Hinsdale Middle School teacher lauded with national STEM award
Students and staff at Hinsdale Middle School aren't the only ones who have the highest praise for longtime teacher Kelly Pelak.
Pelak, who began her career in 1997 as a teacher in Hinsdale-Clarendon Hills Elementary District 181, recently was honored with the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. The national award recognizes outstanding teachers who demonstrate a commitment to innovation and excellence in STEM education and is the highest honor the national government gives to recognize outstanding teachers in STEM.
Pelak will receive $10,000 from the National Science Foundation and a trip to Washington, D.C., to participate in a special recognition ceremony and professional development events.
The process leading to Pelak receiving the prestigious award began in the fall of 2021 when former student Yazmin Crisostomo, now a junior at Hinsdale Central High School, nominated her.
After an extensive application process, Pelak was named an Illinois finalist in the spring of 2022.
After all states made their recommendations to a national committee, two finalists from each state had to wait 1-2 years for an announcement from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
President Joe Biden's administration last month announced recipients for 2021, 2022 and 2023, and Pelak was one of those chosen for 2022.
'It was a great surprise hearing (in January) that I had been recognized at the national level,' Pelak said. 'During the 25 years I have invested in this career and school district, I've poured my heart and soul into my craft. I am surrounded by excellence and exceptional teachers in District 181. It is an honor to be recognized amongst such a competitive field nationwide.'
Crisostomo said she first learned of the award in an email, and Pelak was the first person who popped into her mind.
'She didn't just teach, she helped the students learn and engage in ways that made the material more comprehensible and enjoyable,' Crisostomo said. 'I personally had fun learning in her classroom. She helped me enjoy science and overall make memories in her classroom.
'I think that her award is very well deserved, and I'm ecstatic that she received national recognition. I'll never forget her classroom.'
Pelak said she knew from the time she was a small child that she wanted to be a teacher.
'I had a natural passion for learning, especially science,' she said. 'I was blessed to have several impactful teachers and coaches growing up, many of whom I am still in touch with today.'
Pelak's skills in the classroom very likely would be effective at any grade level, but she said middle school is a 'perfect fit' for her.
'I strive to be the kind of teacher I needed and appreciated as an awkward adolescent myself,' she said. 'The best part about teaching this age group is that it allows me the opportunity to positively impact their attitude towards a subject I love. Students are open to sharing my enthusiasm for science and technology.'
District 181 has been Pelak's teaching home since shortly after graduating from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. During her long tenure in District 181, the scope of responsibilities and additional facets of teaching have dramatically changed, Pelak said.
'Despite those many changes, one thing remains the same — the kids,' she said. 'Their learning styles and ability to attend to lengthier tasks may prove challenging in today's classrooms, but at the heart of every kid who walks in the door is a desire to learn and a desire to belong in a challenging middle school world. I work hard to make learning engaging, enjoyable, and challenging.'
Pelak struggled a bit to respond when asked what she believes makes her an outstanding teacher, saying that it would be best to ask others for their thoughts. But she did say that she has continually strived to improve, since her early days of teaching.
'Because I prioritize learning and evolving as a teacher, I am open to trying new strategies, especially if it leads to greater student success and/or interest in science,' she said. 'I utilize my creativity, work ethic, and enthusiasm to spark engagement and build meaningful connections with my students. '
And it's those connections that are most responsible for keeping her motivated.
'Each year, a new batch of students arrives at my door, eager to learn,' she said. 'Their enthusiasm and energy keep me motivated, and interested in showing up for them, making their middle school science experience a positive and memorable one.'
And based on comments from some current students, Pelak continues to very much reach her goals as a teacher.
'Ms. Pelak is the best teacher I have ever had,' Noor Azam said. 'She puts time, work, and love into her teaching and welcomes us into class with a positive attitude. She wears a warm, gentle smile on her face and always makes our class laugh and brightens up our day.'
Another current student, Char Regnery, had a similar take.
'Ms. Pelak is an outstanding teacher because no matter how hard things are going, she always manages to make kids excited and engaged to learn,' Char said. 'She feels for the kids in her class, always showing empathy and care.'
And current student Ellison Holmes said Pelak is an inspiration every day.
'She inspires me to be a better version of myself,' Ellison said. 'My favorite part of her (teaching) is her ability to be so calm and collected on the outside, even in high stress situations.
'She loves every kid and person she meets. She makes everything way more fun than just learning with a textbook and notecards.'
Originally Published: February 11, 2025 at 12:08 PM CST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
9 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Trump's Cuts Threaten Nobel-Winning Observatory That Detected Colliding Black Holes
Nearly 10 years ago, scientists observed ripples in spacetime created by the collision of two black holes that took place 1.3 billion years ago. The first direct detection of gravitational waves opened up an entirely new way of seeing the universe, allowing us to observe a once invisible side of the cosmos. Today, the ability to track the frequencies produced by the most notable events that shape our surrounding cosmos is at risk due to drastic budget cuts targeting a breakthrough observatory. In late May, the U.S. administration released a so-called skinny budget that highlighted the proposed funds allocated to NASA and the National Science Foundation in 2026. As part of several monstrosities committed against ongoing science programs, the proposed budget would gut the funding for the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) by 39.6%. The budget request allocates $29 million instead of $48 million for LIGO, and shuts down one of its two interferometers. The twin interferometers are situated 1,865 miles apart (3,002 kilometers), with one facility in Washington State and another in Louisiana. The enormous research facilities operate in unison as a single observatory designed to detect gravitational waves, ripples in spacetime that travel at the speed of light. Unlike other telescopes, LIGO is blind. It detects gravitational waves by measuring incredibly small distortions in spacetime. Using its laser interferometers, it splits a laser beam into two and sends each of them down two long vacuum-sealed arms. The beams travel back and forth through each arm, bouncing between precisely configured mirrors. Each beam monitors the distance between the mirrors and detects tiny changes caused by gravitational waves, which can stretch space in one direction and compress it in the other. The lasers can discern movements between their mirrors with an accuracy of 1/10,000th the width of a proton. Researchers from Caltech and MIT, with funding and oversight from the National Science Foundation, completed construction of LIGO—one of the world's most sophisticated scientific observatories—in 1999. Scientists spent years searching for gravitational waves and coming up empty. Finally, on September 14, 2015, the observatory began picking up the signal of its first gravitational waves. The groundbreaking detection provided scientists with a brand new way of observing the universe, allowing them to trace the waves back to events that had long remained hidden in the cosmos. Gravitational waves are caused by the merger of black holes, the collision of neutron stars, and asymmetric supernovae. Some may have also been produced in the early universe, moments after the Big Bang. Three researchers behind LIGO's discovery were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017 for their role in the detection of gravitational waves: physicists Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish, and Kip Thorne. These ripples in spacetime were first predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916, and could only be confirmed decades later. The first discovery was confirmed because the signal was observed by both LIGO detectors. Since then, the twin LIGO interferometers—sometimes in coordination with the Virgo observatory in Italy—have detected hundreds of additional gravitational wave signals. Gravitational waves produce a high-pitched chirp when translated to audio, beginning at a low frequency. The two interferometers, and sometimes three, need to work in unison to confirm these faint signals. If one of LIGO's twin interferometers is shut down, as is suggested by the proposed budget, researchers would have trouble distinguishing between a black hole collision and a nearby seismic tremor, according to Science. The field of gravitational waves is only just getting started thanks to the twin LIGO detectors. Killing off one of the laser interferometers would hinder our newfound ability to listen in to the soft ripples of spacetime that echo through the cosmos.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wāhine in science program cut at UH Mānoa
HONOLULU (KHON2) — A University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa program known for supporting career development activities for wāhine studying science and community outreach has been terminated following the loss of federal funding. Project lead and faculty member Barbara Bruno received a termination notice in April to immediately close the program funded by the National Science Foundation. Two-thirds of the almost $200,000 budget was forfeited. UH program that helps struggling ʻohana on federal chopping block '[The School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology] is Hawaiʻi's largest producer of geoscience graduates — alumni who go on to monitor volcanic hazards, predict extreme weather, conduct assessments of environmental impacts, ensure sustainable use of Hawaiʻi's freshwater resources and more,' Bruno said. She then went on to highlight the importance of supporting wāhine in their academic journeys. 'I think the biggest impact of this termination is the loss of professional development opportunities for women,' she said. 'STEM is hemorrhaging women — we need programs to keep them.'The program, the Catayst Awards for Science Advancement, allowed female students, researchers, staff and faculty to attend professional meetings, workshops and work in the field. 'We were also actively soliciting applications for the next round of CASA funding when we received the termination notice,' Bruno said. 'Ending this grant eliminates the support for future professional development opportunities and K-12 and community engagement.' Hawaiʻi Attorney General Anne Lopez, alongside 15 other attorneys general, filed a lawsuit to stop illegal attempts to cut critical science programs on May 28. In the meantime, Bruno is actively searching for funding alternatives. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Federal R&D funding boosts productivity for the whole economy − making big cuts to such government spending unwise
Large cuts to government-funded research and development can endanger American innovation – and the vital productivity gains it supports. The Trump administration has already canceled at least US$1.8 billion in research grants previously awarded by the National Institutes of Health, which supports biomedical and health research. Its preliminary budget request for the 2026 fiscal year proposed slashing federal funding for scientific and health research, cutting the NIH budget by another $18 billion – nearly a 40% reduction. The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the basic scientific research conducted at universities, would see its budget slashed by $5 billion – cutting it by more than half. Research and development spending might strike you as an unnecessary expense for the government. Perhaps you see it as something universities or private companies should instead be paying for themselves. But as research I've conducted shows, if the government were to abandon its long-standing practice of investing in R&D, it would significantly slow the pace of U.S. innovation and economic growth. I'm an economist at Texas A&M University. For the past five years, I've been studying the long-term economic benefits of government-funded R&D with Karel Mertens, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. We have found that government R&D spending on everything from the Apollo space program to the Human Genome Project has fueled innovation. We also found that federal R&D spending has played a significant role in boosting U.S. productivity and spurring economic growth over the past 75 years. Productivity rises when economic growth is caused by technological progress and know-how, rather than workers putting in more hours or employers using more equipment and machinery. Economists believe that higher productivity fuels economic growth and raises living standards over the long run. U.S. productivity growth fell by half, from an average of roughly 2% a year in the 1950s and 1960s to about 1%, starting in the early 1970s. This deceleration eerily coincides with a big decline in government R&D spending, which peaked at over 1.8% of gross domestic product in the mid-1960s. Government R&D spending has declined since then and has fallen by half – to below 0.9% of GDP – today. Government R&D spending encompasses all innovative work the government directly pays for, regardless of who does it. Private companies and universities conduct a lot of this work, as do national labs and federal agencies, like the NIH. Correlation is not causation. But in a Dallas Fed working paper released in November 2024, my co-author and I identified a strong causal link between government R&D spending and U.S. productivity growth. We estimated that government R&D spending consistently accounted for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. And a decline in that spending after the 1960s can account for nearly one-fourth of the deceleration in productivity since then. These significant productivity gains came from R&D investments by federal agencies that are not focused on national defense. Examples include the NIH's support for biomedical research, the Department of Energy's funding for physics and energy research, and NASA's spending on aeronautics and space exploration technologies. Not all productivity growth is driven by government R&D. Economists think public investment in physical infrastructure, such as construction of the interstate highway system starting in the Eisenhower administration, also spurred productivity growth. And U.S. productivity growth briefly accelerated during the information technology boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which we do not attribute to government R&D investment. We have found that government R&D investment is more effective than private R&D spending at driving productivity, likely because the private sector tends to spend much more on the development side of R&D, while the public sector tends to emphasize research. Economists believe the private sector will naturally underinvest in more fundamental research because it is harder to patent and profit from this work. We think our higher estimated returns on nondefense R&D reflect greater productivity benefits from fundamental research, which generates more widely shared knowledge, than from private sector spending on development. Like the private sector, the Department of Defense spends much more on development – of weapons and military technology – than on fundamental research. We found only inconclusive evidence on the returns on military R&D. R&D work funded by the Defense Department also tends to initially be classified and kept secret from geopolitical rivals, such as the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. As a result, gains for the whole economy from that source of innovation could take longer to materialize than the 15-year time frame we have studied. The high returns on nondefense R&D that we estimated suggest that Congress has historically underinvested in these areas. For instance, the productivity gains from nondefense R&D are at least 10 times higher than those from government investments in highways, bridges and other kinds of physical infrastructure. The government has also invested far more in physical infrastructure than R&D over the past 75 years. Increasing R&D investment would take advantage of these higher returns and gradually reduce them because of diminishing marginal returns to additional investment. So why is the government not spending substantially more on R&D? One argument sometimes heard against federal R&D spending is that it displaces, or 'crowds out,' R&D spending the private sector would otherwise undertake. For instance, the administration's budget request proposed reducing or eliminating NASA space technology programs it deemed 'better suited to private sector research and development.' But my colleague and I have found that government spending on R&D complements private investment. An additional dollar of government nondefense R&D spending causes the private sector to increase its R&D spending by an additional 20 cents. So we expect budget cuts to the NIH, NSF and NASA to actually reduce R&D spending by companies, which is also bad for economic growth. Federal R&D spending is also often on the chopping block whenever Congress focuses on deficit reduction. In part, that likely reflects the gradual nature of the economic benefits from government-funded R&D, which are at odds with the country's four-year electoral cycles. Similarly, the benefits from NIH spending on biomedical research are usually less visible than government spending on Medicare or Medicaid, which are health insurance programs for those 65 years and older and those with low incomes or disabilities. But Medicare or Medicaid help Americans buy prescription drugs and medical devices that were invented with the help of NIH-funded research. Even if the benefits of government R&D are slow to materialize or are harder to see than those from other government programs, our research suggests that the U.S. economy will be less innovative and productive – and Americans will be worse off for it – if Congress agrees to deep cuts to science and research funding. The views expressed in the Dallas Fed working paper are the views of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System. Andrew Fieldhouse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
