OWL STEM Maturity Model

Owner: Director of Orgazational Strategy & Learning (DOSL) – with input from all Directors Audience: All OWL staff, partners, and stakeholders

Background and Purpose

Young people are growing up in a world of constant scientific discovery and rapid technological change. From climate resilience and public health to artificial intelligence and the future of work, decisions that shape their lives increasingly depend on scientific and technical understanding and on their ability to participate as informed citizens, not just passive consumers.

High-quality STEM education is one of the best ways schools can prepare students for that reality. Done well, it helps every learner build essential life skills (e.g. creative problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration, persistence, adaptability, and responsible decision-making, etc.) that matter in any career or community role, not just in traditional STEM jobs.

At the same time, far too many students - especially those historically furthest from opportunity - have experienced STEM as exclusive, abstract, or disconnected from their interests and communities (as argued in an Edutopia article co-authored by OWL’s co-founder, Ben Owens). When we let student interests, lived experiences, and identities guide STEM initiatives and projects, we open up the world of real-world STEM learning to many learners who have previously been sidelined. This approach starts from a simple belief: STEM is for every student, and it’s our job as adults to design for that reality.

The OWL STEM Maturity Model is a flexible tool that helps educators meet that reality head on. Developed and refined over years of collaborative work with schools and districts, it supports teams that are transforming STEM from a narrow set of courses into a schoolwide culture of curiosity, creativity, and problem solving. Like all OWL tools, it is grounded in an open-source mindset: schools are encouraged to adapt and remix the model to fit their local needs, goals, and assets while staying rooted in research-aligned practices that consistently help students thrive in STEM. The model organizes this work into a small set of core elements that teams can use to see their current reality more clearly and design practical, student-centered improvements over time.

Open Way Learning views STEM as an experiential, in-context pedagogy, where students apply knowledge and skills through real problems and projects to develop genuine college, career, and civic readiness. Instead of treating STEM as a traditional acronym or specialized track, we use a broader “Strategies That Engage Minds” definition so that it is more than isolated projects, “specials,” or something reserved for “STEM types.” In this sense, the Maturity Model is not just a rubric = it is a way of naming the interlocking elements that make this kind of STEM culture possible, and of reinforcing them through strong leadership and collective teacher efficacy:

• STEM Essentials: Space, Tools, and Materials – Students and staff have access to flexible, safe, and inviting spaces, tools, and materials that invite experimentation, making, and hands-on investigations rather than passive consumption.

• Student Agency, Support, and Relationships – Students experience STEM as something they belong in. They are known, supported, and challenged; they see themselves as capable problem solvers, designers, and investigators - not just test takers.

• STEM Pedagogy, Curriculum, and Instructional Approach – Learning experiences are anchored in authentic problems, phenomena, and communities. Science & Engineering Practices (SEPs), design thinking, and maker mindsets are visible in day-to-day instruction, not just in occasional “big projects.”

• Systems of Continuous Improvement and Growth – Teams use evidence and reflection to improve STEM experiences over time, learning from each project, unit, and initiative instead of repeating the same patterns each year.

• Collective Leadership and School Governance – Administrators, teacher-leaders, and support staff share responsibility for STEM vision, scheduling, budgeting, and policy decisions so that structures actually support experiential, inquiry-driven learning.

• Community Relations and Impact – STEM learning is connected to real people and places. Students work with community partners, local contexts, and authentic audiences so their work has meaning beyond the classroom.

• Supporting Systems, Rituals, and Protocols – Simple, shared routines and protocols help everything run smoothly: safety practices, reflection structures, tool systems, and rituals for sharing and celebrating STEM learning.

Taken together, these elements describe the day-to-day experience students need to develop STEM identity, agency, and competence, as well as the adult practices required to make that experience durable.

The intent of this model is not to rank or label classrooms, teachers, or schools. Instead, it gives teams a shared way to ask better questions, see their current reality more clearly, and design smarter, locally relevant pathways to improvement - rather than chasing one-off programs, gadgets, or quick fixes.

Like all OWL tools, it is grounded in an open-source mindset: schools are encouraged to adapt and remix the model to fit their local needs, goals, and assets while staying rooted in research-aligned practices that consistently help students thrive in STEM.

Model Formats and How They Work Together

The OWL STEM Maturity Model is available in two complementary formats. Each serves a distinct purpose in the journey toward stronger STEM experiences and outcomes:

1. STEM Maturity Model Rubric (Google Sheet)

This is the core, single-point rubric version of the model. For each STEM element, it provides:

• A concise description of what strong practice can look like

• Measurable or observable indicators

• Space for teams to document current evidence, status, and next steps

Rather than scoring yourself on a long scale, you compare your current reality against a clear description of strong practice and then define concrete steps to close the gap. Many teams also use the rubric to generate simple radar charts that visualize strengths and growth areas across the seven elements.

The rubric is especially useful for:

• Structured self-assessment at the classroom, program, or school level

• Prioritizing focus areas for improvement

• Tracking growth and refinement of STEM culture over time

The rubric aligns directly with the sections in this narrative guide, so teams can move back and forth between high-level descriptions and more detailed planning.

2. Master Document (this guide)

This written version provides the narrative backbone of the model. It offers a methodical and comprehensive way to use the model within a holistic, continuous improvement approach, with specific, customizable detail for each STEM element, including

• Descriptions of what strong practice looks like

• Measurable indicators and sample data sources

• Actionable steps that schools can adapt and test

This version is especially useful for instructional leaders, STEM design teams, and facilitators who need shared language to anchor coaching, professional learning, and improvement planning. It also specifically connects the model directly to other OWL tools such as:

• Science & Engineering Practices (SEP) mastery rubrics

• STEM growth mindset rubrics

• Improvement Science tools such as Aim Statements, Driver Diagrams, and PDSA cycles

• STEM/makerspace planning templates and workshop resources

• OWL’s Makerspace Roadmap and Dream Makerspace

Schools and districts can use either format on its own or combine them. Some teams start by reading and annotating this guide to build shared understanding, then use the rubric to conduct a more formal self-assessment. Others begin with rubric discussions in PLCs and return to this document when they need examples and language for deeper design work.

In all cases, the goal is the same: choose the format(s) that help your community see STEM learning more clearly, imagine what’s possible, and design a practical pathway toward stronger, more equitable STEM experiences.

Connection to the OWL Maturity Models for Learner-Centered Innovation and Student Success

The OWL STEM Maturity Model zooms in on the conditions and practices that make STEM rich, relevant, and inclusive:

• Spaces, tools, and materials that invite experimentation

• Instructional practices that foreground SEPs, design thinking, and making

• Relationships and mindsets that help students see themselves as STEM people

It sits alongside, and in conversation with, two other OWL models:

• The Maturity Model for Student Success focuses on what all students directly experience across subjects: a felt sense of safety and belonging, opportunities for deep, meaningful learning, and high-quality facilitation that builds agency and independence.

• The Maturity Model for Learner-Centered Innovation sits one level “upstream.” It focuses on the culture-level systems and conditions - innovation ethos, open-source sharing, radical collaboration, collective leadership, and a living mission & vision - that make student-level practices possible and sustainable.

Used together, the three models help a school or district align:

• Culture and systems – via the Maturity Model for Learner-Centered Innovation

• Core classroom experience – via the Maturity Model for Student Success

• STEM-specific experiences and ecosystems – via the OWL STEM Maturity Model

Teams might start with the culture-level model to understand readiness and systems, then use the Student Success and STEM models to zoom in on day-to-day practice in particular grade levels, departments, or programs. Or they may begin with concrete STEM examples - such as a makerspace, engineering unit, or SEP-rich project - to surface the culture shifts that then show up in the other two models.

Over time, cross-walking between the three models can help the community see how changes in one area support (or undermine) the others and keep STEM work aligned with the broader vision for learner-centered change.

How to Use This Model – Design Thinking + Improvement Science

This guide and the accompanying rubric are designed to be used within a Design Thinking and Improvement Science approach to change, not as a one-time checklist.

Below is a suggested flow you can adapt for your context. The same cycle can be used at the classroom, team, school, or even district level.

Step 1 – Empathize with Students and Clarify the STEM Challenge

• Start with student experience: empathy interviews, shadow-a-student, student work samples, climate surveys, and informal stories focused on STEM, experiential learning, and making.

• Ask questions like:

  • When do students feel most curious and engaged in STEM?

  • When do they feel bored, confused, or like STEM is “not for me”?

  • Whose voices and identities are most visible in STEM spaces, projects, and roles?

• Identify 1–2 priority challenges you want to understand more deeply (e.g. “Students see STEM as only for ‘advanced’ kids,” or “Our makerspace is underused and feels disconnected from core classes.”).

Step 2 – Explore the Model and Create a Shared Picture of “What’s Possible”

Using this document and the rubric:

• Read the descriptions for the STEM elements most connected to your challenge (e.g. STEM Essentials, Student Agency, STEM Pedagogy, Community Relations).

• Use the “what it looks like,” indicators, and actionable steps as images of possibility. Ask:

  • If this element were strong here, what would students notice?

  • What would teachers, families, and community partners see and feel?

• Capture those images on sticky notes or in a shared doc as a way to define success in your local context (e.g. “Students lead their own investigations,” “The makerspace is booked daily by multiple subjects,” “Projects have real community audiences”).

Step 3 – Self-Assess the Current State (Single-Point Rubric)

• For each relevant STEM element, compare your current reality to the strong-practice descriptions in the rubric.

• Agree on a simple status such as: Just starting → Emerging → Established → Exemplary (or a similar scale that fits your context).

• Record specific evidence: student work, schedules, observation notes, PLC artifacts, SEP rubrics, student/family feedback, makerspace usage data, etc.

• Keep the conversation anchored in real experiences and artifacts, not just perceptions.

Step 4 – Define a Focus and Write a Clear STEM Aim Statement

• Choose 1–3 high-leverage elements to focus on (for example, “STEM Pedagogy in grades 6–8 science,” “Student Agency in engineering projects,” or “Use of community partners in capstone projects”).

• Draft a SMART Aim Statement that names your STEM-centered “north star,” such as: “By May of this school year, at least 80% of students in grades 5–8 will report that they can describe a recent STEM project in which they made meaningful design decisions and shared their work with an audience beyond their classroom, as measured by our quarterly student survey and reflection prompts.”

Step 5 – Map Drivers and Change Ideas

• Use an Improvement Science driver diagram to identify the primary and secondary drivers of your aim (e.g. planning time, access to the makerspace, SEP-aligned assessment, community partnerships, advisory structures).

• For each driver, brainstorm change ideas using the indicators and actionable steps in this guide and rubric as prompts.

• Look for ideas that are:

  • Small enough to test quickly

  • Visible enough that you can learn from them

  • Meaningful enough to matter to students

Step 6 – Run Small PDSA Cycles

• Turn those change ideas into small tests using Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycles. Start with one class, one teacher team, one grade, or one course pathway before scaling.

• Collect light but meaningful data: short student surveys about STEM identity and belonging, SEP rubric results, student work samples, photos of the space in use, observation notes, and teacher reflections.

• Study what happened and decide what to adopt, adapt, or abandon before the next cycle.

Step 7 – Document, Share, and Scale

• Capture bright spots and proof points: student stories, artifacts, videos, lightning talks, and short case studies that show how STEM elements are beginning to live in your school.

• Share learning with colleagues through PLCs, staff meetings, family nights, and cross-school networks, modeling the open-source, collaborative mindset at the heart of OWL’s work.

• As changes stabilize, adjust schedules, policies, PD plans, and coaching structures so that new STEM practices become part of your school’s operating system, not just a one-time initiative or grant project.

---

STEM Element 1: STEM Essentials – Space, Tools, and Materials

Core idea: Students deserve flexible, well-designed spaces and tools that invite tinkering, experimentation, and creation - not just “shiny stuff” collecting dust. A strong STEM environment balances safety, accessibility, and equity with playful curiosity. The space itself sends a clear message: this is where we explore, build, test, and learn by doing.

What it looks like when this is strong

• The STEM space (classrooms, labs, makerspaces, etc.) is flexible and reconfigurable, with surfaces, tables, and zones that can be quickly rearranged for collaboration, fabrication, or quiet reflection.

• Tools and materials are organized, labeled, and accessible so students can independently find what they need and return it when finished.

• Visuals, displays, and examples reflect diverse identities and disciplines, showing that STEM is for everyone - not just a narrow band of students.

• Safety is clearly addressed through simple, essential rules and routines, not overwhelming posters and fine print.

• The space is used regularly for authentic making, experimentation, and prototyping tied to units, projects, SEPs, and student interests - not just occasional “reward time.”

• Digital tools and software (e.g. data analysis tools, simulation environments, coding platforms, CAD/design software) are intentionally selected, maintained, and integrated into projects so students regularly use them to model, analyze, and communicate STEM ideas.

• Displays and artifacts in the space function as a “makerspace museum” that evolves over time, highlighting student work, local culture, and community connections so students see themselves and their traditions reflected in the tools, projects, and stories on the walls.

Possible indicators

• Floor plans, photos, or walkthrough notes showing multiple configurations of the space (e.g. build mode, presentation mode, small-group investigation).

• Inventory lists that show intentional choices of tools and materials aligned with curriculum and projects, not just random gadgets.

• Student surveys or focus groups indicating that students feel ownership of the space and understand how to use and care for it.

• Evidence of ongoing student work-in-progress left visible: prototypes, models, data displays, design boards, etc.

• Safety plans, routines, and brief student-facing agreements that are actually used and revisited, not just filed away.

• Clear evidence exists that the spaces are deeply integrated into the routine curriculum and lessons - not just an add-on.

• Inventory lists and project planners that show how specific digital tools (e.g. spreadsheet applications, design software, sensors/probes, coding platforms, etc.) are tied to learning goals in multiple STEM courses and grade levels.

• Photos or walkthrough notes documenting a rotating display of student creations (physical and digital) tied to local culture, community needs, or place-based themes.

Sample next steps

• Conduct a “STEM space audit” with students and staff: what helps them create and learn, what gets in the way, and what might be removed or repurposed.

• Create simple, student-designed signage for zones, tools, and safety expectations.

• Start small: choose one corner of a classroom to function as a mini-makerspace and co-design how it should look/feel with students. Use low-tech equipment and supplies and then add technology as time and budgets permit.

• Plan for storage and power: where will projects live between classes, and how will tools be safely stored and charged?

• Build a tool/materials roadmap: prioritize a short, realistic list of future purchases tied to specific learning goals, rather than trying to buy “one of everything.”

• Identify 1–2 priority digital tools (e.g. a spreadsheet and a simple design or coding platform) and co-design a few starter tasks where students use them to visualize data, model systems, or prototype solutions in at least two different STEM courses.

• Design a small “makerspace museum” corner or hallway display where students curate artifacts and short captions that connect their projects to local traditions, community stories, or real-world problems.

STEM Element 2: Student Agency, Support, and Relationships

Core idea: At the heart of powerful STEM is an unwavering belief that every student is capable of deep STEM thinking. Students need caring relationships, high expectations, and structures that help them take risks, persist through struggle, and see themselves as capable problem solvers. The STEM Growth Mindset rubric makes those dispositions visible and coachable.

What it looks like when this is strong

• Students regularly voice their ideas, questions, and design choices, and can explain why they made certain decisions in a project or investigation.

• Adults actively nurture STEM growth mindsets: students see challenges as opportunities, embrace productive struggle, and reflect on progress over time.

• Classroom norms ensure that students feel safe sharing partial thinking, making mistakes publicly, and revising work.

• Teachers pay particular attention to historically underrepresented students, making sure they receive encouragement, meaningful roles, and visible STEM success.

• Students experience one-on-one or small-group conferences where they discuss their learning, goals, and next steps in STEM.

• Students frequently work in teams with clear individual and group roles, norms, and expectations; they can explain how they contribute to the team’s thinking and how they resolve conflict or confusion together.

• Students receive regular, developmentally appropriate STEM advising and pathway guidance from counselors and STEM teachers, including conversations about courses, extracurriculars, internships, and postsecondary options that align with their interests and identities.

• A student maker/STEM ambassador or mentor team supports peers with tools, projects, and troubleshooting, reinforcing a culture where students routinely teach as well as learn.

• Students lead student–family–teacher conferences or exhibitions where they showcase STEM work, explain their process, and talk about how it connects to their goals and identities.

Possible indicators

• Student reflections or conference notes that reference ideas like productive struggle, persistence, curiosity, and growth in STEM.

• Evidence that students set personal STEM goals, monitor them, and revisit them across units or projects.

• Participation data that shows a broad mix of students involved in STEM projects, electives, clubs, and competitions.

• Student focus groups naming trusted adults who support their STEM journey and challenge them to keep going.

• Sample team contracts, role cards, or collaboration rubrics that are used across multiple STEM classes and referenced by students.

• Logs or notes from STEM-focused advising conversations (e.g. advisory, counseling, 1:1 check-ins, etc.) showing that students are exploring a range of STEM-related paths, not just a narrow set of careers or advanced tracks.

• A simple list or description of student STEM/maker mentors, along with sample schedules or responsibilities (e.g., helping during lunch, advisory, or maker nights).

Sample next steps

• Use the STEM Growth Mindset single-point rubric with one class or grade level as a reflection tool during or after a major STEM challenge.

• Add a short “STEM identity and confidence” check-in to existing advisory, homeroom, or reflection routines.

• Pilot “Show & Explain” conferences where students describe their artifacts or investigations and talk about where they stretched themselves and what they learned (this can be used as a formative or summative assessment).

• Map where STEM student support currently lives (teachers, counselors, clubs, community mentors) and identify gaps or new roles needed.

• Pilot a simple collaboration agreement (roles, norms, conflict-resolution steps) in one or two courses and refine it with student input before spreading it more widely.

• Partner with counselors to create a short STEM pathways mini-conference (e.g. during advisory or a family night) where students map their interests to upcoming STEM courses, clubs, work-based learning, or community opportunities.

• Pilot a student maker mentor program by selecting a small group of students to support peers on equipment, safety, and project ideas; co-design a short orientation and simple recognition (certificate or badge).

STEM Element 3: STEM Pedagogy, Curriculum, and Instructional Approach

Core idea: Authentic STEM is not a separate class - it’s a way of teaching and learning grounded in the Science & Engineering Practices, design thinking, and inquiry. Students routinely ask questions, investigate, analyze data, design solutions, and communicate findings, rather than just receiving information.

What it looks like when this is strong

• Units and projects are built around compelling problems or phenomena, not just textbook chapters.

• Lessons explicitly cultivate the SEPs (asking questions, planning investigations, analyzing data, constructing explanations, designing solutions, arguing from evidence, communicating information).

• Students use the Design Process (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test) to address real needs, not just “hands on, minds off” activities.

• Teachers use authentic assessments, such as Show & Explain conversations, exhibitions, and prototype demos, to gauge learning.

• STEM experiences are interdisciplinary, tying together math, science, ELA, arts, CTE, and social studies where appropriate.

• STEM and non-STEM teachers regularly co-design integrated experiences (e.g. a project, case study, or performance task) that intentionally weave together content and skills from multiple disciplines.

• Teachers routinely use a mix of assessment types - performance tasks, portfolios, demonstrations, and reflections alongside quizzes and tests - to capture a fuller picture of student STEM learning over time.

• Students routinely engage in computational thinking and coding experiences (e.g., simulations, programmable robotics, data modeling, creative coding) that are integrated into core units and projects, not limited to a single class or club.

• STEM lessons intentionally weave in literacy practices—reading complex texts, writing explanations and justifications, and communicating findings to varied audiences—as part of doing real STEM work.

• Teachers use thinking routines (e.g., “What do you see? What do you wonder?”, “Parts–Purposes–Complexities”) to help students notice systems, ask deeper questions, and connect making/investigating to underlying concepts.

Possible indicators

• Written units or project planners that explicitly name SEPs and STEM mindsets alongside content standards.

• Student work artifacts showing data tables, graphs, models, design sketches, and argumentation products.

• Syllabi and pacing guides that show a balance of direct instruction, inquiry, and project time.

• Clear evidence of iteration that supports an authentic Growth Mindset: revised models, updated designs, and reflection logs.

• Assessment artifacts from Show & Explain sessions and SEP mastery rubrics used with students.

• Co-planned units or project outlines that show shared learning targets and products across at least two subject areas (e.g. science + ELA, math + CTE, STEM + arts).

• Assessment menus, rubrics, or gradebook snapshots indicating that students are assessed through projects, performances, portfolios, and written assessments, not just traditional tests.

• Unit plans or project docs that identify computational thinking / coding components alongside content standards and SEPs.

• Student work samples that include written explanations, arguments from evidence, and multimodal communication (e.g., posters, slide decks, videos) embedded in STEM projects.

Sample next steps

• Choose one upcoming unit and rebuild it around a driving question or real-world challenge, explicitly mapping the SEPs into the learning targets and assessments.

• Pilot the SEP Mastery Rubric as part of a Show & Explain assessment at the end of a project or lab.

• Use thinking routines and protocols as the backbone of a new STEM-rich lesson / learning experience.

• Map your current curriculum for where students meaningfully engage in each SEP, then identify one or two practices that need more attention this year.

• Choose one upcoming topic and co-design an integrated task with a colleague from another subject (for example, data storytelling with math and ELA, or environmental design with science and social studies).

• Audit at least one course’s assessments across a grading period, and commit to adding one additional authentic assessment (e.g. a performance, portfolio entry, or public product) that aligns with existing standards.

• Select one existing project and layer in a computational thinking element (e.g., simple coding, simulation, or algorithmic decomposition) that directly supports the learning goals.

• Choose 1–2 thinking routines from the maker capacity framework and commit to using them consistently across a unit so students get used to naming what they see, wonder, and infer.

STEM Element 4: Systems of Continuous Improvement and Growth

Core idea: Strong STEM programs don’t just run cool projects - they learn from them. Teams use data, reflection, and improvement cycles to refine their STEM culture over time. Students, teachers, and leaders all play a role in noticing what’s working, what’s not, and what to try next.

What it looks like when this is strong

• STEM teams regularly analyze evidence of student learning, identity, and engagement, not just test scores.

• Teachers and leaders use routines like Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycles or similar improvement processes to iterate on STEM initiatives.

• SEP and Growth Mindset tools are used not only for feedback to students, but also as data for improving instruction and program design.

• Regular reflection protocols (think-pair-share, 3-2-1, gallery walks, peer-to-peer teaching, etc.) are used with both students and staff to capture learning from STEM projects.

• STEM-related participation and opportunity data (courses, clubs, internships, exhibitions, contact with STEM professionals) is routinely disaggregated by subgroups and used to identify and address inequities in access and outcomes.

• Students and teachers use digital portfolios and/or badge systems to document growth in STEM skills, mindsets, and contributions over time; portfolio evidence and badge data feed back into planning and improvement conversations.

Possible indicators

• Documentation of improvement cycles focused on STEM (meeting notes, driver diagrams, PDSA records, or similar).

• Staff surveys or exit tickets about how STEM changes are going, with evidence that feedback leads to adjustments.

• Aggregated data from SEP or mindset rubrics showing growth patterns or persistent challenges.

• Shared playbooks, checklists, or templates that capture what’s been learned and make it easier for more teachers to adopt effective practices.

• Simple dashboards or summaries that track who is accessing which STEM opportunities (e.g. courses, extracurriculars, mentoring, work-based learning) over time, with data broken down by grade level and student subgroup.

• Evidence that findings from this data (e.g. underrepresentation of certain groups in advanced STEM courses or clubs) have led to specific adjustments in outreach, scheduling, or program design.

• A shared digital portfolio or gallery of maker/STEM projects that teachers and students use as a reference point when planning new work or revising the STEM plan.

Sample next steps

• Pick one STEM practice - such as student exhibitions or makerspace usage - and run a simple improvement cycle on it this semester.

• Build a simple STEM reflection routine into staff and student practice (e.g. end-of-project reflection questions, 3-2-1 lightning talk notes, etc.).

• Use meeting time to review a small set of artifacts (student work, SEP data, mindset reflections) and decide on 1–2 adjustments to instruction or space.

• Capture promising practices and lessons learned in a living STEM playbook or shared folder.

• Start with one dataset - such as enrollment in advanced STEM courses, STEM clubs, or internships - and visualize it by subgroup. Use a short protocol to identify patterns and brainstorm one or two equity-focused adjustments to test.

• Launch a small digital portfolio pilot (with one grade level or course) in which students upload photos, reflections, and artifacts from STEM projects; at the end of the term, review these as a team to identify patterns and next steps for the program.

STEM Element 5: Collective Leadership and School Governance

Core idea: STEM transformation is not the job of one enthusiastic teacher. It requires coordinated leadership across roles - teachers, administrators, counselors, media specialists, and community partners - so that schedules, policies, and resources actually support STEM culture rather than fight it.

What it looks like when this is strong

• There is a shared vision for STEM that is tied to the school/district’s Portrait of a Graduate or similar graduate profile.

• Leadership teams protect time for collaboration, planning, and reflection on STEM work.

• Teachers have real influence over decisions about STEM priorities, purchases, scheduling, and partnerships.

• Policies (grading, discipline, device use, scheduling, etc.) are aligned with experiential learning rather than working against it.

• STEM is seen as a whole-school priority, not just something “the STEM department/person” does.

• The school’s STEM education plan is embedded within the School Improvement Plan or equivalent, with clear goals, measures, and sustainability strategies developed in partnership with students, families, staff, and community/industry partners.

• Strategic staffing decisions ensure that there is at least one designated STEM education leader (not solely an administrator) with protected time to coordinate STEM vision, partnerships, and professional learning.

• The school offers a coherent set of STEM courses and experiences (including electives, CTE, dual-credit/college-aligned courses, and/or industry-recognized credentials) that reflect local context and student interests, rather than a random assortment of “extra” options.

• Leaders intentionally connect the school to STEM networks and peer schools, inside and outside the region, to exchange practices and co-learn.

• Leaders regularly revisit how the school’s mission and vision connect STEM to the future of learning and work, using stakeholder input and workforce trend data to keep the STEM plan relevant and adaptive.

Possible indicators

• A written STEM vision or strategy developed with input from multiple stakeholders (aligned with the idea of Strategies That Engage Minds vs. just Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math).

• Evidence of cross-role teams (teachers, leaders, counselors, etc.) regularly meeting around STEM goals.

• Budget and purchasing decisions that clearly connect to the STEM Maturity Model elements, not just ad hoc requests.

• Staff surveys indicate that teachers feel supported and empowered to experiment with STEM approaches.

• A written STEM section in the School Improvement Plan or a standalone STEM plan that includes goals, measures, timelines, and sustainability strategies, with evidence of stakeholder input.

• A documented role description and schedule for a STEM coordinator/teacher-leader, showing dedicated time for coaching, partnership-building, and program design.

• Course catalogs or pathways maps that highlight STEM sequences, dual-credit options, and/or credentials available to students, along with participation data.

• Records of engagement with STEM school networks or professional communities (e.g. site visits, joint PD, networking calls, shared projects, etc.).

• SIP/STEM plan excerpts, meeting notes, or community input artifacts showing explicit discussion of STEM and the future of work (e.g., local industries, regional priorities, global trends).

Sample next steps

• Convene a STEM leadership team that includes a mix of roles and perspectives (including community partners and students); use the Maturity Model to identify priority elements.

• Examine existing policies (grading, schedules, discipline, tech use, etc.) through a STEM/experiential learning lens and identify 1–2 that need redesign.

• Publicly celebrate and document STEM bright spots so leadership decisions are grounded in what’s already working.

• Identify or formalize a STEM teacher-leader role (even if part-time) and clarify how this person will support coordination of vision, PD, and partnerships over the next year.

• Review your School Improvement Plan and add or refine a STEM-focused section that aligns with the STEM Maturity Model elements, including a small set of measures you can realistically track.

• Map your current STEM course and credential offerings and identify one gap or next-step offering (e.g. an applied STEM elective, dual-credit course, or credential) to explore with district partners.

• Join or strengthen participation in at least one STEM network (regional, networked, statewide, etc.), and plan for one concrete way to share and learn with another STEM-focused school this year.

STEM Element 6: Community Relations and Impact

Core idea: A strong STEM culture is porous - students and teachers regularly work with people, problems, and places beyond the school walls. Community partners become collaborators, co-designers, and authentic audiences for student work, helping learners see how their STEM skills matter in the real world.

What it looks like when this is strong

• Students engage in community-facing projects that tackle real issues or opportunities (local environment, health, agriculture, entrepreneurship, etc.).

• Community experts act as mentors, panelists, clients, and co-teachers, both in person and virtually.

• Student work is shared in public exhibitions, lightning talks, or showcases, not just turned in for a grade.

• Partnerships are two-way: the school contributes value to the community, and community members shape and inform the STEM work.

• A STEM advisory group or business/industry council meets regularly with school staff and students to provide feedback, share emerging workforce needs, and co-design or support STEM experiences.

• The school has a clear communication strategy for STEM (web, newsletters, socials, family events, etc.) that regularly shares student work, opportunities, and partnership stories with internal and external audiences.

• Maker and STEM projects are intentionally culturally sustaining: they connect to local traditions, community knowledge, and place-based issues, often involving elders, artists, and cultural leaders as co-designers or mentors.

Possible indicators

• A roster of community partners with notes on how they are involved in STEM learning (mentors, site visits, co-designed projects, etc.).

• Documentation of STEM exhibitions, showcases, and presentations that involve community audiences.

• Student reflections describing real-world connections, careers, and local impact of their STEM work.

• Evidence that STEM projects are responsive to local context - not just generic canned projects.

• Meeting agendas, notes, or membership lists for a STEM advisory council that includes local/regional industry, higher education, families, and students.

• A simple communications calendar and artifacts (web posts, newsletters, social media, family communications, etc.) that highlight STEM projects, exhibitions, and opportunities at least quarterly.

• Project descriptions or exhibitions that explicitly reference local culture, indigenous knowledge, or community stories as part of the design challenge.

Sample next steps

• Identify one upcoming unit or project and add a community partner as a client, critic, or co-designer.

• Use Public Exhibitions to organize brief student and teacher talks about STEM resources and ideas, then invite community members to listen or join. Start with a small-scale STEM exhibition (during lunch, after school, or at a family night) and build from there.

• Map local organizations, businesses, and community groups that align with your STEM goals and reach out with specific, manageable invitations.

• Convene a small group of industry and community partners (even informally at first) to act as a proto–STEM advisory council; invite them to respond to student work and help shape one upcoming project or showcase.

• Create or refine a STEM communications plan that identifies: key audiences, what you’ll highlight (student work, opportunities, events), and the simple channels you’ll use.

• Host a small “Maker Night” or community showcase where students teach families and community members about tools and projects, with at least one challenge or display that honors local cultural practices or histories.

STEM Element 7: Supporting Systems, Rituals, and Protocols

Core idea: STEM culture sticks when there are simple, repeatable systems and rituals that support it: planning habits, reflection routines, safety and maintenance systems, celebration structures, and common protocols. These create the invisible scaffolding that allows creativity, risk-taking, and deep learning to flourish.

What it looks like when this is strong

• Teachers use a small set of shared protocols (for brainstorming, feedback, reflection, and decision making) across STEM projects and makerspace work.

• There are clear routines for opening and closing the STEM space, checking out tools, managing materials, and maintaining equipment.

• Students know and can articulate how things work around here - from safety routines to reflection habits.

• Celebrations of STEM learning (share-outs, gallery walks, lightning talks, digital portfolios) are built into the learning arc, not added at the last minute.

• Structures for job-embedded professional learning (peer observation, lesson study, coaching, critical friends, co-planning) are built into the calendar so teachers can continuously refine STEM pedagogy together, not just in one-off workshops.

• There are lightweight, just-in-time professional learning systems (e.g., micro-sessions, peer demos, Maker Lab planning days) that help teachers build confidence with tools and maker pedagogy without requiring long, one-off workshops.

• A small group of teacher maker leaders supports colleagues with co-planning, modeling routines, and troubleshooting logistics, distributing expertise rather than centralizing it in one person.

Possible indicators

• A small, coherent set of documented protocols and routines used by staff and students.

• Visual cues in the space that reinforce systems and rituals (e.g. check-in boards, reflection prompts, “next steps” stations).

• Student and teacher feedback indicating that systems are helpful rather than burdensome - they make deeper work easier.

• Evidence that systems are reviewed and refined based on experience and feedback.

• Schedules and agendas showing time allocated for STEM-focused PLCs, co-planning, and peer observation, with clear protocols to guide the work.

Sample next steps

• Select 1–2 core thinking routines or protocols (for ideation, feedback, or reflection) and commit to using them consistently across STEM classes.

• Co-design a student-led system for tool checkout, material organization, or safety checks in the makerspace.

• Build in structured reflection using the SEP Mastery Rubric’s post-assessment questions or structured feedback prompts.

• Review existing routines once per semester with students: What’s working? What’s confusing? What should we change?

• Pilot a STEM-focused PLC or lesson study cycle where teachers co-plan, observe, and debrief one STEM-rich lesson or project, using the Maturity Model elements as a shared lens.

• Pilot a Maker Lab planning session during a PD block or workday where teachers bring upcoming units and co-design one makerspace-connected lesson, using simple protocols and thinking routines.

• Identify 2–3 teacher maker leaders and give them modest protected time or stipends to support colleagues in trying one new STEM/maker routine each term.

Closing Notes: Using the Model as an Evergreen Guide to STEM Culture

As you continue to return to this model - during planning cycles, PLCs, coaching conversations, makerspace meetings, and data reviews - add your own stories, artifacts, and refinements. Over time, it should feel less like a generic OWL tool and more like your community’s shared playbook for STEM.

Used this way, the OWL STEM Maturity Model does more than organize an annual plan for “doing more projects” or “using the makerspace more.” It helps normalize inquiry, empathy, experimentation, and reflection as everyday practice in STEM learning. In the process, it supports your school or district in becoming a true learning organization - one where educators continually learn together, adapt practice, and redesign the system so that all students can see themselves as capable STEM thinkers, creators, and problem solvers.