University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

(USC Thesis Other)

The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 1
THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES IN LOWER INCOME
SCHOOLS

by

Leena Bakshi

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2014

Copyright 2014 Leena Bakshi

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my amazing Bakshi family from which I have learned the
true meaning of ambition, hard work, strength, endurance, encouragement and, most importantly,
unconditional love.
To my mother, who embodies a tireless work ethic and serves as the pillar of our family.
She has always taught me to push myself and persevere in the face of adversity.
To my father, whose passion for life is infectious. He has taught me to be the strong,
independent woman that I am today.
To my sister, who has supported me through thick and thin. She has taught me not to fret
over the little things and to enjoy every minute of life. She puts me on a pedestal that I think she
should stand on instead.
To my dearest friend, Marie Gorman, who serves as my ray of sunshine. We both
approach life with happy thoughts and positive energy, even through life’s toughest of moments.
Her friendship is priceless.
Lastly, to my late grandparents, Tata and Pati who have always had the highest of
expectations for my success. My grandfather ignited my passion for math and science.
I dedicate this dissertation to all the STEM educators who strive to increase cognizance
of a pressing societal need for systemic positive change that transcends socioeconomic barriers.
I am grateful for seeking out a road less taken in being the sole investigator of this study on
leadership in STEM education.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to profusely thank the members of my dissertation committee: my chair, Dr.
Rudy Castruita, Dr. Pedro E. Garcia, and Dr. Michael Escalante. Their patience, guidance, high
expectations and mentorship have been invaluable throughout the entire dissertation process.
Their rich experience in K-12 education has shed light on educational issues in leadership.
I would also like to thank my classmates in the Trojan family as we supported each other
through every single class, assignment, paper, presentation, international study experience,
qualification exam, and, of course, our final dissertation submission. I am thankful to have
learned from each of you and to have shared a culturally rich experience learning about
education systems in China.
Thank you as well to the superintendents, district administrators, and principals who gave
up their time to participate in this study. They truly are inspirational leaders. The leaders whom I
have met through this study have encouraged me to work tirelessly as a servant to the education
system. So much work still lies ahead in order to achieve positive systemic change.
I would also like to thank my very own teachers who stimulated my interest in the
sciences – Robert Peterson and Mitzi Aguilera. I was fortunate to have amazing teachers who
motivated me to pursue the sciences. I strive to teach just like them so that I can inspire my
students the way they have inspired me, especially for the future young females in STEM.
Lastly, to the educational leaders who have shaped my career, Erik Swanson, Alejandro
Ruvalcaba, Hector Galicia, Marc Trovatore, and Dawn O’Connor. They all have played an
integral part in my administrative aspirations. Their mentorship and insight have motivated me to
be an educational leader who is committed to seeking social justice using education as a vehicle.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 15
Importance of the Study 16
Limitations 18
Delimitations 18
Definition of Terms 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Introduction 20
Implementing STEM through Common Core State Standards: Aspects of Leadership 20
District Level Implementation of STEM: A Measure of Accountability 22
School Level Implementation of STEM: Addressing Diversity 24
Implementing Engaging STEM Initiatives: Student Engagement and Learning 27
Chapter Three: Methodolody 30
Introduction 30
Purpose of the Study 30
Population 31
Data Analysis 32
Research Design 33
Qualitative Sample 34
Quantitative Sample 35
Sample 36
Instrumentation 37
Interview Protocol 39
Summary 40
Chapter Four: Findings 41
Introduction 41
Overview 41
Qualitative Findings 42
Research Question One 42
Research Question Two 51
Research Question Three 60
Research Question Four 66
Discussion 71
Quantitative Findings 72
Discussion 84

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 5
Chapter Five: Summary and Conclusions 86
Summary of the Study 87
Summary of Methodology 88
Summary of Findings 89
Conclusions 90
Implications for Practice 91
Recommendations for Future Research 93
References 95
Appendix A 104
Appendix B 105
Appendix C 106
Appendix D 107
Appendix E 109

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 6
List of Tables
Table 1: School District Population 31
Table 2: Individual School Population 32
Table 3: Instrumentation Chart 38
Table 4: Leadership Roles in STEM Initiative Implementation 43
Table 5: Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core State Standards 47
Table 6: Summary of Responses 72
Table 7: Mean Score of Superintendent and School Leader Responses 74
Table 8: Teaching and Administrative Experience 76

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Superintendent Focus on STEM 77
Figure 2: Superintendent Response for Ongoing professional Development 77
Figure 3: STEM Teaching Experience as Reported by Administrators 79
Figure 4: Principal Response for Consistent STEM Focus 79
Figure 5: Principal Response for Ongoing STEM Professional Development 80
Figure 6: Principal Response for Student Participation in STEM Initiatives 80
Figure 7: Principal Response for Student Participation in STEM Initiatives 81
Figure 8: Principal Response for Student Engagement in Math and Science 81
Figure 9: Principal Response to Utilization of a STEM Coach 82
Figure 10: Principal Response to Financial Challenge for a STEM Initiative 82
Figure 11: Principal Response to Conceptual Development in STEM Instruction 83
Figure 12: Principal Response to Professional Development Being Systemic 83

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 8
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership strategies utilized by
superintendents, district administrators and school principals and the impact of these identified
strategies on implementing STEM initiatives specifically for lower-income students. This study
set out to determine (a) What role does district leadership play in the implementation of STEM
initiatives in lower income secondary schools; (b) What internal systems of accountability exist
in successful lower income secondary schools’ STEM programs; (c) What leadership strategies
are used to implement STEM curriculum initiatives; (d) How do school and district leadership
support staff in order to achieve student engagement in STEM Initiative curriculum.
This study used a mixed-methods approach to determine the impact of leadership strategies
utilized by superintendents, district administrators and school principals on implementing STEM
initiatives. Quantitative data analyzed survey questionnaires to determine the degree of
correlation between the school districts that have demonstrated the successful implementation of
STEM initiatives at the school and district levels. Qualitative data was collected using highly
structured participant interviews and purposeful sampling of four district superintendents, one
district-level administrator and five school leaders to capture the key strategies in implementing
STEM initiatives in lower income secondary schools. Through the process of triangulation, the
results of the study revealed that superintendents and principals should consider the
characteristics of effective STEM initiatives that have shown a considerable degree of correlation
with positive outcomes for lower income students. These included the leadership strategies of
personnel’s making decisions about the district’s and school’s instructional direction and an
emphasis on the conceptual development of scientific principles using the Next Generation
Science Standards coupled with the Common Core State Standards across the grade levels. It
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 9
also emphasized the importance of establishing community partnerships as a primary resource.
This study highlighted the criteria district and school leadership should include in implementing
STEM initiatives and designing professional development models that result in meaningful
instructional practices of STEM curriculum for secondary lower income students. Overall, this
study provides insight for superintendents, district leaders and school administrators that can
play an integral role in implementing STEM initiatives with access for socioeconomically
disadvantaged students.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education serves as the
primary focus for educating and preparing students for a global economy, and numerous reports
assert that the United States must increase its production of highly-educated workers in STEM
fields in order to be competitive in the global marketplace (National Science Board Commission,
2006). Because of the necessity of expanding the STEM fields, the U.S. government looks to its
education forces to increase STEM competencies. Integrative STEM education involves
educational reform efforts that incorporate the ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
science, and engineering and an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze
and interpret data (Sanders, 2009).
The Office of Science, Technology and Policy under George W. Bush (2006), announced
the American Competitiveness Initiative in order to address shortfalls in federal government
support of educational development and progress at all academic levels in the STEM fields.
American economic strength and national security depend on our nation’s rich tradition of
innovation. Some of the major STEM education legislative proposals were combined into the
America Competes Act of 2007 that consisted of three parts: to increase the production of
teachers with baccalaureate degrees in STEM, to raise the achievement of secondary students
through Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs and to establish a panel
of experts to provide information on promising practices for strengthening teaching and learning
in STEM at the elementary and secondary school levels (Kuenzi, 2008).
STEM education is not solely reserved for professional scientists anymore, as an
increasing number of jobs at all levels demand the knowledge of STEM education. K-12 schools
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 11
have a responsibility to prepare students for these jobs (Lacey & Wright, 2009). Moreover,
citizens in society are required to have some understanding of STEM, as they will need to
comprehend medical diagnoses, evaluate claims about the environment, or navigate myriad
computer-based applications. K-12 STEM education serves as the primary link to continued and
sustained scientific leadership and economic growth for the United States. However, research
suggests that many students are not prepared for the demands to today’s economy and
competition in a global market (National Research Council, 2011). Technological fields are in
dire need of qualified workers in the fields of STEM; however, not enough students pursue
studies in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics and are, thus, not prepared for
technical careers. Many students have exhibited no interest in STEM careers, specifically in
engineering, because students are not exposed to these topics in STEM fields during their K-12
public education (Rockland, Bloom, Carpinelli, Burr-Alexander, Hirsch, and Kimmel, 2010).
This necessitates schools to provide exposure to the STEM fields so that students obtain
awareness and sustained interest.
Background of the Problem
A culturally responsive and relevant education is necessary in igniting interest in STEM
for students, regardless of socioeconomic status and demographics (Sanders, 2009). The
leadership role that the school and district take on is often examined in implementing successful
STEM initiatives and how this successful implementation correlates with increased math and
science achievement for students. Furthermore, increasing access to STEM education for
students in lower income schools contributes to closing the achievement gap, especially in math
and science achievement. In the state of California, 23% of lower income students have achieved
proficiency in general mathematics, compared to 40% for students who are not classified as
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 12
lower income. Similarly 27% of lower income students reached proficiency in Algebra 1 as
compared to 47% of their peers who are not classified as such. These same disparities are seen in
science achievement scores and are representative across the nation (National Assessment of
Educational Progress, 2012).
The data derived from California Standardized Testing measures quantify the persistent
barriers for lower income students in attaining access to STEM classes and ultimately to the
rigorous and analytical preparation necessary for STEM careers in the global economy and also
for post-secondary education in STEM. Nikurk (2012) defines the “Millennial Generation” as the
generation who has always had technology integrated into daily life – members of this group are
constantly connected, and, thus, their experiences vary greatly from those of adults aged 35 and
older, for whom technology typically serves as an addition to their lives, versus having a
meaning. Therefore, the brains of millennial students are wired differently, which serves as a
vital fact for STEM educators to address in the classroom. According to President Barack Obama
(2010), nations such as China, Germany, and India are not waiting to revamp their economies.
They are focusing on science/mathematics, and the United States should not either.
STEM education is of vital importance to our national prosperity and global
competitiveness, as evidenced by the Obama administration’s support for STEM initiatives such
as “Change the Equation”. This is in response to the rapidly increasing number of STEM-related
careers and the potential lack of preparation of many citizens in the United States to be employed
in these positions. Thus, early and sustained preparation in STEM provides the foundation
essential for further learning, competencies and literacies (Nadelson, Seifert, Moll, & Coats,
2012).
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 13
The foundation of STEM education begins at the core math and science classes: Algebra
I and Biology. Completion of Algebra I allows students to complete the higher-level courses
such as calculus classes that are aligned with engineering programs. Biology is the science
gateway to classes that meet the college requirements for laboratory science. Students who do
not successfully complete biology must either retake the class or take other remedial science
courses. This is a serious issue given that the same students who complete biology are then
moved to other science classes, such as chemistry or physics. If they do not have the foundation
necessary to complete the first science class, they will struggle in subsequent science classes.
Biology is a high school graduation requirement as well as a college requirement. The college
requirements for California state colleges require students to complete two years of a laboratory
science, omitting Earth Science as an option. Though students have a desire to graduate from
high school, their performance in their science classes will serve as a reason for dropping out of
high school (Styron & Peasant, 2010). Only 39% of lower income students have achieved
proficiency in biology compared to students who are not lower income; the latter group has a
pass rate of 68%. This problem of not achieving proficiency is illustrated in the area of Algebra I
as well, which has a proficiency rate of 27% for lower income students versus 47% for students
who are not lower income. Lower income schools scored below the state average.
Research indicates the prevailing connections between student achievement and the
successful implementation of STEM initiatives that permeate a school culture of success in these
high-demand fields. Public high schools with lower-than-average college matriculation rates
often lack resources to help students form realistic strategies for attending college, much less
choosing college majors that are consistent with their skills and offer them opportunities for
secure employment (Schneider, Judy, & Mazuca, 2012). It is important to solve this discrepancy
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 14
in order to adequately prepare students for STEM education and the onset of Common Core
State Standards (CCSS).
Statement of the Problem
It is currently known and recognized that experiential, hands-on education provides
superior motivation for learning new material by providing real-world meaning to otherwise
abstract knowledge (Matari´c, Koenig, Feil-Seifer, 2007). It is also known that student
performance correlates with teacher quality. Poor student performance may be attributed to the
lack of qualified teachers, as U.S. math and science teachers lack an undergraduate major or
minor in the STEM fields (Kuenzi, 2008). Although we know these factors correlate with student
achievement, it is not known what district and school site leadership attributes play a role in the
instrumentation of a successful STEM initiative, specifically at lower income secondary schools.
With the onset of the Common Core State Standards adoption in 2014, grades
Kindergarten to twelve will have a set of standards that define the knowledge and skills students
should have so they will graduate high school and are able to succeed in entry-level academic
college courses and workforce training programs (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011).
STEM initiatives operate on models that integrate the application of skills and knowledge that
the Common Core State Standards necessitate from students. Also, some STEM models are
extracurricular and do not involve a large portion of the student population. It is not known how
districts and schools will implement STEM initiatives on a school-wide and district-wide level
while integrating within Common Core mathematics and science curriculum. This study sought
to investigate the district and school site leadership involved in the planning, funding,
curriculum, professional development and design of successful STEM initiatives.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 15
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine how district and school leadership direct the
successful implementation of STEM initiatives and how these programs have increased math and
science achievement, particularly in lower income, urban schools. District leaders assessed
include the assistant superintendents of curriculum, instruction and educational services. School
leaders involved are school principals and administrators. To guide the research, the following
research questions were used:
Research Questions
This study utilized mixed-method approach using qualitative and quantitative analysis.
The qualitative analysis of interviews with assistant superintendents of curriculum and
instruction, assistant superintendents of human resources, school site principals, assistant
principals, and STEM teachers helped determine the aspects of leadership that result in the
successful implementation of STEM initiatives and, ultimately, in increased student
performance. Quantitative data analysis was used in assessing the current systems of
accountability and the impact that the STEM initiative has on lower income secondary schools,
1. What role does leadership play in the implementation of STEM initiatives in lower
income secondary schools?
2. What internal systems of accountability exist in successful lower income secondary
schools’ STEM programs?
3. What leadership strategies are used to implement STEM curriculum initiatives?
4. How do school and district leadership support staff in order to achieve student
engagement in STEM initiative curriculum?
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 16
based on formative and summative assessment data analysis, superintendent, district
administrator and school leader interviews.
Importance of the Study
The adoption of the Common Core State Standards in 2014 will completely change the
face of public education in California schools. Common Core is a real-world approach to
learning and teaching and requires a practical, real-life application of skills and knowledge
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012). The importance of STEM education is vital as
it coalesces with the adoption of the Common Core standards by infusing project-based and
application-based learning. Too many students lose interest in science and mathematics at an
early age, and, thus, make an early exit from the “STEM pipeline”. Conventional approaches to
science and mathematics education have prepared some students to be as capable in science and
mathematics as any in the world. However, there is widespread concern regarding the large
percentage of students who opt out of “rigorous” science and mathematics secondary courses
(Sanders, 2009).
The study is designed to identify various indicators used by successful district and school
site leaders in implementing a successful STEM initiative for lower income secondary schools.
These various indicators include personal and professional educational beliefs, perception and
views of district and site leaders, daily practices and routines of instruction, and the
organizational design of the specific STEM initiative. These leadership attributes can serve as a
template for other lower income secondary schools to incorporate as they make the transition to
Common Core State Standards and incorporation of integrated STEM education.
The findings from this study can serve as a resource as to how the successful STEM
initiatives have been implemented within a lower income school and how the programs have
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 17
improved student achievement. The implementation of new integrative STEM education
approaches is an extension of the past twenty years of STEM education reform efforts and,
according to Sanders (2009), the ideals underlying science education reform promote integrative
STEM education. This study looked at how district and school leaders have been able to
implement a curricular STEM initiative while incorporating adequate funding and effective
teacher quality for lower income secondary schools. Instructional improvement is a continuous,
developmental process that requires different types of knowledge and skills at successive
developmental states (Elmore, 2005). The leadership practices that can be observed in this study
can enable other district and school site leaders in building a teaching force that is capable of
taking on rigorous STEM objectives. The results of the study can serve future school leaders and
provide insight into effective leadership skills and attributes utilized in mobilizing a successful
organization and promoting a positive school culture of learning and success.
The role that leadership plays is vital as it dictates the funding for STEM initiatives.
Funded educational projects require astute leadership that can lead towards successful outcomes
(Peters & Le Cornu, 2007). The type of leadership that is elicited also determines the success of
a given initiative. Educational goals can be more effectively achieved through having multiple
leaders across many leadership positions within a professional learning community (Hudson,
English, Dawn, & Macri, 2012). This model moves away from one single layer and towards a
collaborative decision-making approach by enlisting multiple leaders for enacting a certain
reform initiative; in this case, a STEM initiative.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 18
Limitations
The study was limited by the following:
1. The validity of the study is limited to the reliability of the surveys and questionnaires
used.
2. Variables such as family background and family college education were not taken into
account in this study.
3. The California State Test results may not be reflective of the students’ knowledge of the
California mathematics standards and science standards as they are delineated by subject
and for science; the students are responsible for multiple years of science.
4. The qualitative data collected from interviews, observations, and questionnaires is limited
to the interpretation of the primary researcher.
Delimitations
The study was delimited by the following factors:
1. The study was limited to Northern and Southern California school districts that have
secondary schools.
2. The school districts studied are in large urban areas in California and the study is limited
geographically to California.
3. This study is limited to voluntary participants.
4. Hispanic/Latino students represent a majority of the students within the district.
5. Lower-income students are defined as students who are eligible for the free or reduced-
price lunch program.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 19
Definition of Terms
CCSS: Common Core State Standards (Adoption: 2014)
CST: California State Test
District Personnel: Individuals at the district level who are responsible for curriculum,
instruction and implementation of math and science policy education.
Low income school/Title 1 School: Schools where at least 40 percent of the children in the school
attendance area are from low-income families or at least 40 percent of the student enrollment is
from low-income families. The proportion of low-income families is most frequently measured
by the percent of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch.
Minority: Inclusive of significant non-Asian minority subgroups, American Indian/Alaskan
Native, Hispanic/Latino, and African-American students.
NGSS: Next Generation Science Standards (Adoption: 2014)
SED: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged – students who are eligible for the free or reduced-price
lunch program.
STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Student Performance: Mathematics and science achievement data as determined by the
California Standards Test and nationally by the National Assessment of Education Progress
measure.
Superintendent: The chief executive officer of a school district who has executive oversight and
is charged with ensuring an effective teaching and learning process as well as the oversight of the
legal, financial and personnel aspects of the district.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This review of literature delineates the aspects of leadership in implementing STEM
initiatives, as outlined by Bolman and Deal (2003). The four frames are structural, human
resource, political and symbolic. These frames serve as the theoretical framework in this
investigative study. The implementation of the Common Core State Standards in 2014 will also
guide the implementation of rigorous STEM initiatives. According to Bolman and Deal (2003),
“Restructuring is a challenging process that consumes time and resources with no guarantee of
success” (p. 83). With the restructuring of the state standards, it is important that the district level
leadership is able to create a shared sense of responsibility while this transition takes place. The
chapter is presented in the following sections: (a) aspects of leadership and implementing STEM
through Common Core State Standards, (b) district level implementation of STEM and the
measure of accountability, (c) school level implementation of STEM and addressing diversity,
and (d) student engagement and learning.
Implementing STEM through Common Core State Standards: Aspects of Leadership
District and school leadership of a STEM initiative is vital in having the program come to
successful fruition. The school must create a positive school culture with a clear vision and core
values that would engender relational trust, a strong sense of community, and principal and
teacher co-leadership (Rhodes, Stevens, & Hemmings, 2011). Districts must coordinate with
schools to have an action plan where both parties are involved in the planning and development
of the respective program. With vertical coordination, higher levels coordinate and control the
work of subordinates through authority, rules and policies, and planning and control systems
(Bolman and Deal, 2003). The vertical articulation between the district and the school sites
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 21
create a support system for funding and professional development. This is because these
partnerships can build capacity. Understanding how to enact leadership more purposefully may
aid in generating successful and more expedient project outcomes. Multiple leaders can aid the
development of a project, particularly when there are multiple sites in which a project is
implemented (Hudson, English, Les Dawes, & Macri, 2012). School planners also must realize
that positive school culture depends on strong principal and teacher leadership. Principals play
pivotal roles in the production and maintenance of school cultures. The most effective ones bring
school actors together in the development of a shared educational vision (Rhodes, Hemmings, &
Stevens, 2011).
School leaders have created various intervention programs that couple the curricular
instruction. In mathematics for example, researchers have found that, at the posttest, students
who received an intervention involving tutoring outperformed those in a control group. Early
provision of these interventions can enhance long-term mathematics learning. Recommendations
for teachers include embracing the Common Core standards and understanding that authentic
changes need to be made to the current mathematics curriculum in their school and classroom
(Powell, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2013). The ideal leader must establish a positive culture within the
school to encourage teachers to embrace the Common Core standards and investigate
intervention programs that can successfully supplement the standards.
Building upon the foundation of the standards movement for the past 20 years, the
Common Core State Standards outline the knowledge and skills that are expected and required
for students to be “college and career ready” at the end of their K-12 education. With large
financial incentives from the federal government at stake, the state of California, along with 45
other states, chose to adopt the standards. Most states have adopted the standards in a coerced
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 22
manner based on their revenue potential. The Nebraska State Board, for example, will be
evaluating the Common Core standards based on the merit and not the financial incentives
(National Association of State Boards of Education, 2012). States must scrutinize the standards
and ensure they are meeting the needs of the 21
st
century learner. Online literacy is a huge
component of literacy that is often ignored in the outlines of the common core state standards.
Online literacy is a large component of STEM education. Because states may change up to 15%
of the standards, the states can use this opportunity to include elements that recognize literacy in
an online platform. School leaders, such as principals and curriculum specialists, can network
with teachers at the state and local level to share insights about the inclusion of standards not
presently included within the common core (Drew, 2013).
Professional development in addressing the Common Core standards and implementing
STEM programs with proper interventions are necessary for school leaders to articulate to their
teachers. The district must be responsible for this professional development, and school site
leaders must ensure that teachers are applying what they have learned in the classroom. This
enables transfer of the activities and instructional strategies back to their classrooms and directly
to the students (Elam, Donham, & Solomon, 2012). Teachers must also have the motivation to
learn and utilize the teaching strategies necessary to incorporate STEM education in the
classroom.
District Level Implementation of STEM: A Measure of Accountability
Bolman and Deal (2003) define a standard as a benchmark to ensure that goods and
services maintain a specified level of quality. Measurement against the standard makes it
possible to identify and fix problems. The district’s role is to incorporate a standard within the
STEM initiative to measure the success of the program. Summative assessments such as the
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 23
California State Test results in mathematics and science as well as district level benchmark
scores can often provide a standard measure of achievement across school sites. Districts can
also look at specific students who have participated in the STEM program successfully and
compare their results to students who have not had any exposure to STEM or project-based
learning. Districts must also be fully immersed in the program that they have instituted for the
schools.
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) underscore this in describing the adverse selection
problem. “This occurs when directors are not fully informed about the abilities and values of the
providers and select providers that are not the best choice. The accountability relationship only
works when both parties are sufficiently capable and willing” (p. 18). Using the principal-agent
theory, there exists a series of hierarchies that trickle down a set of educational principles to the
direct link: the teacher. At times, the “principal”, whether it is the assistant superintendent or
director of curriculum and instruction, is far removed from the classroom versus the actual
classroom teacher. When new federal, state, or district initiatives are put in place, teachers are
expected to follow and implement these programs because they are the last agents in the
hierarchy. The teachers have not been incorporated as leaders, and this takes away their
autonomy to do their own development and implementation of intervention strategies.
According to Wohlstetter, Datnow, and Park (2008), those closest to the students are in
the best position to judge their needs and abilities and, hence, to choose the most suitable
methods and technologies for successful learning. A school charged with implementing a STEM
initiative needs to have the decision rights at the school site such that teachers have the authority
to identify, develop and implement an intervention strategy based on their analysis of data.
Sound and shared leadership is vital at all levels. If teachers are given too much autonomy,
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 24
without a sense of direction or general vision from a principal, then teachers are left to their own
accord, oftentimes sacrificing student learning. It is this theory that supports more professional
development programs and rigorous teaching standards that teachers must go through in order to
be the best choice as a provider for the directors. When teachers are not willing, this can pose a
challenge in accountability, especially when there is disagreement in what the director seeks to
implement. It is now commonplace for policy makers to cite teacher participation as a concrete
and common sense reform strategy, as participation improves schools by improving the quality
of school-level decisions (Turnbull, 2002).
The idea of capacity building coalesces into the human resources leadership frame. There
exists a defined structure in training and leading one’s subordinates; however, there also exists
the building and molding of the school’s future leaders. Bolman and Deal (2003) describe
Argyris’s theory of emphasizing the importance of “interpersonal competence” as a basic
managerial skill. The culture of collaboration amongst teachers, as described previously, will
assist district leaders in creating summative benchmark assessments that can effectively assess
the students’ math and science achievement. The use of common assessments will allow teachers
to compare data and analyze student performance bands based on specific objectives assessed.
School Level Implementation of STEM: Addressing Diversity
Lower income schools, in particular, exhibit a lack of preparedness of STEM teachers in
high-need urban districts, which serve predominantly low-income minority students, and are,
thus, associated with poor student outcomes. Programs emphasizing multicultural or culturally
responsive teacher education are among the initiatives that have been developed to address
inequalities (Segal, 2011). Mothers of African American children discussed the pervasive
inequities they found within their local, urban school district, which they felt diminished the
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 25
quality of their children's education. The mothers pointed to factors like overcrowding,
dilapidated facilities, and the lack of materials and books (Cooper, 2003). Having access to a
fully functioning science laboratory is important for students to carry out project-based labs that
are relevant to classroom standards. These same urban public schools have been subjected to top-
down federal and state reform initiatives; the most notable of these is No Child Left Behind
(NCLB). Organizational dynamics, especially with defining the school vision, structures, and
cultures ultimately make or break school reforms no matter where they originated (Hemmings,
2012).
Schools must project an environment of high expectations for all students. Issues such as
teacher bias and discrimination can adversely affect student attitudes toward STEM education. It
is very important for a leader to work with like-minded people. There must exist uniformity from
the overall message amongst all staff members. Moreover, it is important for the principal to tap
into the expertise of his staff. Peter Northouse (2004) refers to these practices as “Participative
Leadership,” which refers to leaders who invite subordinates to share in the decision-making. A
participative leader consults with subordinates, obtains their ideas and opinions, and integrates
their suggestions into the decisions regarding how the group or organization will proceed
(Northouse, 2004). Teacher teams can be especially effective in urban high schools serving
youths with diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, needs, and emotional and
cognitive characteristics. Student diversity poses challenges for teachers, especially those who do
not have the support of more experienced colleagues (Rhodes, Stevens, & Hemmings, 2011).
The school leader must be able to mobilize his or her staff in buying into the concept of
STEM education as a school-wide mission and vision. According to Urbanski and Nickolaou
(1997), “Reforms stand a better chance of penetrating the classroom and contributing to
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 26
achieving better results in student learning if teacher leadership can be nurtured and
strengthened. However, that cannot be done without teachers who would act as leaders and who
would attempt to translate theory into practice and rhetoric into action. (Urbanski & Nickolaou,
1997). Thus, the teaching staff thrives upon the growing leadership opportunities. Collaborative
study of essential learning creates ownership of the curriculum among those who are called upon
to teach it. The intended curriculum carried out by the district and school can only be truly
implemented by the teachers. Simply changing the structure of a school will not produce
fundamental changes. The culture, the belief system of a school, must also change. Developing
the capacity of school personnel to function as a professional learning community (PLC) is an
effective strategy for substantive school improvement (Eaker, DuFour, & Burnette, 2002). A
culture of collaboration must also be instilled at the school and district levels in order to
collectively carry out the program. Teachers can then communicate the effectiveness of
classroom instruction to the school site principal and the principal can communicate with the
district personnel to measure the program’s success or necessity for improvement.
The academy model is also a model that can be adopted as a STEM initiative. Styron and
Peasant (2010) investigate the question of whether 9
th
grade academy high schools make a
difference in education in Algebra I and Biology I courses compared to traditional high schools.
The key research question is to determine if there is a significant difference between the
academic achievement of students who attended ninth grade academies and those who attended
traditional high schools (Styron & Peasant, 2010). The means of Algebra I scores and Biology I
scores are higher for the students in 9
th
grade academies than the mean scores for 9
th
grade
students in traditional high schools. Both of these results are statistically significant and have met
the hypothesis tests with 95% significance. The results of the study indicate that ninth grade
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 27
academies increase student achievement as reflected on the state subject examinations. The
researchers found that the academies provide attention and support needed to assist students in
the critical transition period between middle school and high school. There was a significant
difference in students’ scores from the ninth grade academies and the traditional high schools,
with the ninth grade academies having higher exam scores, as hypothesized.
Beliefs, attributions, values and goals shape the cultural model and setting of the school.
As Robert Rueda (2011) notes, “While organizations are characterized by cultural models, they
are also made up of various social contexts (cultural settings) where organizational policies and
practices are enacted” (p. 57).
Implementing Engaging STEM Initiatives: Student Engagement and Learning
Outreach programs have been implemented in order to increase student engagement and
learning in the STEM classrooms. These outreach programs begin with university mathematics
and science faculty members teaching a ten-day summer workshop to elementary and middle
school teachers. This attempts to close any knowledge gaps that exist for STEM teachers.
Following this workshop, a graduate student provides direct classroom support for fifteen hours
each week throughout the academic year to the participating teachers. Both elementary and
middle school programs include fifteen hours per week of direct classroom support by graduate
teaching fellows throughout the academic year. Through these programs, the researchers seek to
maintain students’ interest and performance in mathematics and science throughout the middle
school years. Early findings indicate a positive impact on teacher understanding of mathematics
and science as measured by summer workshops, pre- and post- assessments and participating
students’ development of mathematical knowledge as measured by a standardized test (Moskal
and Skokan, 2011).
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 28
A summer bridge program to high school is another pathway that students can take to
create a culture of learning. The deliberate creation of a student culture is also paramount. The
transition to high school is difficult for most incoming ninth graders, but for urban adolescents at
a high school in Ohio, 84% of whom are living in poverty and coming from 49 different feeder
schools, the transition is even more challenging. The new school cultural environment was
radically different from many of the feeder schools, especially in regards to academic
expectations (Rhodes, Stevens & Hemmings, 2011). During another summer program called X-
TEEMS, 98% of the students and 100% of the parents expressed satisfaction with the X-TEEMS
program at a “Very Great Extent” or “Great Extent” level. The most popular and influential
activities, as rated by the students and parents, were the collaborative hands-on activities and
interactions with the career engineers.
The brains of millennial students are wired differently—a fact that is important for STEM
educators to be aware of and to address. STEM teachers know that it is important to teach in
ways that will facilitate student learning (Nikirk, 2012). Several tasks can be aimed at assessing a
student’s ability to explain, including reasoning, troubleshooting, redesigning, and predicting
(Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). According to Bakia et al. (2011):
Learning outcomes are most often measured at the student level, although they may be
aggregated at the classroom, school or district level. Stakeholders might be particularly
interested in scores on standardized tests; some studies also look at grades or alternative
assessments that are more sensitive to the types of skills to be developed through
innovative instruction. It is particularly important to consider not just numerical outcomes
(e.g., graduation rates and test scores), but also the quality of those student outcomes. (p.
10-11)
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 29
It will usually be the case that there will be several rather than one, cause or gap that is leading to
not achieving goals (Rueda, 2011)
Students are in need of a multi-faceted approach to learning that involves a dynamic
model. In school, only a narrow repertoire of meaning-making practices is valued. This
repertoire leaves out intellectually powerful forms of argumentation, explanation, narration,
representation, and imagination across linguistic, visual, bodily, emotive, and symbolic modes of
meaning-making and learning styles. As a result, the everyday funds of knowledge and meaning-
making practices, which students from historically non-dominant communities bring to their
school learning, are often missed or dismissed being interpreted as having no real intellectual
value in the classroom (Wright, 2011). Students require a set of practical implications that
provide authentic performance tasks. A specific program provided this platform using the
concept of sustainability and the environment. This emphasized for students an aesthetic
education that integrated the science and the arts. Participants developed their ability to connect
academic domains of knowledge and creatively address sustainability challenges (Clark &
Button, 2011). Students had a tangible concept to apply their knowledge of STEM principles.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 30
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLODY
Introduction
This study sought to determine the strategies used by district superintendents and school
site principals when successfully implementing a STEM initiative. The study also sought to
determine the leadership strategies used in the implementation of STEM curricular and
extracurricular initiatives. This chapter provides the current study’s research questions and
details the research methods, sample and population, and instrumentation as these relate to the
research questions, data collection processes, and data analysis procedures.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to investigate the following research questions:
These research questions explore how the successful implementation of STEM initiatives
in lower income schools correlate with math and science achievement scores. This overarching
research question investigates the aspects of leadership involved in implementing the program.
The questions delve further into the district level implementation and assess the accountability
measures for the programs’ success. This study looked at the school level implementation of the
STEM initiative and how students obtain access to STEM resources and curriculum that drive an
1. What role does leadership play in the implementation of STEM initiatives in lower
income secondary schools?
2. What internal systems of accountability exist in successful lower income secondary
schools’ STEM programs?
3. What leadership strategies are used to implement STEM curriculum initiatives?
4. How do school and district leadership support staff in order to achieve student
engagement in STEM Initiative curriculum?
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 31
education or career in this respective field. Lastly, the research questions focus on the students
and sought to describe the learning theories that support an engaging STEM initiative that
supports math and science achievement in lower income schools. Each of the questions
references the theoretical framework set forth by Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames of
Leadership: the structural leader, the human resources leader, the political leader, and the
symbolic leader.
Population
This study was conducted in the state of California across the San Francisco Bay Area,
Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties. The selected school districts were
chosen based on the following criteria: a) unified or secondary school districts or public charter
agency, b) schools with a socioeconomically disadvantaged API of 685 or more, c) total
percentages of students enrolled in the free or reduced-price lunch program make up at least 40%
of the district’s overall student population, d) the implementation of a district and school-wide
STEM initiative or academy and e) the implementation of the Next Generation Science
Standards within each science classroom. Tables 1 and 2 outline the population demographics of
the schools and districts in which the superintendents, district administrators and principals were
interviewed.
Table 1
School District Population
District Administrators District
API
SED
API
% of
SED
Number of
Students
Superintendent 1 831 810 69.2 7,738
Director from District 2 739 719 65.9 8,194
Superintendent 3 709 707 97.7 2,522
Superintendent 4 714 702 86.3 3,984
Superintendent 5 721 687 78.9 25,139

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 32
Table 2
Individual School Population
School
Leader
School
API
SED
API
% of
SED
Science
Proficiency
Math
Proficiency
Algebra 1
Proficiency
Geometry
Proficiency
Principal 1 726 703 66.6 56%
6
th
grade =
29%
7
th
grade =
36%
8
th
grade =
0%
8
th
grade =
21%
No
geometry
program
Principal 2 698 687 77.9 55%
7
th
grade =
29%
8
th
grade =
10%
7
th
grade =
38%
44%
Principal 3 709 672 71.4 50%
6
th
grade =
17%
7
th
grade =
23%
8
th
grade =
12%
7
th
grade =
57%
71%
Principal 4 775 752 62.5 50%
7
th
grade =
30%
8
th
grade =
32%
7
th
grade =
100%
87%
Principal 5 697 687 78.1 39%
7
th
grade =
23%
8
th
grade =
20%
7
th
grade =
93%
75%

Data Analysis
Publically available data on the California Department of Education’s DataQuest
database was analyzed, and the researcher reviewed these to determine which urban school
districts showed gains in mathematics and science achievement scores over the previous three
years for lower socioeconomic status students in California. Interviews were conducted at the
district and school levels with five principals, four superintendents, and one director of
curriculum and instruction. The superintendents, district administrators, and principals were
assured of their confidentiality in the study. Upon receiving consent to interview these subjects,
interviews were scheduled and conducted using interview protocols. The interviews were tape
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 33
recorded with each subject’s consent and lasted approximately 45 minutes. Field notes were used
to collect data in addition to recordings.
Research Design
The qualitative data used in this research study were analyzed using Creswell’s (2009)
data analysis stages: (a) organize and prepare data for analysis by compiling field notes and
completing transcription of recordings, (b) read and analyze data to determine tone, (C) code
data into chunks of information, (d) generate categories and themes that reflect the overarching
research questions, and (e) interpret the data. A coding schedule was created such that it fell into
the following categories: leadership, experience, curriculum and instruction, STEM, teacher
participation, school and community symbols, political frames, and student engagement. “Open
coding” was utilized, and this process allowed for the assignment of codes to pieces of data and,
thus, constructing the categories. The evolution of the scheme involved a variety of categories.
As advised by Merriam (2009), one should compile these categories in a separate memo
retaining those that seem to hold across more than one interview or set of field notes. Using this
protocol, the interviews from the district and school were transcribed and coded to find the
aforementioned themes and trends. Comparison between the data allowed the researcher to find
commonalities of leadership strategies implemented at the district and school site levels.
The research investigated the strategies used by district and school leadership when
making decisions about STEM implementation and curriculum to determine the impact of these
strategies on lower income schools and achievement in mathematics and science. This study used
a mixed-methods approach in that both quantitative and qualitative data were collected (Patton,
2002). The quantitative portion of the study utilized a survey that was sent to ninety-five
principals identified as effective, as evidenced by their length of tenure of three years in the
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 34
position and the student achievement reflected by the school’s API score for socioeconomically
disadvantaged populations. This same survey was modified for the superintendents or
administrators of the same ninety-five districts considered highly successful based on their
districts’ meeting their respective adequate yearly progress and their length of tenure in the
superintendent position. These district superintendents or administrators received questionnaires
both for themselves and the principals of school that host STEM initiatives. Sixty-three school
leaders and forty-five superintendents responded to the questionnaires and comprise the sample
for the quantitative analysis.
Qualitative Sample
The qualitative portion of the study aimed primarily to understand how educational
leaders implement STEM initiatives. Moreover, this portion delved further into the
accountability processes for both the schools and districts. The study transcends beyond the
“cause and effect” relationship and sought to understand the phenomenon by investigating a
particular aspect of the phenomenon. Interviews with four superintendents, one district-level
administrator, and five school site principals provided qualitative data on school districts’ STEM
program development and district curricular and instructional decision making processes. As
Merriam (2012) states, qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people
interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to
their experiences. The first step in constructing the interview protocol was to decide the structure
of the type of interview to be conducted. The research questions involved a detailed study of
successful STEM programs and their correlation to math and science achievement. Merriam
(2012) states that interviewing is necessary when one cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how
people interpret the world around them.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 35
The interview questions were intended for school principals and district superintendents
who can critically assess successful STEM programs in a public school setting. There needed to
exist a high level of structure because the information gathered from respondents must reflect
common sociodemographic data, since the prime focus of the research questions is on lower
income schools. The interview process sought to also yield similar responses and definitions of
particular STEM concepts and terms. The interviews were approximately 45 minutes in length.
Standardized open interviews, combined with the interview guide approach, were used to focus
on how districts’ STEM instructional plans were constructed and how they are implemented.
These face-to-face interviews were conducted with both principals and superintendents, allowing
them the opportunity to share what they felt were effective leadership practices in implementing
the STEM program among secondary principals, and how their superintendents were best able to
provide the necessary support to enable that success in STEM education.
Quantitative Sample
Survey questionnaires were used to determine the degree of correlation between the
districts that have been identified as successful and implemented STEM initiatives according to
the information gathered based on the participant interviews. This serves as a method of
triangulation of data to assess the information given qualitatively and quantitatively. The survey
was also meant to determine lower income student outcome measures in mathematics and
science. Survey questionnaires with five-point Likert scales were used. The questions were
constructed based on leadership characteristics that successfully implement a school and district-
wide STEM initiative. An answer of (5) means that the participant strongly agrees with the
statement given. Conversely, an answer of (1) means that the participant strongly disagrees with
the statement given. The superintendent questionnaire contained 12 questions and the principal
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 36
questionnaire contained 15 questions that were subdivided into three categories: district, years of
experience, and district/school practices.
The participants were school site principals in either unified school districts or in union
high school districts, as the study is primarily focused with achievement in secondary lower
income schools. Before interviews were arranged, a survey was sent to school principals and
superintendents that met the criteria for this study. Only schools that qualified as “low
socioeconomic schools” were selected to take part in the survey and interview process. Low-
income schools were chosen based on whether they qualified as a Title I school. A Title I school
is where at least forty percent of the children in the district attendance area are from low-income
families or the school itself has at least forty percent of the student enrollment coming from low-
income families, which makes the school eligible to receive federal Title I funds. The data from
the leadership traits was analyzed for trends related to leadership style and leadership ideals.
Both surveys for principals and superintendents addressed the principles of leadership: structure,
human resources, symbolic, and political principles. This data was also analyzed for trends
related to educational background, years of experience, and years in the current district. Each
individual selected for the interview offered a holistic and comprehensive understanding of the
school site and the STEM initiatives offered to validate the findings in this study.
Sample
For the qualitative method of study, purposeful sampling was used to focus more in depth
on small samples of five respondents in each category: superintendents and district
administrators and the second category of school principals. Deviant case sampling and intensity
sampling were combined to learn about district characteristics that may produce the phenomenon
of interest, namely a sustained increase in student outcomes in mathematics and science for
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 37
lower income schools. The unit of analysis for this study was an urban, lower income school
district, as defined by the percentage of students in the free and reduced-price lunch program.
Purposeful sampling was used for the quantitative research, which was sent to 95 school districts
in California. The participants were pre-selected based on the aforementioned population criteria
because random sampling could not ensure that the leaders would be from urban, lower-income
schools or that they had established a successful STEM initiative in that district for a significant
period of time. Patton (2002) confirmed that “random probability samples cannot accomplish
what in-depth, purposeful samples accomplish, and vice versa.”
Instrumentation
A multiple methods approach was utilized for data collection and analysis. The use of
participant interviews and survey data collection allowed for triangulation using multiple sources
of data (Creswell, 2009). Purposeful sampling was used and, to begin this process, participants
for the interview were selected using criterion-based selection. The attributes essential to the
study were as follows: leadership at the district level and leadership at the school site. This
criterion is important because the full implementation of a successful STEM initiative is multi-
faceted at each of the layers. It understands the relationships and collaboration between district
level superintendents and school site principals. A chain of command was chosen between the
superintendents, district administrators and the site principal. This chain allowed the researcher
to see the communication and leadership practices from top-down and bottom-up. As Merriam
(2012) notes, the criteria one establishes for purposeful sampling must directly reflect the
purpose of the study and guide in the identification of information-rich cases.
Merriam (2009) contends that, in highly structured interviews, questions and the order in
which they are asked are determined ahead of time. The interviews were person-to-person and
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 38
served as one form of data collection. The interaction between the researcher and the participants
was conducted in a highly-structured format. Interviews were recorded with granted permission
from the participant and then transcribed. The major use of highly structured formats in
qualitative research is to gather common sociodemographic data from respondents. It is also used
when the researcher wants participants to respond to a particular statement or to define a
particular concept or term (Merriam, 2009). Appendix A and B contain the interview questions
used. The quantitative portion of the research study used a survey questionnaire to determine
information relevant to the same research questions. The surveys were sent to 95 school districts
with a return from 45 superintendents and 63 principals. A summary of the instrumentation is
seen in Table 3.
Table 3
Instrumentation Chart
Research Questions Superintendent
Interview
School Leader
Interview
Superintendent
Survey
School Leader
Survey
1. What role does
leadership play in the
implementation of
STEM initiatives in
lower income
secondary schools?
Appendix A
Q1, Q2, Q3
Appendix B
Q1, Q2, Q3,
Q4
Appendix C
Q1, Q6
Appendix D
Q1
2. What internal systems
of accountability exist
in successful lower
income secondary
schools STEM
programs?
Appendix A
Q4, Q5, Q6
Appendix B
Q5, Q6, Q7,
Q8
Appendix C
Q2, Q3, Q4
Appendix D
Q2, Q3, Q4

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 39
Table 3, continued
3. What leadership
strategies are used to
implement STEM
curriculum initiatives?
Appendix A
Q7, Q8, Q9
Appendix B
Q9, Q10, Q11,
Q12
Appendix C
Q7, Q8, Q9
Appendix D
Q6, Q8, Q9
4. How do school and
district leadership
support staff in order
to achieve student
engagement in STEM
initiative curriculum?
Appendix A
Q10, Q11
Appendix B
Q13, Q14,
Q15, Q16
Appendix C
Q5, Q9
Appendix D
Q5, Q7, Q8,

Interview Protocol
Interview protocols were used to make sure the necessary questions were aligned to the
research questions examined in the study. The questions in the protocols were constructed based
on the conceptual frameworks of leadership using Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames and
Hentschke and Wohlstetter’s (2004) accountability measures. The use of the protocols aided in
keeping the interviews structured and focused. The purpose of the interview was to gather
qualitative data to provide a primary source of information from a superintendent and principal
that can shed light on a given topic and to obtain individuals’ perceptions (Mathis, 2012). The
method of identifying the appropriate respondents is crucial in answering the overarching
research questions. The primary focus is leadership at two levels: the district and the school.
Therefore, the respondents were selected to represent each of these levels accordingly. The first
level is the district superintendent. This person is in charge of creating and executing the
district’s mission and vision. At the school level, the school principal is the primary
administrator in charge of implementing the program and mobilizing the staff and students to
participate in the school-wide program. The principal is the ideal “informant” – one who
understands the culture but is also able to reflect on it and articulate for the researcher what is
going on (Merriam, 2012). This is because the principal should understand the true culture of the
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 40
school first-hand and can also assess how successful the program is by incorporating first-hand
classroom observation data and student achievement results. These respondents are “good
respondents” who can provide thoughts, feelings, opinions, and certain perspectives on the
STEM topic.
Summary
Successful implementation of STEM initiatives start with a school-wide culture. This
chapter outlined the methodology used to explore the impact of strategies used by the
superintendents and school site principals on the implementation of STEM initiatives. Through a
mixed-methods approach, qualitative data were collected through interviews and surveys from
school districts and schools demonstrating sustained success in the fields of STEM, especially
for students of lower socioeconomic status. This information was then used to determine the
components and characteristics essential in successful school districts that particularly serve
lower income populations. Quantitative data collected from surveys were used to establish
district predictors of math and science achievement for lower socioeconomic students. Data
collection began upon passing the Qualifying Exam and successful completion of IRB. This case
study was approved and given the USC UPIRB # UP-13-00518. The findings from the analysis
of data are presented next, in chapter four.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 41
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
This purpose of the study was to examine district level and school level practices and
strategies in implementing STEM initiatives in lower income schools. Specifically, this study
focused on the roles of the superintendents and principals as they relate to student achievement
in STEM. In addition, the research explored correlations with respect to content knowledge in
STEM, program design, curriculum and professional development for teachers and staff that may
correspond to student achievement in STEM. The results of this study may contribute to the
growing body of knowledge on the characteristics and influence of district and school leadership
on student outcome measures in STEM subjects. The findings from this study identified themes
that emerged from the data collection, including relevant correlations between district and school
leadership practices and STEM initiative success.
Overview
STEM education is complex and involves all levels of district and school involvement.
Kesidou and Roseman (2001) contend:
Middle School Programs only rarely provided students with a sense of purpose for units
of study, took account of student beliefs that interfere with learning, engaged students
with relevant phenomena to make abstract scientific ideas plausible, modeled the use of
scientific knowledge so that students could apply what they learned in everyday
situations, or scaffolded student efforts to make meaning of key phenomena and ideas
presented in the programs.
The need stands that new programs are needed to support teachers better in helping students
learn key ideas in STEM. Understanding the complexity of curricular and extracurricular STEM
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 42
programs requires multiple perspectives and multiple forms of data analysis. Therefore, this
study utilized a mixed-method design in order to collect data that were rich, authentic,
complementary and descriptive when discussing successful components of such programs.
Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007) define mixed-methods research as the type of
research which combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches for the
broad purposes of breadth and depth of corroboration and understanding. Therefore, data was
collected in two formats: qualitative data through participant interviews and quantitative data
through survey responses. An analysis of quantitative data collected through a series of surveys
collected from 43 school districts and 32 school sites is then detailed. The qualitative and
quantitative data collected from these two methods were analyzed separately. As Creswell
(2009) states, the decisions that directed this study and the data resulting from the study are only
useful if they attempt to understand complex phenomena. The criteria and findings from this
study could serve as guidelines in new curricular and extracurricular development, especially in
lower income schools. Accordingly, the results exhibited from the evaluation of each of the four
research questions, which directed this study, are summarized as follows.
Qualitative Findings
Research Question One
What role does leadership play in the implementation of STEM initiatives in lower
income secondary schools?
The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower incomes schools is
dependent on the leadership that initiates and sustains the program. There were several themes
that stemmed from the participant interviews with school leaders, district superintendents, and
district-level leaders. Common themes include those of centralized professional learning,
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 43
classroom and activity observations, and the inculcation of teacher leadership. The
commonalities between the responses from the school leaders and district level leaders are
organized and presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Leadership Roles in STEM Initiative Implementation
Superintendent/ District Administrator Responses School Leaders
Responses
• Applying and Implementing STEM Grants
• Vertical Articulation from Elementary,
Middle and High School
• Strategic Planning for STEM
• Observation Tools for Principals
• Central Office Professional Development
• Budgeting and Funding for Curricular and
Extracurricular STEM Initiatives
• Establishing Networks with
Community Partners
• Observing Science/Engineering
Practices
• Budgeting of Categorical Funds via
School Site Council
• Lesson Study Collaboration
• Professional Development for
teachers
• Leadership Team Creation

Centralized Professional Learning. District level leadership includes superintendents
and other district personnel, including curriculum leaders and school boards. The following
actions by these key leaders were found to correlate with improved student learning:
collaborative goal-setting processes, involving key stakeholders, clear and nonnegotiable goals,
board alignment with and support of district goals, monitoring the goals for achievement and
instruction, and use of resources to support goals for achievement and instruction (Loucks-
Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2010). A strong foundation of STEM initiatives
begins with a solid, cohesive leadership team that supports and advocates for STEM education.
The role leadership plays in the implementation of STEM curriculum is vital (Merrill &
Daugherty, 2010). District 5 has a department entitled Leadership, Curriculum and Instruction.
This department works directly with classroom science teachers in grades 6th through 12th.
There is a district-wide focus on monthly professional learning for teachers. All secondary
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 44
schools have a shortened school day which presents teachers with built-in time to focus on
district wide collaboration. This gives the central office an opportunity to provide all
mathematics and science teachers with consistent and centralized professional learning. All 160
secondary science teachers are invited to the event.
According to Darling-Hammond and Sykes (1999), centralized professional development
meetings have had the least impact on teacher's practices, such as focusing on district-mandated,
generic instructional skills of teachers “trained” as individuals by an outside “expert” away from
their job site. Because this training is fragmented, piecemeal, and often based on instructional
fads, it is viewed as easily dispensed with in tough financial times (Darling-Hammond & Sykes,
1999). It is important that districts harness the power of their own personnel and create learning
communities that fulfill a shared vision. Within this larger context, the professional learning
context provides the specific conditions for professional learning (Melville and Yaxely, 2008).
The superintendent from District 1 expressed interest in creating a district-wide STEM
action plan that elicits the help of teachers, administrations and parents, working together to
create a common vision. The superintendent states that we should have parents involved to
understand STEM education and be partners. Many of our parents are in those kinds of fields.
The superintendent seeks to find out how we can use the parents as a viable resource. Having this
done at the central office is essential in creating consistency within the district’s schools. It also
contributes to having vertically-aligned science and engineering practices that follow the action
plan's vision. Principal 5 sees the central office as a critical leader in building STEM initiatives.
They need to be able to see the value in it for the students and for meeting the students' learning
objectives. They are also able to provide resources that fundamentally support the schools' vision
for STEM education. This can be curricular or extra-curricular. The district supports programs
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 45
like robotics and engineering clubs that are dependent on resources and supplies that are
necessary to support student learning. Principal 5 pushes for programs that align with science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
District 2 implemented learning walks as an observational tool for the district. The
essential elements of the learning walks are that they are focused and non-evaluative. The
researcher found that the data gathered from these learning walks is then translated into useful
information that leads to reflective conversations, common language around best practices, and
improved student achievement. A group of three to four people observe the teaching and learning
around a specific focus area to gather real-time data. This practice seeks to study the data that
positively affects student learning. The learning walks have been especially useful in the science
classrooms that are currently undergoing a shift in instructional practices. The director from
District 2 states, “The principals are in the classroom about 40% to 50% of the time, and so we
collect walk-through data. We have intensely looked at the science instruction and have seen
how our students are responding. Are they using the academic language? Are they using critical
thinking? Within the observations, the director ensures that principals are looking for factors that
contribute to student learning, one of them being that students demonstrate capacity and skills for
independent thinking; apply intellectual, creative and physical effort; show initiative, and know
how well they are doing and how to improve.
Professional development is a recurring theme that both the central office and school site
should agree upon such that the teachers can have a shared model and focus to practice in their
classrooms. Professional development has a significant effect on science teaching practices and
classroom culture that can, ultimately, lead to changes in teaching practices and increases in
student performance. (Parker, Stylinski, Darrah, McAuliffe, & Gupta, 2010). Teachers with no
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 46
professional development were predicted to employ inquiry-based practices four-tenths of a
standard deviation less frequently than that of the average teacher in the sample. Teachers with
less than 40 hours of professional development had more traditional practices (i.e., less inquiry-
oriented) than did the average teacher (Supovitz & Turner, 2000).
Observation. The superintendent from District 5 has a secondary science specialist to
assist in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) implementation. The primary focus is to
prepare teachers for the implementation of NGSS. NGSS: The Next Generation Science
Standards were adopted April 2014 in California. Currently, District 5 does not have a science
curriculum aligned to NGSS. The researcher found that the current focus on district-wide
professional development has been on the transition on instructional paradigms and shifts toward
the authentic science and engineering practices in the classroom. The leadership science teams
establish networks with other teams to further solidify the theme of science across the
curriculum. District 5’s science team partners with the mathematics team in the Leadership,
Curriculum and Instruction department. Having a shared vision of what the ideal science
classroom looks like is imperative for District 5 so that the fluidity in observations demonstrates
consistency across all classrooms. According to the superintendent:
This protocol exists such that when you walk into a science classroom it has NGSS
practices on the back of the protocol. This is through the work of many specialists and
many managers. It's our vision, what we want to see happening in our classroom. The
focus of this is an observational tool. A Principal, a teacher leader, or I can go into a
room, and I'm not looking at the teacher. I'm looking at what the kids are doing, and I'm
collecting evidence around that.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 47
The partnerships that are formed allow for consistent communication amongst
instructional leaders. For example, observations and classroom walk-through practices are
calibrated such that all parties take note of the NGSS practices. The team at District 5 created a
classroom walk-through index card with all eight practices to pinpoint when observing
classrooms and to serve as the primary vision of the department. This observational tool enables
a principal, teacher leader, science specialist, or any significant person on the science leadership
team to enter a classroom and take note of the science instruction. The observational tool
delineates each of the eight science and engineering practices as summarized in table 5. The table
also demonstrates the correlation between the mathematical practices seen in common core:
Table 5
Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core State Standards
Scientific and Engineering Practices Mathematical Practices
Asking questions and defining problems Make sense of problems and persevere in solving
them
Developing and using models Reason abstractly and quantitatively
Planning and carrying out investigations Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning
of others
Analyzing and interpreting data Model with mathematics
Using mathematics and computational thinking Use appropriate tools strategically
Constructing explanations and designing solutions Attend to precision
Engaging in argument from evidence Look for and make use of structure
Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating
information
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

The emphasis is to observe student STEM instruction and collect evidence surrounding
the science and engineering practices. Members of the leadership team can localize whether
students are asking questions or engaging in argument. The work in monthly professional
learning gives teachers a repertoire of difference strategies and assuages the shifts in instruction
necessary to implement the Next Generation Science Standards. According to the district
coordinator, the current shifts in teaching practices will be fundamental when the district has an
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 48
entire curriculum roll out that incorporates NGSS. District 5’s main initiatives were to instill
deep, critical thinking within the student body.
Teacher leaders are in the development stages of a 5X8 observation tool for peer-to-peer
observation. Because this process is non evaluative, it provides a culture of observation and
collaboration amongst the teachers. As Robert Marzano (2007) notes, walkthroughs are one of
the most popular techniques currently used for collecting observational data. They are typically
about three to five minutes in duration and are led by administrators, supervisors, and
instructional coaches. Walkthroughs are useful in obtaining a snapshot of the overall behavior of
teachers in a building or in a district. This is an efficient way to for a district to measure the
overall shift in science teaching practices. The district coordinator states that it is an opportunity
for teachers to learn together and shift our practices.
District 5's shift resonates with highly researched lesson models that emphasize this shift
in lesson plan development, such as the 5E Model. The 5E Model, engagement, exploration,
explanation, extension and evaluation, is a lesson planning model that parallels with the science
and engineering practices in NGSS. According to Balci, Cakiroglu and Tekkaya (2006), both the
5E learning cycle method and the conceptual change text instruction method caused a
significantly better acquisition of scientific conceptions related to photosynthesis and respiration
in plants than traditional instruction (Balci, Cakiroglu, & Tekkaya, 2006). Principal 5 states that
effectiveness in instruction does not always meet compliance with standardized test scores. The
principal has had to make a philosophical decision to choose effective teaching practices that
may show a dip in standardized science test scores versus teaching to the assessment via
memorization and direct instruction.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 49
With the implementation of common core, Principal 5 must observe classrooms
understanding the general shift of science teaching. Teachers are reflective of their craft and,
from a coaching perspective, he strives to provide "no judgment" statements, to just think, reflect
and respond with no judgment. Principal 5 states that science teaching needs to be a lot more
hands on. The hands-on, project-based language transcends race, language, and morals. This
vision for science aligns with CCSS and NGSS. He ensures NGSS alignment in the classroom by
assigning and collaborating with a point person, such as a department head, who shares the same
philosophy on science teaching. With frequent collaboration with this person, there is an
exchange of needs that occurs with an open line of communication.
Implementing a teacher leader helps convey the message to other teachers and these same
practices will be consistent in classroom observations (Curtis, 2013). Implementing teacher
leaders creates a culture of peer-to-peer learning. Together, teachers can learn in a collaborative
environment. Ideally, every teacher should have a chance to participate in instructional rounds at
least once per semester. Rounds should be facilitated by a lead teacher—someone who is
respected by their colleagues as an exceptional teacher and recognized as a professional.
Administrators may also lead rounds, but it should be made clear from the outset that their
purpose is not to evaluate the teachers being observed (Marzano, 2007).
Teacher leadership. Teacher leaders should act as facilitators amongst their peers
(Usdan, McCloud, & Podmostko, 2001). “Facilitators must have an understanding of the science
or mathematics being taught and must have the skills and experience to manage discussions that
are intellectually stimulating, challenging, and supportive. Facilitators need to know about and
be able to use processes and protocols specific to work and pre- and post-conferencing protocols
for coaching” (Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2010). District 5 strives to
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 50
cultivate teacher leaders as contact experts. This is because, according to the survey that will be
discussed more in the quantitative findings section, 88% of principals surveyed have STEM
content knowledge. Therefore, the teacher leaders serve as advocates to the school and district
administration. Moreover, the principals call for teacher leaders to provide expertise in the fields
of science.
The focus for teacher leaders is on three strands: developing leadership skills, focusing on
NGSS implementations and the science and engineering practices associated with this
implementation, and moving other teachers to that next level of instruction. Establishing teacher
leadership has been the prime focus of the STEM coordinator from District 4, as evidenced in the
following comments:
The steps in designing a STEM initiative greatly depend on the superintendent. This year,
we have a lab coordinator with a high school background and a superintendent that is
very supportive of STEM within the district and also strives to ensure equity for all. Ideas
and visions are now being supported at the district level. The team has also built TECHIE
teachers; a team of teachers serves as frontline of sharing what is working in the
classroom and supporting other fellow teachers.
This new focus on STEM as a central office focus has enabled the STEM coordinator to
expand the office of STEM and carry on a vision at the district level of prompt and support
system wide instructional improvement (Swinnerton, 2007). Two teachers at every school meet
once a month at the central office. This meeting ignites conversations about positive changes in
the science classroom and moving teachers toward a STEM driven curriculum for students. This
idea of having teachers convene in order to change for the better is defined as a learning
organization (Johnson, 2002). According to James Johnson (2002), learning organizations are
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 51
designed to anticipate and react to changing external and competitive environments in a positive
and proactive manner. Principal 5 embodied this idea of building a learning organization. He
builds relationships and builds capacity within his staff to embrace the shift towards science and
engineering practices school-wide. He seeks out teacher leaders that can take on his vision in a
collaborative manner. The teacher uses cognitive coaching with other teachers as they reflect
upon STEM lessons in the classroom. What is learned in the classroom is then applied to after-
school programs. The school partners with the local university to have an after-school science
and mathematics integration funded by the company Bechtl. This principal has full awareness of
his vision for STEM and, as Johnson (2002) notes, leaders need to pay attention to this initiative,
ensure that others in the organization are focused on it, and institute an appropriate reward
system. This may take place in the strategic planning process.
Research Question Two
What internal systems of accountability exist in successful lower income secondary
schools ’ STEM programs?
The communication between the school site and the district is pivotal in creating a system
of accountability for a successful STEM program (Honig, 2009). Each superintendent led a
central office that leads professional learning implemented by teachers at the school sites.
Superintendent 3 states that teachers will be held accountable by the principals and the principals
will be held accountable by the central office. In order to achieve this iterative process of
accountability measures, there should exist a common framework shared by instructors, policy
makers, and community experts (Stephens and Richey, 2011). The process of cultural change
begins with a focus on inclusiveness, bringing all campus members into the discussions about
problems and strategies (Hrabowski, Suess, Fritz, 2011). Instituting a shared leadership model
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 52
assists leaders in carrying out this common vision through productive forms of teacher leadership
that model collaboration, integration, encouragement, learning, modeling, challenging, building
consensus, and displaying professionalism (Lindahl, 2008). According to principal 3, leaders are
able to seek out teachers who have the content knowledge necessary in carrying out science and
engineering themes that support STEM education.
Vision and capacity building. Outcomes and policies are generally established at the
national and state levels; however, it is at the local level where changes in infrastructure may
occur in response to the local culture’s shared values and goals. (Khourey-Bowers, Dinko and
Hart, 2005). It is important to take the time to clarify a vision of how the organization will appear
as the written plan takes form in action. A shared vision, collaboratively developed and actively
communicated, is a powerful influence on the successful implementation of any staff
development plan or activity (Buell, 1992).
The Director of Secondary Instruction from District 2 provides opportunities for the
principals to communicate any new STEM initiatives, whether they are curricular or
extracurricular. The director then processes the written agreements and proposals and seeks out
the superintendent’s signature. If the proposal meets the districts’ vision for student learning,
then the director vets these proposals with the superintendent and the cabinet members. The
director ensures agreement in that the STEM initiative will be a benefit and a value to the
students in the district. The cabinet oversees the director’s efforts to ensure that the initiative will
have a positive effect on student outcomes and that the district will not be liable in terms or
finances and legality. These initiatives then seek school board approval. Various STEM
initiatives are also based on the regulation put forth by grant money, such as the Peer-Led Team
Learning (PLTL) model, supported from a National Science Foundation grant (Street, Koff,
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 53
Fields, Kuehne, Handlin, Getty, and Parker, 2012). Each grant funder has a distinct vision and
wants to ensure the money that they invest is spent such that this vision is carried out. The
director must seek out grants that align with the district’s vision in order to achieve the desired
outcomes for both the grant funder and the district
The director of from District 2 describes the process of principal evaluations. Principals
are held accountable via monthly meetings and yearly evaluations. The meetings provide
informal opportunities for principals to ask questions and to communicate with the central office.
The director builds capacity amongst the principals by having this open line of communication
available. The district personnel have to clearly explain not only the projected outcomes of a
STEM initiative but also the process by which it will be implemented. The successful
implementation of any staff development plan must consider the local environment and unique
culture of the staff as well as the intended goals. Supervisors and staff can establish a vision of
how both the process and product will relate to local conditions for change (Grossnickle &
Layne, 1991). Clear goals must interlock with the way things are done in the school and be
executed harmoniously with the principals, faculty and staff.
Superintendent 1 expresses the concern for the reliance on textbook driven instruction
with a lack of labs and investigations, based on the previous vision of the California State
Science Standards. There is clearly a discrepancy in the vision that the director has for science
education and the current vision that staff members have. She must build capacity within her
staff to shift that vision towards that of the Next Generation Science Standards:
It's part of our strategic plan. We have a committee of teachers from elementary, middle
school, and high school. Principals and administrators as well. Our STEM action plan
actually had several different areas. The first thing was looking at the new common core
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 54
math standards and the next generation science standards. Looking at those practices that
are embedded in both of these new standards in terms of what kids now need to know, be
able to do, and that there's a real change in terms of what the expectations are now with
our standards and what they are with these two. The first piece of our strategic plan is
unpacking these standards and making sure that our curriculum is aligned to these new
standards. That we developed the guaranteed viable curriculum in math and science right
now because I don't think we have that.
Superintendent 1’s design of the plan is structurally based on a shared-leadership model.
Having key players involved in the synthesis of an action plan is essential in carrying out the
message on a larger scale. The superintendent is able to hold her leaders accountable for the
action plan that they create while the leaders creating the plan can hold their respective schools
and departments accountable for the shift in STEM teaching. Robertson’s (2007)
recommendation for creating collaboration in science education or any other field is to, first and
foremost, have a well-developed shared vision. A vague shared vision is enough to bring groups
of people together, but must be defined in order for the collaboration to progress. In order to
define and develop shared vision, based the findings of this study, she recommends dedicating
ample time towards collaboration in order to get to know one another and communicate openly
and often in order to gain understanding as well as build trust and relationships.
Shared decision-making. Once members of a learning organization have agreed upon a
shared vision for STEM education and initiative implementation, the decision-making power can
be shared among teachers, school leaders and district leaders such that the accountability is also
shared and, thus, a system of checks and balances has been created. One variable affecting the
implementation of shared decision-making or teacher empowerment is the concept of willingness
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 55
– the principal’s willingness to empower and the teacher’s willingness to participate (Leech and
Fulton, 2008).
Principal 1 has been self-categorized as a facilitative leader. The principal has built a
leadership team with content leads from each subject area. The science department lead has
received extensive professional development on the Next Generation Science Standards and will
administer a teacher-led professional development session with the rest of her staff members at
the monthly staff meeting. This not only empowers the science teacher, but it also enables the
science teacher to share scientific teaching practices across different content areas. The science
department also partakes in an instructional practice called “Lesson-Study” where teachers create
lessons and participate in an iterative process of lesson design, lesson execution, debriefing, and
analysis. The duties of curriculum design and teacher-led professional development are shared
amongst the leadership team built from the teachers. The teachers further the sharing of
leadership by creating lesson-study teams for further curriculum and lesson design. The
leadership team meets once month and, if a particular initiative like a STEM initiative, is not
being received well, the team regroups and analyzes the priorities of the initiative and what
support it needs to be successful for the students.
Jaquith (2012) discusses a case study at Ceder Bridge Middle School where the principal
creates a supportive environment by distributing the leadership responsibilities among teachers
and administrators and putting a variety of supportive organizational structures in place. A
typical leadership team is comprised of department chairs and administrators, and serves as an
advisory group on school-wide instructional matters. This school leadership team, in particular,
met regularly and worked collaboratively to design professional development experiences for
teachers. The role of an instructional coach is to act as a resource at the school level to assist the
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 56
principal and the faculty with efforts to improve instructional practices for the purpose of
improving student learning (Makibbin & Sprague, 1997). To assist in capacity building, teachers
must view the instructional coach as an expert and highly effective teacher.
The Director from District 2 shares this same sentiment. The director designed a district
science leadership team with a teacher-leader from each middle school site. The director’s vision
was to create a system such that, when the grant funds were exhausted, the district would have
built up the internal capacity for teacher development and science professional development. The
director also shares leadership with her principals. The director creates a collaborative team that
has a shared focus, and, then, the principals have the autonomy to choose what initiatives they
want to implement. An example is the integrated middle school science partnership, which is a
collaborative project that develops, implements, and studies a comprehensive middle school
science teacher professional development (PD) model. Both the district personnel and school
leaders agreed upon this model and, thus, implement it accordingly at each of their school sites.
The superintendent shared in this sentiment when she created a strategic plan for STEM using
the shared-leadership model:
It's not the superintendent saying, this is our plan, this is what we're going to do, I want
everyone to do this. There's ownership from every school who built that plan. In that
plan, student engagement is embedded in all aspects of that plan. I think my job is to set
that vision, to develop a process to develop that plan to get a lot of ownership for it and
then to communicate it and to get it into the schools.
Principal 4 sees the role of principal as someone to ensure there is awareness surrounding
NGSS and that she can support teachers in whatever their needs are to make sure they can
implement these standards. Principal 4 sums up her vision of shared leadership as follows:
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 57
You have to give the leadership. You have to be able to feel confident enough in your
own position to give leadership to other people. There's no way I could have carried the
IMSS and said, "Okay, the four of you will be teaching it, and this is what it looks like." I
have to just let go and say, "Teach me, too," because I didn't go to the professional
development, and I have to be able to have, one, trust in them, one, give them enough
support that they feel confident enough to try something new.
The principal works closely with the superintendent of instruction from her district and
works to ensure that the initiatives put forth by her school are aligned with what the district
focuses on. The superintendent of instruction expressed a clear emphasis on STEM education,
which supports the work coming out of the school of Principal 4.
Principal 2 relies on teachers to carry out STEM initiatives, especially if they are
extracurricular. This is because much of the extracurricular STEM initiatives are based on
teacher-interest. The principal is able to levy funds and assist with budgeting and fiscal support,
but the teacher has the sole content knowledge to carry through the initiative. Examples are
programs such as Tech Bridge, a program for girls to get involved with science and technology.
Another example is the robotics team that relies heavily on parent involvement. According to
Principal 2, the principal has the autonomy to approve initiatives believed to support the district
mission of STEM education and also support the newly evolving science curriculum with the
onset of NGSS and Common Core. The principal then shares his decision making-power with
the teacher who leads the initiative. The district in which Principal 2 resides has a program called
the Instructional Innovator Program that enlists a team of teacher-leaders to design action plans
that incorporate technology and Common Core strategies. This team serves as a role model for
the district. There are teams in each content area and the science teachers crafted a plan that
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 58
contributes to a STEM professional development plan for district teachers. The district maintains
accountability by collecting documents of staff and department meetings and professional
development plans, including the STEM professional development plan. It is clear that this
district maintains clear communication with the principals and teacher. More importantly, they
are cultivating STEM professional development that can be scaled and sustained via shared
leadership and district leadership science teams.
Content knowledge. Professional development in scientific inquiry is arguably even
more critical when teachers considering unfamiliar content such as concepts typically associated
with teaching and learning STEM (Nadelson, Seifert, Moll, & Coats, 2012). NGSS elicits a
deeper understanding of the science content that differs greatly from the previous paradigm of
learning a breadth of knowledge at a superficial level. The district superintendents hire highly-
qualified STEM personnel as defined by the state of California. The hiring process involves the
superintendent who works in conjunction with the departments of human resources and
curriculum and instruction. The STEM content serves as the foundation for which the science
and engineering practices are mediated in the classroom.
Students are expected to take scientific concepts and go deeper within the content to
develop knowledge and critical thinking skills. When school principals and district
administrators were asked to describe their STEM background, only one out of ten interview
participants were considered highly-qualified in a STEM field. It is the role of the administrator
to seek out the knowledge base of their teachers and to build upon that knowledge through
partnerships with the surrounding community. It was shown that an urban district with the most
coherent focus on helping teachers develop deeper knowledge about select subject areas had the
greatest teacher-reported influence on teaching practice (Firestone, Mangin, Martinez, &
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 59
Polovsky, 2005). Districts that partner with programs such as the Integrated Middle School
Science Partnership have established connections with the local university to provide
professional development for teachers from university professors in each discipline: earth
science, life science and physical science. The science content knowledge gained and the lessons
learned about teaching helped improve the collaborators’ teaching abilities. Partnerships with the
university allow for the classroom teachers to feel motivated to go further with their science
teaching and really use professional development as learning experiences (Robertson, 2007).
Principal 3 relies on the teachers’ communication so that the principal can provide the
necessary resources for them to carry on their lessons. The principal elicits the necessary
financial support for teachers to create science activities and particularly looks for student
engagement and seeks out students who are “doing” science. Principal 2 sees that students are
highly engaged; however, the CST scores have declined and he questions whether his department
is communicating the content necessary when students are engaging in fun and exciting
activities.
Principal 5 has more experience teaching math and science at the elementary level, but
his previous experience as an administrator at the high school allowed him to collaborate with
the BC Calculus teacher to create a summer program to prepare lower-income and students of
color with a higher level mathematics class. The aim of this class was to better prepare them for
mathematics at the collegiate level. He was able to provide the teacher with the content
knowledge and pair of his own administrative acumen to ensure that these students had support
built in to not only enroll students in the program but to continue their enrollment and success
throughout the year. Moreover, Principal 5 sought out partnerships with the surrounding
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 60
university to jump start STEM initiatives that will prepare middle school students for STEM at
the high school level, thus creating a continuum of learning.
Amy Robertson (2007) describes an example of this when investigating the development
of a shared vision using the Science Education Community Collaborative. “The collaboration
involves four major facets of science education: formal education at the elementary and
university levels, informal education, and educational research. The primary participants in the
collaboration include two elementary school teachers who volunteered to act as representatives
for all of the fourth and fifth grade teachers at their school, a scientist from a local university, an
informal educator from the environmental education site, and the researcher acting as a
participant observer. In addition, there are several other secondary stakeholders, such as the
principal, other teachers, another scientist, and volunteer field trip guides.” These partnerships
serve to deepen the content knowledge of both teachers and administrators such that they can be
aware of how the science and engineering practices should unfold in a classroom setting.
Research Question Three
What leadership strategies are used to implement STEM curriculum initiatives?
According to the interviews with each superintendent, the district office and school
leaders are in charge of implementing change instituted by external pressures of the state’s
adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards on a national level. Reorganization of a
school organization often takes place in response to external and internal pressures for change
and modification (Bista and Glasman, 1998). Schools and districts establish partnerships with
larger bodies of STEM knowledge bases in order to increase access for lower income students to
be exposed to such concepts. Secondly, a combination of curricular and extracurricular activities
is in place such that the STEM concepts coalesce together. Districts have to seek out curriculum
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 61
that is aligned to NGSS while after school STEM initiatives often exhibit the same science and
engineering practices that are now expected in the STEM classroom.
Community resources and partnerships. The research has found that the districts and
principals of schools with successful STEM initiatives established key community partnerships
to provide content knowledge, professional development, and funding to drive student
instruction. According to the director from District 2, “I got the high school teachers the NASA
LIFT OFF grant. Then, I'm going to use my network and find some support to give professional
development the science teachers that I found in that grant." NASA LIFT OFF stands for
“Learning Inspires Fundamental Transformation by Opening up Future Frontiers”. This grant has
helped deliver innovative science education techniques and content to teachers from about 120
schools in 32 Bay Area school districts. The grant particular reaches out to schools that serve
underserved school populations. The director was able to leverage resources for the schools in
her district and provide any necessary support through the partnerships that she created.
Superintendent from District 1 strives for the aforementioned partnerships. She wrote her
goals within her STEM action plan as follows:
Once you get these things going within the classroom and we're teaching that kind of
thinking and students are presenting projects to other people and different kinds of
audiences, and that's embedded in our classroom instruction, then we need to see what
kind of partnerships do we have. Are we partnering with the universities, are we
partnering with businesses? How do we bring the businesses and the partnerships into our
school to even help with defining the curriculum, but also providing kids opportunities
outside of the classroom to use these same kinds of skills? There's a big part in our
strategic plan about building those partnerships.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 62
The alliance in partnership with industry demonstrates how schools and education can
respond to contemporary economic priorities by raising awareness of the scope of careers in the
mineral resource industry. It was then able to capitalize on this industry to enhance pedagogical
practices in the classroom (Watters and Diezmann, 2013). Instructional leaders have to be able to
levy resources and leverage the funding necessary to sustain large-scale STEM initiatives. The
National Science Foundation funded various programs in the Bay Area, including the IMSS
partnership. This partnership networks with the local county offices of education and the
university partners to provide professional development to teachers in lesson study, content
knowledge, and the NGSS science and engineering practices. Principal 5 established a
partnership with the local universities and Toyota called ASAMI – After-School Science and
Math Integration. Principal 5 describes the program as follows:
ASAMI is a program that gives students the exposure to Astronomy through a science
and mathematics lens. Students will be working with linear equations and measuring
things like galaxy distances, the size of the sun, charting galaxy formations, etc. but
through mathematical formulas and such. A lot of work on the computers and no
language is a barrier as the tutors are bilingual in Spanish (given our community).
Principal 5 seeks to have students find a practical need for science that goes beyond
conceptual and theoretical knowledge. The principal states that students will obtain an interest in
STEM if there is a clear translation to the real-world. The principal partnered with the university
to establish an astronomy program for all students. There are no barriers when it comes to
joining this program. Students will use mathematical skills to explore astronomy with a
mathematical and scientific lens. Because the school is about 50% Latino, with the majority of
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 63
the students predominantly speaking Spanish, the program is at risk for a high dropout rate. In
order to retain these students, the program is coupled with on-going bilingual tutors.
District 5 reported that the local university professor teamed up with partnerships such as
Girl Scouts and the community science center to develop Universe Quest, afterschool curriculum
that inspires sixth to tenth grade girls to build a personal connection with science and technology
through the use of astronomy and game development. The goal is to empower young girls with
skills they need to succeed in STEM education and to increase the number of females entering
STEM-related careers. This program was funded by the National Science Foundation and now
serves two middle schools in District 5 and will expand to an additional set of middle schools
during the summer. The program meets twice a week to discover and explore astronomy through
hands-on activities via cyberlearning. They also have the opportunity to connect with college
students and professionals in the field where these professionals serve as role models. The
students generate projects that are meaningful to them and can potentially make a difference in
their communities. Establishing partnerships with the university and the K-12 schools allows for
transparency in the curriculum and instruction at both levels. Students know what to expect and
professors know how students are prepared.
Curriculum alignment. The researcher found that curriculum and instruction in districts
that have successful STEM initiatives have curriculum aligned with the Next Generation Science
Standards. Teachers participate in professional development that has a consistent focus on
content in addition to pedagogy. Math and science teachers make explicit connections between
practices learned in the industry to practices learned in the classroom. The teachers,
administrators and coaches must first acclimatize themselves to the NGSS in order to ensure that
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 64
current practices are aligned. Director from District 2 organized the following on STEM
curriculum:
Teachers talked about how everything works and then we did activities and learned how
to unpack and deconstruct the standards. Then, I presented to them books, binders and
resources. The binders have key documents that all science teachers should have: the
appendices and the frameworks. I also added a writing rubric. For science, they used
“claim, evidence, and reasoning”. Then we talked about writing units. We started talking
about what goes in a science unit, what should it look like to incorporate Common Core
and Next Generation Science Standards. They created curriculum writing teams. It is a
process so they'll be coming back for another round.
The role of the district office is to first address the curriculum and ensure that it is aligned
to the standards. A common practice for district administrators is to unpack the Common Core
and Next Generation Science Standards. The math and science teachers should have a viable
curriculum that reflects the standards directly.
Content standards are organized into clusters of grade levels for grades kindergarten
through high school that incorporate unifying principles spanning the science disciplines (Burton
and Frazier, 2012). According to District 2, teachers should develop their own units of study that
dissect the performance expectations of each next generation science standard that spans across
each grade level. Each standard has a disciplinary core idea, cross cutting concept, and the
respective science and engineering practices (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The requisite skills
necessary for secondary science rely on elementary science education. Teachers who have
multiple-subject credentials do not have a specialized, single-subject credential as deemed
necessary by secondary teachers. Therefore, a knowledge gap exists in which foundational level
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 65
general science content must be a form of professional development. The superintendent from
District 3 states:
The lack of content knowledge has been an issue with curriculum alignment at the
elementary level. That is why a lot of our schools want a K-5 science instructor with a
single-subject credential in science. The science instructor would have elementary classes
rotate through them.
The superintendent from District 4 hired a STEM Coordinator with a high-school science
teaching background. This role has enabled the district to have an administrator with science
content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge to provide coaching for teachers. The STEM
coordinator models lessons and holds bimonthly collaboration meetings to align laboratory
curriculum to elementary and middle school science. The coordinator wants to create a culture of
science within the district that prepares students for high school.
Assessments must also be aligned to the STEM curriculum. The current standardized
exam in for eighth grade science does not reflect the level of engagement and learning in the
classroom, according to Principal 3. He is concerned that, though he clearly sees engagement and
learning based on his classroom observations, the scores are not getting translated to the
standardized, multiple-choice exam administered by the state of California. He questions
whether we need to reevaluate the learning goals or if we need to reevaluate the assessment. The
superintendent from district 3 suggested the use of performance laboratories and common rubrics
surrounding project based learning.
Evaluation. Evaluating a STEM initiative is important as it provides data for future
funding, grants, and community support (Russomanno, Best, Ivey, Haddock, & Franceschetti,
2010). According to Superintendent 4, program evaluation depends on whether the initiative is
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 66
curricular or extra-curricular. For extra-curricular support, there must be student interest, teacher
interest, community and administrative support. The superintendent states that the community,
such as local organizations, provides funding for the program. The superintendent from District 4
relies on the community for providing community experts in the fields of STEM and also
providing materials for students to obtain access. The members of the community expect results
to show that their funds are used to promote STEM. The teacher takes the lead as the point-
person in creating a forum for students to collaborate and participate in project-based learning
(robotics, Tech-Bridge, ASAMI, etc.) The local county offices can also organize events, such as
science fairs and robotics competitions, for these programs to thrive. The evaluation of this
program lies solely in the lead teacher that organizes the events after-school. The teacher relies
on student, parent and community support for continued funding.
Curricular STEM initiatives have evaluation protocols from the district office and
community partnerships. As schools build evaluation infrastructure, administrators and teachers
need support to develop evaluation knowledge and skills as well as increase their ability to
conduct program evaluation. Grants rely on program evaluation in order to continue with funding
and redefine parameters to better meet the ever-changing needs to the student populations. The
National Science Foundation for example strives to move toward accomplishing its diversity
goals and to increase understanding of how evaluation can contribute to the goal of improving
STEM outcomes for underrepresented groups (Mertens & Hopson, 2006).
Research Question Four
How do school and district leadership support staff in order to achieve student
engagement in STEM initiative curriculum?
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 67
Student engagement. School leaders rely on the teaching staff to create curricula that
ignite a student’s interest in the STEM fields. Engaging lessons follow models of scientific
inquiry and laboratory investigation. They also have an emphasis on student technology use.
Engaging lessons in STEM transcend beyond the general textbook-driven lessons and direct-
instruction pedagogy. According to Principal 3:
If I were to walk into a science classroom right now, I could get the sense that about 90%
of those students are fully engaged in the teaching strategies that the teacher has provided
in each classroom. I’m that confident that the strategies that they are learning through the
programs and the way they are delivering content is making it meaningful and engaging
to our student’s population. I’m that confident that there is significant engagement
involved in the classroom. The labs are just amazing. Our students rave about the
different labs that they take every week or every day in some cases. And I’m sure with
that experience, there’s obviously been some educating on students about what that really
means and what is happening in that interaction. So, I’d say the lab is probably the most
engaging part and gets the students hooked to science and learning about those initiatives.
The director from District 2 uses an engagement rubric while observing classes. The
director rates the engagement using a rubric on scale of one to three, one being the lowest and
three being the highest. The rubric centers on the areas of instruction and direction of students
and the involvement of students. This is where the director and the administrative team can look
for the science and engineering practices. The team looks to see if all the students are
simultaneously involved and learning key points within the set standards and objectives.
Moreover, the leadership team looks to see that students are monitored and held accountable for
their learning. Then, the leadership team looks to see whether the students were challenged based
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 68
on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. The engagement rubric used at the district level is also used
by the principals. The principals track the observation data and then provide ongoing feedback to
the teachers.
According to each of the principals interviewed, lower income schools have access to
Title 1 funding which assists principals and district leaders with the economic needs necessary
for state-of-the-art equipment and resources for STEM engagement. Principal 1 states that he has
access to a lot of Title 1 money given the fact that his school qualifies as a lower income school.
He is committed to supplying his science teachers with lab equipment and materials and states
that funding is never an issue. The disconnect lies in the family engagement. In order to combat
the lack of family involvement with students’ interest in STEM , Principal 3’s school hosts a
“family night” of math and science activities for students and their parents. It was found that,
within most working-class families, science was less ‘‘familiar,’’ being more ‘‘peripheral’’ to
parents’ and children’s everyday lives. The working-class families researched tended not to
possess the same quantity and quality of economic and science-related capital (cultural and
social capital) to provide an equivalent basis for supporting the development of children’s
science-related aspirations. (Archer, DeWitt, Osborne, Dillon, Willis, & Wong, 2012). A family
night provided parents within the community to participate in engaging science with their
student.
Parental involvement is one of the keys to student success in school (Pendergraft,
Daugherty, Rossetti, 2009). Principal 5 stated that parent involvement is a huge factor in
increasing student attendance and involvement in STEM after-school programs. Community
members are able to rally support and fundraise for materials and equipment that students can
use for the respective club. The teacher from Principal 2’s school started an after-school
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 69
engineering club and sustains the entire club through parent involvement and one fundraising
event called the Winter Ball, a school dance for students. Sustaining student engagement in the
after-school program lies solely in the teacher committing to the project after hours. The school
leader is able to approve his fundraising events, but nothing more is promoted for extracurricular
activities.
Superintendent 4 promotes STEM lesson engagement in the classroom by looking at the
lesson planning part with the teachers. The superintendent has his curriculum and instruction
team conduct professional development around important elements of a lesson. With the onset of
NGSS, the lesson planning tool will include a direct performance expectation for each grade
level topic in science. The department carries on trainings that ensure culturally relevant
strategies such as “gradual release”, guided practice, and lesson extensions. The lesson plans will
now have to incorporate NGSS and CCSS that focus on more student-centered instruction.
Next Generation Science Standards. The Next Generation Science Standards require
language intensive practices of classroom discourse. The requirement for classroom discourse
and the norms for this behavior are, to a great extent, common across all the science disciplines,
and, indeed, across all the subject areas demonstrating a convergence of disciplinary practices
across CCSS for mathematics and English language arts and literacy and NGSS (Lee, Quinn, and
Valdes, 2013).The Next Generation Science Standards are organized by performance
expectations in each respective content and grade level. Under each performance expectation, the
lesson should have the science and engineering practice that the students are engaging in, the
disciplinary core idea that is linked to the content, and the cross-cutting concepts that are shared
throughout all grade levels and content areas (such as recognizing patterns or comparing and
contrasting).
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 70
District and school leaders incorporated strategies for teachers to implement lessons that
involve the science and engineering practices necessitated from NGSS. One of the practices is
for students to construct scientific explanations on their own. Teachers implemented the
pedagogical strategy, “ClEvR – Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning”. This tool provides students
with the opportunity to make a scientific claim, use evidence from a laboratory investigation or
class inquiry activity, and then use the evidence to explain the claim while reasoning with
scientific theories and phenomena. According to McNeill and Krajcik (2012):
Conducting investigations can become more procedural and less focused on the use of
evidence to answer a question or explain phenomena. Using evidence is critically
important to communicate convincingly to other people. Being able to write in this
particular way can help students in future learning and in real world contexts as it
provides them with an excellent opportunity to practice complex communication and
non-routine problem solving. (p. 9)
Common Core State Standards encourages mathematical practices of making sense of
problems and persevering in solving them. Principal 2 sees the incorporation of NGSS as an
extension of Common Core instructional practices. This is how he makes district initiatives
palpable to the instructional staff at his school. He encourages teachers to teach beyond the
content and to seek out the underlying principal of perseverance. Principal 2 expresses his need
for resources to support engaging instruction that creates activities that provide an opportunity
for students to engage in the practices. Not only should the activity be engaging, but the
underlying philosophical principles must also be explicitly translated to students. He provides an
example as follows:
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 71
In math, the students were factoring mathematical problems. Since there are multiple
methods of doing a problem, such as trial and error, the teacher needs to explain the
“why”. What is the benefit of trial and error? Well, high achievers do everything 5-6
times. Low achievers do everything 1-2 times. If you try the trial and error method, you
want to give up. In life, you’re gonna run into bumps on the road and the expectation is
that you must push through. These challenges are only solved when teachers are able to
develop a deeper understanding with the content and the cultural relevance.
NGSS and CCSS have many similarities that focus primarily on relevance and rigor. The
students are expected to grapple with information and use critical thinking skills to solve
problems. Not only must they “solve for X,” but they must explain why. This is how successful
STEM initiatives can foster science and engineering curriculum through the use of these
practices. “The aim is to foster the real ability of solving real-world problems which involve
integration of engineering analytic principles. This would allow them to use the generic
engineering design approach to create real-world quality products and systems, which are
appropriate to their age, technically feasible and socially and ecologically appropriate (Locke,
2009, p. 33).
Discussion
The data revealed through this qualitative analysis support relevant themes in the
literature regarding school and district leadership principles. With the adoption of the Next
Generation Science Standards in 2014, schools and districts are expected to implement STEM
education, regardless of socioeconomic status. The schools and districts examined in this study
aligned themselves with the beliefs of ongoing professional development for positive change.
Educators and leaders must be continuous learners who participate in a cycle of inquiry and
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 72
reflection to bring about these educational shifts in practice. Change is a beginning, which, in
turn, means that what was happening before must now come to an end. While this is the desired
outcome of change, unless the leader gives recognition and validation to past practices, the
individuals involved will have difficulty developing the will and capacity for change (Israel and
Kasper, 2004). The research makes strong claims that building capacity within the school and
district will contribute to an augmented shared vision.
The qualitative data revealed, through the analyses of these schools and districts, a
remarkable growth in STEM education and initiative development for lower income students
over a period of time. This data was then used to make comparisons of leadership practices with
other districts throughout California. The critical points reinforced through the interviews with
superintendents, district personnel, and school principals became the focus for the quantitative
analysis portion of this research study. The quantitative data analysis is aggregated to determine
the extent of statistical correlation between the targeted variables, which are outlined in the
following sections.
Quantitative Findings
Table 6
Summary of Responses
Surveys Sent Surveys Returned Surveys Calculated Response Rate
Superintendents N=95 N=45 N=45 47%
School Leaders N=95 N=63 N=45 66%

A census sample comprised of California district superintendents and school leaders was
utilized to evaluate the validity of the four research questions investigated in the qualitative
findings. Survey questionnaires for both the district superintendents and the school leaders were
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 73
sent to districts (N=95) which met the following criteria: a) unified or secondary school districts
or public charter agency, b) schools with a socioeconomically disadvantaged API of 685 or
more, c) total percentages of students enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program are
comprised of at least 40% of the district’s overall student population, d) the implementation of a
district and school-wide STEM initiative or academy and e) the implementation of the Next
Generation Science Standards within each science classroom. These questionnaires were sent the
first week in December of 2013. To increase the rate of responses, a second mailing was
distributed in January of 2014.
As evidenced in Table 6, the total response rate of districts responding to both
superintendent and school leader questionnaires was 47% (N=45) for superintendents and 66%
for school leaders (N=63). However, the analysis was conducted on only forty-five
questionnaires as eighteen of the returned questionnaires were from districts that were not
considered “low-income” January of 2014, according to the California Department of Education.
The response rate provides additional information on the sample of surveys collected and,
therefore, demonstrates in the analysis that statistical inferences extend only to individuals who
returned completed surveys (Huck, 2004).
The researcher examined for nonresponse bias. Nonresponse bias results when
individuals chosen for the sample are unwilling or unable to participate in the survey or is the
result of respondents’ differing in meaningful ways from nonrespondents. All of the
questionnaires were dated with timestamps and arrival dates. The researcher also utilized the
technique of nonresponse follow-up (Armstrong &Overton, 1977). Three respondents were
phoned and a small number of survey questions were asked. Their answers did not differ
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 74
significantly from those of the people who answered the survey and they were not outliers within
the data set.
The dependent variables were compared using a one-way ANOVA. There was significant
difference (F=2.119, = 0.149) for schools that have a consistent STEM focus and increased
participation and engagement in mathematics and science courses. According to Creswell
(2009), it is necessary to check selected items in order to determine if responses differ. This is to
ensure that response bias is monitored and data analysis is not skewed.
Table 7 tabulates the survey data results from the district superintendents and leaders of
secondary schools. The survey used a Likert Scale with the following scoring system: 1-Strongly
Disagree 2-Disagree 3- Not Sure 4- Agree 5- Strongly Agree. The questions have been paired by
subject matter in order to view correlation between superintendent responses and school leader
responses.
Table 7
Mean Score of Superintendent and School Leader Responses

Superintendent Questions
(N=45)
Mean of
Likert
Scale
School Leader Questions
(N=45)
Mean of
Likert
Scale

Scale of 1-5
Scale of
1-5
Q1: There is a consistent STEM
focus across all secondary grade
levels.
2.727 Q1: There is a consistent STEM
focus across the entire school campus.
2.636
Q2: There is ongoing STEM
professional development for all
secondary teachers.
2.432 Q2: There is ongoing STEM
professional development for all
secondary teachers.
2.409
Q3: Vertical articulation
regarding STEM curricula
occurs from middle through high
school.
2.605 Q3: Vertical articulation regarding
STEM curricula occurs from middle
through high school.
2.288
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 75

This section describes and examines the data collected from the survey questionnaires,
each from the superintendents and school leaders. The quantitative analysis seeks to determine
whether schools with a consistent STEM focus across the entire school campus, school leaders’
STEM secondary pedagogical experience, and ongoing professional development were related to
increased vertical articulation for STEM curricula and increased participation and engagement in
math and science courses for lower income students. Descriptive statistics and inferential
statistics were used for these purposes. Descriptive statistics, in the form of means, frequencies
and standard deviations, were computed for the quantitative questions on the survey in order to
form an overview and summary of the statistical analysis. This displayed a general idea of
resounding themes within the data sets.
The questions administered to superintendents and school leaders are outlined side-by-
side in Table 7. It is clear that the majority of superintendents and school leaders agree that
Table 7, continued
Q4: STEM initiatives are
present in most schools,
regardless of socioeconomic
income levels.
3.093 Q4: Students who participate in
STEM initiatives come from diverse
socioeconomic levels.
3.727
Q5: Schools with STEM
initiatives demonstrate increased
classroom engagement in math
and science courses.
3.636 Q5: Students who participate in
STEM initiatives have increased
engagement in math and science
courses.
3.837
Q6: STEM coordinators must
have some administrative
experience.
2.512
Q7: STEM coordinators must
have secondary teaching
experience.
3.186 Q7: It is financially challenging to
implement a STEM initiative.
3.91
Q8: STEM coaches are utilized
in secondary classrooms
2.295 Q6: I would utilize a STEM coach to
better help facilitate a STEM
initiative.
3.733
Q9: Conceptual development is
targeted in STEM instruction.
3.326 Q8: Conceptual development is
targeted in STEM instruction.
3.288
Q10: Professional development is
systemic (i.e. tied to data, monitor
of classroom transfer.)
3.022 Q9: Professional development is
systemic (i.e. tied to data, monitor of
classroom transfer.)
3.177
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 76
schools with STEM initiatives demonstrate increased classroom engagement in math and science
courses. A majority of school leaders stated that they would utilize a STEM coach to better
facilitate a STEM initiative. Conversely, a majority of superintendents disagreed with the
statement that STEM coaches were utilized in secondary classrooms.
Table 8
Teaching and Administrative Experience
Experience 0 Years < 2 Years 3 to 6 Years 7 to 10 Years > 10 Years
Superintendent 0% 32.5% 37.5% 17.5% 12.5%
School Leader
(Administrative)
0% 0% 21.6% 45.9% 32.4%
School Leader
(Teaching
Secondary STEM)
72.7% 0.02% 15.9% 6.8% 0.02%

The following themes were outlined and highlighted from the descriptive data collected
and presented in the tables and figures. Overall, 58% of superintendents disagreed with the
statement that there was a consistent STEM focus across all secondary grade levels whereas 36%
of superintendents agreed with the statement. The Likert scale is defined as follows: 1-Strongly
Disagree 2-Disagree 3- Not Sure 4- Agree 5- Strongly Agree. The bimodal distribution is
showed in Figure 1.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 77

Figure 1. Superintendent Focus on STEM
The qualitative data clearly resulted in a strong emphasis on ongoing professional
development. The quantitative data pertaining to superintendents in general; however, reported
that 65% of superintendents did not have STEM professional development for secondary
teachers, as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Superintendent Response for Ongoing professional Development
Other themes have also been highlighted by the superintendent surveys:
 44% of superintendents reported to have implemented STEM initiatives in most schools,
regardless of socioeconomic levels.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 78
 48% of superintendents agree that STEM coordinators must have secondary teaching
experience in a STEM-related field.
 26% of superintendents reported that they utilize STEM coaches in secondary classrooms
to support STEM initiatives.
 58% of superintendents have reported that schools with STEM initiatives demonstrate an
increased level of classroom engagement in mathematics and science courses.
 49% of superintendents reported that conceptual development is targeted in STEM
instruction.
Data collected from district superintendents reflecting the degree to which STEM
practices are implemented in a successful school district (systemic professional development,
conceptual development in STEM instruction, and vertical articulation regarding STEM
education) have been outlined. The data was aggregated from 45 returned superintendent
questionnaires.
Another theme is that a large majority of administrators have not had any experience
teaching in STEM-related fields. Administrators are responsible for assessing the content
knowledge of teachers and are dependent on ongoing professional development for teachers to
provide the content knowledge and fill any knowledge gaps. Administrators serve as advocates
for STEM programs as they decide the specific programs related to STEM education. They also
are in charge of creating and revising a professional development plan for the school staff for the
entire school year. The skewed majority of principals not having any teaching experience in
STEM demonstrates the need for the recognition of the importance of STEM content knowledge.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 79

Figure 3. STEM Teaching Experience as Reported by Administrators
School leaders’ data was collected, tabulated and aggregated in Figures 4 through 12. Each
figure reports on the number of returned questionnaires and shows the degree of agreement on
various themes (1-Strongly Disagree 2-Disagree 3- Not Sure 4- Agree 5- Strongly Agree) using
the Likert scale. For example, in Figure 4, it is seen that almost half of the participants do not
have a consistent STEM focus across the entire school campus.

Figure 4. Principal Response for Consistent STEM Focus
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 80

Figure 5. Principal Response for Ongoing STEM Professional Development

Figure 6. Principal Response for Student Participation in STEM Initiatives

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 81

Figure 7. Principal Response for Student Participation in STEM Initiatives

Figure 8. Principal Response for Student Engagement in Math and Science

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 82

Figure 9. Principal Response to Utilization of a STEM Coach

Figure 10. Principal Response to Financial Challenge for a STEM Initiative

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 83

Figure 11. Principal Response to Conceptual Development in STEM Instruction

Figure 12. Principal Response to Professional Development Being Systemic

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 84
The following themes were highlighted from the descriptive data collected and presented in
Figures 4 through 12.
 Only 20% of school leaders reported the occurrence of ongoing STEM professional
development for all secondary teachers.
 61% of school leaders reported that vertical articulation regarding STEM curricula does
not occur from middle school to high school nor from the elementary level to the middle
school level.
 69% of school leaders agreed that students who participate in STEM initiatives
demonstrate increased levels of engagement in mathematics and science courses.
 69% of school leaders would also utilize a STEM coach to better help facilitate a STEM
initiative.
 78% of school leaders agreed that it is financially taxing to finance a STEM initiative
with full implementation.
 54% of school leaders agree that conceptual development is targeted in STEM
instruction.
 45% of school leaders agree that professional development is systemic, meaning that it is
tied to the data and monitored through classroom transfer.
Discussion
The quantitative analysis portion of this research revealed wide variance between district
and school practices in STEM education across California in relation to what the literature
regards as characteristics of an effective STEM curriculum. The overwhelming majority of
school leaders have not had any formal teaching experience in the STEM fields. For example,
more than 70% of school leaders have never taught a mathematics or science subject at the
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 85
secondary level. However, with a large majority of school leaders having at least seven years of
experience in an administrative capacity, school leaders have, perhaps, received training in the
form of STEM policy familiarity, infrastructure of STEM initiatives, and school models that
support STEM education practices. There exists a knowledge gap in what is deemed necessary
for adequate content knowledge to sustain a STEM initiative. Superintendents reported the
necessity for a STEM instructional coach to fill these knowledge gaps and should have the
content knowledge necessary to be aware of innovative STEM curricula and applications that
correspond to an evolving student population.
Data collected from district level superintendents reflecting the degree to which
instructional practices related to STEM implemented in a successful lower socioeconomic school
district are also implemented in their own respective districts provide insight at to the critical
focus on STEM initiatives across the state. The overwhelming majority of respondents disagree
with the statement that there is a consistent focus on STEM initiatives within their respective
school districts. This corresponds to the revelation that there is significant disagreement with
similar statements regarding the existence of vertical articulation regarding STEM education
across grade levels and, with that, corresponding systemic professional development.
The data gathered from the superintendent and school leader surveys as well as the
interviews demonstrate the critical issues regarding the successful implementation of school and
district leadership practices related to STEM education. Chapter Five includes a summary of the
research findings, implications related to district practice, and possible recommendations for
future studies.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 86
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Primarily, teachers and school administrators have been the subject of research targeting
leadership and its connection to student outcomes. Jackson and Marriott (2012) find evidence
that the organizational leadership model is a robust measure of leadership as an organizational
quality that effectively captures differences in school leadership contexts at the level of
principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of their influence. Goddard, Miller, Larsen, Goddard,
Madsen, and Schroeder (2010) found a significant direct effect of leadership on teacher
collaboration and student achievement. However, literature suggests that a cohesive leadership
team consisting of state, district, and school leaders holds potential for helping speed and make
more permanent the advances made in developing leadership. In turn, the leadership benefits the
learning of all students, using a more system wide, coordinated approach to state, district, and
school-level policies and practices (Wallace Foundation, 2006).
Thus, leadership at all levels, including the district superintendent, department of
curriculum and instruction and math and science instructional teams should be carefully
examined to determine impact on the phenomena underpinning inequities in access to STEM
initiatives and curricula in lower income schools. District superintendents greatly influence the
behaviors and attitudes of their district cabinet members, administrators, and teachers. Waters
and Marzano (2007) found a statistically significant relationship between district leadership and
student achievement and that effective superintendents focus on creating goal-oriented districts.
Superintendents must develop a clear, focused vision that makes STEM education a priority.
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the findings of this study, provide
implications for practice in educational leadership, state limitations of this study, and to establish
the scope for future research that is necessary as a result of these findings. The summary of the
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 87
study reviews the methodology utilized to gather qualitative and quantitative data as well as
reviews findings from the data as guided by the study’s four essential research questions.
Implications of the study will address recommended action plans for practice and also addresses
recommendations for future research. The conclusion of the study highlights connections made
between the findings of the study and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theoretical framework on the
four frames of leadership in reframing organizations.
Summary of the Study
This study sought to determine the leadership strategies utilized by district
superintendents, district administrators, and school leaders when implementing successful STEM
initiatives. The study also sought to determine the access of STEM curricula to
socioeconomically-disadvantaged student populations. To achieve this purpose, the following
research questions were investigated and evaluated:
A review of the literature revealed that schools with a positive culture and a clear vision
stimulate a strong sense of community, principal and teacher co-leadership. The literature also
indicated the necessity for teachers to act as facilitators for student learning around STEM
curriculum. However, the contribution of district leadership to support the cohesion of site
1. What role does leadership play in the implementation of STEM initiatives in lower
income secondary schools?
2. What internal systems of accountability exist in successful lower income secondary
schools’ STEM programs?
3. What leadership strategies are used to implement STEM curriculum initiatives?
4. How do school and district leadership support staff in order to achieve student
engagement in STEM initiative curriculum?
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 88
leadership and instructional practices in STEM remains relatively unexamined. The purpose of
this investigation was to contribute to the body of knowledge on this issue.
The leadership of the superintendent serves as a powerful agent in shaping school district
culture through promoting child-centering values, modeling district beliefs and values, and
attending to staffing, goal setting, and professional development (McAdams & Zinck, 1998). A
case study in the New Orleans Public Schools discusses the importance of superintendent
leadership and how the districts implemented more progressive approaches to curricula such as
STEM-based education. One such superintendent served in a district that began the process of
incorporating more technology instruction in the classroom, culminating in the creation of four
robotics teams and plans for a formal professional development program to train teachers on how
to implement STEM-based instruction (Gonzalez, 2008).
Summary of Methodology
This study used a mixed-methods research design to determine the strategies utilized by
school and district personnel to implement a successful STEM initiative. Qualitative data
providing information about school districts’ STEM action plans, professional development
cycles, curriculum and instruction team development, and STEM curricular and instructional
decision making was collected through interviews with superintendents, district administrators,
and school leaders. These entities served as the deviant populations of study. Standardized,
highly-structured open interviews were used to focus on the method of designing school and
district vision plans for STEM and how these plans are implemented at multiple levels.
Quantitative data analysis examined the relationship between district STEM decision-making
measures and their association of math and science achievement for lower socioeconomic status
students. This allowed the researcher to determine the relationship between having a consistent
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 89
STEM focus across the entire school campus and its effect on increased participation and
engagement in STEM initiatives. Assessment and socioeconomic demographic data were
collected from the California Department of Education. This data was used to signify that the
successful practices used were in lower income populations.
Summary of Findings
Five districts and five schools served as the primary points of study to collect data and to
identify district level strategies that positively support successful implementation of STEM
programs. The first strategy for successful implementation of any initiative begins with creating
an atmosphere and context for change (Hord & Roussin, 2013). It was found that organizing
centralized professional learning supports a united vision towards the implementation of a
district-wide STEM initiative. The use of classroom instructional observations by school and
district leaders also contributes to having a calibrated lens when observing instruction in a
classroom setting. The research also found that having district and school leaders instill teacher
leadership allows for the scaling and continued sustaining of a STEM initiative.
In order to maintain a system of accountability, the researcher found that the district
leadership should create a STEM action plan that builds capacity in order to see the growth and
continuity of each respective initiative. A method of doing so would involve stakeholders at all
levels creating this common action plan and having each party examine the Common Core State
Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. This exemplifies a shared-decision
making process and, thus, allows teachers and school leaders to have clear and consistent
expectations from district level administrators. Because of the content-rich focus that STEM
education necessitates, the district must also fill the knowledge gaps that exist with skill and
content knowledge in the technical fields. As evidenced by the quantitative data, the majority of
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 90
school leaders do not come from a STEM content background. The teachers are in need of
instructional coaching that not only incorporates pedagogy but also content. It was found that
this is where the role of a STEM content coach would be beneficial, as the administrators in the
study agreed that they would find this role beneficial in successfully implementing a STEM
initiative. The research found that though the administrators may not have the STEM content
knowledge, they can serve as advocates for STEM education by levying the necessary resources,
grants, and partnerships that can support and sustain the initiative on a large scale.
Conclusions
Leadership at all levels is a critical component in scaling and sustaining a STEM program
and reorganizing an organizational culture. The structural and human resources approaches put
forth by Bolman and Deal (2003) may provide the best combination for the leader to implement
the task of organizational reorganization (Bista and Glasman, 1998). This study sought to add to
the current knowledge base concerning district level leadership and the impact of implementing
successful STEM initiatives for lower income student populations. The researcher supports that a
study of this nature was necessary due to the limited existing research that explicitly delineates
the connection between district leadership and student engagement with the STEM fields,
particularly in lower income populations. As stated in chapter one, integrative STEM education
involves educational reform efforts that incorporate the ability to apply the content knowledge of
STEM with an ability to have students design and conduct their own inquiries.
The importance of a strong grasp of STEM content knowledge has thus been established
and with a performance gap among socioeconomically disadvantaged students increasing,
districts must make a concerted effort to address the need for STEM initiatives, starting from the
classroom level with key instructional practices and continuing to the district administrative level
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 91
with leadership strategies that support the continued implementation. This study highlighted that
stakeholders at all levels have an impact on the successful implementation of STEM programs.
The research found that leadership should carefully consider effective use of partnerships, grants,
and resources to support STEM programs. There is a need to hire superintendents who skillfully
fulfill key leadership responsibilities, support district goals for achievement and instruction, and
support district- and school-level leadership in ways that enhance, rather than diminish, stability
(Waters & Marzano, 2007).
School districts should consider the same access to STEM initiatives, which begins with
making sure that there are highly qualified personnel determining the district curricular and
instructional policies that affect STEM implementation. School districts should advance their
mathematics and science infrastructure and methods of conceptualizing STEM initiatives to
adapt to the millennial generation of students (Nikurk, 2012). Districts can do this by
implementing ongoing professional development that has a key focus on content knowledge and
integration of the mathematical, science and engineering practices. National and state policies
dictate educational shifts in instructional practices with the adoption of the Common Core State
Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. The district leadership and school
leadership is vital to implementing these initiatives that support the adoption of the standards for
all students.
Implications for Practice
Lower income school districts continue to face enduring challenges regarding closing the
achievement gap amongst socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Assessment data,
particularly in mathematics and science, continue to demonstrate increasing achievement gaps
between socioeconomically disadvantaged students and their counterparts. School districts must
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 92
examine all levels of instruction, stemming from the instructional practices in the classroom to
the administrative practices at the district office. This allows the district to determine possible
causes contributing to the inequity of access to STEM content for lower-income students. This
study, based on the reorganization framework put forth by Bolman and Deal (2003), serves as a
point of reference for establishing systemic STEM foci at the district levels.
Superintendents, district level administrators, and school leaders should consider the
characteristics of effective STEM initiatives that have demonstrated a positive systemic change
within lower income schools. These would include the content knowledge of district personnel
making decisions about the district’s mission and vision of curriculum and instruction, focusing
on conceptual development of math and science practices in the classroom. This also emphasizes
the content knowledge of teachers and teacher leaders implementing curriculum in which
students have access to engage in these practices. Other factors that have shown correlation are
the sought out partnerships with universities and science industries to further the application of
STEM content for teachers and students, and the ongoing professional development that supports
STEM content knowledge development.
This study has implications for the following stakeholder groups: policy makers, district
superintendents, district leaders, site principals, teachers, and researchers in education. For policy
makers, this study provides evidence that a systemic, district-wide emphasis on STEM concepts
beginning at the elementary level in order for full adoption of the Next Generation Science
Standards is critical for student comprehension. Both NGSS and CCSS address this issue, which
calls for an increased necessity for content knowledge at the elementary levels to maintain
continuity.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 93
For district leadership, the study exhibits the criteria this group should include in building
a clear vision for STEM education to be implemented district-wide and creating STEM
professional development modules that promote content knowledge. For school site principals,
the study emphasizes the need for establishing community allies and reaching out to university
partners for resources, funding, grants and partnerships for successful and continued
implementation of STEM, as many school leaders reported that it was financially taxing to
support a STEM initiative. For teachers, the study presents how district leaders’ commitment to
systemic STEM training for all teachers leads to relevant professional development that
addresses the skills and inquiry-based practices necessary to implement the district’s vision for
STEM adoption. For educational researchers, the study provides evidence of the relationship
between district leadership practices and lower income student engagement in STEM. This study
also emphasizes the additional areas of research.
Recommendations for Future Research
This mixed-methods study reviewed leadership practices related to district level strategies
that contribute to the successful implementation of STEM initiatives. However,
recommendations for future relevant research should include the following:
 A replication of this study with a larger sample of K-12 California schools that have
successfully implemented STEM initiatives with lower income populations.
 The methods of district leaders of large school districts in holding teachers accountable
for the implementation of the skills and content learned in STEM professional
development sessions.
 Key characteristics of an integrated science curriculum and how it may better support
student instruction using the performance expectations from NGSS.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 94
 The relationship between district leadership practices and socioeconomically
disadvantaged student readiness for university-level STEM programs.
 The methods of how district leaders measure the impact of resource allocations for
STEM initiative scaling and sustainment.
 The onset of STEAM education, integrating the arts as a significant component in
coalescing the fields together and increasing engagement for lower-income populations.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 95
References
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science
aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children's engagement and
identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881-908.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1140142363?accountid=14749
Armstrong, J. & Overton, T.S. (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research (JMR), 14(3), 396-402
Bakia, Marianne, et al. (2011) Understanding the Implications of Online Learning for
Educational Productivity, Washington, D.C., U.S. Office of Education, pp. 1-36.
Bienkowski, S. C., Watson, A. M., & Surface, E. A. (2010, August). Performance-avoid goal
orientation and task engagement: Moderating effect of self-efficacy. Paper presented at
the American Psychological Association Convention, San Diego, CA.
Bista, M. B., & Glasman, N. S. (1998). Principals' perceptions of their approaches to
organizational leadership: Revisiting bolman and deal. Journal of School
Leadership, 8(1), 26-48.
Buell, N. A. (1992). Building a shared vision--the principal's leadership challenge. NASSP
Bulletin, 76(542), 88-92.
Burton, E. P., & Frazier, W. M. (2012). Voices from the front lines: Exemplary science teachers
on education reform. School Science and Mathematics, 112(3), 179-190.
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (2003). Second edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 96
Clark, B., & Button, C. (2011). Sustainability transdisciplinary education model: Interface of
arts, science, and community (STEM). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 12(1), 41-54. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371111098294
Cooper, Camille. (2003). The detrimental impact of teacher bias: lessons learned from the
standpoint of African American mothers. Los Angeles: The H.W. Wilson Company.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Curtis, R. (2013). Finding a new way: Leveraging teacher leadership to meet unprecedented
demands. executive summary. Aspen Institute. 1 Dupont Circle NW Suite 700,
Washington, DC 20036.
Drew, S. V. (2013). Open up the ceiling on the common core state standards: Preparing students
for 21st-century literacy--now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 321-330.
Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become
professional learning communities National Educational Service.
Elam, Matthew, Donham, Brent, Solomon, Stephanie. (2012) An Engineering Summer Program
for Underrepresented Students from Rural School Districts. Texas: Journal of STEM
Education, 13(2).
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. essays. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
Firestone, W. A., Mangin, M. M., Martinez, C. M., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leading coherent
professional development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 41(3), 413-448.

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 97
Goddard, Y., Miller, R., Larsen, R., Goddard, G., Jacob, R., Madsen, J., & Schroeder, P. (2010).
Connecting Principal Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, and Student Achievement.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association in Denver, CO.
Gonzalez, D. (2008). STEM progress in Katrina’s wake. Tech Directions, 67(8), 23-26.
Grossnickle, D. R., & Layne, D. J. (1991). A shared vision for staff development: Principles,
processes, and linkages. NASSP Bulletin, 75(536), 88-93.
Hemmings, A. (2012). Four rs for urban high school reform: Re-envisioning, reculturation,
restructuring, and remoralization. Improving Schools, 15(3), 198-210.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1365480212458861
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, 17-19.
Honig, M. I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the
implementation of new small autonomous schools initiatives. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(2), 387-422.
Hord, S. M. & Roussin, J.L. (2013). Implementing change through learning: concerns-based
concepts, tools, and strategies for guiding change. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Hrabowski, F. A., Suess, J., & Fritz, J. (2011). Assessment and analytics in institutional
transformation. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 14-16.
Huck, S. (2004). Reaching statistics and research (4
th
ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Hudson, P., English, L. D., Dawes, L., & Macri, J. (2012). Contextualizing a university-school
STEM education collaboration: Distributed and self-activated leadership for project
outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(6), 772-785.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 98
Israel, M. S., & Kasper, B. B. (2004). Reframing leadership to create change. Educational
Forum, the, 69(1), 16-26.
Jackson, K. M., & Marriott, C. (2012). The interaction of principal and teacher instructional
influence as a measure of leadership as an organizational quality. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 230-258.
Johnson, B. Onwuegbuzie, R. & Turner, L. (2007). Towards a definition of mixed methods
research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133
Kesidou, S., Roseman, E. J. (2001). How well do middle school science programs measure up?
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(6), 522-549.
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:
Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Washington, D.C.: Congressional
Research Service
Lacey, T.A., & Wright, B. (2009). Occupational employment projections to 2018. Monthly
Labor Review, 132(11), 82-123. Available at:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/11/art5full.pdf.
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdes, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in
relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state
standards for english language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4),
223-233.
Leech, D., & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the
principal’s leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district. Education,
128(4), 630-644.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 99
Locke, E. (2009). Proposed model for a streamlined, cohesive, and optimized K-12 STEM
curriculum with a focus on engineering. Journal of Technology Studies, 35(2), 23-35.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles , K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Corwin.
Makibbin, S. S., & Sprague, M. M. (1997). The instructional coach: A new role in instructional
improvement.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for
Effective Instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Matari’c, M. J., Koenig, N. P., & Feil-Seifer, D. (2007). Materials for Enabling Hands-On
Robotics and STEM Education. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Semantic Scientific
Knowledge Integration, 99-102.
Mathis, J. (2013, February). Interview Survey Protocol Design. EDUC 536 Inquiry II. Lecture
conducted from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
McAdams, R. P., & Zinck, R. A. (1998). The power of the superintendent's leadership in shaping
school district culture: Three case studies. ERS Spectrum, 16(4), 3-7.
McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in
science. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey ‐Bass.
Merrill, C., & Daugherty, J. (2010). STEM education and leadership: A mathematics and science
partnership approach. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2), 21-34.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 100
Mertens, D. M., & Hopson, R. K. (2006). Advancing evaluation of STEM efforts through
attention to diversity and culture. New Directions for Evaluation, (109), 35-51.
Moskal, B., & Skokan, C. (2011). Supporting the K-12 classroom through university outreach.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(1), 53-75.
Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A., Moll, A. J., & Coats, B. (2012). i-STEM summer institute: An
integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM
Education: Innovations and Research, 13(2), 69-83. National Assessment of Educational
Progress, 2012
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective
Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on
Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science
Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nikirk, M. (2012). Teaching millennial students. Education Digest: Essential Readings
Condensed for Quick Review, 77(9), 41-44.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2012): The voices of non-adopters:
Members of the Virginia and Nebraska state boards of education on why their states did
not adopt the common core standards. State Education Standard, 12(2), 45-46. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312417809?accountid=14749
National Science Board Commission (2006). America's pressing challenge — building a stronger
foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0602/
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 101
Northouse, Peter G. (2003) Fourth Edition. Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Obama , B. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2011). Remarks by the president in
state of union address Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
Parker, C. E., Stylinski, C., Darrah, M., McAuliffe, C., & Gupta, P. (2010). Innovative uses of IT
applications in STEM classrooms: A preliminary review of ITEST teacher professional
development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 203-230. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/854554951?accountid=14749
Patton, Michael (2002). Qualitative Research and Evolution Methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
Peters J. and Le Cornu R. (2007) Project leadership for educational redesign. Paper presented at
the Australian Association of Research in Education conference, Fremantle , WA.
Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the
common core standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 38-48.
Report to the president. prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) for america's future. (2010). Executive Office of the
President. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500.
Rhodes, V., Stevens, D., & Hemmings, A. (2011). Creating positive culture in a new urban high
school. The High School Journal, 94(3), 82-94.
Robertson, A. (2007). Development of shared vision: Lessons from a science education
community collaborative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 681-705.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 102
Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H.
(2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teacher
College Press.
Russomanno, D. J., Best, R., Ivey, S., Haddock, J. R., Franceschetti, D., & Hairston, R. J. (2010).
MemphiSTEP: A STEM talent expansion program at the university of memphis. Journal
of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 11(1), 13.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher.
Segal, E. H.Early urban field experiences for prospective teachers: A case study of multicultural
field placements through a university-based preservice STEM teacher program. , 231-
231.
Schneider, B., Judy, J., & Mazuca, C. (2012). Boosting STEM interest in high school. Phi Delta
Kappan, 94(1), 62-65.
Street, C. D., Koff, R., Fields, H., Kuehne, L., Handlin, L., Getty, M., & Parker, D. R. (2012).
Expanding access to STEM for at-risk learners: A new application of universal design for
instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(4), 363-375. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1361843493?accountid=14749
Styron, R., & Peasant, E. (2010). Improving student achievement: can 9th grade academies make
a difference?. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5(3).
Swinnerton, J. (2007). Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district: Understanding
central office coaches as instructional leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 195-
221. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61922064?accountid=14749
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 103
Turnbull, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform initiatives.
Learning Environments Research, 5(3), 235-252. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/62212243?accountid=14749
Urbanski, A., and Nickolaou, M. (1997). Reflections on Teachers as Leaders. Educational
Policy, 11 (2), 243-254.
Usdan, M., McCloud, B., & Podnostko, M. (2001). Leadership for student learning: redefining
the teacher as leader. Institute for Educational Leadership.
The Wallace Foundation (2006) Leadership for learning: Making the connections among state,
district and school policies and practices. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2007). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. ERS Spectrum, 25(2), 1-12.
Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2013). Community partnerships for fostering student interest
and engagement in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,
14(2), -55.
Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools. what's the appeal for teachers?
Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 219-241.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124502239393
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-
making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 19(3), 239-259.
Wright, B. L. (2011). Valuing the "everyday" practices of African American students K-12 and
their engagement in STEM learning: A position. Journal of Negro Education, 80(1), 5-
11.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 104
Appendix A
Superintendent Interview Protocol

Biological Information

Name:
Position:
Years of Experience:
District:

Research Question 1: What role does leadership play in the implementation of STEM
initiatives in lower income secondary schools?
1. What are the steps involved in designing a STEM initiative to be implemented on a
district level?
2. What specific programs are being implemented specifically at lower income schools?
3. How is the implementation monitored?

Research Question 2: What internal systems of accountability exist in successful lower
income secondary schools ’ STEM programs?
4. What district positions include the duties of STEM instruction/curriculum?
5. How is the decision making power shared among the teachers, school leaders and district
leaders?
6. How does the district go about building capacity amongst staff members that are not in
full support of the STEM initiative?

Research Question 3: What leadership strategies are used to implement STEM curriculum
initiatives?
7. How are district curriculum personnel evaluated?
8. How are schools held accountable for implementation of STEM initiatives?
9. How does the district ensure alignment between school site goals in STEM and district
goals?

Research Question 4: How do school and district leadership support staff in order to
achieve student engagement in STEM Initiative curriculum?
10. Describe the district STEM professional development plan.
11. What strategies does the district use to support staff in implementing engaging STEM
curricula?

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 105
Appendix B
Principal Interview Protocol

Biological Information

Name:
Position:
Years of Experience:
District:

Research Question 1: What role does leadership play in the implementation of STEM
initiatives in lower income secondary schools?
1. What are the steps involved in designing a STEM initiative to be implemented at the
school level?
2. What specific programs are being implemented specifically at lower income schools?
3. How is the implementation monitored?
4. How do you ensure that the STEM initiatives are aligned with CCSS and NGSS?

Research Question 2: What internal systems of accountability exist in successful lower
income secondary schools ’ STEM programs?
5. Describe your STEM background? Any formal training, knowledge/skills?
6. What role does the superintendent play in the implementation of STEM initiatives?
7. What autonomy is provided to schools regarding STEM initiatves/curricula?
8. How is the decision making power shared among the teachers, school leaders and district
leaders?

Research Question 3: What leadership strategies are used to implement STEM curriculum
initiatives?
9. How are STEM teachers/personnel evaluated?
10. How are schools held accountable for implementation of district STEM initiatives?
11. How does the district ensure alignment between school site goals in STEM and district
goals?
12. How does the school administration go about building capacity amongst staff members
that are not in full support of the STEM initiative?

Research Question 4: How do school and district leadership support staff in order to
achieve student engagement in STEM Initiative curriculum?
13. Describe your particular STEM initiative and how does it support student engagement?
14. Describe any STEM professional development for your staff.
15. Describe your role as a STEM instructional leader.
16. What strategies does the district use to support staff in implementing engaging STEM
curricula?

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 106
Appendix C
Superintendent Questionnaire

District:
Years of Experience:

Please determine to what extent the following district measures are implemented in your district.
1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Not Sure 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Disagree

District Practice 1 2 3 4 5
1. There is a consistent STEM focus across all secondary
grade levels.

2. There is ongoing STEM professional development for
all secondary teachers.

3. Vertical articulation regarding STEM curricula occurs
from middle through high school (or from elementary to
middle).

4. STEM initiatives are present in most schools, regardless
of socioeconomic income levels.

5. Schools with STEM initiatives demonstrate increased
classroom engagement in math and science courses.

6. STEM coordinators must have some administrative
experience.

7. STEM coordinators must have secondary teaching
experience.

8. STEM coaches are utilized in secondary classrooms
9. Conceptual development is targeted in STEM
instruction.

10. Professional development is systemic (i.e. tied to data,
monitor of classroom transfer.)

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 107
Appendix D
School Leaders Personnel Questionnaire

Position:
Years of Experience:
District:

Please determine to what extent the following district measures are implemented in your district.
1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Not Sure 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree

School Practice 1 2 3 4 5
1. There is a consistent STEM focus across the entire
school campus.

2. There is ongoing STEM professional development for
all secondary teachers.

3. Vertical articulation regarding STEM curricula occurs
from middle through high school (or from elementary to
middle).

4. Students who participate in STEM initiatives come from
diverse socioeconomic levels.

5. Students who participate in STEM initiatives have
increased engagement in math and science courses.

6. I would utilize a STEM coach to better help facilitate a
STEM initiative.

7. It is financially challenging to implement a STEM
initiative.

8. Conceptual development is targeted in STEM
instruction.

9. Professional development is systemic (i.e. tied to data,
monitor of classroom transfer.)

How many years of STEM teaching experience do you have? Please check a box for both
elementary and secondary levels.
0 Years 2 or Less
Years
3 to 6 Years 6 to 10 Years More than 10
Years
Elementary
(K-6 Teacher)

Secondary
(7-12
Teacher)

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 108
How many years of experience working in an administrative capacity do you have?
0 Years 2 or Less
Years
3 to 6 Years 6 to 10 Years More than 10
Years
Administrator

How many collegiate credits of educational coursework emphasizing curriculum, instruction, and
teacher pedagogy do you have?

0 credits____ 1-6 credits____ 6-10 credits____ >10 credits____

Advanced Degree (M.Ed./Ed.D./Ph.D.) ____

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF STEM INITIATIVES 109
Appendix E
Recruitment Letter

Leena Bakshi
(909) 702-0674
lbakshi@usc.edu

Dear Superintendent and School Leader,

I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research
study on the impact of STEM initiatives and the district and school leadership involved in its
successful implementation.

As you are probably aware, the under preparedness of students in STEM is a national crisis.
Your district has shown positive strides in increasing student outcomes in mathematics and
science, especially in lower-income schools. You are eligible to participate in this study because
you are a successful California urban Superintendent or school leader that is actively
implementing a STEM initiative. Your participation is voluntary.

If you agree to participate in the study, you will be asked to participate in an interview. The
interview is anticipated to take 45 minutes to complete.

The results will be reported and published in aggregate form and no specific district or responses
will be identified.

If you would like to obtain a copy of the research results; you will have an opportunity to
indicate your interest at the end of the interview. I can also send you a transcript of your
interview if you so choose.

If you have any questions, please contact me a (909) 702-0674.

Thank you,

Leena Bakshi
University of Southern California

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership strategies utilized by superintendents, district administrators and school principals and the impact of these identified strategies on implementing STEM initiatives specifically for lower‐income students. This study set out to determine (a) What role does district leadership play in the implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income secondary schools

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

PDF

Latinas in the superintendency: the challenges experienced before and after obtaining the superintendency and strategies used for success

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st -century skills

PDF

Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees

PDF

The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

Microdevelopments in adaptive expertise in STEM-based, ill-structured problem solving

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

Leadership traits and practices supporting position longevity for urban school superintendents: a case study

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st-century skills

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

Asset Metadata

Creator Bakshi, Leena (author)

Core Title The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/21/2014

Defense Date 03/24/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag district administration,leadership,Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS),OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,Science education,STEM

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email leena219@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-381441

Unique identifier UC11296453

Identifier etd-BakshiLeen-2382.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-381441 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BakshiLeen-2382.pdf

Dmrecord 381441

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Bakshi, Leena

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA