Beyond School Newsletters and Memos: Family Engagement in Planning, Developing, and Delivering an Innovative STEM Program

Abstract

International and Canadian policy recommendations underscore the urgent need for more STEM graduates and systemic educational reform, particularly in fostering global competencies. This study examines the collaborative development of an innovative high school STEM program aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, focusing specifically on family involvement. We ask, “How are families contributing to the co-design and revision of an innovative STEM program in a southern Ontario secondary school”? Grounded in human-centered design and developmental evaluation (DE), the study uses a mixed-methods annual survey administered to parents from 2021 to 2024. A total of 143 parents shared their perspectives on the program’s strengths, challenges, student engagement, global competency development, and future readiness. Findings reveal that families played a key role in shaping a student-led, project-based STEM program grounded in real-world issues. While parents expressed overall satisfaction, they also identified challenges such as limited collaboration, communication gaps, insufficient community engagement, and concerns about academic rigor. Recommendations include enhanced communication strategies, a dedicated site coordinator, more classroom support, and ongoing curriculum review. The paper highlights the value of a design lab approach in deepening parent engagement and continuously evolving STEM education in response to community needs.

1. Introduction

Family engagement in education has long been recognized as a critical factor in supporting students’ academic achievement and wellbeing (Barton et al., 2004; Epstein, 1995/2010; Epstein, 2011; Henderson et al., 2007). Since the 1980s, research underscores the substantive role families play in fostering educational attainment, emphasizing the interconnectedness between family and school (Epstein, 2011; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1987). Similarly, Barton et al. (2004) highlight the benefits of active family engagement, including improved student outcomes and enhanced emotional and social development. Scholars have further emphasized that family engagement in their children’s education fosters a sense of belonging and bonds of trust between home and school, which are vital for holistic educational development (Pushor, 2007, 2019).

Despite these acknowledged benefits, family engagement in their children’s education remains a challenge. School personnel often engage families in ways that conform to school agendas, overlooking the diverse preferences and cultural contexts of families (Auerbach, 2011; Barton et al., 2004; C. M. Hands, 2013; Pushor, 2007). For example, Quiocho and Daoud’s (2005) research on Latino parent participation found the parents wanted to be more involved in their children’s education, but felt they were excluded. They also noted that some teachers had misconceptions about the parents’ roles and ability to support their children’s education (Quiocho & Daoud, 2005). A mismatch of lived experiences and disparate expectations for family engagement risk alienating families, reinforcing barriers to authentic collaboration (Auerbach, 2011; Quiocho & Daoud, 2005). To address these challenges, some researchers advocate for creating opportunities that encourage families to participate in their children’s education in meaningful, self-directed ways (Barton et al., 2004).

At the same time, complex issues of economic, social, and environmental importance are challenging the wellbeing of individuals and the future sustainability of our society (Nasir et al., 2021). To equip students for an unpredictable future, the education community has long emphasized the need for learning opportunities that foster 21st century competencies, also known as global competencies (Council of Ministers of Education Canada [CMEC], 2018; OECD, 2018). These competencies fundamentally influence educational achievement, employment opportunities, interpersonal relationships, and overall wellbeing (Noweski et al., 2012; Rychen, 2003, as cited in the Government of Ontario [GO], 2016). A review of 25 competency frameworks highlighted critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, problem-solving, and technological fluency as essential skills (The Learning Partnership, as cited in Government of Ontario [GO], 2016). While cognitive skills like critical thinking and problem-solving have traditionally been prioritized, there is growing recognition of the importance of inter- and intrapersonal abilities, such as communication and collaboration, in adapting to evolving economic, technological, and social landscapes (Government of Ontario [GO], 2016). These competencies are increasingly valued across educational and professional domains.

Addressing economic, social, and environmental challenges while promoting global competencies requires strategies to promote multiple constituents’ input on curriculum learning and opportunities tailored to schools’ and communities’ contexts. Consequently, the research on which this article is based sought to answer the larger question: In what ways do school districts, universities, and community education organizations collaborate to develop an innovative STEM program focused on the UN Sustainable Development Goals? For this article, the research question being addressed is as follows: “How are families contributing to the co-design and revision of an innovative STEM program in a southern Ontario secondary school”? A detailed review of the relevant literature is followed by a methodological summary, the conceptual model for integrating family engagement into an innovative STEM initiative, and a description of the findings. In so doing, this article is intended to broaden our understanding of how families can be authentically involved in education through novel methods for fostering collaboration.

2. Literature Review

Drawing from the existing literature, theories are presented that highlight the importance of family engagement in children’s development, including their academic attainment and wellbeing. A widely used framework that categorizes the types of parental involvement is described, along with arguments for more integral roles for families in their children’s education. A strategy for achieving inclusive parent engagement is then presented.

2.1. Theoretical Foundations of Parent Engagement

Children’s development is steeped in an environmental context, influenced by the interconnected social systems surrounding them (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979). Systems such as schools and communities interact with one another and are embedded in larger systems (Capra, 2009). Uri Bronfenbrenner (1976, 1979) used a series of concentric circles to illustrate the range of social systems impacting child development, and his Ecological Systems Theory is still being applied in developmental and social psychological, sociological, and educational settings1. The most immediate influence on the child’s—or learner’s—development is the microsystem, which includes the home and classroom, for example, where learners develop social relationships and directly engage in activities with their parents, peers, teachers (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979; Leonard, 2011), and work colleagues. The learners’ microsystem is influenced by the macrosystem surrounding it, which includes the school—and in the case of youth with jobs, the workplace. Organizational structures within the macrosystem, such as subject areas or departments in secondary schools, as well as policies, committees, and school councils, all serve to influence how school administrators, teachers, students, their families, and community members interact with one another (see McLaughlin & Talbert, 1990). Together, the micro- and mesosystems exert the most direct influence on learners.

While the other systems have an indirect impact on students, they create conditions that shape students’ learning opportunities. The exosystem surrounding the mesosystem is the community and its natural and human-made resources. Human-made resources include businesses, social services, transportation, and communication systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979; C. M. Hands, 2023). As part of the exosystem, the school district personnel liaise between school personnel and community residents, creating policies and practices that encourage relevant educational opportunities to be provided in the communities they serve and supporting school–family–community collaboration (C. M. Hands, 2023). Lastly, the macrosystem encompasses the other systems and includes a community’s overarching characteristics, such as economic, educational, social, legal, and political contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979). Societal, professional, and educational values are reflected in community members’ socio-economic status, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, and their educational and professional backgrounds, for example (C. M. Hands, 2023). Together, these systems have both a direct and indirect impact on students’ development as people in general and specifically as learners in the context of this research.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979) illustrates how individuals in microsystems (e.g., family and school) interact within larger societal structures to influence a child’s growth. Similarly, Joyce Epstein’s overlapping spheres of influence theory (2011) posits that students thrive when individuals within family, school, and community contexts work collaboratively to support their development. Epstein (2011) illustrates the impact that these kinds of exchanges potentially have on students, their families, schools, and communities, with her overlapping spheres of influence model. Epstein shows school, family, and community as the three main spheres, or domains, in which children live, learn, and grow. She uses a Venn diagram with three circles—each representing either the school, the family, or the community—intersecting one another with the student at the center of the overlapping circles. The three main domains can be brought closer to one another or they can be pushed apart, based on the quality and quantity of the interactions among individuals across the three domains (Epstein, 1995/2010). Many different interactions and diverse opportunities for people to collaborate closely toward common goals based on students’ needs draw the separate spheres closer together to support the children they share. By contrast, few interactions with limited opportunities for collaboration and two-way communication result in individuals within each sphere working in isolation, which reduces support for the children. In essence, Epstein (2011) illustrates the impact of an interactive relationship between schools and communities and is advocating the cultivation of partnerships as a way of increasing the social interactions among school personnel, parents, and community members.

Together, Bronfenbrenner’s and Epstein’s theories provide a robust foundation for understanding the multidimensional nature of parent engagement. They also open the door to an examination of the ways in which the social interactions work to enable family–school–community collaboration for student support.

2.2. Contrasting Traditional and Innovative Family Engagement

Epstein’s six-part typology (1995/2010) categorizes parental involvement in education into areas such as parenting, communication, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and community involvement. However, Pushor (2007, 2019) critiques the traditional implementation of these activities, arguing that they often reflect school-driven agendas rather than parent-initiated priorities. Common practices, such as parent–teacher interviews, classroom or school newsletters, and open houses are typically designed by school personnel and scheduled at their convenience; however, they may not align with families’ needs or preferences (C. M. Hands, 2013). Susan Auerbach (2011) also expresses concern that diverse urban families (ethnic minority families and those of low socio-economic status) are at risk of being included in their children’s education only in ways that suit school personnel. Even as schools broaden engagement strategies (Hiatt-Michael, 2010), they frequently remain top-down in nature, with the onus on school personnel to reach out to and welcome families into the schools (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005; Epstein, 2011; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1987; Sheldon, 2002). This approach limits opportunities for genuine collaboration.

A number of scholars advocate for a paradigm shift where parents are welcomed as partners, not guests (Auerbach, 2011; Pushor, 2007, 2019). Auerbach (2011) calls for authentic partnerships she identifies as respectful alliances among diverse groups—families, educators, and community residents—that build relationships through dialog and power-sharing. This approach values parents’ knowledge and insights as integral to the educational process. Similarly, Barton et al. (2004) emphasize that it is not the form parent engagement activities take that is important; rather, families should have the opportunity to negotiate the ways in which they engage with schools that are in line with their families’ needs and talents. As a result, engagement activities that reflect parents’ roles as partners depend less on the nature of the activities and more on their co-creation. The concept of authentic partnerships, therefore, includes opportunities for educators and families to co-create educational experiences. This article explores one such approach that emerged as a promising strategy for redefining family engagement.

2.3. Authentic Partnerships for Co-Creating Collaborative Activities

Design thinking, or human-centered design, offers a novel framework for authentically involving parents in educational reform. Rooted in iterative problem-solving and empathy-driven processes, design thinking encourages collaborative exploration of challenges and opportunities (Brown, 2009; Brown & Wyatt, 2010). Human-centered design involves four phases: discovery, design, delivery, and measurement (Noweski et al., 2012; Peck et al., 2021). The phases include identifying the current issue/situation, brainstorming possible solutions, developing an innovative prototype that can solve the issue/situation, and lastly examining whether the solution was effective and how it can be further refined (Noweski et al., 2012; Peck et al., 2021).

2.4. Design Thinking in Action: The Case of One Secondary School in Southern Ontario

To bring the design thinking process to life, this section describes the strategy used to integrate family and community engagement into the planning, development, and delivery of an innovative STEM program (I-STEM) in a secondary school within a large, economically and culturally diverse urban center (see Kurucz et al., 2025; Spencer-Mueller et al., 2025). The impetus for this reform arose from several concerns. Firstly, school and district personnel wanted to ensure students were equipped with the competencies necessary for active societal participation, particularly in addressing pressing ecological, social, and economic challenges. Additionally, the school was at risk of closure due to declining enrollment. In response, school and district personnel aimed to provide relevant learning opportunities to meet the community’s needs. While this study focuses on a single school, the challenges faced and the reform process employed are applicable to broader educational contexts. Thus, this research serves as an illustrative case of grassroots educational reform collaboratively addressing contemporary challenges. Toward that end, the following sections outline the human-centered design process employed to discover, design, deliver, and assess the I-STEM program, offering detailed insights into its logistics.

2.4.1. Discovery Phase: Exploring Possibilities Together

To address community and district challenges, an “Exploration Committee” was established in Autumn 2017 to investigate potential school programs that could better serve community needs and increase enrollment. The committee comprised 12 stakeholders, including teachers, parents, students, district trustees, and administrators responsible for secondary programming, innovation, and community partnerships. Multiple community engagement initiatives were conducted during this phase.

To gather community perspectives initially, the Exploration Committee distributed an online suggestion ballot from September to October 2017. Students, parents, staff, and community members were invited via school board emails, newsletters, and social media (Instagram, Twitter/X, Facebook) to submit ideas. Over 200 suggestions were received, which the board’s research team analyzed, generating 15 curriculum and program delivery themes.

In November 2017, an open house was held to discuss the 15 themes and explore reform possibilities. Invitations were shared via email, board news releases, newspaper ads, and social media. Approximately 200 to 300 stakeholders, including parents, students, teachers, community members, district trustees, and school administrators, attended the event. Participants engaged in discussions at thematic tables, with comments recorded on paper and analyzed by district personnel. Additionally, a research team member conducted observations and recorded field notes. An “add your thoughts” survey was distributed at the event and made available online to gather additional perspectives.

A week after the open house, 194 students from five secondary schools (including 30 from the study school) participated in facilitated focus group interviews. Students were asked about their learning preferences, desired skill development, and ideal school environment. Responses emphasized global competencies such as leadership, collaboration, creativity, and innovation, alongside work-related training and practical skills. These findings informed the subsequent design phase.

2.4.2. Design Phase: Organizing and Facilitating a Design Workshop

The I-STEM program was developed through a collaborative design workshop co-facilitated by a local university’s experiential learning office in December 2017. Participants included Exploration Committee members and 12 representatives from local colleges, universities, businesses, and social service organizations. Using data from the discovery phase, facilitators guided participants through the first three design thinking steps: empathize, define, and ideate. Key themes identified across data sources informed the selection of a STEM program. A research team member summarized the findings, and the Exploration Committee presented them to district administration for feedback and approval.

2.4.3. Delivery Phase: A Collaborative Charrette to Create the Program

Following district approval, the fourth design thinking step—prototyping—was initiated through a large-scale charrette involving 100 to 200 stakeholders, including policymakers, educators, business leaders, and science-focused organizations. Insights from Let’s Talk Science (2018, 2019), a national STEM education organization, were integral to the process. The charrette incorporated elements from the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (see United Nations, 2015), emphasizing inclusive, quality education, and skill development for future societal contributions. For example, participants stressed the importance of critical thinking, communication, and collaboration as competencies they wanted built into the program. Some parents noted the importance of divergent thinking to address societal issues. One observed that students needed skills for “open-ended problem solving that allows you to be successful in this day and age, juggling between one task and the next task”. Stakeholders collaboratively established key program goals, including educational reform, subject-specific skill development, global competencies, experiential learning, student engagement, university preparation, career benefits, and program scalability (see

Table A1. The co-constructed I-STEM program’s intended impacts and the program features.

Program’s Intended Impacts	Program Features Identifies in the DT Process
Doing school differently	Curriculum concepts addressed via student-led projects based on real-world issues/problems (individual and group project work); Teachers as guides; Anecdotal rather than alpha-numeric assessments; Interdisciplinarity across STEM subjects
Experiential learning in community	Community members’ and community-based organizations’ involvement with students’ projects
Skill development	Global competencies: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity and innovation, problem-solving, technological and digital fluency, collaboration and entrepreneurship, communication, perseverance, resilience, and engaged citizenship
Improve student engagement	Students’ interest in courses and the way they are delivered; Active participation in class discussions, assignments and projects; Students’ roles in program evaluation; Leadership and opportunities to influence their environmental contexts
Investment for university	Global competency development and content knowledge to ease the transition to post-secondary studies
Benefit for future	Occupational opportunities for students graduating from the program; global competency development
Scalability	Opportunities to scale the program within the school (all STEM course sections delivered with the program, increased interdisciplinarity across all subjects) and across schools (I-STEM program replicated in other schools); Program sustainability

in Appendix A for a summary and Spencer-Mueller et al., 2025, for detail). Course content and curriculum delivery strategies were also developed. Charrette participants subsequently formed a 12-person Advisory Committee to oversee program evolution, leveraging community and academic partnerships for experiential learning opportunities.

2.4.4. Measurement Phase: Program Implementation and Refinement

The final human-centered design step—testing—enabled stakeholders to address feedback and compare intended program impacts with actual outcomes (Noweski et al., 2012) in order to pivot and refine the program to better meet expectations. Yet, global competency assessment tools remain limited, and few mechanisms exist for making assessment data accessible for continuous teaching and learning improvements (Goldman et al., 2012). Furthermore, the existing literature on design thinking in secondary and post-secondary education often neglects the testing phase or focuses solely on quantitative learning outcomes and student motivation (Heinrich et al., 2021; Kurtin et al., 2021; Noweski et al., 2012). Collaboratively developed social innovations that are ongoing require a similarly collaborative measurement strategy. Developmental evaluation (DE) is a utilization-focused approach that supports the dynamic and iterative nature of social innovation. It provides timely, credible evidence to guide decision-making, allowing stakeholders to adapt strategies in response to emerging insights (Gamble, 2008; Patton, 2011; Patton et al., 2015). Svensson et al. (2018) highlight its relevance in complex educational contexts, where collaboration among diverse stakeholders is essential for success.

By integrating iterative feedback mechanisms involving stakeholders, the I-STEM program aimed to provide a sustainable, adaptable model for educational reform. In accordance with DE principles, survey, interview, and reflection tools were designed specifically for use with this project, and were based on the goals and measures collaboratively established by the participants, including parents, when the program was developed. Evaluations related to the program’s intended goals were conducted at the end of the first implementation year in 2020, and have been reported elsewhere (see Kurucz et al., 2025). This article highlights the ongoing contributions of stakeholders as the program evolves over time, with a specific focus on family engagement in the I-STEM program.

3. Materials and Methods

Modifications to the program were made in the summer of 2020 based on feedback from parents, students, I-STEM teachers, and advisory committee members (see Kurucz et al., 2025). In this section, the parents’ ongoing program evaluation is described during the second to fifth years of the program (2021 through 2024), when the first cohort minimally affected by the pandemic at the study school graduated from Grade 12 (see Figure A1 in Appendix A).

3.1. Research Design

The population of interest for this research consisted of parents of students enrolled in the I-STEM program between 2021 and 2024. While comprehensive school reform evaluations typically employ quantitative metrics such as literacy and mathematics achievement (Goldman et al., 2012; Sonergeld & Koskey, 2011), qualitative or mixed-methods approaches acknowledge the complex social contexts influencing both academic and non-academic outcomes (Sonergeld & Koskey, 2011). The research design used a mixed-methods online survey approach delivered once a year between 2021 and 2024. The study was reviewed and approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board (REB # 19-10-021) and followed the ethical principles of the Tri-Council.

3.2. Participants

Parents of children enrolled in the I-STEM program were invited to participate. A total of 145 parents of I-STEM students completed the online survey between 2021 and 2024. Participation was distributed as follows: 47 parents in 2021, 17 parents in 2022, 52 in 2023, and 29 in 2024. Demographic information was not collected; rather, questions focused on parents’ perceptions of the program.

3.3. Materials

The mixed-method online survey included both quantitative and qualitative questions that explored parents’ experiences and opinions on various aspects of the I-STEM program. Topics included parents’ impressions of the program, their views on how it prepares their child for the future, its effectiveness in engaging their child, the students’ transition into the program, its capacity for developing global competencies, valuable program aspects, and any challenges their child faced within the program. DE feedback from parents in 2020 indicated that parent–teacher and teacher–student communication were areas needing improvement, and students’ transitions from Grade 8 to a non-traditional program in Grade 9 were concerns for many parents. Additionally, some parents reported that the overall program was disorganized in its first year, and that their children found it challenging to work with their peers and complete group projects. As such, questions specifically addressing these issues were added to the survey in subsequent years.

3.3.1. Program Impression

Parents were asked to respond to five statements about their impression of the program, indicating their level of agreement on a scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). An example item from this section is as follows: “I would recommend the I-STEM program to other parents”. Participants also responded to two open-ended questions: “Describe teacher-parent communication in the I-STEM program that has been most or least effective from your perspective” and “How can the I-STEM program enhance its support and strengthen relationships with parents”?

3.3.2. Preparing for the Future

Parents were asked to respond to 10 statements regarding whether the I-STEM program prepares their child for the future, using a scale from “not at all” (1) to “an extremely large extent” (7). An example item from this section is as follows: “The I-STEM program has increased my child’s desire to study innovation, science, technology, engineering, and/or math at a college or university after graduating from high school”. Parents also responded to one open-ended question: “Provide examples of community-school partnerships or relationships developed with community members through student projects or presentations that you think have been most valuable for your child. Why do you think these have been helpful”?

3.3.3. Student Engagement

Parents were asked to respond to five statements assessing the extent to which they believe the I-STEM program engages their child in specific ways, using a scale from “not at all” (1) to “an extremely large extent” (7). An example item from this section is as follows: “In the I-STEM program, my child is able to learn about topics they are interested in”. In addition to the item statements, in an open-ended question, parents were asked to “Describe one or two examples of where your child has demonstrated engagement in the I-STEM program. Explain why you think your child was engaged by this or why they haven’t demonstrated engagement”.

3.3.4. Transition

Parents were asked to respond on a 7-point scale regarding their belief about their child’s transition into the I-STEM program, ranging from “worse than expected” (1) to “better than expected” (7). Parents were then asked to elaborate on their chosen score in an open-ended question.

3.3.5. Global Competencies

Parents were asked to respond to 17 statements assessing the extent to which they believed the I-STEM program develops specific global competencies, using a scale from “not at all” (1) to “an extremely large extent” (7). An example item from this section is as follows: “The I-STEM program teaches my child how to think critically”. In an open-ended question, parents were also asked to “Provide one or two examples of where you have observed some of the competencies identified above”.

3.3.6. Valuable Program Aspects

It was also important to understand which aspects of the program parents found valuable. To explore this, parents were asked to respond to nine statements that looked at the extent that specific I-STEM program aspects were valuable to them, using a scale from “not at all valuable” (1) to “extremely valuable” (7). An example item from this section is as follows: “My child meeting people in science, technology, engineering, and math careers”. Parents were asked additional open-ended questions to allow them to expand on some of these areas. The three questions are as follows: “From your perspective, describe why the elements you have selected are the most important features of the I-STEM program”, “What parts of the I-STEM program are the most important to you”, and “Thinking about community involvement in the I-STEM program, what aspects of community involvement do you believe would be/are meaningful and useful for your child’s learning”?

3.3.7. Program Challenges

It was also important to understand which aspects of the program parents considered difficult for their child. To explore this, parents were asked to respond to 11 statements that looked at the extent that specific I-STEM program aspects were challenging, using a scale from “not at all challenging” (1) to “extremely challenging” (7). An example item from this section is as follows: “Working in teams”. Parents expanded on the survey items using open-ended questions. The two questions included the following: “What do you think has been the biggest program challenge for your child and why? Please share whether you think your child has developed greater capacity because of this challenge or whether you believe the challenge has been unhelpful for your child’s growth and development” and “What changes would you like to see in the I-STEM program”?

3.4. Procedure

Each year in June between 2021 and 2024, parents of students in the I-STEM program were invited to share perspectives of their and their child’s experience in the I-STEM program. The research team provided the classroom teachers with the email content that was to be forwarded. Classroom teachers shared an email with all parents of I-STEM students that included details about the survey, contact information for the research team, and a link to the informed consent form and survey. Informed consent was obtained at the start of the survey, and participants were informed about their right to withdraw and the confidentiality of their responses. The survey was administered using Qualtrics Survey Software. If participants consented, the online survey began immediately on the next page. The surveys took approximately 30 to 60 min complete, depending on the length of participants’ responses. Upon completion, they were thanked for their time, and their responses were submitted.

3.5. Data Analysis

For the survey responses, mean scores were calculated for each item based on the year of data collection. The descriptive statistics were reviewed to identify items that parents rated with high and low scores, as well as items that were discussed in the open-ended responses. Therefore, the results provided do not include the descriptives for every survey item; rather, only those that were considered high and low means, and those that were discussed in the open-ended responses.

The data from the open-ended responses were coded in Microsoft Word. A constant, comparative analysis was conducted, and responses from each participant were compared across the data from all sources (Merriam, 1998; Rothe, 2000). In this way, new categories and themes were developed and existing ones were evaluated and modified (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Using a convergent parallel (triangulation) mixed-methods approach, the findings were used in conjunction with the quantitative data to provide detailed insights on parents’ evaluations of the I-STEM program from 2021 to 2024.

4. Findings from the Measurement Phase

The I-STEM program reflected curriculum delivery reconfiguration. Instead of learning concepts in isolation, disconnected from other subject areas and the world beyond the school more generally, its project-based learning model allowed students to examine real-world issues and possible solutions in a cross-disciplinary way. Moreover, they worked with community-based organizations including university programs and non-profit personnel on their projects. Teachers switched from a more traditional lecturer role to a coach and mentor for the students as they worked on group and independent innovation projects identifying original strategies for addressing problems. Students were able to follow their own interests in their learning, with the teachers providing “encouragement to pursue passion … projects if they meet the necessary requirements of the assignment”, according to their parents.

4.1. Parents’ Impressions of the Program

Parents rated their impression of I-STEM program features and delivery. As shown in

Table A2. Descriptive statistics for parents’ impressions of program (2021–2024).

Program Impressions	Year	n	M	SD
I would recommend the I-STEM program to other parents.	2021	47	6.17	0.94
	2022	17	5.29	1.72
	2023	50	5.78	1.61
	2024	29	5.48	1.84
The I-STEM program is adaptable and flexible regarding my child’s learning needs.	2021	47	5.45	1.32
	2022	17	5.12	1.58
	2023	50	5.60	1.54
	2024	29	5.24	1.55
The information about I-STEM program updates and changes is adequate.	2021	47	5.30	1.49
	2022	17	4.71	1.86
	2023	50	4.86	1.84
	2024	29	4.97	1.38
I believe my child is enjoying the I-STEM program.	2021	47	5.74	1.42
	2022	17	5.06	2.11
	2023	50	5.68	1.68
	2024	29	5.28	1.77
The teacher-parent communication in the I-STEM program is adequate.	2021	47	5.15	1.60
	2022	17	4.53	2.12
	2023	50	5.00	1.68
	2024	29	4.62	1.88

Note. n = sample size; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Ratings were given on 1–7 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

(see Appendix A), mean scores across all items were above the moderate level, ranging from M = 4.53 to M = 6.17. The highest ratings were observed for recommending the program to others (M = 5.29 to M = 6.17), followed by believing that their child is enjoying the program (M = 5.06 to M = 5.74), and the program being adaptable and flexible to their child’s needs (M = 5.12 to M = 5.60). The lowest ratings, although above moderate, were observed for teacher–parent communication (M = 4.53 to M = 5.15) and information on program updates and changes (M = 4.71 to M = 5.30).

When asked about the changes they would suggest for the I-STEM program in successive years, parents requested more home–school communication in the 2021 survey. Not only would they know what their children were learning, but they “could have developed discussions that could have sparked conversation” at home, thereby reinforcing the learning taking place at school. Moreover, the parents stressed that communication should be inclusive. One parent observed, “I have found it to be disheartening to my student to see teachers sharing successes of a few rather than all of the I-STEM students”. Another parent suggested more “highlighting student achievements in all social media outlets and even in newspapers. Generally create a lot of “buzz” about what is going on and share that as often as possible”. In light of the parents’ concerns, items about home–school communication and program information were added to the surveys in the following years in order to specifically monitor it.

When asked to describe teacher–parent communications that were the most or least effective in the 2022, 2023, and 2024 surveys, parents had mixed opinions on the level of communication. Many parents agreed that teacher–parent communication was adequate and that they received sufficient updates on the program, appreciating the “regular email updates”. Others described it as poor and reactive, citing “very limited teacher/parent communication” and “insufficient contact from I-STEM leads and teachers”. When asked how the program could enhance its support and strengthen relationships with them, most parents requested more communication. One parent shared, “More communication about I-STEM-specific learning opportunities would be appreciated—special guests, projects, etc.”. Other parents expressed a desire for more updates on learning objectives, assignments, and field trips. Additionally, many emphasized the need for greater opportunities to communicate with teachers through various channels, including phone, email, face-to-face meetings, and video calls.

4.2. Preparing Students for the Future

The students and their families had goals of being accepted into science programs at reputable universities, and of exploring STEM career opportunities. To gather more information on whether the program was meeting their expectations, parents were asked to rate the I-STEM program’s ability to prepare their child for the future in a number of domains. The mean scores ranged from a small to a large extent (M = 3.39 to M = 5.70) (see

Table A3. Descriptive statistics for parents’ ratings of how program prepares students for their futures (2021–2024).

Future Preparation	Year	n	M	SD
… provides awareness of possible jobs/careers pathways.	2021	47	5.21	1.54
	2022	14	4.93	2.06
	2023	44	5.20	1.80
	2024	27	5.00	1.64
… supports and prepares my child for possible future careers.	2021	47	5.40	1.48
	2022	15	5.07	1.87
	2023	46	5.43	1.64
	2024	29	5.45	1.33
… supports and prepares my child for possible future university/college/training programs.	2021	47	5.54	1.47
	2022	15	5.13	1.64
	2023	46	5.50	1.60
	2024	28	5.46	1.53
…has introduced my child to people they could go to for a volunteer job or a paid job that would be interesting to them.	2021	47	3.41	1.86
	2022	16	3.44	1.90
	2023	45	3.40	1.95
	2024	28	3.64	2.09
…has given my child opportunities to engage with the community through volunteer or paid work.	2021	47	3.39	1.86
	2022	16	3.75	1.77
	2023	48	3.48	1.95
	2024	28	3.86	1.67
...has increased my child’s awareness of how they can use STEM to positively impact community and global issues.	2021	47	5.65	1.34
	2022	16	5.13	1.86
	2023	47	5.70	1.37
	2024	29	5.52	1.33
…has introduced my child to people in businesses or other community organizations.	2021	47	4.86	1.80
	2022	16	4.69	2.06
	2023	47	4.55	1.73
	2024	29	4.83	1.77

Note. n = sample size; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Ratings were given on 1–7 Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = an extremely large extent).

in Appendix A).

From 2021 through 2024, parents reported that the I-STEM program provided an awareness of possible jobs and career paths to a fairly large extent (M = 4.98 to M = 5.21) and increased their children’s awareness of how they can use STEM to positively impact community and global issues to a large extent (M = 5.13 to M = 5.70). Parents described environmental and community support projects, partnerships with universities and industry, and civic and business engagement. They discussed how their children had the opportunity to provide food to communities in need, help at community charities, address housing insecurity, assist individuals with physical challenges, and “work with and present to environmental partners on local environmental issues” through their projects.

Parent reports also indicated that the program supported and prepared students to a large extent for possible future careers (M = 5.07 to M = 5.45) and education (M = 5.13 to M = 5.54). In terms of university and industry partnerships with the program, parents mentioned that their child(ren) had the chance to visit universities in the area and a local business. Parents highlighted various opportunities their children had for civic and business engagement, such as city councilors’ visits with students, students “interviewing people within the community”, “having entrepreneurs come and comment on their projects and ask challenging questions”, and students’ participation in an “angel investor project”.

Parents shared several reasons why these projects were important. Some noted that their children were able to engage in “creating innovative items and design to aid their life and provide some ease with tasks”. Others mentioned that the experiences increased their child’s interest in university programs and helped them see how the skills they were learning “could be applied to make the world a better place”. Additionally, some participants appreciated that the students’ projects “allowed them to be able to think on their toes” when questions were asked and “be challenged by real-world representatives”. They valued having their children receive community feedback on their projects and opportunities to answer challenging questions.

At the same time, parents’ reports suggest some practical limitations to the I-STEM program. They indicated that the program provided their children with opportunities to engage with the community through volunteer and paid work to a small extent (M = 3.39 to M = 3.86), and students knew who to approach in the community for these kinds of opportunities to a small extent (M = 3.40 to M = 3.75). A small number of parents reported more negative views of the community projects and community engagement in general. The projects were considered too business-focused as opposed to engineering-centered, and parents stated community partners were inundated with too many students to mentor.

Although the evaluations were generally positive regarding I-STEM’s ability to prepare students for future education, there was some concern voiced that the “curriculum does not prepare students for university-level courses and learning”. Other parents commented on the need to improve subject integration. “Innovation and entrepreneurship are themes that should be overlaid” on integrative, problem-based projects as was carried out in Grade 9, for example, but not in upper years. Another parent provided a specific example related to an environmental project:

There could have been opportunities for integration on many levels and art had no integration whatsoever. Art and a sense of aesthetic are important parts of design. Geography could have been integrated as well. There seemed to be very little instruction in Geography regarding concepts of erosion or why plants live where they do or how rivers are formed and shift. Geography should have focused on these concepts to reinforce and inform the river bank rehabilitation project.

Instead of mirroring the integrative nature of real-world problem-solving, these parents noted that the program was leaning too much in the direction of traditional curriculum delivery where subject content is taught in isolation.

4.3. Student Engagement in Their Education

The students were very interested in the sciences before entering the program, and they and their families were intrigued with the idea of engaging in novel ways of learning. This mindset was essential for the program’s success in facilitating students’ engagement in their learning and collaborations. In the survey, parents were asked questions that focused on their child’s engagement in the I-STEM program. Parents’ responses to the questions ranged from M = 3.71 to M = 5.77, suggesting moderate engagement overall (see

Table A4. Descriptive statistics for parents’ ratings of their children’s engagement in I-STEM program (2021–2024).

Program Engagement	Year	n	M	SD
In the I-STEM program my child is able to learn about the topics they are interested in.	2021	47	4.96	1.36
	2022	17	4.24	2.22
	2023	47	5.17	1.77
	2024	28	5.07	1.84
My child feels that they can share opinions about the I-STEM program.	2021	47	5.40	1.53
	2022	16	4.63	2.22
	2023	43	5.19	1.92
	2024	26	4.42	1.77
My child contributes ideas to how the I-STEM program is run.	2021	47	3.93	1.85
	2022	14	3.71	2.02
	2023	42	4.07	1.85
	2024	25	3.80	1.94
My child can understand how the topics and assignments in their I-STEM courses are relevant to the real world.	2021	47	5.44	1.34
	2022	16	5.06	1.77
	2023	47	5.77	1.46
	2024	28	5.21	1.55

Note. n = sample size; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Ratings were given on 1–7 Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = an extremely large extent).

in Appendix A). While parents somewhat disagreed that their child was able to contribute to how the I-STEM program was run (M = 3.71 to M = 4.07), they agreed that their child felt that they could share opinions about the I-STEM program (M = 4.42 to M = 5.40). Parents on average somewhat agreed that their child was able to learn about topics they were interested in (M = 4.24 to M = 5.17), and overall, parents agreed that their child could understand how the topics and assignments in their I-STEM courses were relevant to the real world (M = 5.06 to M = 5.77). Sometimes, students engaged in their “research outside of school”, and in “discussions and debates at home around global issues”, which highlighted their interest in their education, according to their parents.

Examples of activities that engaged the students were the “environmental projects”, “hands-on, innovative” activities such as “rocket-building”, and idea generation for community and global development. Through their assignments, students had opportunities to brainstorm and “prototype adaptive tools” for community members with physical disabilities—which “was a real highlight, as they got to build prototypes and feel like they were really helping someone”. Students also worked in teams with university partners, to “propose ideas to the larger team”, and “design and present ideas and research”, which demonstrated that their ideas were valued. In contrast, student engagement was limited due to “resistance from [some] teachers to hear the student” and their “fixed mindset”, and large projects that left the students overwhelmed and feeling as though they were “not able to make a difference” in the community and beyond, according to some of the parents.

4.4. Transitioning to the I-STEM Program

Parents were asked to assess their children’s transition into the I-STEM program. In 2021, parents on average said it was slightly worse than what they had expected (M = 3.61), but averages were higher in 2022, leaning towards better than expected (M = 5.00) and in 2023 and 2024, averages suggest that the transition was what they had expected it to be (M = 4.86 and M = 4.44, respectively) (see

Table A5. Descriptive statistics for parents’ ratings of their child’s transition into I-STEM way of learning (2021–2024).

Transition	Year	n	M	SD
Transition in the I-STEM program	2021	47	3.68	1.48
	2022	16	5.00	1.67
	2023	49	4.86	1.83
	2024	27	4.44	1.40

Note. n = sample size; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Ratings were given on 1–7 Likert scale (1 = worse than expected, 7 = better than expected).

in Appendix A).

In explaining their responses, one parent voiced a common issue associated with transitioning from elementary school: it “was a bit scary for my child. It was more about the unknown and the departure from the traditional learning they had in grade school”. Academically, several parents commented that their children had previously attended a Montessori school, which was similar to the I-STEM program delivery:

My daughter’s previous schooling was in a Montessori environment, which has many of the same pedagogical characteristics as the I-STEM program, hence her interest. She felt engaged when in person, very connected to her teachers, peers, and assignments. The transition was smooth.

Peers and teachers also played a role in making the transition smoother and more enjoyable. One parent observed that her son “was very pleased to meet like-minded kids and teachers, with a love of learning new skills that supports his interests in the I-STEM core subjects”. Another stated that her daughter “was able to meet like-minded people that had an array of talents and strengths, but shared her passion and drive”. Still another parent reported on the educators’ support:

The teachers were wonderful and open to the students’ questions, needs, and supported them through the difficult first months of a new school and new learning environment. They were dynamic and engaged with them which produced excitement and a very positive learning environment. I cannot give enough positive feedback for these teachers, they have exceeded my expectations.

At the same time, some parents felt the program’s educators could have done more to welcome the new students to the program during the restructured educational environment resulting from pandemic precautions. One parent in the 2020–2021 year shared, “There was very little done by the school by way of welcoming students at the start of the year. Orientation was thin and lacked enthusiasm”. Overall, the students “hadn’t had the opportunity to see/be in the school prior to [their] first day”. In response, one parent highlighted the importance of team-building activities for the students at the beginning of the academic year.

4.5. Developing Global Competencies

In preparing for university and their futures as productive citizens in their community, the I-STEM program intended to promote innovation, creativity, knowledge applicable for the future, divergent thinking, and problem-solving. Overall, parents believed that the program was able to enhance their children’s global competencies, with mean scores from 4.91 to 5.96 (see

Table A6. Descriptive statistics for parents’ ratings of how I-STEM program develops global competencies (2021–2024).

Global Competencies	Year	n	M	SD
…inspires curiosity.	2021	47	5.83	1.20
	2022	15	5.53	1.77
	2023	48	5.65	1.42
	2024	26	5.19	1.63
…teaches my child how to think critically.	2021	47	5.83	1.20
	2022	14	5.64	1.50
	2023	47	5.79	1.44
	2024	27	5.67	1.44
…teaches my child how to problem-solve.	2021	47	5.80	1.26
	2022	15	5.87	1.36
	2023	49	5.76	1.44
	2024	27	5.63	1.33
…allows my child to be more creative in their work.	2021	47	5.71	1.38
	2022	16	5.38	1.89
	2023	47	5.53	1.61
	2024	27	5.33	1.49
…teaches and allows my child to be a self-directed learner.	2021	47	5.36	1.53
	2022	16	5.44	1.79
	2023	47	5.47	1.65
	2024	26	5.27	1.51
…teaches my child collaboration skills.	2021	47	5.42	1.23
	2022	14	5.50	1.61
	2023	49	5.94	1.38
	2024	27	5.85	1.46
…shows my child about the importance of being a global citizen.	2021	47	5.96	1.28
	2022	14	5.21	1.81
	2023	46	5.80	1.50
	2024	27	5.52	1.34
...shows my child how to communicate in a variety of different situations.	2021	47	5.44	1.37
	2022	16	4.38	2.60
	2023	48	5.33	1.62
	2024	26	5.50	1.36
…teaches my child how to develop new ideas or products in response to a problem or community need.	2021	47	5.59	1.41
	2022	14	5.21	1.76
	2023	49	5.71	1.47
	2024	27	5.48	1.45

Note. n = sample size; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Ratings were given on 1–7 Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = an extremely large extent).

in Appendix A). They agreed that it inspired curiosity (M = 5.19 to M = 5.83), allowing students to be self-directed learners (M = 5.27 to M = 5.47) and teaching them how to develop new ideas or products in response to a problem or community need (M = 5.21 to M = 5.71).

Parents agreed that I-STEM allowed their children to be more creative in their school work (M = 5.33 to M = 5.71), teaching them critical thinking (M = 5.64 to M = 5.83) and how to problem-solve (M = 5.63 to M = 5.87). At the same time, one parent in 2024 noted, “Learning how to think critically and collaborate takes time to develop and hone”. Practicing these skills was helpful, as was feedback from judges and community members regarding their projects. One parent observed, “Projects have had him thinking in larger terms, creative problem solving and encouraging critical thinking”.

One parent mentioned, “The problem-solving skills of real-world problems, the creative approach to learning, the supportive and collaborative environment in which the students can learn are the most important to me”, highlighting the cross-competency development. Similarly, another parent stated, “The group work, presentations, and problem solving (creativity, iteration, learning to learn from failure, learning how to learn) are invaluable life skills!” Many parents mentioned that the program encouraged their child to be a “problem-solver”; the students in the program “have high career goals and [they] believe I-STEM equips them with more hands-on and innovative tools to enable creative thinking–they love art and creativity”.

Parents agreed that the program’s design also provided opportunities to learn collaboration skills (M = 5.42 to M = 5.94). Many parents commented on the opportunities for building collaboration skills. Although one parent noted “anxiety stunted her [child’s] collaboration skills”, another stated the “program does a good job at not just throwing students into groups but teaches them how to be good collaborators”. Through many “team tasks”, their children developed “empathy” and “enjoyed group working”, which allowed them to “play different roles in different circumstances and still be successful and feel accomplished”. Some parents also noted the value of leadership development when their children had opportunities for “leading [their] team to project completion”.

A large number of parents also commented on the students’ communication skills, which was not surprising, as most participants agreed that the program showed their child how to communicate in a variety of different situations (M = 4.38 to M = 5.50). They noted that their children “ask[ed] for assistance or further direction” as they “learn[ed] how to communicate”. Some students reported “successful group communication” to their families as they engaged in collaborative work, and that they “gained confidence in presenting ideas” as they “practiced presenting” their projects before sharing them with “peers, staff [and] judges”. One parent stated that their child was “learning to communicate ideas to peers and other groups in an engaging way” while another suggested that their child was “learning the ins and outs of successful group communication with project teammates to ensure everyone knows what they are supposed to be doing, and when, was a huge learning curve this year”. Oftentimes, projects and presentations were attributed to helping their child “develop better communication”. One parent even mentioned that “presenting ideas to others is something my kid would not naturally want to do and they are doing it now”, showing the progress being made.

In essence, parents agreed that the program demonstrated the importance of being a global citizen (M = 5.21 to M = 5.96) and provided students with opportunities to develop their skills in service to this goal. One parent reported feeling “that the I-STEM program really highlighted the idea that she is a global citizen”. Another parent mentioned that their child “already has an interest in global and environmental issues and many of the projects have had this focus”, highlighting the program’s alignment with student interest. One parent stated that “engaging in discussion/debate at home around global issues is not what we used to see before I-STEM”. The comments from parents suggest that the I-STEM program was helping to develop their children into global citizens.

4.6. Parents’ Views on Program Aspects

Parents found all aspects of the program to range from valuable to very valuable (see

Table A7. Descriptive statistics for parents’ ratings of value of I-STEM program aspects (2021–2024).

Program Value	Year	n	M	SD
The project-based/hands-on learning model.	2021	47	6.21	1.23
	2022	16	6.00	1.37
	2023	49	6.31	1.02
	2024	27	6.15	1.26
Real-world problem-solving.	2021	47	6.23	1.18
	2022	16	5.94	1.24
	2023	49	6.18	1.20
	2024	27	6.22	1.05
Preparation for future education in college or university.	2021	47	6.19	1.35
	2022	16	6.38	1.02
	2023	49	6.22	1.33
	2024	27	6.07	1.52
Exhibiting their work to educators, parents and community members.	2021	47	5.64	1.57
	2022	16	5.50	1.86
	2023	49	5.57	1.61
	2024	27	5.70	1.30
Meeting people in STEM careers.	2021	47	5.98	1.26
	2022	16	5.81	1.56
	2023	49	5.63	1.62
	2024	27	5.81	1.69
Meeting members of the community.	2021	47	5.85	1.30
	2022	16	5.69	1.45
	2023	49	5.35	1.61
	2024	27	5.44	1.50
Preparation for a future career(s).	2021	47	6.13	1.28
	2022	16	6.06	1.44
	2023	49	6.27	1.30
	2024	27	6.00	1.44

Note. n = sample size; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Ratings were given on 1–7 Likert scale (1 = not at all valuable, 7 = extremely valuable).

in Appendix A). Some parents were “impressed with all the elements of the program” and the curricula’s “integrative nature”. For example, one parent listed “the integrated learning method, working with the community, looking at global issues, incorporating creativity into the sciences, and allowing students to choose issues that interest them if they meet the necessary requirements of the assignment” as important program aspects. Specifically, they considered the project-based, hands-on learning to be very valuable (M = 6.00 to M = 6.31), along with real-world problem-solving (M = 5.94 to M = 6.23). They appreciated the “integration of the program to the real world” through opportunities to “solve real problems” and to “present new products” and “business ideas” after problem-solving, “costing and prototyping”. One parent mentioned that they “really like that the I-STEM program is focused on hands-on and project-based learning and that students are given the opportunity to collaborate with each other and work on meaningful assignments based on real-world problems”. Comments like this were very common in the open-ended responses with parents, highlighting the importance of “practical, project based, collaborative work environment that applies theoretical principles to real world (simulated) problems”.

Parents also viewed their children’s preparation for future education (M = 6.07 to M = 6.38) and future careers (M = 6.00 to M = 6.27) to be very valuable. “Exposing students to future career and degree options beyond handouts and personal research (through guest speakers, assignments, etc.)” were considered important. The “co-op symposiums” and introduction to “STEM careers” through “career preparation” and university planning aligned “with the 21st century work world requirements” developed in the program, and parents expected a “smooth transition to post-secondary” education. Parents mentioned that their children were “gaining connections with colleges and universities”, having the chance to see “what is being done at post-secondary”. They observed that their children were learning skills that would prepare them to transition into post-secondary. For one parent, that aspect of the program “trumps nearly everything else”.

Somewhat paradoxically, they did not consider their children exhibiting their work to educators, parents, and community members (M = 5.50 to M = 5.70), or meeting people in STEM careers (M = 5.63 to M = 5.98) and members of the community (M = 5.35 to M = 5.85) to be as valuable. Only a few parents mentioned community engagement as being important to them in the open-ended responses.

4.7. Program Challenges for Students

Parents were asked to respond to survey questions about program challenges in general, as well as how challenging certain aspects of the I-STEM program were for their child (see

Table A8. Descriptive statistics for parents’ ratings of challenging aspects of I-STEM program (2021–2024).

Program Challenges	Year	N	M	SD
The overall organization of the I-STEM program.	2021	47	2.66	1.31
	2022	15	4.00	2.14
	2023	49	3.24	1.81
	2024	26	3.54	1.86
Working in teams.	2021	47	3.32	1.68
	2022	16	4.00	2.31
	2023	49	3.53	2.05
	2024	26	4.00	1.94
Group activities/projects.	2021	47	3.28	1.66
	2022	16	4.13	2.19
	2023	49	3.61	2.06
	2024	26	4.62	1.58

Note. n = sample size; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Ratings were given on 1–7 Likert scale (1 = (not at all challenging, 7 = extremely challenging).

in Appendix A). These challenges were also highlighted in the open-ended questions which asked parents to elaborate on program challenges and potential changes.

Parents considered the overall organization of the program to be minimally to moderately challenging (M = 2.66 to M = 4.00). Some of the parents surveyed stated that the program’s organization was a challenge for their child. It was difficult for their child “to adapt to what each teacher was looking for”, and there was mention of “unclear expectations” due to the “extreme openness of the program”. Such openness was considered “overwhelming”, leading some parents to be disappointed in the program. For example, one thought “there were some challenges with design, organization, goals, communication, etc. that made things somewhat difficult for the students” during their third year of the program.

Several parents had concerns about the content and were critical of the program design and execution in facilitating their children’s path into post-secondary STEM programs. One parent did not view the mathematics and physics curricula to be at the appropriate level, while another noted the program “does not provide science-engineering preparation for university”. Another parent observed, “we noticed that the I-STEM program was not as academically rigorous as the French Immersion program my son had previously attended”. Other parents took issue with the program delivery, stating there was inconsistent execution or “poor delivery of competencies”. In general, they felt the school district personnel “over-promised” and under-delivered with the program, and that it “could be better”.

Parents commonly mentioned that communication was problematic. They wanted to see more parental inclusion in communication about the program as this was considered a major challenge. Many parents mentioned that they wanted a better understanding of how the program was structured and the outcomes related to the curriculum. For example, parents highlighted wanting “communication on the curriculum”, as “this is a very new approach and positive one but there has been some confusion and inconsistencies in communication”. Parents wanted to be able to better understand “how the I-STEM subjects are integrated and [how] the curriculum is covered in the group project work”.

In addition, parents reported group activities and projects to be somewhat challenging in 2021 (M = 3.28), with increasing levels of challenge noted in the years that followed (M = 3.61 to M = 4.62). Similarly, working in teams was reported to be increasingly challenging from 2021 to 2024, although still at a moderate level (M = 3.32 to M = 4.00). In terms of group work/activities, some parents surveyed noted that their children found it difficult to “adapt to working closely with others”, with some students “struggling with teamwork and collaboration”. The students had group projects in elementary school, but they were not responsible for ensuring all group members were assigned tasks and that they communicated with one another to ensure everyone knew their tasks. It was a common enough issue that the superintendent spoke about it at the end of the program’s first year in the incoming students’ orientation. A parent stated, “The superintendent, last week, actually referenced the fact that that’s one thing that they’re telling kids that are coming in is ‘be prepared every afternoon. You’re in group work’”. Sometimes, the problem was the “socialization and interaction with peers”. One parent reported her child being “overwhelmed doing her part and others’”, which illustrated social loafing, a commonly observed phenomenon in group work. Other students favored independent learning, and “struggled with sharing [their] thoughts”. Some parents saw supervision as an issue, reporting “insufficient guidance in group works”. Yet, parents identified “engaging in collaborative activities” as an important part of the program, assisting in inspiring enthusiasm in the program.

5. Discussion

Family engagement is essential for fostering meaningful educational experiences and achieving student success. The parent responses in the annual survey provided insights into their and their children’s opinions and experiences of the program as it evolved from 2021 to 2024. In this section, a survey response pattern and highlights from the findings are presented and interpreted based on the existing literature.

5.1. Parents’ Survey Responses from 2021 Through 2024

Overall, parents reported that the I-STEM program met its established goals. In general, they were satisfied with all aspects of the program, and their children were engaged with their learning. Yet, an interesting pattern arose across four years of survey data. Parents reported lower satisfaction mean scores in 2022 on almost all items measuring parents’ impressions of the program, the program value and its features2, and they considered the overall program organization to be more challenging for students than in other years.

The school district planned to scale the I-STEM program to other schools in the district. In the 2021–2022 academic year, teachers and an administrator who were integrally involved in the program’s development and implementation at the study school left to establish the program at another school. The remaining teachers and administrators at the original school were not as familiar with the program, and most had not participated in its development between 2017 and 2019. Consequently, the program lost some of its fidelity at the study school. This is consistent with the existing literature. Competing priorities from the province or school district, changing societal needs, turnover among educators and school administrators, as well as financial and material resources that become unavailable over time are some examples of challenges to sustainability (Coburn, 2003). Ongoing monitoring to ensure the program continues to meet its intended impacts is necessary, as are human and material resources to support implementation from all levels of the school system, and longitudinal research on implementation over time (Coburn, 2003). The less tangible program features also need to be considered, including the philosophies, beliefs, norms, and other cultural elements that are grounded in the initiative and must be passed on (Coburn, 2003; Curry, 1992; Datnow et al., 2002). This includes district- and school-level policies that are consistent with the initiative and support its delivery, such as professional development opportunities (Coburn, 2003) for the teachers at both the study and new schools who had not had exposure to the program until the 2021–2022 academic year. Lastly, there needs to be a shift in ownership so the initiative and the related DE process is not viewed as external to the school (Coburn, 2003). Shifting the authority for and knowledge of the initiative to other school community members is one step toward ownership.

5.2. Students’ Transitions into the Program and Parents’ Overall Impressions of I-STEM

Students’ transitions into the I-STEM program were more difficult than expected in the 2020–2021 school year due to limited student onboarding. This was not entirely surprising, as the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in school closure, pushing the program into a virtual method of delivery for the latter half of the 2019–2020 school year, and a modified program that limited students’ contact with one another, school personnel, and community partners at the beginning of the 2020–2021 academic year. With these unanticipated program changes, it may have been more difficult for school staff to orient students to the program and the school. When the program was re-established as in-person for the following years, the transition was better than parents expected (2022) or what they had expected (2023 and 2024). These scores appeared to be the result of the program orientation and inclusion of team-building activities similar to what was carried out at the beginning of the program’s first year to ensure the students’ transitions were more seamless.

Once their children were engaged in the program, parents had opportunities to evaluate it. Overall, parents’ ratings of the program were positive, especially for student enjoyment and the program’s adaptability to learners’ needs, and overall, parents would recommend the program to other families. These findings are not surprising; the program is student-led rather than teacher-led, using project-based curriculum delivery in which students individually and in small groups investigate STEM issues of importance in their community that interest them (Spencer-Mueller et al., 2025).

That said, home–school communication was an area that some parents felt could be improved, even though most parents were content with the level and type of home–school communication. Some parents wanted more communication regarding their child’s achievements as well as learning opportunities and outcomes using various communication platforms. To a lesser extent, parents also wanted more information on program updates and changes. These findings are consistent with previous evaluations (Kurucz et al., 2025). The I-STEM assignments were assessed with anecdotal feedback rather than alpha-numeric grades (Kurucz et al., 2025; Spencer-Mueller et al., 2025). Moreover, student-led, project-based learning meant students were engaged in a variety of activities that interested them but differed from those of their peers. At the same time, the students were expected to meet provincially set curriculum expectations. The I-STEM program departed from traditional models of high school education, and parents wanted more information on their child’s learning opportunities, how their child was meeting curriculum expectations, and how students were being assessed (Spencer-Mueller et al., 2025). While they appreciated that the program was adaptable and flexible in response to student interest and needs as well as external contexts such as pandemic precautions and subsequent switches from in-person to online learning environments, parents wanted more updates on the program for the same reason.

5.3. Preparing Students for Their Futures and Promoting Global Competencies

According to the parents, the I-STEM program provided students with an awareness of and training for potential careers, as well as demonstrating to students how they could use STEM concepts to positively impact the community. In contrast, parents reported there were no opportunities for students to engage with the community through volunteer or paid work, nor were they introduced to people they could go to for work that interested them. Working alongside community members on common problems of interest was a key selling point of the program. By extension, those opportunities should have broadened students’ social networks (C. M. Hands, 2006, 2023).

Students did not have opportunities to work in person with community members on community problems and issues for much of the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 academic years. Students were limited to working virtually or in small groups those years, with the resources they had in their homes and classrooms, and the ones they could access without physical contact with the community partners during lockdowns and protocols for reduced contact. To minimize students’ contact with everyone in the program once lockdowns were lifted, students studied four subjects each semester, with the same two courses alternating each day. Community engagement was limited throughout this time because the school personnel were not permitted to bring guests into the school or take students on field trips. It was anticipated that school–community collaborative activities would resume over the following years once students were studying consistently in-person. Based on the consistency in the responses over the four years of data collection, it does not appear that students were gaining as many opportunities to work with community members as their parents would have liked, even after pandemic precautions ended.

The I-STEM program aimed to develop students’ global competencies to prepare them to be lifelong learners capable of adapting to a rapidly evolving environment. The responses from parents suggest that the program was effective at developing students’ competencies overall, specifically in areas such as creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Parents noted substantial improvements in their children’s ability to collaborate and communicate effectively, as well as an increased awareness of global and environmental issues.

5.4. Student Engagement and the Program’s Most Valuable Features

Responses suggest that the ISTEM program successfully engaged students through innovative, project-based learning activities that involved hands-on tasks to address real-world problems in partnership with community members. Parents commented that these types of projects helped students feel that they could make meaningful contributions to the community. While students understood they could share their opinions about the I-STEM program and were able to learn about topics of interest, parents noted that consistent teacher support during project work was necessary to ensure that the projects were not too large and complex for the students to complete within the year and with the skills they had developed. Parents’ responses suggest that more student–teacher communication is needed, with teachers being receptive to student feedback around the program and the learning opportunities. This finding aligns with calls in the educational ethics literature for educators to establish relationships with students that are steeped in the ethic of care (Noddings, 1992). Strong bonds between the carer (teacher) and the cared-for (student) help to ease the stress students experience as they navigate a world that can be baffling and stressful for them at times (Noddings, 1992).

Parents consistently rated all aspects of the I-STEM program as valuable to very valuable, particularly emphasizing project-based, hands-on learning, real-world problem-solving as well as preparation for future careers and education, all of which received high ratings each year. Yet, they saw somewhat less value in opportunities for students to showcase their work to community members and educators. This finding was surprising, as parents reported wanting more opportunities for their child to share their work and achievements in another survey section. It may be that a lack of community involvement and parents’ limited experience with the level of community engagement intended for the program led parents to undervalue these opportunities and to prioritize more traditional indicators of program strength such as preparation for future careers and post-secondary studies. As previously mentioned, enhancing community engagement through creating diverse and numerous partnerships is expected to expand students’ learning opportunities and their social networks (C. M. Hands, 2006, 2023), which has the potential to also enhance parents’ perceptions of the program’s ability to prepare their children for future education and careers.

5.5. Program Challenges

In addition to limited community engagement, the parents highlighted several content and delivery challenges. Some parents questioned the program subjects’ academic rigor, wondering if the program would prepare their children adequately for post-secondary education. They also noted the program’s organization created challenges. Its open, flexible structure—while beneficial for enabling students to pursue their interests through their projects—resulted in varying teacher expectations and unclear guidelines. Additionally, group work and collaboration were identified as key challenges for students. While parents could see that their children were developing these competencies over time, they suggested more supervision and guidance were needed to facilitate skills acquisition. Additionally, parents requested more subject integration in both the valuable aspects of the program and in the challenges sections. COVID-19 transmission prevention limited subject integration in the 2020–2021 academic year. The program had a modified delivery, with subjects divided into semesters instead of offering all courses simultaneously throughout the academic year. Four subjects were taught each semester, with two courses taught each day: a 3-hour class in the morning and another 3-hour class in the afternoon every other day. Designed to reduce students’ in-person interactions with their peers, school staff, and community members, this structure limited possibilities for interdisciplinary work. Once in-person studies resumed on a traditional schedule, the I-STEM program content could be integrated, and parents also recommended broader inclusion of subjects such as visual art—a suggestion first proposed by advisory committee members in 2020 (Kurucz et al., 2025). Communication again emerged as an area needing improvement, with parents seeking more information about the program’s structure, outcomes, and alignment with curriculum standards (see parents’ impressions of the program section).

5.6. Next Steps for Program Modification

For some program features, parents offered revision recommendations. In other instances, their commentary provided insights that informed the recommendations that follow.

5.6.1. Recommendations for Future Communications

In addition to the quantity of communication, parents touched on its quality, suggesting that X (Twitter) alone was insufficient and that different communication platforms should be used. This idea is consistent with the existing literature. Hiatt-Michael (2010) references Marshall McLuhan’s notion that the medium is the message, observing “the form of communication may be more powerful than the content” (p. 26). She defines communication as “one-way and two-way face-to-face, oral, written, and graphic transmission of ideas and feelings” (Hiatt-Michael, 2010, p. 26), and as such, she describes options such as school and classroom websites, home visits, and the more widespread parent–teacher interviews, telephone messaging, and newsletters. Parent–Teacher Associations (PTAs) as well as Ontario’s school councils are other venues for communication (C. Hands, 2010), along with parent liaisons (Hiatt-Michael, 2010) and settlement workers for newcomer families (C. M. Hands, 2023). Although teacher home visits are most common during students’ elementary years, there is evidence that relationships among teachers and parents of high school students improve with home visits (Soule & Curtis, 2021). Teachers who conducted home visits reported more positive relationships with parents at a statistically significant level when compared with teachers who did not make home visits, with parents expressing gratitude for teachers’ efforts to accommodate them and their demonstrated interest in their children (Soule & Curtis, 2021). Moreover, home visits encouraged more home–school communication, parents were perceived as more supportive of teachers, students attended school more frequently, and they were more likely to graduate from high school on time than their counterparts who had no teacher home visits (Soule & Curtis, 2021). With the proliferation of social media (Instagram, Bluesky and YouTube, for example) and digital communication platforms, additional possibilities for consistent and frequent communication are available when home visits are not feasible.

Regardless of the medium, knowledge mobilization should meet the users’ communication needs in ways they prefer (Patte et al., 2022; Straus et al., 2009). Research conducted in Finland and Portugal—two countries with education systems that prioritize parent engagement in their children’s education—found that parents considered teachers’ communication ability, professionalism, and invitations for parental participation in education to be essential ways for educators to support parent–teacher partnerships (Levinthal et al., 2021). While Finnish parents had little face-to-face contact, consistent online communication with teachers and established trust in their professionalism, including teachers’ demonstrated care and attentiveness toward their children, promoted home–school partnerships (Levinthal et al., 2021). Portuguese parents had more frequent active participation in the schools and face-to-face contact with teachers, and they valued teachers’ timely responses to their communication and their support (Levinthal et al., 2021). Despite cultural differences, parents’ common expectations included the importance of teachers keeping them informed in an ongoing and frequent manner, regardless of the communication method. Moreover, invitations for parents’ active participation connected to the curriculum instead of purely social activities may strengthen home–school relations, as would teachers’ attention to maintaining open communication and listening to parents’ requests (Levinthal et al., 2021). To best meet the parents’ communication needs in this case, then, school and district personnel would do well to consult them regarding their preferred ways of communicating and then commit to engaging in frequent communication to ensure parents feel that they are partners in their children’s education.

5.6.2. Recommendations for Enhancing Community Engagement in I-STEM

Apart from school–community partnerships being an integral component of the program, community engagement in education is essential for providing adolescents with workplace opportunities to apply their knowledge and competencies, thereby easing their transition into post-secondary studies or the workplace (C. M. Hands, 2006, 2023). Moreover, community engagement provides access to resources and learning opportunities that are not available in schools (C. M. Hands, 2006, 2023). Students’ enhanced global competencies have prepared them to work collaboratively with their peers and with community members, which promotes a positive learning experience for both students and community members. Yet, some parents noted that many community partners and projects are not science-focused, so they do not complement the program. Moreover, educators and parents, in particular, noted the need to increase the number of partnerships with community-based organizations, including municipal and provincial governments, to provide funding, mentoring, and experiential learning opportunities in-person for the students from as early as 2020. This advice is sound, enhancing experiential learning and opportunities that school personnel cannot deliver with the resources at their disposal (C. M. Hands, 2006, 2023).

Both school administrators and educators, along with district office personnel such as a community liaison, need to reach out to potential partners (Epstein, 2011; Sheldon, 2002). School–community collaboration often falls by the wayside because it is time-consuming to seek out potential partners as well as to establish and maintain relationships (C. M. Hands, 2023). The I-STEM program was evolving with new delivery strategies for each grade being developed every year, which added administrative burden to school personnel that limited their involvement in creating and maintaining community ties. These tasks are only taken up if school personnel see a need to do so (C. M. Hands, 2006), and it is possible they were not prioritized, given the teachers’ focus on curriculum planning. That said, it is easier and less time-consuming for individuals to create new partnership activities with people they already know (C. M. Hands, 2023). It is more likely people in their personal and professional networks will agree to collaborate on new initiatives, and time is not spent establishing a relationship first (C. M. Hands, 2023). Moreover, initiators need to articulate the benefits of collaborating with potential partners while highlighting the ways in which collaborating will enhance students’ engagement in their education (C. M. Hands, 2006) with a particular focus on the sciences, in this case. Although some parents did not see the value of students publicly exhibiting their projects to the community, this is one strategy for concretely demonstrating program innovation and inspiring prospective partners. Mutually beneficial interactions encourage buy-in for both the school personnel and community members (C. M. Hands, 2006, 2023).

At the same time, parents’ comments indicated that their children had limited opportunities to engage with the community through volunteer and paid work, and they did not necessarily know who to contact in the community for these opportunities. Activities outside the school-related projects were beyond the scope of the I-STEM program and reflected a need for a robust Co-operative Education (Co-op, or Community-based Education) program. Additionally, Ontario high school students complete 40 h of volunteer service as a graduation requirement, which places all Ontario school personnel in a position to guide students towards opportunities. Often, volunteering results in future employment opportunities (C. M. Hands, 2023). The program’s existing community partners would be a starting point, and providing a list of the partners to students and parents would be helpful.

5.6.3. Recommendations for Addressing Challenges to Student Collaboration and Academic Content

Just as school personnel engage in a DE of the program as a whole, teachers should regularly review their subject curricula and its ability to meet not only provincial curriculum expectations but also first year college- and university-level curriculum expectations along with non-subject-specific content such as global competencies. A DE strategy similar to the one used for the program would be an appropriate strategy, promoting effective action through results-oriented, informed, evidence-based decision-making (Patton, 2011; Patton et al., 2015). It can be used in any context to provide useful and relevant information for an ongoing program (Patton, 2011; Patton et al., 2015). If course content requires revision, teachers might use an action research approach, which is participatory and democratic, engaging all constituents impacted by the intervention (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Action research is an iterative process involving identifying a problem of practice, collecting data to determine the current state and improvement goals, creating an intervention—in this case, a revised educational program—and then assessing the intervention (Creswell & Creswell, 2023) using DE. Based on constituents’ comments, teachers might start by expanding interdisciplinarity to include Geography and Visual Art as part of ecological and sustainability projects and innovative design. They might also try directly teaching skills like collaboration and strategies for working as a team through modeling and debriefing group interactions to complement the opportunities they currently provide students to develop these skills through experience.

6. Conclusions

This article takes a close look at a novel way of engaging families in their children’s education. By engaging families in ideation, prototyping, and feedback, the study school co-created an innovative STEM program tailored to community and residents’ needs. While innovative practices such as human-centered design highlight the potential for authentic partnerships that transform traditional engagement models, DE enables ongoing family engagement and indeed requires it from any constituents impacted by the reform (Patton, 2011; Patton et al., 2015).

Parents’ feedback on I-STEM provided useful insights into the program’s ability to meet students’ and their families’ needs. In general, the program was meeting or exceeding their expectations. At the same time, enhancing communication quality and quantity in consultation with families’ needs is a recurring program shortcoming that the school personnel would do well to address before the next academic year. In addition to program updates and communication about their children’s progress, school personnel might contact the parents, seeking family members with expertise in STEM fields to share their knowledge and skills, along with their professional networks. School and district personnel are also advised to continue building their partnerships with community-based organizations, and this strategy might provide more avenues for parent engagement, while facilitating community engagement.

In addition to expanding the quantity of school–community relationships, it is important to create these relationships with the goals of the program at the forefront (C. M. Hands, 2023). Noting that it is a STEM program, parents’ claims that the students’ projects were business-heavy rather than engineering-focused may indicate that there is not enough diversity in the program partnerships and their collaborative activities. Toward that end, school district personnel might consider hiring a site coordinator to oversee the study school’s partnership development and maintenance as well as that at the other two schools adopting the program (see Sanders et al., 2019). Central figures in community hub schools (e.g., full-service/wrap-around schools, full-service community schools, and community development schools), site coordinators facilitate relationships among diverse stakeholders, relieving teachers and administrators who are already burdened with rethinking and integrating curricula and enable alignment between partnership activities and school needs (Sanders et al., 2019; Valli et al., 2016). While school–community partnerships require time and sustained effort to establish and maintain them (C. M. Hands, 2023), they are critical for the program’s success. Without them, the program is at risk of losing its innovative characteristics.

In an effort to authentically engage families in their children’s education, this school reform project enabled multiple constituents to care for the children they share (Epstein, 1995/2010). With a goal to best prepare their children for future education and career opportunities while ensuring their interest and engagement in their studies, parents’ feedback provided critical insights for enhancing the program. To be truly authentic, longitudinal research is needed to determine how the constituents’ feedback is being used in subsequent iterations of the program. Further, the changes in responses over time that are described in this article highlight the need to examine them considering contexts external to the program. By making space for parents to integrate their knowledge with teachers’ insights, their contributions enrich their children’s learning opportunities and wellbeing as they walk alongside school personnel (Pushor, 2019).