U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–235 PDF 2013

RAISING THE BAR: REVIEWING 

STEM EDUCATION IN AMERICA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 10, 2013 

Serial No. 113–12 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 10, 2013 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .......................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Kurtz, Bill, chief executive officer, DSST Public Schools, Denver, CO ........ 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Miaoulis, Dr. Ioannis, president and director, Museum of Science, Boston, 

MA; founding director, National Center for Technological Literacy ......... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Schneider, Steve, Ph.D., senior director, STEM Program, WestEd ............. 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Scott, George A., Director for Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .......................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

(1) 

RAISING THE BAR: REVIEWING 

STEM EDUCATION IN AMERICA 

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, 

Roby, Brooks, McCarthy, Davis, Polis, and Sablan. 

Also present: Representatives Holt and Bonamici. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary; 

Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services 

Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, 

Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Krisann Pearce, 

General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human 

Services Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Nicole Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy 

Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, 

Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Jeremy Ayers, Minority Education Policy 

Advisor; Meg Benner, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly 

Broughan, Minority Education Policy Associate; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; and Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel. 

Chairman ROKITA. A quorum being present, the subcommittee 

will come to order. Good morning, everyone. 

I would like to start by, as usual, thanking our panel of witnesses for joining us today. This hearing provides a valuable opportunity to discuss the state of science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics—or STEM, as we call it—education in America. 

In the past 10 years the number of STEM jobs grew three times 

faster than non-STEM jobs. In the next 10 years the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics expects the United States to create 9.2 million jobs 

in STEM fields. 

STEM occupations offer the kind of competitive wages this nation needs to drive our economic recovery. On average, STEM 

workers earn 26 percent more than their counterparts. 
2 

Unfortunately, the supply of workers with the skills needed to fill 

these in-demand positions has fallen short. Many job creators and 

economists have raised concerns that schools are not adequately 

preparing students for careers in high-demand STEM fields. 

Recent studies have ranked the math and science achievement of 

American students far behind students of other developed nations. 

According to a 2010 National Academies Report, the United States 

ranks 27th among developed countries in the proportion of college 

students’ earning bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering. 

The federal government has tried to take an active role in improving STEM education, but recent reports have shown that taxpayers’ multi-billion dollar investments are failing to produce the 

results that were expected. The Government Accountability Office 

found in fiscal year 2010 that 209 programs operated by 13 different agencies invested over $3 billion in efforts designed to increase knowledge of STEM fields and attainment of STEM degrees. 

The GAO further found that 83 percent of the programs identified 

overlap with at least one other program and many of the programs 

lacked any sort of strategic plan or accountability standards. 

In 2010 the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found STEM education programs across several agencies 

lacked coherent vision or careful oversight of goals and outcomes. 

These findings are not entirely surprising, unfortunately. Too 

often we see taxpayer dollars invested in efforts to tackle our critical issues but we rarely see a return on the investment. Instead 

our problems are exacerbated by a growing maze of bureaucratic 

programs that have no clear strategy or vision. 

For this reason, before we jump simply into creating new federal 

initiatives, we suggest we must first evaluate our existing STEM 

education programs. We must ensure our federal resources are 

used more efficiently to give students the opportunity to embrace 

and succeed in science, technology, engineering, and math subjects. 

America, as we all know and should feel, is renowned for innovation. Throughout our history, we have encouraged the kind of visionary thinking that led Orville and Wilbur Wright to build and 

successfully fly the world’s first airplane, Dr. Jonas Salk to discover 

the vaccine for polio, and Steve Jobs to change the world right from 

his parents’ garage. 

These remarkable inventions have improved our daily lives and 

helped this country rise to greatness. In order for the United States 

to continue to be a global leader we must find better ways to help 

our children pursue the jobs of the 21st century so that we can 

compete in the 21st century and win. 

In my state of Indiana, and specifically my 4th District which I 

represent, is the home to one of the finest institutions for preparing 

American leaders in the STEM fields. It is called Purdue University. 

Purdue is known as the ‘‘cradle of astronauts’’ because 23 alumni 

have served as astronauts. These include Neil Armstrong and Gene 

Cernan, the first and last astronauts to walk on the moon. 

And so as we discuss how to prepare the children of tomorrow 

for STEM jobs, members of the Purdue community and people all 

across Indiana and I hope this nation will be paying particularly 

close attention. I look forward to learning how we can enhance our 
3 

STEM education efforts and discussing opportunities for improvement. 

And now I will yield to my distinguished colleague and ranking 

member, Carolyn McCarthy, for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Mr. Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

Good morning. I’d like to start by thanking our panel of witnesses for joining us 

today. This hearing provides a valuable opportunity to discuss the state of science, 

technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, education in America. 

In the past 10 years the number of STEM jobs grew three times faster than nonSTEM jobs. In the next 10 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects the United 

States to create 9.2 million jobs in STEM fields. 

STEM occupations offer the kind of competitive wages this nation needs to drive 

our economic recovery. On average, STEM workers earn 26 percent more than their 

counterparts. 

Unfortunately, the supply of workers with the skills needed to fill these in-demand positions has fallen short. Many job creators and economists have raised concerns that schools are not adequately preparing students for careers in high-demand 

STEM fields. 

Recent studies have ranked the math and science achievement of American students far behind students of other developed nations. According to a 2010 National 

Academies Report, the United States ranks 27th among developed countries in the 

proportion of college students earning bachelor’s degrees in science or engineering. 

The federal government has taken an active role in improving STEM education, 

but recent reports have shown that taxpayers’ multi-billion dollar investments are 

failing to produce results. The Government Accountability Office found in Fiscal 

Year 2010, 209 programs operated by 13 different agencies invested over $3 billion 

in efforts designed to increase knowledge of STEM fields and attainment of STEM 

degrees. 

GAO further found that 83 percent of the programs identified overlap with at 

least one other program, and many of the programs lacked any sort of strategic plan 

or accountability standards. 

In 2010 the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found 

STEM education programs across several agencies lacked a coherent vision or careful oversight of goals and outcomes. 

These findings are not entirely surprising. Too often we see taxpayer dollars invested in efforts to tackle our critical issues, but we rarely see a return on this investment. Instead our problems are exacerbated by a growing maze of bureaucratic 

programs that have no clear strategy or vision. 

For this reason, before we jump to simply create new federal initiatives, we must 

first evaluate our existing STEM education programs. We must ensure our federal 

resources are used more efficiently to give students the opportunity to embrace and 

succeed in STEM subjects. 

America is renowned for innovation. Throughout our history, we have encouraged 

the kind of visionary thinking that led Orville and Wilbur Wright to build and successfully fly the world’s first airplane, Dr. Jonas Salk to discover the vaccine for 

polio, and Steve Jobs to change the world right from his parents’ garage with the 

first personal computer. 

These remarkable inventions have improved our daily lives and helped this country rise to greatness. In order for the United States to continue to be a global leader, 

we must find better ways to help our children pursue the jobs of the future. 

My state of Indiana, and specifically the 4th District, which I represent, is home 

to one of the finest institutions for preparing American leaders in the STEM fields— 

Purdue University. Purdue is known as the ‘‘cradle of astronauts,’’ because 23 alumni have served as astronauts. These include Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, the 

first and last astronauts to walk on the moon. And so as we discuss how to prepare 

the children of tomorrow for STEM jobs, members of the Purdue community and 

folks all across Indiana will be paying particularly close attention. 

I look forward to learning how we can enhance our STEM education efforts and 

discussing opportunities for improvement. I will now yield to my distinguished colleague, Carolyn McCarthy, for her opening remarks. 
4 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

calling this hearing. It is extremely important. 

And I want to say thank you to the witnesses. We are looking 

forward to your testimony even though we have already read it, 

but I think it is a great opportunity to educate us on this issue as 

we go forward. 

I am happy to say that being that I am on this Education Committee for all these years, when my grandson was born I was determined to make him a scientist. And I am happy to say that for the 

last 5 years he has been going to Hofstra University, even though 

he is only in 12th grade, taking science and math courses. 

So we are going forward, but there have got to be a lot more 

young people getting interested in these subjects. 

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, as 

the chairman said, education is a worthwhile investment that the 

Congress must consider furthering. The 21st century 

economyeconomics will be driven by innovation, and STEM education is the key to meeting global needs. 

Nationally there are some positive trends in STEM education. 

Enrollments are up 35 percent in science and engineering fields 

over the last decade, and generally, enrollments are up among minorities, as well. 

That said, there are still looming concerns. As a nation we are 

not faring as well as we could be in comparison to other countries. 

There are still significant achievement gaps among minorities and 

there are real concerns that this country may not be able to meet 

STEM labor demands as we go forward. 

Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee can and must commit to addressing these concerns. 

Moreover, I firmly believe that a majority, if not all, of these 

issues can be solved with more robust investment in K-12 STEM 

education. 

Today there are approximately a couple hundred federal programs across 13 agencies related to STEM education. These programs receive around $3 billion from Congress annually. 

However, more than half of that money is dedicated to post-secondary education efforts. That leaves a considerably smaller 

amount of money dedicated to K-12 STEM education. 

Over the course of this hearing you may hear suggestions from 

my friends on the other side of the aisle that we must remove dedicated funding streams for STEM education. While our first GAO 

testimony suggested that there was redundancy among STEM education programs, a 2012 GAO study inventory concluded that 

STEM programs were not necessarily redundant because they 

serve different constituencies. 

I think we can all agree if there is redundancy we should better 

align programs across all agencies. Today the White House has released a budget that responds to the finding of the 2012 GAO’s report by consolidating certain STEM programs while maintaining 

roughly the same top-line investment. 

Scaling back federal investment is not a sound policy when we 

come to education. Eliminating programs would only further 

squeeze limited elementary and secondary resources that must 
5 

make it difficult for states to leverage unique federal programs to 

promote a national STEM agenda. 

The Democratic approach to ESEA should be looked at as a 

model for STEM education. It ensures that students are still being 

assessed in science and it provides dedicated funding to STEM education while giving states and districts the flexibility to use those 

funds as they think best. 

Rather than focus the efforts of this subcommittee on removing 

and, in my opinion, undermining STEM programs, we should focus 

on innovative solutions. 

I support increasing coordination among agencies and programs 

and promoting a federal STEM educational plan. I was proud to 

support the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act that called 

for the development of a 5-year STEM educational strategy and am 

looking forward to seeing that final project. 

Recently, researchers reviewed over 400 documents to get a 

sense of what factors improve minority achievement gaps in STEM. 

That research yielded that an increased presence of qualified teachers and increased family engagement contributed to the success of 

students in STEM subjects. 

We have found from research and data that having the families 

involved is probably one of the most important things for all education levels. I am working with stakeholders currently to craft legislation to promote family engagement in education. 

Studies show that students lose academic skills, especially math, 

over the course of a long break, like the summer. As such, we must 

look to families to help bridge these gaps in formal instruction. 

I would like to close on one final note. As this subcommittee discusses the valuable investment and the best use of appropriations 

for STEM education, I would be remiss not to mention the importance of investment in early education. 

Just a few weeks back I introduced a Pre-K Act that would provide grants to localities nationwide to improve the number of highquality early educational teachers and promote a research-based 

course of study. Early childhood investments like these are the 

building blocks to a successful and well-prepared workforce. We 

mustn’t lose sight of that theme today. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for calling this committee hearing. I find them all, so far, very educational. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, or STEM, education is a 

worthwhile investment that the Congress must consider furthering. 

In a 21st century economy driven by innovation, STEM education is the key to 

meeting global needs. 

Nationally, there are some positive trends in STEM education. 

Enrollments are up 35% in science and engineering fields over the last decade and 

generally enrollments are up amongst minorities as well. 

That said, there are still looming concerns. 

As a nation, we are not faring as well as we should in comparison to other countries. 

There are still significant achievement gaps among minorities and there are real 

concerns that this country may not be able to meet STEM labor demands going forward. 
6 

Mr. Chairman, this Subcommittee can and must commit to addressing these con- cerns. Moreover, I firmly believe that a majority, if not all, of these issues can be solved 

with more robust investment in K through 12 STEM education. 

Today, there are approximately a couple hundred federal programs across 13 

agencies related to STEM education. These programs receive around $3 billion from Congress annually. 

However, more than half of that money is dedicated to post-secondary educational 

efforts. 

That leaves a considerably smaller amount of money dedicated to K through 12 

STEM education 

Over the course of this hearing you may hear suggestions from my friends on the 

other side of the aisle that we must remove dedicated funding streams for STEM 

education. 

While at first GAO testimony suggested that there was redundancy among STEM 

education programs, a 2012 GAO inventory concluded that STEM programs were 

not necessarily redundant because they serve different constituencies. 

I think we can all agree that if there is redundancy we should better align programs across agencies. 

Today, the White House released a budget that responds to the findings of the 

2012 GAO report by consolidating certain STEM programs while maintaining 

roughly the same top-line investment. 

Scaling back federal investment is not a sound policy. 

Eliminating programs would only further squeeze limited elementary and secondary resources thus making it difficult for states to leverage unique federal benefits and promote a national STEM agenda. 

The Democratic approach to E-S-E-A should be looked at as a model for STEM 

education. 

Unlike the Republican approach, it ensures that students are still being assessed 

in Science and it provides dedicated funding for STEM education, while still giving 

states and districts flexibility to use those funds as they think best. 

Rather than focus the efforts of this Subcommittee on removing and, in my opinion, undermining STEM programs, we should focus on innovative solutions. 

I support increasing coordination among agencies and programs and promoting a 

federal STEM education plan. 

I was proud to support the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act that called 

for the development of a 5 year STEM educational strategy and I look forward to 

seeing that final product. 

Recently, researchers reviewed over 400 documents to get a sense of what factors 

improve minority achievement gaps in STEM. 

That research yielded that an increased presence of qualified teachers and increased family engagement contributed to the success of students in STEM subjects. 

I support consideration to help increase the amount of qualified STEM teachers 

in classrooms. 

And I am working with stakeholders currently to craft legislation to promote family engagement in education. 

Studies show that students lose academic skills, especially math, over the course 

of long breaks, like summer. 

As such, we must look to families to help bridge these gaps in formal instruction. 

I’d like to close on one final note. 

As this Subcommittee discusses the value of investment and the best use of appropriations for STEM education, I would be remiss to not mention the importance of 

investment in early education. 

Just a few weeks back I introduced the Pre-K Act that would provide grants to 

localities nationwide to improve the number of high quality early childhood educators and promote a research based course of study. 

Early-childhood investments like these are the building blocks to a successful and 

well-prepared workforce; we mustn’t lose sight of that theme today. 

Thank You. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlewoman. And I will knock on 

wood that they will remain that way—these hearings. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. They will. 

Chairman ROKITA. And by the way, it was your nephew who is 

studying at a university now? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Grandson. 
7 

Chairman ROKITA. Grandson. I would like to take him to Purdue 

at some point when he is ready. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. That depends on how much money he has. 

Chairman ROKITA. We do need the out-of-state tuition. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c) all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions 

for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

First we have Mr. George Scott. He is the director for education, 

workforce, and income security with the GAO. With over 23 years 

of experience in public service he has testified before the House 

and the Senate on the agency’s work around K-12 education and 

student financial aid programs. 

Welcome, Mr. Scott. 

Next we have Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis. 

Did I do that okay? 

He is the president and director of the Museum of Science in 

Boston. In addition, he has served in a series of posts at Tufts University as well as advisory boards for the Institute for Museum and 

Library Services and NASA. 

Welcome, sir. 

Next we have Dr. Steve Schneider. He is the senior program director of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

program at WestEd. He has over 35 years of STEM education experience, including as an educator and through various research 

projects. 

Welcome, Doctor. 

And then finally, we have Mr. Bill Kurtz. He is the chief executive officer of the Denver School of Science and Technology, or 

DSST, a network of five charter middle and high schools that specialize in STEM education. He was the founding head of the flagship school in the network. Before joining DSST he served as the 

principal of Link Community Schools in Newark, New Jersey. 

Welcome. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

explain the lighting system; 5 minutes to speak in total. Mr. Scott 

is already smiling; he has done this many times before. 

Green means go. Yellow, if we set it up here right, means 1 

minute to go. And red means stop. It doesn’t mean begin to stop 

or think about the conclusion; it means stop. 

And I say that more for us up here than you over there, but it 

is good for all of us. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Scott for 5 minutes. Sir? 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. SCOTT, DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I 

am pleased to be here today to discuss the findings from our report 
8 

on federally funded science, technology, engineering, and math education programs. 

These programs can play an important role in helping to prepare 

students for careers in STEM fields and enhancing the nation’s 

global competitiveness. In addition to the federal effort, state and 

local governments, universities, and the private sector have also 

developed programs that provide opportunities for students to pursue STEM education. 

Over the years, Congress and the executive branch have continued to create new STEM programs even though little is known 

about how well existing programs are working. My testimony focuses on the number of federal agencies and programs that provided funding for STEM education, the extent to which these programs overlapped, and the extent to which programs measured 

their effectiveness. 

As we reported last year, 13 agencies administered 209 STEM 

education programs in fiscal year 2010. The number of programs 

each agency administered ranged from three to 46 with three agencies—the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation—administering more than half of all programs. 

Agencies obligated over $3 billion to STEM education programs. 

As shown in this figure, the National Science Foundation and the 

Department of Education programs accounted for over half of this 

funding. Almost a third of the programs had obligations of $1 million or less, with five programs having obligations of more than 

$100 million each. 

Having multiple agencies involved in delivering STEM education 

has both advantages and disadvantages. For example, this ap-
9 

proach could allow agencies to tailor programs to suit their specific 

missions and to attract new employees to their workforce. However, 

it can make it challenging to develop a coherent federal approach 

to STEM education. 

As shown in the next figure, 83 percent of STEM education programs overlapped to some degree with another program. These programs range from being narrowly focused on a specific group or 

field of study to offering a range of services to students and teachers across STEM fields. This complicated patchwork of overlapping 

programs has largely resulted from federal efforts to both create 

and expand programs across many agencies in an effort to improve 

STEM education and increase the number of students going into 

STEM fields. 

It is important to note, however, that even when programs overlapped we found that the services they provided and the populations they served may differ in meaningful ways and would, 

therefore, not necessarily be duplicative. There may be important 

differences between the specific fields of focus and a program’s stated purpose. 

In addition, programs may be primarily intended to serve different populations within a target group—for example, certain 

underrepresented, minority, or disadvantaged groups, or students 

in specific geographic areas. Furthermore, individuals may receive 

assistance from different STEM programs at various points 

throughout their academic careers that provide services that complement rather than duplicate each other. 

In addition to overlap among federal STEM education efforts, 

agencies’ limited use of performance measures and evaluations may 

hamper their ability to determine the effectiveness of their pro-
10 

grams. For example, we found that most agencies did not use 

STEM outcome measures in a way that is clearly reflected in their 

agency performance plans. Also, as shown in the next figure, the 

majority of programs had not conducted comprehensive evaluations 

since 2005 to determine their effectiveness. 

Last year we made a number of recommendations to help improve the coordination and evaluation of federal STEM education. 

The Administration has made some progress in addressing these 

recommendations. For example, in 2012 the Administration identified a number of programs that could be eliminated. 

Additionally, STEM education was identified as a cross-agency 

priority goal in the President’s 2013 budget. However, a key step 

in improving coordination across programs—issuance of a government-wide STEM education strategic plan—has been delayed. 

By further identifying programs for consolidation or elimination, 

the Administration could increase the efficient use of limited federal resources. Also, it is imperative that the Administration develop a strategic plan that aligns agencies’ efforts to achieve government-wide goals, enhances the ability to determine program effectiveness, and concentrates resources on those programs that advance the strategy in a cost-effective manner. 

Without these actions, federal agencies may spend funds in an 

inefficient and ineffective manner that ultimately may hinder efforts to improve STEM education. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this time. 

Thank you. 
11 

[The statement of Mr. Scott may be accessed at the following 

Internet address:] 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653661.pdf 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Dr. Miaoulis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. IOANNIS MIAOULIS, PRESIDENT AND 

DIRECTOR, MUSEUM OF SCIENCE, BOSTON 

Mr. MIAOULIS. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member, and members of the committee. It is an honor 

to be invited to discuss K-12 STEM education, which is vital to our 

nation’s ability to create a first-class, competitive, and innovative 

workforce. 

I have been asked to discuss our work at the Museum of Science, 

Boston and the success of our National Center for Technological 

Literacy. But first, let’s look at the big picture. 

There is a widespread concern that our nation’s preeminence in 

science and innovation is eroding. Only 5 percent of U.S. college 

graduates major in engineering, compared with 12 percent of European students and 20 percent of those in Asia. And we all know 

that our elementary and secondary school students lag behind 

many nations on international math and science assessments. 

The introduction of engineering education in K-12 has the potential to improve student achievement in science and mathematics, 

increase awareness about engineering careers, and boost students’ 

technology and engineering literacy, according to the National 

Academies report, ‘‘Engineering in K-12 Education.’’ 

While exposure to formal engineering education has increased 

over the past 15 years, reaching several million K-12 students, 

most students in the U.S. have never experienced an engineering 

course or lesson. Too many have no idea what an engineer even 

does. 

Engineering isn’t the only crucial STEM discipline that is missing in our K-12 classrooms. Of the 9.2 million jobs that will be 

waiting for STEM graduates in the year 2020, half of them will be 

in computing and I.T. jobs. But only 2,000 of the 40,000 high 

schools in the country offer an A.P. computer science course. 

We are now working with the computer science education community, including Computing in the Core and MASSCan, to increase demand for and interest in K-12 computer science in Massachusetts and across the country. 

So why the Museum of Science? One of the museum’s primary 

missions is to promote and be a resource for the advancement of 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—STEM—education. 

As a premier venue of public learning experiences, the Museum 

of Science welcomes 1.5 million visitors each year and serves as the 

go-to place for educators, students, and the public interested in exploring the relationship between science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics through exhibits, planetarium shows, live presentations, courses, and interactive programs for all ages and abilities. 
12 

But we are unique in that we play a major role in formal K-12 engineering instruction, as well. 

In 2004 we established the National Center for Technological Literacy, NCTL, at the museum in response to the new Massachusetts 

science and technology and engineering standards supported by 

business and industry. We realized there were very few instructional materials for teachers to use, so we embarked on a mission 

to create K-12 engineering curricula and teacher professional development programs. We aim to introduce all children, starting in the 

very early ages, to engineering as an equal to science. 

Most K-12 science curriculum focuses almost entirely on the natural world and ignores the human-made world. But more than 98 

percent of our daily life is driven by the engineered world. 

Students need relevant, hands-on, and rigorous experiences that 

allow them to apply their knowledge and skills. This leads to better 

retention and understanding of why these subjects are important. 

The engineering design process challenges teachers and students 

to solve problems with limited resources, just like real engineers. 

The NCTL partners with industry, school administrators, and formal and informal education across the U.S. to introduce engineering design as a problem-solving process, to deliver cutting-edge engineering curricular resources, and to provide relevant pre-service 

and in-service teacher professional development programs and 

tools. 

Basically we use a constructivist theory by professionally—professional development method is unique because we require teachers to learn a grade-appropriate engineering design process and 

then we ask them to actually design a technology to solve a community-based problem, which also would be expected by the students in the class. This is new for most teachers because often 

there is no one right answer. 

We also conduct district leadership institutes to help develop integrative STEM action plans for schools. 

We have worked with many states, including Minnesota, Purdue 

University in particular, Arizona, Minnesota, Indiana, New Jersey, 

Texas, Alabama, New York, and many others. And our engineering 

curricula and teacher training have reached over 48, about 50,000 

students and an estimated 50,000 teachers, and an estimated 5 

million students, including some attending Department of Defense 

schools. 

Sources of funding—we have numerous funders from industry. 

Only 5 percent of our operating budget comes from competitive federal grants; 95 percent comes from contributions, admissions, membership, and program fees. 

Some of our corporate partners include Raytheon, Google, 

Genzyme, Biogen, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, and Lockheed Martin. 

Working together, we are engineering a better world for generations to come. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Miaoulis follows:] 
13 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis, President and Director, Museum of Science, Boston, MA; Founding Director, National Center for 

Technological Literacy 

Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of 

the Committee. It is an honor to be invited to discuss K-12 STEM education, which 

is vital to our nation’s ability to create a first-class, competitive, and innovative 

workforce. 

I have been asked to discuss our work at the Museum of Science, Boston and the 

success of our National Center for Technological Literacy(r) (NCTL(r)). First, let’s 

look at the big picture. 

National STEM Concerns 

There is a widespread concern that our nation’s preeminence in science and innovation is eroding. Only 5% of U.S. college graduates major in engineering, compared 

with 12% of European students, and 20% of those in Asia. And we all know that 

our elementary and secondary school students lag behind many nations on international math and science assessments. 

The introduction of engineering education in K-12 has the potential to improve 

student achievement in science and mathematics, increase awareness about engineering careers, and boost students’ technology and engineering literacy, according 

to the National Academies report, ‘‘Engineering in K-12 Education.’’ 

While exposure to formal engineering education has increased over the past 15 

years, reaching several million K-12 students, most students in the U.S. have never 

experienced an engineering course or lesson. Too many have no idea what an engineer even does. 

Engineering isn’t the only crucial STEM discipline that is missing in our K-12 

classrooms. Of the 9.2 million jobs that will be waiting for STEM graduates in the 

year 2020, half of them will be in computing and IT jobs. But only 2,000 of the 

40,000 high schools in the country offer an AP Computer Science course. We are 

now working with the computer science education community, including Computing 

in the Core and MASSCan, to increase demand for and interest in K-12 computer 

science in Massachusetts and across the country. 

So Why the Museum of Science? 

One of the Museum’s primary missions is to promote and be a resource for the 

advancement of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. As a premiere venue of public learning experiences, the Museum of Science 

welcomes 1.5 million visitors each year and serves as the go-to place for educators, 

students, and the public interested in exploring the relationship between science, 

technology and engineering and math through exhibits, planetarium shows, live 

presentations, courses, and interactive programs for all ages and abilities. But we 

are unique in that we play an outsized role in formal K-12 engineering instruction 

as well. 

The National Center for Technological Literacy 

In 2004, we established the National Center for Technological Literacy (NCTL) at 

the Museum in response to the new Massachusetts state science, technology and engineering standards supported by business and industries in the state. We realized 

there were very few instructional materials for teachers to use so we embarked on 

a mission to create K-12 engineering curricula and teacher professional development 

(PD) programs. We aim to introduce all children, starting in the very early years, 

to engineering as an equal to science. 

Most K-12 science curriculum focuses almost entirely on the natural world and 

ignores the human-made world. But more than 98% of our daily life is driven by 

the engineering world. Students need relevant, hands-on and rigorous experiences 

that allow them to apply their knowledge and skills; this leads to better retention 

and understanding of why these subjects are important. The engineering design 

process challenges teachers and students to solve problems with limited resources, 

just like real engineers. 

The NCTL partners with industry, school administrators, and formal and informal 

educators, across the U.S. to introduce engineering design as a problem-solving 

process, to deliver cutting-edge engineering curricular resources, and to provide relevant pre-service and in-service teacher PD programs and tools. Our PD method is 

unique because we require teachers to learn a grade-appropriate engineering design 

process and then we ask them actually design a technology to solve a communitybased problem that would be expected of their students in class. This is new for 

most teachers because often there is no one right answer. We also conduct district 

leadership institutes to help develop integrative STEM action plans for schools. 
14 

For example, we worked with the Minnesota Department of Education to embed 

engineering into their science standards. We have collaborated with Purdue University on early engineering education research. We are creating out-of-school engineering units for afterschool programs in California. We have PD partners in Minnesota, 

Arizona, Indiana, New Jersey, Texas, Alabama, New York, and more. Our engineering curricula and teacher training have reached over 48,800 teachers and an estimated 5 million students, including some attending Department of Defense schools. 

We have also partnered with the European Union. 

How do we do it? Sources of Funding 

Approximately 5% of our operating budget comes from competitive federal grants. 

These are important because they leverage corporate and philanthropic dollars. For 

example, our Engineering is Elementary(r) curriculum received some federal support but has attracted nearly four times as much in corporate and foundation support for teachers, dissemination, and development of supplemental materials. 

The remaining 95% of our operating budget comes from contributions, admissions, 

membership, and program fees. Corporate partners include, for instance, Raytheon, 

which provides scholarships to educators to participate in our engineering workshops and funded the establishment of 3 additional training sites. Google invested 

$1 million for the development of our Pixar animation and computer science exhibit. 

Liberty Mutual has funded the development of math lessons for Engineering is Elementary. Genzyme established an endowment for biotechnology education and has 

long supported our teacher sabbatical program. Biogen Idec recently established an 

endowment to support middle and high school hands-on STEM education. And 

Microsoft & Cisco have provided critical hardware & software to the Museum. 

Working together, we are engineering a better world for generations to come. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Schneider, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVE SCHNEIDER, SENIOR PROGRAM 

DIRECTOR, WESTED, SAN FRANCISCO 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Members of the subcommittee, I really appreciate—oh, excuse me—— 

Chairman ROKITA. I am sorry. Hit your mic there. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Members of the subcommittee, I really appreciate the opportunity to address you today. My perspective on 

STEM education is based on my 40 years in this discipline. The 

first 10 years I was a—over 10 years, a science teacher and math 

teacher in low-performing urban districts in California, followed by 

working at two universities in teacher education, and then over 20 

years ago I started the STEM program at WestEd, focusing my 

work around R&D. 

WestEd is a national, not-for-profit research and development 

agency that is over 40 years old. Through rigorous research, service, and partnerships, our staff addresses many issues in human 

development, from birth to senior care, and education from preservice to the world of work. 

WestEd is also a member of the Knowledge Alliance, a consortia 

of leading national education R&D agencies that work to assure 

that education practices are informed by research. 

Within my STEM education program at WestEd, I have 75 staff 

working on dozens of projects that are wide-ranging in research 

and development, innovation, and professional development. 

Let me begin by saying I am sure everyone here believes STEM 

education is critical to our nation’s future. In short, STEM education is a keystone to three things: being college ready, career 

ready, and being ready to succeed in everyday life. 
15 

We need more rigorous STEM education that empowers more 

students to be college and career ready. In each of these, STEM 

education is important that we reach all students, including diverse students. Equity is always a matter of fairness in our democracy. 

As a convenience, today I am using the acronym, STEM—science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics. However, there are 

some big disadvantages and advantages to this. The great news is 

that STEM includes all the disciplines. 

Now, increasingly we are beginning to address the needs of technology in education, as was pointed out by the previous speaker. 

But as we look across the STEM disciplines in our schools, 

mathematic has received a lot of attention, including ongoing assessments. On the other hand, late research has shown that 

science is actually receiving less—not more—attention in the last 

decade. 

An exciting development is a recent start of more technology in 

education, as mentioned by the Boston Museum. And federal leadership, I feel, is really needed to pry S-T-E-and-M education out of 

their silos and further to foster the balance of the STEM system 

that connects teaching and learning to STEM across all instruction. 

I organize my—ideas for federal leadership in three areas. The 

first one is rigorous research and development. The field needs 

more of basic research, and by ‘‘basic research’’ I mean research 

using cognitive science and things like that to learn how people 

think and learn. 

By ‘‘applied research’’ I mean studies of effectiveness of educational intervention. In recent years, there has been an expansion 

in this and I would like to provide a few examples. 

On the federally-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

Ready to Learn Grant we conducted a home study in Richmond, 

California at a Head Start program. We found after 8 weeks of an 

intervention with preschool students that the students that got the 

intervention showed significant differences in mathematics learning over the control group. 

In another federally-funded IES National Center for Cognition 

and Math Instruction, where I am the principal investigator, we 

are integrating cognitive science principles from the IES practice 

guides into existing math curriculum to improve student learning. 

On an NSF study we conducted a study of the impact of literacy 

in biology classrooms in urban settings. We found that Latino and 

African-American students that had teachers that had this intervention did significantly better than the control group on the state 

test in biology and in literacy. 

What is important to note is none of these studies would have 

happened without federal support. However, as the principal investigator of the What Works Clearinghouse in science, there really 

isn’t a lot of this research that has been done until recent years. 

Two challenges remain. One is, sequestration is already hitting 

IES and NSF for fiscal year 2013 funding and the Ready to Learn 

program is also going to experience these reductions and may also 

not be reauthorized. The second concern is that basic research may 

not be supported. 
16 

The second note is around the preparation of the development of 

STEM teachers. Obviously we need more teachers that are betterprepared, and also induction programs that match what happens 

in other countries. 

On professional development, it has almost disappeared from our 

schools. The number of professional development programs and 

funding, especially in the time of Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards, really needs to be looked at. 

In concluding, I would like to note that in my written testimony 

I do list a number of policy implications that I think may be considered. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Mr. Schneider follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Steve Schneider, Ph.D., 

Senior Director, STEM Program, WestEd 

Importance of STEM Education 

Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you 

today. I’m sure that everyone here believes that STEM education is critical for our 

nation’s future for many reasons, for example: 

To ensure our nation’s youth are college and career ready. It is critical for ensuring that more of our young people will be equipped to pursue high paying STEM 

jobs, ones that currently are going unfilled far too often.1 I do not refer only to needing enough advanced degree holders; many of our unfilled STEM slots in the job 

market require more students to pursue and succeed at STEM programs at the community college and four-year levels. This is key to our economic competitiveness in 

the world. For a few decades now, international comparisons have been helping us 

monitor whether U.S. STEM education is resulting in strong student achievement 

in mathematics and science that is needed for college and career readiness.2 Most 

analysts conclude that there is a strong opportunity and need for more robust STEM 

achievement. 

To develop STEM literacy for everyday life. The STEM fields are steadily bringing 

many big and small changes in everyday life. We need a constantly refreshed, 

strong STEM education that leads to every high school graduate being STEM literate, in ways consistent with 21st Century Skills. STEM literacy is becoming more 

and more indispensible for a person to thrive in today’s world. It’s also indispensible 

for our nation to have STEM literate citizens guiding how STEM developments 

should and should not unfold. 

To ensure that all students have access to the best STEM preparation. Because 

our nation has diverse peoples, STEM education must be equally effective for students of all races and ethnicities, for both girls and boys, in both urban and rural 

areas. Currently, there are many achievement and opportunity gaps in success 

among our diverse students. A good portion of federal funding for STEM should continue to leverage attention to promoting equity and success for diverse students. Of 

course, equity always will be a matter of fairness in our democracy. However, my 

state of California has already become minority-majority and this shift in demographics will occur across the nation in short order. Therefore, effectively teaching 

all students is not only about fairness; it also is a national economic necessity to 

have enough students from every background choosing to enter STEM college and 

career paths and succeeding at them. 

In short, a STEM education that is relevant and rigorous is a keystone for anyone 

and everyone to be college ready, career ready, or ready for succeeding in their everyday lives. 

In my testimony, I make the case that strong, continuous but evolving leadership 

from the federal government is indispensible. And the needed federal efforts to catalyze, leverage and support changes in STEM education must adapt to changes in 

the challenges that we will face in STEM education, and do so in ways that are strategic, aligned and efficient. 

Internationally Competitive STEM (not SteM) 

It is important to take a moment to clarify what we mean by ‘‘STEM.’’ As a convenience, I am using today’s common acronym ‘‘STEM’’ to refer to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. However, there are some big advantages and 

big problems with the pervasive use of this phrase today. 
17 

The great news is that ‘‘STEM’’ includes all of these subjects. In the past, the education field focused primarily on science and mathematics. Now, increasingly we 

also are beginning to address the need for technology and engineering education in 

grades K-12. 

A problem with the wide talk about ‘‘STEM’’ is that it may be desensitizing us 

to the fact that not enough is happening yet across all of these subjects: • Mathematics is receiving appropriate, strong attention because it is one of the 

most accountable school subjects in our states’ standards and assessments, and it 

can be either a gateway or a barrier to learning other STEM subjects. • On the other hand, science is actually receiving less—not more—attention than 

it did a decade ago.3 For years now, I’ve regularly heard colleagues in science education say something like ’science education has become a second-class citizen in the 

U.S. STEM agenda when compared to mathematics.’ That this is the case is alarming on its own, but especially so because it is not similarly happening among our 

peer nations. I urge policy makers to strengthen attention to science without diminishing attention to mathematics. There isn’t much point in getting students through 

the gateway of mathematics, without also providing high-level expectations for 

achievement in science and opportunities for attaining them. • An exciting development is a recent start on more clearly adding technology and 

engineering to our U. S. education agenda, spurred by the leadership of federal policy efforts and calls from the private sector. Some peer nations already have had 

a strong spotlight on T&E, but these subjects are now getting on our school map. 

For example, the first update of national science standards in over a decade, scheduled to be released this week, will include strong calls for explicit inclusion of specific technology and engineering content within the nation’s science instruction, in 

an integrated way.4

There is not enough qualified technology and engineering teachers, and it’s difficult to make room in the school day for whole new T&E courses that all students 

would take. Consequently, policy makers are leveraging the nation’s science teachers en masse in the next few years to add these subjects to their curriculum in an 

integrated fashion.5,6 Teachers and districts in most states have no preparation or 

experience for this. Therefore, federal investment is needed to support curriculum 

development, changes in teacher preparation, curriculum integration, professional 

development, and assessments. 

Finally, an advantage of the term ‘‘STEM’’ is that it inherently suggests making 

connections in teaching among these subjects. That’s important because these subjects are in fact connected in the work that goes on in STEM businesses and STEM 

research. Unfortunately, our typical K-12 STEM course structures and sequences 

and our staffing of them can be a barrier to teaching STEM in an integrated way, 

especially at the high school level. Federal leadership is needed to pry S, T, E and 

M education out of their silos, and further, to connect the teaching and learning of 

STEM to instruction in other school subjects. 

The Importance of Continued Federal Leadership 

Continued federal leadership for addressing barriers in STEM education is essential.7 STEM education has been a continuing federal priority since the Soviet-era 

launch of the first satellite, Sputnik. If for no other reason than the constantly accelerating changes in science, technology, engineering and mathematics around us, 

federal efforts will likely always be needed to spur parallel innovations to keep 

STEM education contemporary. At this moment, specific needed federal efforts include: 

(1) Continue to fund rigorous research and development in STEM that can: 

• develop fundamental new understandings of how students learn STEM; 

• create and promote rapid dissemination of leading edge STEM teaching and 

learning innovations, including technology innovations, that mirror developments in 

the fast-moving fields of STEM; and 

• assess the effectiveness of educational products and teaching practices in STEM 

for the learning of diverse students. 

(2) Foster efforts that create a larger, better STEM teacher workforce through: 

• producing more STEM teachers, and promoting a diverse teacher corps reflecting that of the student population; 

• providing induction for beginning STEM teachers in a way that launches their 

career-long learning about how to advance student learning in STEM, and 

• providing continuous, contemporary professional development of all STEM 

teachers so that they can provide our nation’s youth with the most current understanding of STEM and develop the mind sets needed for innovation. 

(3) Continue and expand highlighting STEM as a priority in all education funding 

programs, not just STEM funding programs, whenever appropriate. 
18 

The above efforts are especially important now because the recent sequestration 

already is beginning to erode rather than strengthen these efforts, which I will illustrate.8

Rigorous Development, and Research on Evidence of Learning by All 

The field needs more, not less, federal support of both basic and applied research 

in STEM education. By basic research, I mean such things as more cognitive science 

research on how people think and learn. By applied research, I mean studies of the 

effectiveness of educational innovations, including whether they are effective for diverse learners. The Institute of Education Sciences at ED and the National Science 

Foundation are by far the largest sponsors of such research in STEM. In recent 

years, there has been a much-needed expansion of applied research and evaluation 

on the effectiveness of education innovations, including specifically in STEM subjects, and this should continue and be expanded.9

As the principal reviewer for science education in the What Works Clearinghouse, 

I have seen this resulting in the maturing of more innovations that have rigorous 

evidence to support their claims. But we have a long way to go before there will 

be enough evidence to transform educational practice so that all teachers are using 

evidence-based approaches. 

The federal call for evidence of effectiveness can be credited with raising the expectation that all educators use evidence-based programs and practices throughout 

our education system. Projects that in the past amassed, reviewed and critiqued 

educational products were mostly descriptive efforts. At WestEd, in our work today 

for the corporate-sponsored Change the Equation review of STEM education products, developers had to provide strong evidence that their educational approaches 

produced results. Even some leading products were not included if they hadn’t yet 

be able to generate such evidence. However, individual product developers and 

many of the nation’s leading curriculum developers other than major corporations 

cannot afford the costs of the rigorous research needed to generate such evidence. 

There are two challenges that concern me. First, sequestration is immediately reducing the amount of new research that will be funded. For example, both IES and 

NSF must reduce the number of new research studies they can launch in the next 

few months with FY13 funding, from among the backlog of proposals submitted last 

summer and fall. It is unfortunate that the across-the-board nature of the sequestration funding action ties the hands of policy makers to retain a priority on funding 

research and development in education, and STEM education in particular. 

Second, while the rise of applied research and evaluation in STEM education has 

addressed some weakness in past research agendas, funding support for basic STEM 

education research may not be keeping pace with the investment needed to ensure 

the best possible STEM education in the future. If the demands for evidence are 

universally applied too early in the development process, this may stifle some kinds 

of high-risk, high-yield research needed in the early stages of thinking and development. 

Preparation and Continuous Development of Enough STEM Teachers 

We will need more STEM teachers, as evidenced by many organizations rallying 

to the PCAST report’s call for 100K new STEM teachers in ten years.10 The federal 

government should continue programs that recruit diverse students into STEM 

teaching and create innovation in STEM teacher preparation. New ideas will have 

to be explored for including some introduction to engineering fields and principles 

in the preparation of science teachers; currently only 14% of high school science 

teachers, 7% of middle school science teachers and 1% of elementary teachers had 

any college coursework in engineering (Horizon, 2013, footnote 3, see p. 12). 

Some of our peer nations provide more robust teacher induction programs than 

the 

U.S. provides. For example, while U.S. induction programs typically last only one 

year, peer nations provide induction programs for beginning teachers for two years. 

Further, they more specifically recognize that beginning STEM teachers have subject-specific needs and address these, in addition to the common needs faced by all 

beginning teachers.11

It is ironic and disturbing that at the same time the demands on STEM teachers 

to learn new things are escalating from initiatives such as Common Core and the 

upcoming Next Generation Science Standards, funds seem scare for the professional 

development that they need for effective implementation. And ongoing professional 

development always is needed in STEM, more so than in some other school subjects, 

to stay abreast of changes in STEM content knowledge spurred by the constant 

rapid changes in the STEM disciplines. For example, within the last three years: 

59% of elementary teachers have had no professional development in science; only 
19 

47% of middle school mathematics teachers have had more than two days worth of 

professional development (Horizon, 2013, footnote 3, see pp. 33-4). 

Highlighting STEM in funding programs 

I want to acknowledge that there is significant room for improvement in aligning 

and focusing existing federal support for STEM education by different federal Departments and Agencies.12 I have had experience over my career with many federal 

funding programs for STEM education, such as those supported by NSF, NASA, the 

U.S. Department of Education, which may overlap in name or general focus. I find 

that most of them, rather than being redundant, have differences in their specifics 

that are quite important distinctions in bringing about different needed elements of 

change in STEM education. However, what is needed is more strategic communication and alignment among federal programs to make these complementarities more 

explicit, and, also to reduce any true rather than perceived redundancy. 

My comments thus far have been about urging continued or increased support of 

federal programs that specifically fund STEM education initiatives. There is an additional policy avenue for catalyzing stronger STEM education. 

Include stronger attention to STEM within broader funding programs. For example, the recent re-competition of the ED department’s Equity Assistance Centers requested that bidders include strategies that address the specifics of equity issues 

for STEM education. At WestEd, that new emphasis has resulted in exciting collaborations between my STEM Program and our Equity Assistance Center for Region 

IX. Expanding this thinking, it would be exciting to see similarly stronger, more explicit calls for STEM emphases (not just for mathematics) in such programs as the 

Regional Education Laboratories and the Comprehensive Centers. 

Recall that more than a decade ago, the federal government sponsored regional 

centers focused on STEM education, the Eisenhower Regional Consortia. I co-directed the consortium housed at WestEd. This program ensured that for every state 

across the country there was a place that could promote and broker collaboration 

on STEM issues among districts and regions within a state, and across departments 

of education in different states in the region. Today, there only is a thin patchwork 

of coordinating groups within some states, and they generally have less means to 

facilitate technical assistance for states and school districts to raise achievement in 

STEM education. Within many states, there is no such broker at all. And few entities span across states within their broader region. 

In these tight fiscal times, I recognize that it most likely would be problematic 

to reinstate such dedicated STEM coordination entities at past funding levels. However, even funding some modest effort that would bring systematic assistance to 

states and school districts in the STEM area would be helpful. Additionally, there 

is an opportunity and a need for RELS, CCs and other federally funded Centers and 

technical assistance projects to do more to increase our nation’s performance in 

STEM education. Perhaps national technical assistance centers on STEM education 

could be developed to support both the REL and CC contractor networks. 

The Challenges of States, Districts and Private Education Companies Acquiring the 

Federal Role 

States and districts do not have the capacity or wherewithal to fund or carry out 

much of what the federal government currently is leading and supporting. Particularly in these difficult fiscal times, they are overwhelmed with their core mandate 

of executing the provision of quality day-to-day instruction for their students. 

Chances are that, as things stand now, any reallocated federal funds from the current high leverage, federal programs for STEM education improvement to states and 

districts would be used to address recent shortfalls in local funds for what they already have to do. Given this context, it is critical for the federal government to consider how it might promote capacity building at the district and state levels. [See 

footnote 5, Bybee.] In the long term, this would result in the ability to shift more 

of the needed research and evaluation and development activities to states or districts and perhaps decrease federal cost. In the immediate, however, it would require a funding increase to maintain momentum of federal efforts while also supporting states and districts to develop needed capacity in STEM leadership. 

Many private companies that create educational products and services might have 

the funds to conduct such research, but they have little intrinsic incentive to pursue 

this agenda. I have asked friends who are leaders in private education firms, ’would 

you like me to study the effectiveness of your products and services?’ Their response 

is: ’No thanks; the marketplace determines their effectiveness.’ 

Of course, products are commercially successful only if teachers are able to engage 

with and able to use a product. However, this important feature does not mean that 

firms are acquiring any evidence that students are successfully learning from the 
20 

products, and, in particular, if our populations of students from very diverse backgrounds are being successful. 

Also, the private sector generally is not going to aggressively create innovations 

that require users to move substantially past their comfort zone, because they aren’t 

likely to have a sufficient market for success. It takes federal prompting to spur innovations that will lead rather than follow. In fact, funding programs for Small 

Business Innovation Research are prompting development of leading-edge innovations by the private sector; such efforts should continue. However, many of these 

grantees do not have staff with the expertise or experience with STEM education. 

In recent years I’ve had SBIR grantees reach out to us at WestEd, and vice versa, 

to collaborate on how to better incorporate evaluation of educational effectiveness 

of their innovations into development plans. The SBIR programs could be strengthened to require such collaboration. 

Summary of Federal Strategies for Addressing Barriers in STEM Education 

Based on the testimony above, what follows is a summary of federal strategies for 

addressing barriers in STEM education— 

Balanced, integrated attention among STEM subjects 

1. Policy makers should continue their efforts to enhance mathematics education. 

2. However, policies should foster more attention to science education, to redress 

its inadvertently diminished status in our educational system. 

3. Federal leadership particularly is needed to catalyze introduction of technology 

and engineering education. 

4. Leverage experiments in instructional models and courses that integrate STEM 

fields. 

Sponsor more STEM education research and development, both basic and applied. 

5. Increase funding for research on and development of promising practices in 

STEM education. 

6. Ensure that applied research levels continue or grow and that basic research 

is strengthened. 

7. Call for SBIR grantees to build in stronger collaboration with experts in STEM 

education and STEM education research. 

Prepare, induct and continuously educate more STEM teachers 

8. Continue to catalyze production of more STEM teachers. 

9. Foster experiments in science teacher preparation that include initial introduction to technology and engineering education. 

10. Promote more robust teacher induction programs, including stronger attention 

to the subject-specific needs of beginning STEM teachers. 

11. Increase professional development for implementation of major STEM initiatives and to stay current with developments in STEM disciplines. 

Require and support a stronger STEM focus in broader education programs 

12. Create regional STEM education centers that can coordinate and lead STEM 

education efforts in each region of the country, similar to the Eisenhower Regional 

Consortia of the past. 

13. Require stronger foci on STEM education (not just mathematics) in such programs as RELs and CCs. 

14. Create national STEM education centers that can provide technical assistance 

to contractor networks for such programs as RELs and CCs. 

I want to thank the committee for providing me this opportunity to share my expertise. I hope the committee will find the testimony helpful in deliberating how to 

strengthen STEM education. 

ENDNOTES

1Symonds, W., Schwartz, R. & Ferguson, R. (2011). Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the 

Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century, Report issued by the Pathways 

to Prosperity Project, Boston, Mass: Harvard University, Harvard Graduate School of Education. 2 Britton, E. & Schneider, S. (forthcoming). Large-scale Assessments in Science Education. In 

N. Lederman and S. Abell (Eds), Handbook of Research on Science Education, second edition. 

Taylor and Francis. 3 Banilower, E., Smith, S., Weiss, I., Malzahn, K., Campbell, K. & Weiss, A. (2013). Report 

of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon 

Research. 4 Board on Science Education, National Research Council. (2012). Framework for K-12 Science 

Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington DC: National Academy Press. 5For example, in 2014, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) will pilot 

an eighth-grade technology and engineering assessment. National Assessment Governing Board. 
21 

(2011). Technology and engineering literacy framework for the 2014 National Assessment of 

Educational Progress. Washington, D.C.: author. The WestEd STEM Program facilitated development of this NAEP framework. 6Sparks, S. (March 27, 2013). New NAEP Demands Application of Knowledge: New NAEP 

to Gauge Engineering, Technology Literacy. Education Week. 32(26), p. 18. 7 Bybee, R. (forthcoming). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Note chapter 6: What is the Federal Government’s Role? 8 At the STEM Program at WestEd that I lead, 75 staff work on almost all of the above efforts, 

providing me with the grounded insights that I offer today; however, I acknowledge that our 

work often is supported through federal funds along with funds from private sector Foundations 

and corporations (e.g., Wiliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Google) and non-profits (e.g., 

Change the Equation, which represents first tier STEM companies). 9Findings from the National Center for Education Research (NCER) 2002-2011, particularly 

pp. 13-14. http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/pdf/Findings2011.pdf 10President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). 2010. Prepare and inspire: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for America’s future. 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. 11 Britton, E., Paine, L., Pimm, D. & Raizen, S. (2003) Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Systems for Early Career Learning. San Francisco, CA and Dordrecht, Netherlands: WestEd and 

Kluwer Academic Press (now Springer). 12Government Accounting Office. (2012). Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. Washington, D.C.: author, GAO-12- 

342SP. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Kurtz, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BILL KURTZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

DENVER SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. KURTZ. Good morning, Chairman Rokita, and Ranking Member McCarthy, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Bill 

Kurtz and I am the CEO of DSST Public Schools, a network of six 

charter schools in Denver, Colorado. 

DSST Public Schools was founded in 2004 and we currently serve 

more than 2,000 students in six open-enrolment STEM charter 

schools. We operate four middle schools and two high schools and 

are scheduled to open a fifth middle school in June 2013. By 2020 

DSST Public Schools will have 10 schools on five campuses that 

will serve over 4,500 students, representing 12 percent of the Denver public schools 6-12 student population. 

Our students enroll through a non-selective, random lottery. As 

a result, our student body is very diverse. Nearly 60 percent of our 

students are from low-income families and 75 percent are minorities. Our schools truly represent a cross-section of Denver. 

DSST Public Schools operates some of the most successful public 

schools in Colorado. Last year DSST Public Schools operated the 

highest-performing middle school and the highest-performing high 

school in Denver. 

Our schools showed some of the highest growth numbers of all 

public schools in Colorado on the state TCAP tests, according to the 

Colorado Growth Model. Our second high school, serving students 

in the largest school turnaround zone in the state of Colorado, 

achieved the second-highest standardized test growth scores of all 

of 2,000 public schools in Colorado. 

Our experience at DSST proves without a doubt that all students, regardless of race or income, can earn a rigorous STEM high 

school diploma and attend 4-year college and universities. Every 

single senior in the history of DSST public schools has earned an 

acceptance to 4-year college, an unprecedented track record in the 

state of Colorado. 
22 

Ninety-five percent of our graduates enroll in post-secondary 

education within the first 2 years of graduating, and 45 percent of 

our students are choosing STEM fields of study in college, compared to the national average of 14 percent. 

I am here today to discuss what DSST is doing to ensure that 

our students are prepared for post-secondary careers in STEM. 

Preparing our nation’s students for our highest-need, hardest-to-fill 

jobs is one of the most important tasks of our public education system. 

Today we are not providing our students from low-income families with access to the highest-quality STEM education and the 

preparation needed to enter critical fields like engineering, computer science, and bioscience. 

DSST Public Schools represents an important and growing movement to open up high-quality STEM education to all students, regardless of the ethnic, economic, or academic background. Simply 

put, we take a different approach in how we educate our students. 

First, our schools are uniquely built on the premise that all students deserve access to a high-quality STEM education. A majority 

of our students enter below grade level and they have been conditioned to believe that science and advanced math is an extra or 

only for smart kids. In our schools these subjects are not extras but 

a core subject that is required for all students. 

Second, we insist that our schools provide a rigorous STEM preparatory curriculum that prepares all of them for STEM fields of 

study in 4-year college. For example, regardless of their starting 

point, all students are expected to pass 3 years of integrated 

science in middle school and more than 6 years in high schools, and 

many students take more. 

Students take algebra-based high school physics in the ninth 

grade. All ninth-grader students also take a creative engineering 

course so they learn the design process. 

Students complete their high school requirements by taking a 

college-level physics class coupled with an engineering course or a 

college-level biochemistry class coupled with a biotechnology class. 

Math is also a critical component of rigorous STEM education. 

All DSST students are required to pass at least pre-calculus to 

graduate. 

We provide several important opportunities for our students to 

apply their learning to the real world. Each junior is required to 

complete a 2-day-a-week internship in a workplace—oftentimes a 

STEM workplace. Our seniors must complete a capstone senior 

project in order to graduate. 

Of course, DSST and our students would not be successful without the dedication and expertise of our outstanding teachers. We 

recruit our teachers from across the nation; we seek teachers who 

have a deep passion for their subject, who share our belief that all 

students can succeed in a rigorous college preparatory program, 

can use data to guide their instructions, and are strong learners 

willing to push themselves. 

In closing, I would like to leave the committee with two key 

thoughts on how to best replicate the success of schools like DSST. 

First, support the Federal Charter Schools program. As a charter 

school, we have the freedom to design our curriculum, an autonomy 
23 

in the hiring of our teachers and monitoring their performance, and 

we are able to demand a high level of rigor from our students and 

teachers. The Federal Charter Schools program has been a lifeline 

to thousands of charter schools, including DSST. 

Second, the best way to get students interested in the field of 

STEM is to ensure they have the access to core content in this area 

delivered by an effective teacher in effective schools. 

Thank you for your time today. I am pleased to speak on this important issue and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Kurtz follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Bill Kurtz, Chief Executive Officer, 

DSST Public Schools, Denver, CO 

Good morning Chairman Rokita and Ranking Member McCarthy and members of 

the Subcommittee. My name is Bill Kurtz and I am the CEO of DSST Public 

Schools, a network of six charter schools in Denver, Colorado. DSST stands for the 

Denver School of Science and Technology, which was the name of the first charter 

high school we opened. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of DSST Public 

Schools to discuss K-12 STEM education. 

DSST Public Schools was founded in 2004—and I served as the founding Principal 

of our first school DSST: Stapleton High School. I have 18 years of experience leading schools after spending the first four years of my career working on Wall Street. 

STEM is an important priority for me. I currently serve on the National Research 

Council and National Academy of Engineering iSTEM committee which will complete a report on integrated STEM this summer. 

DSST Public Schools serves more than 2,000 students at six open-enrollment 

STEM charter schools on four campuses; our schools are focused on preparing every 

student to succeed in four-year college with the opportunity to pursue a STEM field 

of study in college. We operate four middle schools and two high schools and are 

scheduled to open a fifth middle school in June 2013; by 2020 DSST Public Schools 

will have 10 schools on five campuses that will serve over 4,500 students, helping 

Denver Public Schools double the number of four-year college-ready graduates 

exiting Denver Public Schools. 

All of our students enroll through a non-selective, random lottery. DSST schools 

are not magnet schools or in any way selective. As a result, our student body is very 

diverse—nearly 60% of our students are from low-income families and 75% are minorities. Our schools truly represent a cross-section of Denver, the city we serve. 

DSST Public Schools operates some of the most successful public schools in Colorado. Last year, DSST Public Schools operated the highest-performing middle school 

and high school in Denver. We are most proud of measures that show growth— 

meaning, how much did a student learn from the first day of school to the last day 

of school. Within the state of Colorado, our schools showed some of the highest 

growth numbers of all public schools, according to the Colorado Growth Model, on 

State CSAP tests. Our second high school, serving students in the largest school 

turnaround zone in the state of Colorado, achieved the 2nd highest standardized 

test growth scores of all of Colorado’s 2,000 public schools. 

Most importantly, DSST proves, without a doubt, that all students, regardless of 

race or income, can earn a rigorous STEM high school diploma and attend four-year 

colleges and universities. Preparing every student to succeed in a four-year college 

with the opportunity to study STEM is at the center of DSST’s academic program. 

Every single senior in the history of DSST Public Schools has earned an acceptance 

to four-year college—an unprecedented track record of success in Colorado. 95% of 

our graduates enroll in post-secondary education with in the first two years of graduating DSST. DSST graduates had the fifth-lowest college remediation rate of all 

public and private high schools in Colorado last year while being a considerably 

more diverse population than the graduates from other high schools with the lowest 

remediation rates. Ninety-two percent of those students persist from Freshmen to 

Sophomore year and 45% of our students are choosing STEM fields of study in college, compared to a national average of 14%. 

I am here today to discuss what DSST is doing to ensure that our students are 

prepared for post-secondary study and careers in STEM. Preparing our nation’s students for our highest-need, hardest-to-fill jobs is one of the most important tasks 

of our public education system. Today, we are not providing our students from lowincome families with access to the highest-quality STEM education and the preparation needed to enter critical fields like engineering, computer science and bioscience. 
24 

We have long reserved STEM education for the gifted and talented, denying our students and our nation’s employers with the opportunity to fill a critical national 

need. DSST Public Schools represents an important and growing movement to open 

up high-quality STEM education to all students regardless of their ethnic, economic 

or academic background. Here are a few key building blocks of our program: 

First, our schools are uniquely built on the premise that all students deserve access to a high-quality STEM education. A majority of DSST students enter well 

below grade level in the 6th and 9th grades and could never be accepted into a magnet science program on the basis of a test. Many students are conditioned to believe 

that science and advanced math ‘‘is an extra’’ and only for ‘‘smart kids.’’ In our 

schools, these subjects are not extras, but a core subject for all students. All students are required to take a STEM college preparatory curriculum—there is no remedial track in our school. 

Our second key belief is that schools must provide a rigorous STEM preparatory 

curriculum. We believe that the most important factor in a student choosing and 

ultimately completing a STEM degree is his or her preparedness to succeed at the 

college and graduate level. Thus we design our curriculum to provide students with 

the best possible preparation to succeed in STEM fields in four year colleges. 

For example, regardless of their starting point at DSST, all students are expected 

to pass 3 years of integrated science in middle school and more than 6 years in high 

school—and many students take more. Students take algebra-based high school 

physics in the 9th grade. This provides students with a lab-based class to practice, 

apply and synthesize the math skills they are learning elsewhere. All 9th grade students also take ‘‘Creative Engineering’’ where they learn the design process, how to 

conduct basic research, and how to maximize and minimize constraints so they can 

develop a better understanding of engineering and the sciences as careers that improve the human condition. Students complete their high school requirements by 

taking a college-level physics class coupled with an engineering course or a collegelevel biochemistry class coupled with a bio-technology class. Math is also a critical 

component of a rigorous STEM curriculum. All DSST students are required to pass 

at least pre-calculus to graduate. 

We provide several important opportunities for our students to apply their learning to the real world. Each junior is required to complete a two-day a week internship at a workplace—oftentimes a STEM work place. Our seniors must complete a 

capstone Senior Project in order to graduate, and I am quite proud of their work. 

Just to highlight a few examples, our seniors have: • Designed and built a Magnetic Linear Accelerator as a potential way to launch 

space vehicles; • Modeled population growth with slime mold; • Created a science-fiction film about potential life on Europa, a moon orbiting 

Jupiter; and 

• Developed a low-cost solar-powered lamp for developing countries so they can 

keep lights on for studying, thus keeping more kids in school (this project is still 

in development). 

Lastly, we believe the success of any school must be rooted in a strong school culture that focuses on building character and creating an environment that expects 

all students to be college ready. Students are challenged, but supported in our 

schools. A peer-driven culture is reflected in each of our schools where going to college is ‘‘cool’’ and expected. 

Of course, DSST and our students would not be successful without the dedication 

and expertise of our outstanding teachers. Teachers at DSST are driven by their unwavering belief in our students, driven by data, and continually reflect on student 

performance. They receive extensive support, including observations and feedback, 

peer-driven professional development, and targeted development in new instructional techniques to ensure they are incorporating the best instructional strategies 

in their classrooms. 

We recruit our teachers from across the nation, with a focus on those with less 

than seven years of teaching experience. In particular, we seek teachers who have 

deep passion for their subject, who share our belief that all students can succeed 

in a rigorous college preparatory program, can use data to guide their instruction 

and are strong learners willing to push themselves. We source our teachers from 

Teach for America alumni, other district schools, second-career teachers, and local 

colleges and universities. 

We provide robust professional development for our teachers throughout their 

first year at DSST, including an extensive summer school program. Our teachers 

are provided a week of intensive training followed by an opportunity to teach in one 

of our summer school programs to apply and hone their skills. New teachers join 

our current school teams for two more weeks of professional development prior to 
25 

the school year beginning in August. Our teachers set goals at the beginning of the 

year to improve their teaching. Throughout the year, teachers receive regular feedback on their growth towards those goals from their peers, teacher leaders and instructional leaders in our schools. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t share with the Subcommittee the important 

role that our charter status plays in our success. We are fortunate to have a very 

healthy and collaborative relationship with our school district, Denver Public 

Schools. But as a charter school, we have the freedom to design our curriculum, and 

autonomy in the hiring of our teachers and monitoring their performance. And we 

are able to demand a high level of rigor from our students and teachers. 

DSST hires 70-80 new teachers each year. And as I mentioned earlier, we recruit 

from across the nation. We also have the flexibility to seek out teachers from nontraditional sources, and we are free from the certification requirements, timelines 

and other hiring restrictions that traditional public school systems are faced with. 

In addition, we have flexibility on pay schedules and thus give our teachers performance-based raises. Our teacher evaluations are based on teacher self-reports, 

peer input, administrator evaluations and student data. DSST Public Schools is currently developing a teacher career pathway where teachers will be provided a clear 

continuum and pathway to develop towards being a master teacher. Fifty percent 

of a teacher’s evaluation will be based on student achievement data. 

In closing, I would like to leave the committee with three key thoughts on how 

to best replicate the success of schools like mine. 

First, support the federal Charter Schools Program. This program has been a lifeline to thousands of charter schools, including DSST. Without the start-up support 

from this program, I would not have been able to open my school. 

Second, my school is already governed by a set of rules and regulations outlined 

in a charter agreement with my authorizer which allows me the freedom to run my 

school in exchange for outcomes. Every time the federal government comes up with 

a new rule or regulation that doesn’t take into account the unique nature of charter 

schools, my ability to innovate is hampered and my charter agreement becomes less 

meaningful. 

Finally, the best way to get students interested in the field of STEM is to ensure 

that they have access to core content in this area delivered by an effective teacher. 

Teachers, who have subject matter mastery in the field of STEM, rather than just 

a teacher training degree and certificate, are better able to educate students in this 

field. Federal programs have allowed schools like ours to attract and retain an effective teaching workforce. I hope that you will continue to support these important 

programs. 

Again, I am pleased to be here today to discuss this very important issue. I hope 

I have shed some light on how DSST is able to succeed, as well as the importance 

of STEM-focused education, the importance of our charters school status. 

Thank for this opportunity and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Kurtz. 

I thank the witnesses. 

As chair, I am going to defer my questioning until the end in the 

hopes of trying to accommodate as many of my colleagues who are 

present here today as we can and their schedules. 

So with that, I am going to recognize for 5 minutes, Chairman 

Roe, of Tennessee. 

Mr. ROE. Thank the Chairman, and thank you for calling this 

very important hearing. And before we go on, I have to do a shoutout to my 10-year-old granddaughter whose birthday is today, and 

I am sorry I am not home to celebrate it with her. 

But what a great bunch—what a great testimony and great 

panel, and I think what you all have done and what the testimony 

from both the Chairman and Ranking Member have laid out the 

problem in this country, and I am—I don’t know the solution. And 

the problem is STEM jobs are going to grow twice as fast as other 

jobs in this country. That is a fact. 

We are going to—80 percent of the jobs in the next decade require technical skills. I have an auto manufacturing piston plant 
26 

in my district that 10 years ago had 16 people on the line; today 

they have 2. And those 2 people are highly educated in math and 

engineering technology, computers, fixing robots. 

So they need 2 people who are as productive as 16 were. That 

is the skills that are required today. 

And of the 20 fastest-growing occupations, 15 of them require 

significant math and science preparation. So we have this, and 

here is the problem: We have 3.8 million ninth-graders in the country and only 230,000 of them choose a STEM degree in college, 

which means—not all those kids go to college—that only 6 out of 

100 end up with a STEM degree. That is a huge problem. 

We have 3 million jobs in this country that are available right 

now, 12 million unemployed people that haven’t been educated. So 

the question is—and I think the Ranking Member stated this very 

clearly—how do we encourage these kids—these students to get interested in science and technology? So I think that is the problem. 

I think, Dr. Schneider, you hit it on the head, too. There are 

going to be dwindling resources. So how do we maximize those resources? 

As Mr. Scott pointed out, this redundancy, and I think what we 

need to do, and hopefully we are going to do this, I think everybody 

on this dais understands that we have to in this country compete 

in a world economy now. And I know the committee last year took 

a trip to China and Korea and I have just looked at some STEM 

graduates there. In China, 45-plus percent are STEM graduates; 

Korea, 30-something out of—I mean, the number of kids who get 

this. In our country, 6 out of 100. 

So we are at a competitive disadvantage around the world, and 

I think that is the real challenge. 

And, Mr. Scott, I am going to direct my first question to you, is 

do we need a task force to look at all the science and technology 

programs and put that—and where it is more coherent? Whether 

just it may be a few—I don’t know the answer to that—but where 

there is not so much overlap? And then to have some metrics out 

there to see whether they are actually working? And I think you 

certainly have the metrics to prove that, in your STEM academies, 

that it is working. There is no question about it. 

So, Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Roe, as I pointed out in my statement, it is important that the Administration develop a government-wide STEM 

education strategic plan. I know that is something that is in the 

works; it has been delayed. 

And as part of that plan, it will be important to ensure that programs have meaningful and transparent performance goals and 

measures so that we know what these programs are supposed to 

achieve. And it is also important that these programs have periodic 

evaluations so that at the end of the day, we know whether these 

programs are working or not. 

And I think those are key features of any strategic plan or any 

effort going forward to consolidate these programs. 

Mr. ROE. And it is kind of—I am—it is baseball season so I will 

quote Yogi Berra, ‘‘If you don’t know where you are going you 

might end up someplace else.’’ And I think that is what we are 

doing in this country. 
27 

A couple things: Not every—not one size fits all. In an urban 

area you might have one plan that works; in a rural area where 

I live, maybe something else. We use the Niswonger Academy for 

distance learning where I live and very rural schools in the mountains use distance learning, where they can have a highly qualified 

teacher, the number two thing you said that was important in your 

charter schools, where a child in a small, rural school has access 

to a high-quality teacher on the Web. 

The other thing we do in private-public partnerships is Eastman 

Chemical Company puts on the STEM Academy once a year, and 

they are—I went last year to it and it was to show kids how you 

can take a chunk of coal—carbon—and make things out of it. What 

you produce with it to get these kids as fourth-graders interested 

and say, ‘‘Hey, I didn’t know you could make this—you could take 

a trainload of coal and out the other end comes this plastic bottle.’’ 

And so I think that is important to get kids interested early. And 

if they—if you don’t get them interested in the elementary school, 

they are not going to have any interest in high school. 

So I think private-public partnerships, I think evaluating, as Mr. 

Scott said, whether these programs actually work, and then, because, as Dr. Schneider pointed out, the resources are dwindling. 

So I yield back with that. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the chair. 

Ranking Member is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kurtz, when you talk about your school as almost 60 percent 

low-income and 75 percent minority, obviously for many of us—I 

live out on Long Island; I have a very large minority population. 

What practices do you feel that are probably the most important 

on what you are being able to do in your schools to have success 

among the most vulnerable and minority populations, and how do 

we transfer that into all of our schools? 

Mr. KURTZ. Yes. I think the most important thing is that we 

have a clear goal for all of our students. We are a non-tracked program and so we look at all of our students with the potential to 

be 4-year college graduates in a STEM field of study. 

And I think that our high schools particularly across this country 

are tracking kids according to lots of metrics—oftentimes flawed 

metrics—that limit the potential and possibility of all students. 

And so I think that is the first practice is that there is a complete 

belief that all students can get there and that we will do what it 

takes to help them get there regardless of their background. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Do your students go to school all year round? 

Mr. KURTZ. They do not. We do have students who enter our program and will spend the summer with us before they enter school 

and then we do have an emphasis, particularly in high school, on 

every student participating in one very—you know, in-depth summer opportunity in the 4 years they are with us. So they may attend a summer program at a university, at a museum. And so we 

do commit to providing them year-round experiences but we do not 

operate year-round. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. The data that, you know, we see is that—especially in the minority communities—that students, whether taking 

their math and their science courses, but math seems to be the one 
28 

that stands out, they lose all of that knowledge that they possibly 

have gotten through the past school year. How do you conquer that 

with your program? 

Mr. KURTZ. I believe that is a concern, but I would say that we 

have a very, I think, rigorous data program that allows us to track 

the mastery levels of students almost every day. And so we have 

the ability to understand where students are and to help them understand where they are such that they can make course corrections literally every day in how they are learning. 

And so I believe that math is a very important topic in this hearing because math does determine a student’s ability to major in 

STEM fields in college, and we have a math curriculum in this 

country that I think is substandard to what it needs to be. Many 

kids never have the opportunity to study STEM in college because 

they have not been given the math preparation to do so. 

And so I do think that is a very important topic and we set that 

out as being a pre-calculus bar for our students so they all have 

the choice in college to study what they choose. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. And just to follow up, all right, so the kids are 

getting a great education in school. Are their parents very involved 

in their education? Are they involved with following through, 

whether it is homework or following through on the weekends with 

different projects? 

Mr. KURTZ. I believe all of our parents care about their children’s 

education. Many of our parents work two jobs; many of our parents 

are not in a position to help the way they would like because they 

are trying to make ends meet. But yes, our parents are involved 

and want the best for their children. 

I think oftentimes we have children who are first generation in 

their family to go to college and so there are barriers that our parents face that, whether it be working two jobs, whether it be their 

level of education that sometimes can hinder their best intentions. 

But in the end, we hold forth that all kids, regardless of their family situation, can attend a 4-year college and can be successful in 

a STEM field of study if we give them the right education in school. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott, you mentioned that 83 percent of the STEM programs 

overlap but they are not redundant. So would you say that the programs that overlap, that doesn’t mean that we should eliminate 

them? Are you recommending decreasing federal investment in 

STEM or are you recommending making investments more efficient? 

Mr. SCOTT. As we mentioned in the report, we think it is important, first of all, to have a government-wide strategy to direct these 

programs so that we know, ultimately, what we are trying to 

achieve. And beyond that, it is also important that we have rigorous evaluations in place so that we know what works and doesn’t 

work and then be in a better position to make informed decisions 

about whether to consolidate or eliminate some of these programs. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Do you know how far along the Administration 

is as far as coming out with their plan to—I know that they are 

going to be eliminating some programs, but having a coordination? 

Mr. SCOTT. We have continued to work with the Administration 

on that. My understanding is that should be pretty imminent. And 
29 

we will be looking at that plan to see to what extent, if at all, it 

addresses the recommendations we made in our report. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentlewoman yields. 

Mr. Thompson is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Chairman, thank you for this hearing. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here to talk about STEM programs. This really is about, obviously, maximizing opportunities for 

our children through education, but it is about—even more so, it 

is about America’s competitiveness and making sure we have a 

qualified and trained workforce. 

And I am very supportive of STEM, although, Chairman, I would 

prefer to call it STEAM, being an agriculture guy, I put that A in 

there, as well, because agriculture is all about technology and innovation and science today. 

Obviously the issues that we are facing—part of it is, you know, 

with having the workforce out there that is prepared to do STEM 

or STEAM jobs is, you know, it is—we are faced—it is compounded 

by the retirement of the baby boomers, obviously, exiting the workforce in droves, and the other one is just the limitation of children—of kids who are getting the education or choosing that education to go in there. 

So engagement into these STEAM career pathways continues to 

be a significant challenge, and I am, I co-chair the congressional bipartisan House Career and Technical Education Caucus, and I believe that we have a tried and tested way to provide early level exposure and engagement in these related fields. 

And so I am going to open this up to any of the panelists who 

have an opinion on this: Do you believe that strengthening career 

and technical education programs through rigorous academics 

would help alleviate the shortage of STEAM-or STEM-related careers? 

Anyone have an opinion, weigh in on—Dr. Schneider? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. As we look especially with the Boston Museum 

with technology and education, a lot of times that is where it has 

been within our curriculum is within the CTE programs in our 

schools. Over the decades, when a lot of us were in high schools 

they actually had shops and things like that that no longer exist 

in most places. 

I think that integrating that into, if you look at the Harvard report on Pathways, they talk about there are a lot of critical jobs 

that CTE-type graduates could easily fill that are high-paying, 

technical, and involves STEAM or STEM, depending on what you 

want to call it, background and needs. 

Moving to what the charter schools are doing and other schools 

around the country around STEM, one of the things are, as we can 

get parents, communities, corporations, and so on involved, I actually do believe that CTE, if it is not just relegated to a group of 

kids that are non-academic—I think that has been the past history. 

I think we have to show that there are pathways for students to 

go and get certifications within 2-year and 4-year colleges that give 

them good jobs that come through the CTE network. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Dr. Miaoulis? 
30 

Mr. MIAOULIS. Introducing engineering for all children would 

serve them well because it makes math and science relevant and 

also it shows them what technical careers are like. The problem in 

the U.S. is that engineering is something not very well understood 

by the public. The people think that engineers drive trains or repair things only, and the only engineer in popular TV is Simpson, 

in the cartoon, Homer Simpson. So it gives the wrong message to 

kids about what engineering is like. 

It is interesting, what you mention about career and technical 

education. In Europe, many European countries have approached 

us at the museum to help them introduce engineering in their curriculum, and not only because they want more kids to go into engineering, but they lack technicians. There is a big problem of finding technicians. We are partners now with Holland, and they have 

a big problem with technicians. 

So introducing engineering is a way to get kids at all academic 

levels into careers. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Kurtz? 

Mr. KURTZ. I would advocate for a dual strategy. I think CTE 

programs are very important but I also believe that unless we increase the rigor in our K-12 education we will not create the next 

generation of computer science innovators and engineers who truly 

need a very rigorous K-12 preparation to be admitted to engineering school. And so I think it is—one cannot be done without the 

other. I think it will be a flawed strategy unless we are looking at 

both increasing the CTE programs as well as increasing the rigor 

of our K-12 program to prepare the next generation of those kinds 

of fields. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Kurtz. 

You know, one of the things I—at least my observation as I travel around and talk to employers, visit schools—I was just in a 

school on Monday before I came to Washington. I mean, we really 

need—this committee needs to look at what are the barriers to getting access—how does STEM education get crowded out by No 

Child Left Behind? 

So thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentleman yields. 

Mrs. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate, as well, 

the subject that we are dealing with today. 

I think one of the concerns initially was whether or not we are 

focusing so much on do we have too many programs or are we not 

evaluating, but how—you know, what is it that we need to do to 

make certain that we have students who actually enter the STEM 

fields and who stay in the STEM fields? And I wonder if I could 

jump to that for a second and then come back, because—what is 

your opinion? 

You mentioned, I think, Mr. Kurtz, about 45 percent in terms of 

post-secondary, but that means we have a lot of students who have 

that preparation and yet don’t go into anything related in these 

fields in many cases. What do you think is at the crux of that? 

Mr. KURTZ. I think there are three keys. One is providing students with the academic background to demystify the rigor of 

STEM, and if we do a better job preparing them in math and in 
31 

science and giving them challenging, rigorous curriculum, they will 

see STEM as achievable as opposed to something that is very difficult. 

I think the second thing that is really important is to expose 

them, and museums do a tremendous job exposing them. We try 

and expose our students through internships so they can see how 

chemistry class plays out in a research lab, how physics can play 

out in an engineering firm and actually see real engineers or chemists doing real work for our country. 

Mrs. DAVIS. So part of it is the exposure. 

And I wonder, just because I am limited in time, Dr. Schneider, 

could you respond to that, as well? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I would like to focus back on the impact teachers 

can have. And if you look at the STEM fields that we are concerned 

about getting more people into the STEM fields, it starts in our 

schools. 

And I am just going to use my personal anecdote. I am a U.C. 

Berkeley graduate in science. When I told people I was going to become a school teacher their reaction wasn’t, ‘‘Oh, great.’’ Their reaction was, ‘‘What?’’ 

So I think if we really think about these things, really, if we 

want—every high school teacher probably impacts between 120 and 

160 students a year. If we look at really trying to increase what 

I think can happen in STEM, I think we really ought to look at 

the teaching workforce and how we attract really high-quality 

teachers. 

And my hat is off to my colleague here on my left. 

That is a real issue. How do we get highly qualified teachers in 

the STEM fields, including—14 percent of the science teachers 

have never taken an engineering class in college—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER [continuing]. So how do we expect them to teach 

technology and engineering? 

So as we look forward, if we are thinking about every teacher is 

exposing 120 to 160 students and we want to increase our STEM 

workforce—this goes for the math teachers, and hopefully in the future technology and engineering, these are the people that can excite tomorrow’s future leaders in corporate fields of STEM. But I 

really, really come back to that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Is it also fair to say, when we think about this in 

terms of the students who choose those fields, whether they are 

also making some honest economic decisions about where they 

want to go. One of the difficulties, and you may challenge this, but 

I know I have read that a lot of the jobs that are available have 

basically stayed at the same level in terms of wages over time. 

They haven’t gone up as—they haven’t for some, but entry level, 

I think students might look at that and think, ‘‘Well, you know, 

there are some other fields out there that I could do a whole lot 

better.’’ 

Are we incentivizing enough for students to go into these fields? 

And I wonder if you could just also, in the limited time—when we 

talk about preparation for young people, one of the areas that we 

know that is so important, of course, is mathematics. And something we know about preparation is that music plays a very impor-
32 

tant role in mathematics and language, as well—the development 

of speaking and having many multiple opportunities, I think, to 

have language. 

In research, have we done enough work to see whether this actually does play a role and whether or not students tend to stay in 

these fields where they have developed many different ways of 

working with their brains, actually, so that they have a greater interest in staying in those fields as opposed to going into financial 

services? Is there—— 

Mr. MIAOULIS. The relevance of the curriculum I think is critical. 

Kids spend endless time learning how many legs a grasshopper has 

and how a volcano works, which are important things; but there 

are other things that are more important that are relevant to their 

lives, like the world they live in and how it works. 

As far as careers are concerned, kids that focus, that study engineering and computer science get great jobs and make a lot of 

money. My daughter is one of them. She graduated from Tufts last 

year and she is doing very well and she is very happy. 

So the jobs are available, it is just there are not enough kids 

going into these fields. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentlewoman’s time is expired. 

We will now recognize Mrs. Brooks, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Mr. Kurtz, I am fascinated by the fact that your students are in 

internships 2 days a week. And I think what we have heard is that 

so many, as Dr. Miaoulis said, so many students really have no 

idea what engineering fields mean, or even what technology type 

of jobs are out there. Can you talk with us a bit more about how 

you have partnered, I assume, with companies or with employers 

to, you know, educate young people, and what grade do you do 

that, and a little bit more about the capstone project? But then 

also, how do we engage the private sector to partner more closely 

with the educational system in providing these internships? 

Mr. KURTZ. I do believe that the private sector is realizing the 

size of the problem they are facing with their future workforces. 

Lockheed Martin Space System has been one of our biggest partners, CH2M HILL. Many other partners have recognized that they 

don’t have a future workforce unless they change the way they invest in the pipeline, which they understand now means K-12. 

And so we have found lots of willing partners who have realized 

that actually our students come in better prepared than their college interns, and so I think they are ready and willing to see this 

as a future investment because they have a huge problem on their 

hands down the line replacing their engineers, their—all the folks 

who do this work. 

So we have developed a wide network of corporate and university 

and nonprofit partners like the Denver Zoo, and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, who are providing our kids with realworld experience and applying their work. They go two afternoons 

a week from 12:00 until 5:00, where they get to do real work in the 

workplace. 

Our senior project, I think you mentioned, is a way for them to 

synthesize, oftentimes, that internship experience or another inter-
33 

est into a project that is at college-level that they present in front 

of a panel of experts that includes a product. We have a student 

right now who is modeling population growth through the growth 

of slime. It is a fascinating project. 

We have had incredible projects that our students have put together that demonstrate to themselves that their work is meaningful. It can generate a new business, it can generate a new research 

opportunity that brings their experience together so when they go 

to college they are ready to participate, I think, in a whole different 

level than what I would say is memorizing facts and participating 

oftentimes in science and math in a very static way. 

Mrs. BROOKS. On these internships, do the students, just out of 

curiosity and based on the type of student population you said you 

are working with—how do they get to the internships and actually, 

what kind of work are they doing? I mean, just kind of generally, 

what type of projects are they given as interns and do they continue on in the summers? 

And do you have, actually, an outreach person at your school 

that finds these internships? I mean, how do you, you know, keep 

that engagement going to, you know, build those partnerships? 

Mr. KURTZ. Yes. We do have an internship director who is integral, I think, in finding those partnerships. Students will also find 

their own, but we do a lot of work to help them find the right internship. 

Transportation is always interesting. We do have a very good bus 

system and our school happens to be located, one of our schools, 

right on the bus system, so we do that. We have also had employers who have been willing to pay for transportation. And so I think 

that is the size of the partnerships that we are developing. 

Like any internship, there are different levels of experiences, let’s 

be honest. But in the best of worlds, they are working alongside 

professionals who are doing research, who are working on engineering projects, who are doing the real work and our students are having the opportunity to participate in that work at their level. 

And what we have found is that they have valued our preparation as high school students oftentimes more than they are getting 

from their college or graduate students in their internships. Lockheed Martin Space Systems has been a tremendous partner of ours 

where they—students will literally go there and do an internship 

and then work over the summer in their fabrication facilities for 

satellites and their work, and it has been tremendously fruitful, I 

think, for Lockheed as well as our students. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

I would like to ask Dr. Miaoulis a little bit about teachers and 

their support by the private sector and companies that maybe, you 

know, provide training. What has, and is, the museum doing with 

respect to bringing together companies and teachers with respect 

to the curriculum? 

Mr. MIAOULIS. There are a number of programs—— 

Chairman ROKITA. I am sorry. I am going to have to, maybe have 

you answer that a little bit later when we have some more time. 

Gentlewoman’s time is expired. 

We will now hear from Mr. Polis, for 5 minutes, is recognized. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 
34 

I want to welcome Bill Kurtz, from the great state of Colorado. 

I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to visit the first 

campus of Denver School of Science and Technology at Stapleton 

and have been very impressed with their focus on preparing the 

next generation for career in STEM fields. 

And I want to reference some of Mr. Kurtz’s remarks, specifically 

as they apply to charter schools. And Mr. Kurtz testified, ‘‘First, 

support the Federal Charter Schools program. This program has 

been a lifeline to thousands of charter schools including DSST. 

Without the start-up support from this program I would not have 

been able to open my school.’’ 

I want to ask Mr. Kurtz how we can further improve the charter 

schools program to create more and incentivize the creation of more 

high-quality STEM schools across the country. 

Mr. KURTZ. Thank you, Member Polis. I appreciate your kind 

words. 

This is one of the most important investments I believe our country can make in K-12 education. I believe that the return on that 

investment for taxpayers has been tremendous in the creation of 

high-performing charter schools who have served all students, and 

in the context of this hearing, have done a great job of preparing 

all students for future STEM fields of study. 

And I believe that that investment continues to need to be increased and I believe that this investment is important to understand that the replication of schools like ours is dependent upon it. 

And we need to replicate more and more of these schools so that 

we can scale the impact that schools like DSST are having across 

the country. 

Mr. POLIS. Some of the things we are looking at in a reauthorization of the program do include specific funds for replication and expansion, and also for interstate CMO systems as well, that we view 

it systemically. 

I want to now talk about kind of the charter authorizing process 

and in terms of best practices. You have been through this a number of times in different scenarios. We recall, when you first started, a very different DPS board than today. I think you are, in many 

ways, viewed today as a portfolio manager within DPS and have 

a very friendly climate. 

But how important were strong authorizing practices, having— 

being able to go to a state board, having other alternatives like a 

state chartering authority in the mix? How important were these 

things in your ability to grow and serve more students? 

Mr. KURTZ. I think they are very important. Number one, the 

more informed and capable the authorizers are, the better the 

schools will be, and I think that we need to create better schools 

across this country. And so I think the authorizer has a tremendous role to play there. 

At the same time, we need authorizers that also will look at results and understand that when you get the kind of results that 

our schools have gotten, that there is process that is important and 

process that is not important. And I think that, in this case, I think 

our authorizers have done a very good job of recognizing that we 

get outstanding results. In fact, our results are the top in the district routinely, and so that process needs to be one that is stream-
35 

lined, that looks at the right issues, and that, in fact, helps us grow 

as opposed to hinders us growing. 

Mr. POLIS. And then finally, I want to address the issue of diversity. You have been true to your mission and serve 60 percent lowincome families, 75 percent minorities. As the school performs better, we have a traditional issue in that you have upper middle class 

and others that want to increasingly send their kids to the school. 

How have you been able to remain true to your mission of serving 

at-risk kids in Denver at a time when more and more families 

choose to open enroll in your school? 

Mr. KURTZ. DSST, I think, has been a national leader in creating 

integrated schools. In our country, schools are resegregating in 

many places, and we need to do a better job of creating integrated 

schools in our country. And so one of the things that we have done 

is create low-income preference for some of our students, and I 

think that is a very important place where we can create diverse 

schools and not be overrun by middle-and upper-class families who 

see our schools as great opportunities for their kids, but we want 

to make sure we are serving all students in Denver. 

And those preferences are important and I believe that those 

preferences should be addressed in the charter school program because I think those are a problem right now. 

Mr. POLIS. And it is true that you are specifically prohibited from 

having those preferences during the period of time that you are receiving federal funding under the charter schools program. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. KURTZ. That is correct and I think that is a wrong incentive. 

Mr. POLIS. And you would suggest that we look at it in the reauthorization of the charter schools program, allowing schools to meet 

their missions of serving diverse populations as well, as part of 

their program. 

Mr. KURTZ. I think that is very, very important, Congressman. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

And I will yield back my time. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentleman yields. 

Mrs. Roby is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, good morning. Thank you all for being here. 

I am the lone member of the Alabama delegation that serves on 

this committee, so travelling around not just my district looking at 

schools and visiting with parents and teachers and administrators, 

but even outside of the district. And in February I had the opportunity to go to Huntsville to Blossomwood Elementary, which is a 

STEM school, and there were bonuses all around. My third-grade 

teacher actually teaches there now so it was great to get to visit 

with her and listen to her share the experiences—Ms. Ingram—between what she was used to when I was in third grade and what 

she was getting to do at this school now. 

But I also got to go into the STEM lab with the children where 

Raytheon was the private partner that day, teaching these children 

how to make a mechanical finger. I mean, it was quite fascinating. 

And so just to shift gears back to the conversation that we were 

having about the private sector and the importance of the partnerships of the private sector in schools like Blossomwood Elementary 

and others. What can be done beyond this hearing room—and this 
36 

is for any of you—beyond this hearing room today to encourage the 

private sector to engage themselves at a higher rate when it comes 

to STEM education? 

Dr. Miaoulis or Dr. Schneider, either one? 

Mr. MIAOULIS. There are quite a few corporations that are very 

keen on supporting—especially introducing—engineering. Let me 

give you a couple of examples. Raytheon established a scholarship 

program for teachers to get retooled so they can teach engineering 

to children. Also, quite a few corporations now allow their employees to volunteer in schools and help teachers implement new technology and engineering curricula. 

Anything you can do to incentivize even further corporations to 

do that, that would be great. Great help. 

Also, corporations appreciate the federal funding we get because 

typically they want to fund dissemination activities; they don’t necessarily fund R&D activities on developing new curricula. They 

look at the National Science Foundation or NASA as the funding 

agents to provide the initial funds and then to leverage it with 

their own funds. 

Unfortunately, a lot of the federal funds are not available for 

community organizations or museums like ourselves. They are focused either directly to school districts or universities. So we have 

very little access to a lot of this funding, unfortunately, and we 

reach a lot more kids than most of these programs. We reach about 

5 million children now. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, it is just highly interesting to me that, you 

know, this—you know, even Raytheon being in an elementary 

school—I mean, this was a new exposure for me, but for them to 

realize the benefits to their future workforce by even being in that 

school that day at the elementary level, say. 

Does anybody else want to weigh in? 

Okay, thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentlewoman yields back. 

Ms. Bonamici is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for allowing me to sit in this hearing today even 

though I am not on this subcommittee. This is a very important 

issue. 

And thank you to all the witnesses who are here today. 

The district I represent in Oregon includes the Silicon Forest, 

which is like the Silicon Valley only with trees, and it is the area 

of northwest Oregon that is home to great high-tech companies like 

Intel. And making sure that these major players in our high-tech 

economy have the employees they need is really critical. And we 

know that when hiring, these employers as well as others in the 

district are also looking for, of course, the STEM education and experience. But they are also looking for the ability to innovate, and 

collaborate, and find creative solutions to problems, and to be flexible, and imaginative, and risk-taking, and ahead of the competition. 

So how do we make sure that these students who will eventually 

become employees develop those creative critical thinking skills? I 
37 

suggest that the integration of arts and design into STEM learning 

is a way to enhance that learning. 

And with all due respect to my colleague who said that the A is 

for agriculture, the STEAM movement is incorporating arts and design into the STEM disciplines. With arts integrated into STEM 

disciplines, students become more engaged, better develop those 

creative critical thinking skills that they will need to contribute to 

an entrepreneurial economy. 

And I wanted to mention, my colleague talked about visiting an 

elementary school—STEM elementary school. In my district there 

is a STEAM elementary school where they are integrating arts into 

STEM and at the third-and fourth-grade level they were making 

the connection between worms and soil erosion and dirt and clay 

and then making pottery from that clay, integrating arts and 

science. 

And I think this is especially important—we have—we are talking about engaging girls and minorities, and I can’t tell you how 

many times I have heard girls say, ‘‘Well, I am not good at math,’’ 

or, ‘‘science is for boys.’’ Research has shown that arts integration 

can significantly benefit girls and minorities and get them engaged, 

keep them involved in the curriculum. 

And in Beaverton, Oregon, in my district, the organization Young 

Audiences is helping to implement one of the i3 Department of 

Education grants by bringing arts integration into local elementary 

schools. 

Dr. Schneider, I hear you have done some work with Young Audiences and I am interested in hearing your perspective on how the 

integration of arts and design can greater engage students in the 

STEM disciplines for all students, not just girls and minorities. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, we actually have worked with Young Audiences and actually are involved, I think, as the evaluator on some 

of the i3s where they are involved. Our work with Young Audiences—having been at Stanford University, there was an arts educator, Elliot Eisner, there for years preaching, ‘‘Let’s not get rid of 

the arts in the schools.’’ Having been a STEM person in this, you 

learn a lot. As we look even throughout history you will see examples of great scientific thinking from people that are quite gifted in 

the music and other arts. 

I think our schools have had to make some tough choices and 

arts has been one of the places that has been really decimated in 

most of our schools—arts and music programs. 

I believe, and some of our work with Young Audiences, is looking 

at where are the opportunities for integration across the curriculum of the arts with the science and/or math, and so on. One 

example is, there is a lot of physics within dance. Things like that. 

I think we have to be creative. 

It comes back to my position about federal investment in education. This is a perfect example. We have put together proposals 

with Young Audiences and other arts groups to try to create 

STEAM—and we can call it agriculture or arts; I am open to either 

one. I actually think agricultural fits directly into the science and 

technology areas. 

But I think, such as to the National Science Foundation, the IES 

through the Department of Education, we have put together cre-
38 

ative grants and they are very—you know, is a very competitive 

place where they are only funding 6 to 8 percent of the proposals 

submitted. And when you have a review panel basically made up 

of STEM types it is very difficult to convince them in these very, 

very tight fiscal times to move forward with things like that. 

But I really believe there is an opportunity, and I really hate to 

see only the very schools that have these private school foundations 

and places like that where the arts and music still are in our 

schools. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I appreciate that. And you talked about tough 

choices, and maybe with more integration it won’t be a choice, it 

will be an integration. 

Mr. Kurtz, in your school what arts programs do you have available? 

Mr. KURTZ. Arts have always been an important part of our program. We have a design course, as I said. We have had studio art. 

We are adding the performing arts this year. So I would agree, arts 

is a critical part of a well-rounded STEM education. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

And my time is expired. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentlewoman’s time is expired. 

Ms. Foxx is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank the panelists for being here today. 

Mr. Kurtz, I will stick with you for a moment. It seems like you 

have developed an effective model you have been able to replicate 

in additional schools in the Denver area. What work, if any, are 

you doing with Denver Public Schools to replicate what you have 

learned across the entire system? 

Mr. KURTZ. Yes, I would say that we are very fortunate to have 

a very close relationship with Denver Public Schools, and that has 

not always been true across the country with districts and charters. 

We are equal partners in our work and I give Denver Public 

Schools and Senator Bennet, who was the superintendent, and now 

Tom Boasberg tremendous credit for seeing us as partners in their 

work. 

And so we have done great work with the district replicating 

what we do well and also us learning from the district. And I think 

there is a sense of collaboration around some of the practices we 

have in terms of opening schools one grade at a time, in terms of 

being very clear about the 4-year college goal, being very clear 

about expectations around the importance of math. I believe our 

school culture, particularly around looking at all students as 4-year 

college capable, are all things that I think we have shared with the 

district and that they have adopted in different forms. 

And so I think that is the promise of the charter school movement on one level is to be an innovative opportunity for public education, and I think we have realized that in Denver in pretty exciting ways. 

Ms. FOXX. That is wonderful. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Miaoulis, you hint at some of the problems with the way— 

some of the problems that exist with the way STEM subjects are 

currently taught in our classrooms. Can you expand a little more 
39 

on why too little STEM education effectively engages students or 

prepares them to pursue post-secondary opportunities? 

Mr. MIAOULIS. The relevance is a major reason, which I spoke 

about, and Dr. Schneider referred to the teachers—the teacher 

quantity and quality. Unless we pay science teachers more and 

incentivize elementary teachers to teach science, we are not going 

to solve the problem. 

The job opportunities of a science and engineering major are 

vast. And choosing a career that would pay less than half of what 

a student—a graduate could make in a corporation versus a school, 

you know, it is problematic. 

And also, public perception about engineering. As I mentioned to 

you, people don’t understand what it is and unless you have a relative that is an engineer, you probably don’t become an engineer. 

Seventy-two percent of U.S. engineers have had a relative that is 

an engineer. 

And as the demographics change and ethnic groups where engineering is not a traditional discipline become bigger part of the pie, 

we are simply going to run out of engineers unless we introduce it 

in schools as a regular discipline. 

Ms. FOXX. I used to be in education—a long time ago. And I want 

to—I will ask this question of either of the three of you involved 

in education. 

I was told a long time ago that overseas, calculus is often taught 

in the fourth grade, or it is certainly taught in the elementary 

school. And yet we wait until the end of high school to teach calculus and most people going to college have a great fear of taking 

calculus. 

Have you seen any experiences where calculus is being taught 

prior to high school, or is the information I got not accurate about 

calculus and the fact that it is so useful to people to be taught at 

a much younger age? Just start with Dr. Miaoulis and then just go 

down very quickly, if you could. 

Mr. MIAOULIS. Well, my K-12 education was all in Greece, and 

I went to probably the best private school in Greece before I came 

to study here, engineering. And I did not have calculus and I did 

very well in college. I had a lot of more fundamental courses and 

a lot more science, and hands-on science, than my classmates had 

here in the U.S. 

I am not sure that calculus should be taught for every kid before 

they go to college. There are some other mathematics that for the 

people especially that will not become technology and engineering 

majors would be useful, like understanding statistics, for example, 

and simply understanding math you use for finance, like how do 

you calculate your mortgage payment—basic things that should be 

part of the curriculum. 

I think the whole curriculum should be—we should take a closer 

look at the whole curriculum, and lots of the things that are there 

have been there since the 1800s and nobody has questioned why 

they should still be there. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentlewoman’s time is expired. 

The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 
40 

Going back to Mrs. Brooks’ last question when she ran out of 

time and she was directing a question to you, did you have anything further to add to that, Mr. Miaoulis? 

Mr. MIAOULIS. On the corporations? 

Chairman ROKITA. Yes. 

Mr. MIAOULIS. I think I covered it, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. Okay, thank you. I will hear about that 

later. 

Mr. Kurtz, you indicated that you only—you don’t have dual 

tracks, or no tracks in your curriculum, yet you—I thought I heard 

you testify that you are okay with dual tracks to cover C.T. and 

that sort of thing. So why doesn’t your school have a C.T. track? 

Mr. KURTZ. Yes, we have staked out, I guess, a claim that we 

need both kinds of prepared students leaving our K-12 system, but 

we believe the harder and the place that we have failed the most 

in this country is in the 4-year college ready STEM fields—— 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. 

Mr. KURTZ [continuing]. For all students. And so we have said 

that is our focus and we will do that exceedingly well. 

Chairman ROKITA. Focus is important, especially in the charter 

school world, and I can appreciate that. I just want to make sure 

that is clear. Someone else should focus on—— 

Mr. KURTZ. Yes. I mean, I get accused of being anti-CTE. I am 

not anti-CTE, I just believe that many of our low-income students 

never have access to high-quality 4-year college STEM education. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. 

And this next question is for you, Mr. Kurtz, Dr. Schneider, and 

Dr. Miaoulis, all of whom have talked about—all of you have talked 

about the need for training teachers in STEM in order to teach 

STEM. What about this idea—and I apologize if you mentioned it 

or alluded to it and I missed it—what about this idea of having 

persons retired from particular industries, subject matters, scientists, et cetera, come back to school and teach? 

Mr. Kurtz first? 

Mr. KURTZ. Yes. I think if they have a passion for children and 

a passion for education that their expertise can be very useful. One 

of our current principals was a former engineer who has done great 

work and his ability to speak about math in the context of engineering is a real capacity that helps his teaching. 

So I think there is room for that. I think we just have to be careful that those individuals are really committed to teaching as opposed to sharing their—— 

Chairman ROKITA. Why would they sign up after a career—— 

Mr. KURTZ. Well, I just think—— 

Chairman ROKITA [continuing]. If they weren’t interested? 

Mr. KURTZ. I think they certainly could sign up for that career, 

I just think that teaching is a very important profession. 

Chairman ROKITA. Not sign up for another career but—— 

Mr. KURTZ. Yes. No, I—— 

Chairman ROKITA [continuing]. After their career, why 

would—— 

Mr. KURTZ. I think they are a good source of—yes, I think they 

are a good—— 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. 
41 

Mr. KURTZ [continuing]. Source of talent. 

Chairman ROKITA. Dr. Schneider? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I agree. I think a lot of industry people, after 

they have worked in industry and retire and/or, in some cases I 

have had former people I have had in my teacher preparation programs that have lacked physics degrees and go into—they say, 

‘‘Well, when I can afford to go back into teaching I will,’’ and actually, after 20 years in industry some of them have chosen, since 

they have been credentialed, have chosen to come back into that 

career. 

As I think was pointed out by the former—Mr. Kurtz—I think 

the important thing is, not only that they would—they are interested in teaching but understand the complexity of teaching, and 

in some ways the students aren’t necessarily just like they were. 

And I think that is an awareness that people that have been in industry need to bring back and there are special programs to help 

people. 

There are also some industry programs now that are pulling people out for a period a day, and I think there are some interesting 

programs now around computer sciences started. And WestEd is 

trying to help scale the model that started within Microsoft of taking—this happens to be young computer science programmers that 

thought about going into teaching but decided they couldn’t afford 

it, but now they are working and collaborating with schools. And 

this addresses corporate interest—collaborating with schools and 

bringing from industry—like, first period in the morning they put 

an A.P. computer science course or an introductory computer 

science course because the teachers aren’t ready to teach it yet. So 

they actually work in this classroom for 2 years mentoring a teacher that has been designated and interested in learning how to 

teach an A.P. computer science class. And after the 2 years then 

that teacher is ready to have that industry person go back to their 

work. 

So there are a couple models within industry, and one is, if we 

can really increase the supply through expertise and content, then 

it is good. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Dr. Miaoulis? 

Mr. MIAOULIS. And sometimes teacher certification rules in various states prohibit folks from industry to enter the profession. I 

think they should be well-trained, but also, some flexibility on certification would also help. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. 

Really quick—I have only got a couple seconds—Dr. Schneider, 

I can appreciate your view—it is shared—that we want to invest 

and put more money in these programs—put money in these programs. But with your experience in the industry don’t you feel at 

all—don’t you at all agree with the GAO report that some streamlining is necessary here? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I think in my written testimony I actually point 

out that I believe the GAO report does point out that there is overlap but the redundancy—and I will give you a quick example. If 

you were to look at what, let’s say, NOAA does—— 
42 

Chairman ROKITA. I am sorry. My time is expired. I will hear 

about that, too, if I don’t cut myself—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Okay. I am sorry. I was just going to say, NOAA 

has climate-type people that work in that field. That is their specialty. So I think the overlap may not be the issue. The big thing 

is the coordination. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

And I thank the witnesses again. 

I now yield to Mrs. Davis for the purpose of closing comments. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to recognize this outstanding panel, and I think 

that it would certainly behoove all of us to continue to stay engaged and listen to folks like you and others in our own communities as well as here, because there is so much we still need to 

learn. And the integration piece, which is true of just about everything that we do, is also critical—professional development of our 

teachers and providing incentives, and you have all been very helpful in talking about that, as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the hearing. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

I also want to thank the witnesses for your testimony here today. 

Been very helpful. I appreciate, and we all appreciate, your leadership. 

I associate myself with Mrs. Davis’ comments that we still have 

a lot to learn, and I think the states—and as Dr. Miaoulis’ points 

out, some of our local districts and certification standards, at least 

from the states that are doing it right, we can learn a lot from, and 

I hope we get to that part of it in the next hearing. 

But again, thank you very much, again, for your leadership, your 

testimony here today. 

And without any further business before the committee, this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ