Math and Science Opportunity Structures in Buffalo and Denver High Schools

• In Event: Pathways to STEM for Low-Income Underrepresented Minorities: High School Opportunity Structures, “Figured Worlds” of STEM, Postsecondary Matriculations, and Choice of Major in Two Cities Differentially Positioned in the Global Economy

Abstract

This presentation focuses on STEM-related school opportunity structures in 8 public high schools in Denver and Buffalo. McFarland (2006) argues that high schools offer a variety of “mobility systems” through which students experience academic opportunities. Some systems promote upward movement into more demanding courses, while others encourage students to move on at the same level or to stop taking coursework in that subject. These systems are created in part by structural constraints, e.g., the courses offered, the prerequisites required, which encourage or discourage subsequent moves including STEM-related moves. Students help construct mobility systems as they respond to signals of ability (especially grades). These signals lead students to consider whether they are suited for certain subjects and to respond accordingly, e.g., take more advanced courses, see themselves as “not good at math.” McFarland found that mobility systems in high school math were determined primarily by organizational requirements, then by student responses, and lastly by student background characteristics. We applied this framework to study STEM opportunities.
Data consist of school documents and interviews collected in 2010-2013. Documents include course offerings and sequences, counseling materials, technology, and extracurricular options. Interviews focused on school opportunities and STEM as viewed by 96 focal students and their parents, counselors, science and math teachers, and principals.
Results show that public high schools in Denver and Buffalo with similar student populations differ substantially in how they organize and promote STEM. Some do so in the context of Honors/AP courses; others in STEM-focused "academies," and still others in sub-programs like Bio-Pharmacy. Yet despite these positive signs, expanded offerings have not all been sustained, and standardized tests reveal serious and unequal academic weakness in math and science. Furthermore, although all 8 schools attempt to expand STEM opportunities for low-income students, data indicate that opportunities in Buffalo, in particular, are markedly constricting, thereby “effectively maintaining” inequalities (Lucas, 2002) via knowledge economies that do not promote access in spite of stated intention. In Denver, so-called STEM-focused schools have more trouble maintaining STEM options than traditional schools. In both cities, students and parents exhibited scant knowledge of STEM opportunities and how to access them (in high school and upon graduation).
Authors speculate as to reasons for the divergent findings, attending to both district policies/practices and local economic context. In contrast to Denver, Buffalo exhibits what can be called a “winner take all” (Attewell, 2001) student intake/selection structure that is dominated by one or two test-in magnet schools that “cream” top students, leaving other schools relatively abandoned in light of increased disinvestment in public schools. Although exhibiting weaknesses with respect to sustained opportunities for STEM, this is happening to a lesser extent in Denver. Affirming the NRC report, our two-city data strongly suggest that institutional and social context matter, thereby challenging the notion that one best STEM solution (without serious account of context) will substantially alleviate STEM weaknesses or poverty. Results will additionally be considered in light of Denver and Buffalo’s relative position in current global economic context.

Authors

• Kristin Cipollone, Buffalo State College - SUNY

• Amy Elizabeth Stich, Northern Illinois University

• Andrea Nikischer, Buffalo State College - SUNY

• Lois Weis, University at Buffalo - SUNY