Part Three: Designing for Coherence: Creating Clear and Future-Ready STEM Pathways

The extensive data collection and the identified strategic themes (Part 2) converged on a singular, critical mandate: to create a coherent, streamlined, and future-ready STEM pathway for every student, from K-12. The challenge was not just creating new courses, but clarifying existing ones, eliminating confusion, and ensuring true vertical alignment.

Clarifying the Core: The Evolution of "Technology" to "Technology & Design"

A key area of confusion emerged around the 'T' in our program's core disciplines: Technology, Computer Science, and Robotics. While the relationship between Computer Science (CS) and Robotics was clear (Robotics utilizes CS), the purpose and scope of a "Technology" course were vague, often overlapping with the Robotics curriculum.

The strategic solution was a re-definition and re-naming: "Technology & Design."

Adding "Design" to the discipline title was a deliberate, necessary move. It immediately emphasizes the core focus on creative problem-solving and the human element of innovation. Students in this pathway are trained to develop a broad skill set in design thinking, systems thinking, and problem-solving to create solutions using technology, always considering the user experience and the needs of different audiences.

This clarification naturally required a shift in standards to accurately reflect this focus on design and technological literacy. This led to the introduction of the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL standards), which now clearly differentiate this pathway from Robotics, which specializes in the building, programming, and deployment of automated systems for specific industry applications (e.g., manufacturing, logistics, healthcare).

Executing the Redesign: From Overlap to Cohesive Pathways

With the disciplines clearly delineated, a cross-divisional team, including Martin Williams, Paul Booth, and James Harvey, collaborated on redesigning the high school Tech & Design and Robotics courses. This involved a strategic mapping to transform isolated offerings into clear, sequential pathways:

• Robotics Pathway: Two previously separate Robotics courses were redesigned to be aligned and sequential, forming a clear Robotics I and Robotics II pathway.

• Tech & Design Pathway: An existing course, Emerging Technology, was redesigned and renamed Engineering Design I, establishing a clear progression to Engineering Design II (a redesigned second course), thereby creating a cohesive Tech & Design pathway.

This redesign effort was mirrored in the middle school, led by Kal Cho and Melissa Trainor, where coding courses were revamped to ensure vertical alignment with both the elementary experiences and the newly designed high school pathways.

Building for the Future: Introducing New Courses in Emerging Technologies

To ensure the "Future-Ready Curriculum" theme from our data was immediately addressed, the next critical step was the introduction of courses in emerging technologies. Nabiha Khan initiated the structured process for creating an Artificial Intelligence (AI) course.

The course creation process was meticulously divided into seven clear sections, guided by Gynelle Gaskel from the Office of Learning, ensuring all deliverables were strategically executed:

1. Course Overview: Defining the course's purpose, audience, and fit within the overall pathway.

2. Standards and Competencies: Identifying specific CSTA and STEL standards to be addressed.

3. Scope and Sequence: Mapping the flow and content progression across the course.

4. Assessment and Evaluation: Designing authentic measures for student learning.

5. Types of Learning Engagements: Outlining pedagogical approaches (e.g., PBL, Design Sprints).

6. Understanding by Design (UbD) Plans: Detailed planning for each unit, focusing on backward design.

7. Budget and Resources: Identifying necessary technology, software, and training.

This structure allows us to plan for a potential AI 2 course in the future, establishing a clear pathway in Computer Science for the most in-demand skills.

Mapping and Managing Coherence: The Evolved Scope and Sequence

The course redesigns, new offerings, and pathway clarifications necessitated a complete overhaul of the Scope and Sequence (S&S) document. The initial spreadsheet-based S&S was cumbersome; it failed to provide a holistic view of the K-12 student journey.

The solution was to migrate the S&S to Coda for the second draft. This provided a significant advantage:

• Holistic View: The S&S is presented through easy-to-understand cards, where each card represents a unit or course, offering a wealth of information at a glance.

• Flexibility and Filtering: Users can filter the cards based on division (K-5, 6-8, 9-12) or specific disciplines (Tech & Design, CS, Robotics), making it a truly useful, living document.

• Vertical Alignment: It provided a clearer, visual flow of the student experience, making gaps and redundancies immediately apparent.

The Power of Prioritization: Identifying STEM Power Standards

The new scope and sequence required a robust standards database. We chose to also use Coda to store and connect our STEM content standards, linking them directly to the S&S units. But we did not treat all standards equally.

Divisional teams collaboratively used the R.E.A.L. criteria to prioritize and identify Power Standards:

• Readiness: Standards that build essential knowledge for success in the next course/grade level.

• Endurance: Knowledge and skills that have value far beyond a single unit or grade (long-term learning).

• Assessed: Standards that are formally assessed, allowing for concrete progress tracking.

• Leverage: Highlighting standards that can be applied and built upon in other subjects, promoting interdisciplinary learning.

By applying R.E.A.L., our STEM teachers ensured they prioritized standards that are not only essential for student learning but also have the greatest long-term value and connective capacity. The database now includes the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) standards, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) for Engineering Design, and the newly adopted STEL standards, all filterable by bands and concepts, providing an unprecedented level of clarity for instruction and assessment.

Conclusion: A Coherent, Standards-Driven Journey

Phase 3 was the critical execution phase where data met design. By clearly defining "Technology & Design," redesigning courses to create streamlined pathways, and strategically introducing new courses like AI, we translated abstract data themes into tangible student experiences.

Crucially, the migration of the Scope and Sequence to a dynamic platform (Coda) and the identification of Power Standards using the R.E.A.L. criteria created a standards-based, living document that ensures the coherence and rigor of the K-12 program. Every teacher now operates from a unified, clear, and strategically sound blueprint. The final phase involves cementing this work through institutional review, developing a long-term implementation plan, and celebrating the new reality.