Developing a Model for Inclusive STEM High Schools: A Cross-Case Analysis of Four Schools

• In Event: Comparing Studies of Inclusive STEM High Schools: Three Approaches With Different Findings and Policy Implications

Abstract

This presentation discusses findings from NSF-funded research on inclusive STEM high schools (ISHSs). This study focuses on “exemplar” ISHSs that were thoughtfully established and have strong community and state or district support. The goal is to develop a model of the critical components for effective ISHSs by studying high functioning ones. The model should be useful for new STEM schools, for understanding why some ISHSs struggle, and for improving STEM education in general. The research questions are:

1. Is there a core set of critical components shared by exemplar ISHSs? Do other critical components emerge?
2. How are the critical components implemented in each ISHS?
3. How does context influence each ISHS?
4. How do ISHS STEM outcomes compare with school district and state averages?

Using instrumental case study methods (Yin, 2003), we have written school-level cases for 4 ISHSs by systematically looking for the presence of 10 critical components that our literature review suggested are likely found in successful ISHSs. Using cases from 4 ISHSs in Texas, California, North Carolina and Colorado, we conduct cross-case analysis (Stake, 2006) to reveal the presence and saliency of each critical component in each school for design, implementation and outcome dimensions. We also identify emergent themes, features of the schools that characterize their instructional programs and school climates not included among the initial 10 critical components.

This presentation discusses results of a cross-¬case analysis for the first 4 ISHSs studied. ISHS’s STEM requirements were greater than state requirements. ISHSs require “active learning” from all students in a highly supportive and personalized environments that make creative use of community resources to expand educational programs. Engineering classes were present in all schools, but use of technology and interdisciplinary STEM efforts varied widely. School climates were enthusiastic and positive. Students (and parents) felt lucky to be admitted, despite high academic demands. ISHSs promoted the development of 21st Century skills. The schools were especially successful in getting first generation students ready for, and enrolled in colleges, although they do not follow students’ choices in STEM college majors after high school graduation. While all ISHSs were schools of choice, they seemed to attract students who were interested in STEM or who wanted a more rigorous academic program in a safe environment. ISHSs were small (350-600 students) and varied in their ability to offer services to student with disabilities or English Language Learners, or well-developed nonacademic extracurricular programs such as sports. ISHSs extended opportunities to learn by blurring boundaries between the normal school day and student activities in the community or accessing college level classes.

The policy implications of this work extend to the development of new STEM schools and to possibilities for 21st Century education. Given their innovative styles but similar attributes, it is remarkable that these schools are not formally connected. These schools seem to be existence proofs that ISHS can be positive and productive environments for students under-represented in STEM. The greater challenge is developing a common ISHS model that can scale-up and be sustained.

Authors

• Sharon J. Lynch, The George Washington University

• Erin E. Peters Burton, George Mason University

• Tara Behrend, The George Washington University

• Nancy Spillane, The George Washington University

• Kathleen Ross

• Edmund M. Han, The George Washington University

• Michael Robert Ford, The George Washington University

• Sam Kaminsky, George Washington University