Developing STEM Academies Through the STEM Academy Measurement Tool

Authors: Tracy Irish, Susan Blunck, Anne Spence

Each STEM Academy has undergone two rounds of self-analysis and site progress reviews through the use of the STEM Academy Measurement Tool and Rubric. The data show the progress and challenges of the building of STEM Academies through the self-ratings on the components of the STEM Academy Measurement Tool and Rubric.

Table 2 Self-ratings by STEM Academies for site visits

Promising Practice	First self-rating (Fall 2007)	Second self-rating (Spring 2008)
	Beginning/At Target/Leading	Beginning/At Target/Leading
School-based Action Research	57% / 29% / 14%	17% / 66% / 17%
School-based Distributed Leadership	57% / 29% / 14%	33.3% / 33.3% / 33.3%
Engagement in Reflective teaching:	57% / 14% / 29%	17% / 66% / 17%
Data driven decision making	14% / 43% / 43% * 29% / 71% / 0% **	17% / 0% / 83% * 33% / 50% / 17% **
Technology enhanced instruction	14% / 57% / 29% * 14% / 57% / 29% **	0% / 50% / 50% * 17% / 33% / 50% **
5-E model teaching:	43%  / 29% /  29%	33.3% / 33.3% / 33.3%
Inquiry-based teaching:	71%  / 29%  / 0%	50% / 50% / 0%
Performance based instruction	29% / 71% / 0%	50% / 50% / 0%
Culturally responsive teaching	29% / 71% / 0%	17% / 66% / 17%
Problem-based teaching:	57%  / 43%  / 0%	50% / 50% / 0%

Percents with asterisks are seen twice in the STEM MT - one in whole school* or teacher use* and again in curriculum and instruction ** Note: in 2007 seven schools participated and two of these seven did not participate the second year due to restructuring however, in before the second year of site visits, a new middle school joined the project.