusing less on low-level knowledge, uniformity,
and compliance, and more on teaching and learning that
leads students to uncover their distinctive skills, interests,
and motivations.
A transformative shift in teaching 21st century
knowledge and skills is important not only for students,
but also critical to North Carolina’s economy.
“A redesign of STEM education is
imperative to promote engaged,
active learning so that more North
Carolinians can successfully
participate in the 21st century
economy and society.”

FIGURE 2: NC STEM EDUCATION PLAN FOR 2035: DRAFT STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
START-UP
ACTIVITIES (YR 1)
PHASE I ACTIVITIES
(YRS 2-3)
DRAFT PHASE II ACTIVITIES
(YRS 4-6)
Recruit NC STEM
Education Council. The
council creates a more
detailed STEM education
plan that builds on the
2010 NC STEM
Education Strategic Plan
and all of the programs
that have grown in NC
since that time.
2035 STRATEGY 1: Continue to Support High-Quality STEM Education Programs
High-quality STEM education programs in NC continue to thrive.
An active network of high-quality STEM programs and STEM schools is built
and maintained.
NC STEM Education Council engages in ongoing talks with key leadership at NC
DPI and other stakeholders, to build understanding and support so that support
for STEM education work is maintained.
Continue 2010 Priority1: Increase student, teacher, and institutional STEM achievement.
Continuing 2010 Priority 2: Gain and sustain broader community
understanding and support for the needs of a knowledge-based economy.
Continuing 2010 Priority 3: Connect, leverage, and increase STEM resources across
public and private sectors to improve citizens and their economic future.
2035 STRATEGY 2: Support Educators to Use 21st Century STEM Instructional Practices
Recruit NC Educator Support Transformation Team of lead educators, others.
Include individuals from pilot schools/districts.
Educator Support Transformation Team learns about their specific component
of the new education model (licensure, teacher evaluation, etc.) through
readings, speakers, discussions, data, etc.
Educator Support Transformation Team engages in ongoing talks with key
leadership at NC DPI and other stakeholders, to build understanding and
support so that foundations for new systems can begin to be laid.
Colleges of education are redesigning programs and courses to align with
new education model.
Schools/districts redesigning and piloting new ways to create more
planning and collaboration time for teachers.
New curriculum and materials are being tested; a feedback loop is in place
to learn what materials are needed in new system.
Educator Support Transformation Team creates pilot plans.
Piloting professional development (PD) system aligned to evaluation
system. New models of job-embedded PD—including peer observation,
videos, coaching, etc.—are being piloted.
2035 STRATEGY 3: Redesign School Operations to Remove Barriers to Scaling STEM Education
Recruit districts/schools to serve as pilots.
School Ops. Redesign Team learns about their specific component of the new
education model (grading, testing, schedules, etc.) through readings, speakers,
discussions, data, etc.
School Ops. Redesign Team engages in ongoing talks with key leadership at
NC DPI and other stakeholders, to build understanding and support so that
foundations for new systems can begin to be laid.
School Ops. Redesign Team creates pilot plans.
Recruit NC School Operations Redesign Team of lead educators, others.
Include individuals from pilot schools/districts.
2035 STRATEGY 4: Grow NC Citizen and Community Support
Recruit NC Citizen Communications Team of educators, others. Include
individuals from pilot districts/schools.
Communications Team learns about the new model of education through
readings, discussions, speakers, data, etc.
Communications Team starts launching communications efforts (hosting
meetings, giving presentations, hosting convenings, etc).
NC businesses support the plan and are using their voices and resources to
support change to the new model of education.
Community colleges and universities support the plan and are using their
voices and resources to support change to the new model of education.
Parents support the plan and are using their voices and resources to support
change to the new model of education.
Communications Team creates communications plans.
School boards support the plan and are using their voices and resources to
support change to the new model of education.
Funders and media groups support the plan and are using their voices and
resources to support change to the new model of education.
Legislators and other key actors support the plan and are using their voices
and resources to support change to the new model of education.
Pilot districts/schools launch their pilot plans.
Real-time and annual evaluation data is collected and analyzed to improve
and learn from the pilots. Shared in regular redesign team meetings and with
district/school leaders.
Redesign team engages in ongoing talks with key leadership at NC DPI
and other stakeholders to build understanding and support.
Groundwork for systems change continuing to be laid—technological
changes, personnel policies, grading, testing policies, etc.
Communications Team builds website to store all redesign materials—
internally-facing and/or externally-facing sites.
Recruit STEM 2035
Transformation
Leadership Team.
Transformation
Leadership Team learns
about new model for
education (readings,
discussions, guest
speakers, etc.).
Leadership team
creates more detailed
transformation plan,
based on this model.

LONG-TERM GOALS
DRAFT PHASE III SYSTEM CHANGES
(YRS 7-10)
VISION FOR
LEARNING IN NC
Student awareness and interest in STEM fields has grown overall.
Student learning in STEM fields has grown overall—performance,
matriculation through STEM programs, decreased postsecondary remediation
rates, etc.
STEM EDUCATION IS FLOURISHING:
Students and teachers understand what high-quality
STEM education looks like and they engage in it daily.
A sizeable proportion of NC students graduate and
enter into postsecondary STEM jobs and careers.
Teacher preparation programs prepare teachers for using strategies that
engage minds in the redesigned instructional environment.
Realigned teacher and administrator evaluation systems are designed with the
goal of developing the educators, and demonstrate coherence with other systems.
EDUCATORS PRACTICE HIGH-QUALITY
INSTRUCTION: Teachers and administrators
understand and practice the craft of high-quality
instruction, as defined and supported by decades of
research. Instruction is personalized, mastery-based,
integrated, and infused with projects and social-learning.
STEM curriculum and materials are high-quality and align with the new
education model.
Professional development is triggered by the new evaluation system and
also selected by teachers themselves. It is both formal and job-embedded.
Learning and collaboration time for teachers is increased, enabling more
time for teachers to plan and assess student learning, and learn.
SCHOOLS OPERATE IN A NEW WAY:
Schools are designed and operate such that they yield the
vision for NC students and schools. Learning is
personalized, mastery-based, integrated across subjects,
infused with projects, and uplifts the local community and
culture while illuminating other communities and cultures.
NC CITIZENS SUPPORT NEW
SCHOOLING: Parents, business people, school
boards, legislators, and all other citizens understand,
embrace, and actively support the new vision for schooling.
Adjusted daily school schedules that allow for sufficient learning time,
project-based learning opportunities, school-level flexibility, online learning
opportunities, etc.
Modified grading system that supports teachers to continually assess student
learning using a variety of measures. It is a mastery-based, personalized
learning measurement system.
Reduced standardized testing system in which standardized tests are less
frequent (e.g., 5th, 8th, subject specific in 10th, 11th, and 12th grades).
Findings from equity analyses are used to inform decisions, continuously improving designs and
implementation based on investigations into who benefits most and who benefits the least from policies and practices.
Teams continuously advocate for the provision of affordable internet and device access in every
home across North Carolina.
ALL NC K-12 students and their families experience a
school system that recognizes and grows the innate skills and
interests of every student, and that prepares students to be
independent, contributing members of their community—as
they define it from bottom up, not top down.

APPENDIX

This appendix highlights important work done by educators in North Carolina to reach the three priorities set out by the
2010 North Carolina STEM Education Strategic Plan. A myriad of high-quality, critical STEM education efforts have been
undertaken by committed, talented educators in schools, nonprofits, and other organizations across the state. This section
does not provide an exhaustive list of all excellent STEM education programs. Instead, highlighted programs and activities
serve as examples of successful efforts – the types that need to be maintained and supported into the future.
PRIORITY 1: INCREASING STUDENT, EDUCATOR, AND INSTITUTIONAL
STEM ACHIEVEMENT
The 2010 North Carolina STEM Education Strategic Plan’s first priority spelled out five goals toward which the state should work:
1. Increase student interest in STEM fields and in continuing their education
2. Increase STEM achievement of K-12 students
3. Increase the graduation rate of students in STEM programs
4. Decrease postsecondary remediation rates
5. Increase the number of teachers prepared and delivering integrated STEM education
To help achieve these goals, the plan proposed five strategies for the state to pursue. The tables list those strategies and
describe some of the relevant activities that were initiated over the last decade.
APPENDIX A. SELECTED NORTH CAROLINA STEM
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES SINCE 2010
STRATEGY 1: Adopt a set of
attributes for STEM schools and
programs, aligned with 21st
century skills, to assist public and
private organizations to align,
coordinate, and advance STEM
skills for all students.
In 201
1 the State Board of Education approved a set of STEM school attributes, developed as a
part of the 2010 STEM plan.87
These attributes created a common set of ideas and language that
describe what high-quality STEM education looks like.
STRATEGY 2: Identify a set of
measurable indicators along the
education-to-workforce continuum
to guide the current and future
implementation of the STEM
Education Strategic Plan.
The North Carolina Science, Mathematics, and Technology Center led the creation of a North
Carolina STEM Schools Scorecard in 2013, to begin capturing the STEM education assets and
needs across the state.88
The scorecard laid out a collection of 173 STEM education metrics across
five education and workforce domains to help describe and guide the implementation of the STEM
Education Strategic Plan. This scorecard was updated in 2017,89
and again in 2020. The latter
update was completed in a new format, with a series of 13 in-depth articles written and published
by a partnership of the North Carolina Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Center,
the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and the education journalism agency, EdNC.90
The articles
examined how salary, working conditions, and turnover affect STEM teacher quality, exceptional
STEM education programs like the outreach work of the North Carolina School for Science and
Mathematics, and educational access and opportunity work by PBS North Carolina television studio.
STRATEGY 3: Implement a
designation for STEM schools and
programs, aligned with the STEM
attributes, to drive the goals and
measures outlined within the STEM
Education Strategic Plan.
In the 2010 plan, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction built a STEM Schools of
Distinction program around the STEM program attributes previously approved by the State Board
of Education.91
It was created from 2012-18 in two developmental phases with partnership from
The NC STEM Learning Network, The Golden LEAF Foundation, and The Friday Institute for
Educational Innovation. The North Carolina STEM Schools of Distinction program lays out a
rigorous framework for transforming a traditional school into a high-quality “STEM school,” and
the department and the State Board of Education provide annual recognition for those schools
that achieve the highest levels of performance. As of fall 2021, the North Carolina State Board of
Education has given out 36 recognitions of distinction, and the program has gained a national
reputation and been replicated across multiple states.

STRATEGY 4: Identify high-quality tools and
supports—such as rubrics, self-assessments—
to enable schools, programs, and businesses
to advance consistent understanding and
application of the adopted STEM attributes.
The Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, with support from the Golden LEAF
Foundation and the North Carolina Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education
Center, developed performance measurement tools to support schools and programs
to build their STEM education work.92
These tools include STEM School Progress
Rubrics, performance measurement guides, surveys, and other protocols. From 2014 to
2018, the rubrics and surveys together had been requested for use by more than
6,000 educators and researchers from around the world.93
STRATEGY 5: Advance professional
development for pre-service and in-service
educators aligned with the integrated
pedagogy and project-based learning
methods of STEM teaching and learning.
North Carolina has numerous organizations and institutions that provide professional
development on STEM instructional practices. The most effective professional
development is ongoing, rigorous, relevant, and it includes pedagogical and content
knowledge.
PRIORITY 2: GAINING AND SUSTAINING BROADER COMMUNITY
UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT
This priority of the 2010 North Carolina STEM Education Strategic Plan proposes two goals toward which the state should work:
•Increase community understanding, awareness, and support for the economic challenges facing North Carolina early
in the 21st century.
• Increase the connections, partnerships, and growth of high-quality programs and schools.
To help achieve these goals, the plan also laid out three strategies for the state to pursue.
STRATEGY 6: Coordinate a public
awareness campaign in 100 counties, utilizing
public/private partnerships to inspire and
engage North Carolina citizens to respond to
economic challenges.
Starting in 2013, STEM education town halls were held in locations across North
Carolina, presenting the story of STEM education in North Carolina to community
members, community leaders, and educators. In the past 10 years, public campaigns
have expanded to include STEM community engagement events such as STEM Nights,
Museums@Home (virtual museum field trips), Computer Science for All, and booths at
community festivals.
STRATEGY 7: Identify and convene leading
programs, partners, and schools to advance
and highlight best practices in every North
Carolina county.
In 2010, the annual North Carolina Science Festival was launched. Now hosted each
year in all but a few of the state’s 100 counties, the festival has brought together
children, their families, community members, educators, and STEM professionals to
celebrate science. Since its inaugural year, more than 1 million North Carolinians
have participated in festival events. In 201
1, the North Carolina Association for
Biomedical Research launched the annual Bridging the Gap statewide STEM
education conference. This conference has brought together educators, business
leaders, government officials, and others who play a role in STEM education to share
ideas and resources and best practices in STEM education statewide. Held each year
since 201
1 and having become the premier STEM education conference in the state,
the conference today hosts thousands of attendees over three days each fall.
STRATEGY 8: Provide a one-stop action-
oriented web-based resource for students,
teachers, parents, and businesses to access
and get involved in STEM learning.
In 2014 the NC STEM Center website was created. With an average of 44,108 site
visits per year, the portal provides information about the importance of STEM
education and highlights notable efforts across the state. It catalogues high-quality
STEM education programming for students, families, educators, and citizens, and
showcases education programs and opportunities across North Carolina.

PRIORITY 3: CONNECTING, LEVERAGING, AND INCREASING STEM RESOURCES
Within its third priority to increase resources across public and private sectors to improve the economic future of the state’s
citizens, the 2010 North Carolina STEM Education Strategic Plan laid out two goals toward which the state should work:
•Increase returns on public and private investments in STEM education.
•Align and coordinate the investments of public and private sector partners to bring high-quality programs up to
scale efficiently.
To help achieve these goals, the plan also laid out four strategies for the state to pursue.
STRATEGY 9: Invest public and private
funds over the next 10 years to scale
effective STEM programs, policies, and
practices throughout every economic
development region of North Carolina.
Tremendous support for enhancing STEM education work has been provided by the public
and private sector across North Carolina. While exact data is not tracked by the state, one
estimate suggests that since 2010 roughly $35 million in funds to K-12 STEM programs has
been provided by a variety of North Carolina private foundations, family foundations,
corporate giving programs, and community foundations.94
STRATEGY 10: Identify and fund a
public/private partner for the
coordination, evaluation, and monitoring
of STEM education programs and
initiatives.
Various organizations have played a role in coordinating, evaluating, and monitoring STEM
education programs and initiatives but a single organization has not been funded. This
continues to be a necessary component for STEM education in North Carolina.
STRATEGY 11: Incentivize
collaborations based on evidence-based
policies, programs, and practices that
greatly increase the number of students
gaining STEM skills and continuing in
STEM fields of work
In 2012, STEM East was launched—an innovative program that facilitates direct, long-term
relationships between regional STEM industries and 12 school districts in the eastern region
of North Carolina. Through involvement of regional economic development councils,
employers, superintendents, foundations, and other partners, STEM East has built a network
of formal and informal STEM educators focused on preparing a workforce to meet the
needs of existing and emerging business and industry. In 2013, STEM West was similarly
launched, and by 2020 STEM West had grown into an educational and occupational
ecosystem supported by seven area school districts and more than 25 area employers and
industries. STEM West has worked with more than 500 educators, has impacted more than
5,000 students, and has engaged more than 40 local businesses with area schools.
Building upon the legacy of STEM East and STEM West, a third regional system, STEM SENC
(Southeastern North Carolina), was formed in 2018. This entity was launched specifically in
response to the international STEM Learning Ecosystems Community of Practice. STEM SENC
originally consisted of 27 partners, including schools, out-of-school learning organizations,
STEM-supporting organizations, business and industry organizations, higher education
partners, state government entities, and parent and family serving organizations. As of early
2021, STEM SENC had grown to more than 100 partners in 13 southeastern counties—
partners committed to providing access to aspirational STEM learning opportunities for all
learners and those who support them.
In 2019, myFutureNC was created with support from the John M. Belk Foundation, the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Goodnight Educational Foundation, for the express
purpose of increasing post-secondary educational attainment in North Carolina. As a
convenor, myFutureNC has brought together leaders from across the state’s education
continuum—from pre-school through adult learning—together with economic development
leaders to share information and address problems in a series of eight initiatives to stimulate
local, regional, and statewide change. These projects range from high school programs to
support college-and-career-ready graduation, to collaborative efforts to build longitudinal
data systems, to the creation of non-degree credentials in high-demand occupations.
STRATEGY 12: Establish a formal STEM
Council to facilitate and coordinate
implementation of North Carolina’s
comprehensive STEM Education
Strategic Plan.
This has not been established, but continues to be a necessary component for STEM
education in North Carolina.

NC STEM Plan 2035

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to NC STEM Plan 2035

Similar to NC STEM Plan 2035 (20)

More from EducationNC

More from EducationNC (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NC STEM Plan 2035