Appendix B

Regional Expert Consultations

One important aspect of this committee’s statement of task was to plan and execute regional expert consultations to better understand the firsthand experiences and challenges school districts face when trying to make STEM education more equitable. This charge was important to this committee because we recognize that trying to bring these different stakeholders (including teachers, students, parents, administrators, etc.) to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine locations in Washington, DC, or Irvine, California, is inherently inequitable. The site visits represent a new approach for community engagement within the National Academies, and the committee and staff grappled with how this could be done effectively. In this section, we discuss the process of how the regional expert consultations (RECs) were planned, and also provide the resources created by the committee to provide continuity across each event.

PLANNING THE RECS

The committee discussed the feasibility and utility of these regional expert consultations multiple times throughout its work. The committee wondered how each visit would inform the report, and grappled with some uncertainty and discomfort in deciding how to conduct these visits with the given timeline of this consensus study. The committee specifically considered how it could execute these visits in a relatively short timeframe without exploiting our host sites. Ultimately, the committee decided to form a subgroup of members who would work with National Academies staff

to establish a plan and subsequent resources that could be tailored to each location.

REC Phases

In order to gather information from as many stakeholders as possible, the RECs subgroup created three phases that would be done for each site visit. Phase 1 would be informational interviews via Zoom with key informants who had known connections to the staff and/or committee members. These calls helped the subgroup get an initial understanding of the school district the committee would ultimately visit, as well as help identify key stakeholders the committee should invite during the in-person convenings. Phase 2 of the process was the actual site visit, where committee members held in-person listening sessions with available administrators, principals, teachers, community leaders, parents, and students. Depending on the location, invitations to join the in-person conversations were done by staff or the primary contact person identified in Phase 1 conversations. Each site visit was conducted over two days and each discussion lasted about an hour to an hour and thirty minutes. Phase 3 consisted of committee reflections and analysis. The members who attended each site visit held a debrief conversation first among themselves, and later with the full committee about what they learned. Committee members identified major insights, answered committee questions, and thought about potential themes that might be useful for committee writing.

REC Locations

As the subgroup designed the phases of the RECs, a running list of potential locations throughout the United States was also created for the committee. Ultimately, the following locations were selected:

• Portland, Maine
• Lynwood, California
• Copper County Intermediate School District, Michigan, and
• Prince George’s County, Maryland

These locations were chosen based on personal and professional connections held by staff and committee members, the demographic and geographical differences across sites, the equity needs prioritized within each community, and most importantly, the willingness to welcome the committee into their space to have a conversation about these difficult topics.

Portland, Maine, has a remarkably diverse school district, with a significant immigrant population. Lynwood, California, has a predominantly Latinx student population. Copper County, Michigan, is a rural area with a majority white student population, with one district with a significant Indigenous student population. Prince George’s County has a predominantly Black student population.

MAIN OBSERVATIONS

After visiting and hearing the different experiences from the four regional expert consultations, the committee noted that what was discussed sometimes conflicted with what is known in current literature and some committee members’ own experiences. It complicated the committee’s understanding of existing research, and also showed the importance of hearing and learning from others about their challenges and successes in providing equitable solutions for students.

Another major observation from the committee was that at the heart of each district focusing on equity concerns is a strong team of individuals working together to address these concerns. Further, individuals have often been serving in these positions for multiple years and have been able to build relationships and partnerships that directly benefit their districts. Without these teams, the work to bringing more equitable practices among each district would likely suffer.

The committee also saw consistent creativity from educators and administrators to accomplish their goals. Many educators and administrators in each district described the necessity to sometimes think “out of the box” to bring new and innovative programs and resources to their students. There was also a constant reluctance from administrators to deny teachers when presented with new programs and resources. Instead, administrators often worked with teachers to figure out how to bring in necessary materials.

Finally, the committee noted the importance and necessity for a communications infrastructure from the districts, schools and teachers to families, communities, and students. Each location had various programs and opportunities available for students, but the communication about these opportunities varied greatly.

The committee decided to not use these visits as specific examples throughout the report as we wanted to avoid characterizing the decisions of school districts as inherently right or wrong. Despite this, each visit has been critical to committee members’ interpretation of evidence as we grappled with report conclusions and recommendations.

These in-person site visits were invaluable to the committee. We were able to see the various facilities students had access to and how it impacts their learning. We were also able to observe the different surrounding communities, and gain insight into how they view their schools and students. Finally, in each visit, the committee experienced firsthand some of the logistical challenges students and families face when trying to access opportunities. The committee is sincerely appreciative of each school district for their generosity in hosting us and allowing us to learn from their ongoing work.