2016 - In the Guise of STEM Education Reform: Opportunity Structures and Outcomes in Inclusive STEM-Focused High Schools

Attribution: Weis, Lois, Eisenhart, Margaret, Cipollone, Kristin, Stich, Amy E., Nikischer, Andrea B., Hason, Jarrod, & Leibrandt, Sarah O.
Researchers: Amy E. StichAndrea B. NikischerJarrod HasonKristin CipolloneLois WeisMargaret EisenhartSarah O. Leibrandt
University Affiliation: University at Buffalo; University of Colorado Boulder; Ball State University
Email: weis@buffalo.edu
Research Question:
1) How do eight inclusive (nonselective) urban public (non-charter) high schools (two STEM-focused and two comprehensive, traditionally structured) approach and organize opportunities for STEM for low-income historically underrepresented minorities? 2) What written and enacted opportunity structures are available, over a three-year time span (2010-2013), for high-achieving (top track) students at the four STEM-focused schools? 3) How do select teachers and counselors perceive available opportunity structures? 4) How do these opportunity structures position high-achieving students for further study and a career in STEM?
Published: Yes
Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation: American Educational Research Journal
Journal Entry: Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 1024–1059
Year: 2016
Findings:
  1. In neither city did the enthusiasm and intention to reform STEM education by establishing STEM-focused schools translate into meaningful improvements.
  2. Graduation requirements, accountability demands, and students’ weak academic performance worked against plans to offer, enroll, and staff more STEM courses.
  3. In the Buffalo STEM-focused schools, there was a rapid and more pronounced pattern of erosion of higher-level STEM opportunities. At both schools, advanced math and science course offerings and course content were either completely eliminated or markedly scaled back.
  4. Forms of erosion, which were evident in both Buffalo and Denver, represent substantial alterations to available opportunity structures.
  5. The dissolution of high-level math courses in the two cities is particularly problematic with respect to opportunities for post-secondary options and higher-level STEM careers, as successful completion of high-level math courses is a strong predictor of admission to highly competitive colleges.
  6. In both cities, when the STEM-focused schools could not or did not offer higher-level math courses, they effectively precluded entrance to highly competitive colleges and many STEM careers for its top students.
Scholarship Types: Journal Article Reporting Empirical ResearchKeywords: Opportunity StructureRaceSESSES CompositionSTEMSTEM SchoolStratificationRegions: NE & WMethodologies: QualitativeResearch Designs: Administrative DataInterviewsAnalysis Methods: Content Analysis Sampling Frame:High school students
Sampling Types: Non-Random - PurposiveAnalysis Units: SchoolData Types: Qualitative-Longitudinal
Data Description:
  • The specific lens through which they examine STEM schools is known as the ”high school opportunity structure.” They define opportunity structure as the institutional arrangements- including math and science emphases or tracks, course offerings, and course requirements- that organize high school-based trajectories to successful educational futures in STEM.
  • This study primarily focuses on four STEM-focused schools with a low SES composition in Denver and Buffalo. However, the authors utilize comparisons with four demographically similar non-STEM schools in order sharpen their analysis.
  • Data reported here are drawn from district and school documents; interviews conducted at each school with relevant math or science teachers, counselors, and focal students; and observations in designated classrooms. Consistent with the research questions, interviews with students, teachers, and counselors focused on their experiences and responses to STEM-related opportunities at their respective institutions.
  • At least one science teacher and one math teacher were interviewed once per year in each school. Teachers were asked to discuss their background, the school, students, parents, and existing preparation for STEM in college and career.
  • At least one counselor with responsibility for 11th and 12th graders was interviewed at all school sites once each year. Counselors were asked to discuss STEM opportunities, course planning and selection, and college admissions, among other subjects.
  • At least 12 focal students from each school were purposefully selected for in-depth interviews. All focal students met the following criteria for inclusion: (a) 10th-grade standing in the 2010- 2011 academic year (from the 2009-2010 cohort), (b) ranked in the top 20% of their high school class in math and science (as determined by a combination of math and science grades, state standardized test scores in math and science, and counselor and teacher affirmation that these were the top math and science students), and (c) stated some interest in pursuing STEM at the post-secondary level. Focal students were interviewed twice per year in each year of the three-year investigation.
  • Interview data were transcribed and entered into a qualitative data analysis program. These data were initially coded deductively using codes consistent with the definitions of opportunity structure and participant perceptions of opportunity structure that framed the study; these codes included course offerings, requirements, and views of school, STEM, self, and future plans, among others. In addition to triangulating methods, research team members independently examined the same data and then checked for consensus.
Theoretical Framework:
Relevance:STEM-focused Schools, Factors Related to STEM readiness.
Archives: K-16 STEM Abstracts