High school opportunities for STEM: Comparing inclusive STEM-focused and comprehensive high schools in two US cities

Abstract

In response to numerous calls for more rigorous STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education to improve US competitiveness and the job prospects of next-generation workers, especially those from low-income and minority groups, a growing number of schools emphasizing STEM have been established in the US over the past decade. However, existing STEM schools vary substantially in the way they are organized, the students they attract, and the outcomes they advertise, and there have been few empirical studies of their effectiveness. This comparative case study examines the opportunity structures for STEM at eight public high schools, four in Denver, Colorado, and four in Buffalo, New York. All of the schools were "inclusive" (no admission requirements) and served predominantly lowincome and majority minority students. All but one school had been designated "low-performing" for failure to meet federal accountability requirements. In each city, two of the study schools had recently been reorganized to be "STEM-focused" in some way, and two were traditional, comprehensive high schools. We found that the STEM-focused schools were launched with much enthusiasm and high expectations. In both cities, STEM-focused schools achieved some modest success initially but were unable to maintain their gains. Overall among the schools in this study, the STEM-focused high schools did little to improve STEM opportunities compared to the comprehensive high schools. We do not mean to suggest that STEM schools are a bad idea, but that claims and expectations for them must be examined in the context of their implementation, and STEM schools for low-income and minority students are unlikely to be successful without more attention to systemic issues in urban education. # 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach, XXX-XXX, 2015.

Boosting the numbers of STEM majors? The role of high schools with a STEM program

“…Our findings are consistent with Eisenhart et al. ()’s study of four cities in the Colorado and New York, which concluded that the STEM‐focused high schools did little to improve STEM opportunities compared to the comprehensive high schools and that emphasized on the importance of the need of more attention to systemic issues in urban education if the aim is to make STEM schools for low‐income and minority students successful.…”

“…They found that comparisons of long‐term STEM outcomes of students who attended SMT schools with those of students who participated in talented math and science programs in other non‐STEM focused schools showed no significant difference in completion of a college STEM degree. Similarly, Eisenhart, Weis, Allen, Cipollone, Stich, and Dominguez () studied four cities in Denver and New York and reported that STEM‐focused high schools do little to improve STEM opportunities compared to the comprehensive high schools. In addition, Hansen () also found no clear relationship between specialized STEM schools and success in STEM fields (defined as value‐added in math and science achievement).…”

Mathematics achievement in the secondary high school context of STEM and non‐STEM schools

“…Within the group of designated STEM‐focused schools, several types of STEM‐focused schools emphasizing various educational dimensions have emerged. In some STEM‐focused schools, educators have emphasized implementing innovative instructional practices such as project‐based learning (PBL) while in other STEM‐focused schools, educators have given importance to other educational interventions such as technology integration, Project Lead the Way engineering curriculum, and more advanced‐level science and mathematics course offerings (Eisenhart et al, ; NRC, ). Although STEM‐focused schools have varied in their emphasized STEM practices, as Figure shows, these schools have some commonalities in their general characteristics and intended student outcomes (Bicer et al, ).…”

“…Among these interventions, establishing STEM‐focused high schools was one of the most promising interventions because it has more systemic approaches than other educational interventions in terms of encouraging an increasing number of students to pursue STEM career pathways (Ferrini‐Mundy, ). STEM‐focused schools are considered more systemic because they comprise other interventions in their plans and can serve a broader student population (Peters‐Burton, Lynch, House, & Han, ; Eisenhart et al, ). In addition, these schools have been identified as particularly beneficial for students’ STEM preparation because they provide students with extensive and rigorous science and mathematics curricula and innovative instructional practices that incorporate advanced lab and technology equipment (Bicer et al, ; NRC, ; Eisenhart et al, ).…”

“…STEM‐focused schools are considered more systemic because they comprise other interventions in their plans and can serve a broader student population (Peters‐Burton, Lynch, House, & Han, ; Eisenhart et al, ). In addition, these schools have been identified as particularly beneficial for students’ STEM preparation because they provide students with extensive and rigorous science and mathematics curricula and innovative instructional practices that incorporate advanced lab and technology equipment (Bicer et al, ; NRC, ; Eisenhart et al, ). Establishing STEM‐focused schools was also considered by policymakers as so promising an intervention to increase students’ STEM preparation that the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) agreed to establish 1,000 more STEM‐focused schools over the span of 10 years (Raju & Clayson, ).…”