Supports for Students

• In Event: Critical Components of Inclusive STEM-Focused High Schools: A Cross-Case Analysis

Abstract

Objective/Significance/Theoretical Frame
The objective of this paper is to report on a cross-case analysis of four inclusive STEM high schools (ISHSs) with a focus on a critical component, “supports for students under-represented in STEM fields”. We theorize that ISHSs need to do more than provide a rigorous STEM education; they need to nurture and support students in a variety of ways, building non-cognitive skills (Carlone & Johnson, 2007), STEM identity (Farrington et al., 2012), and confidence (Meece et al, 1990). ISHSs intentionally build opportunity structures (Roberts, 1968) for students that create the STEM social capital (Archer et al, 2013; Bourdieu, 1977). They provide insider knowledge of STEM jobs and careers and map out paths to their attainment. This paper is significant because it provides actual examples of support structures operating in successful ISHSs to close achievement gaps and bridge the STEM opportunity barrier (Carnegie Corporation, 2009) which is crucial to identify in order to scale them up (Chatterji, 2002; NRC, 2011).

Methods/Data
After conducting systematic case studies of four ISHSs (NRC, 2011), cross-case analysis was conducted on “support structures” for each ISHS that asked,

What implemented support structures are:

• Common to all four ISHSs?

• Uniquely developed within each ISHS?

• Specifically demanded by a STEM-focused curriculum?

Findings
Although the four ISHSs were located in different states and did not communicate, all had well-developed support structures in common. All were small (250-500 students) schools of choice seen as inclusive and safe, with students opting for a more rigorous STEM program. All had well-developed “cross-grade advisories” and tutoring programs with little stigma attached. All but one had well-developed electronic communication systems that enhanced communication between teachers, students and families. College counseling programs during school hours were prevalent; both teachers and counselors were involved.

Each school worked to develop unique, values-specific, school cultures. One school was characterized by a commitment to project-based learning and nurturing effective student presentation skills. Another used sophisticated technologies and intentionally flattened hierarchies between teachers and students. A rural school fostered a personalized education that capitalized on any available resources in the community. A school in a state with a high drop-out rate instituted a mastery-based instructional system to get students with weak STEM backgrounds ready for college.

Support systems specific to STEM schools included a focus on improving mathematics skills through special classes, interdisciplinary courses, tutoring or mastery-based learning. Schools focused on “first generation students” including families where no one had graduated from high school, much less college, and coached families through college admissions process beginning at 9th grade. College counseling provided information about STEM college majors and completing critical prerequisites during high school, or through college courses taken while attending high school. Because STEM courses can be challenging, ISHSs used technology to encourage collaborations among students or as a means for students to seek help through tutoring or on-line resources. The schools emphasized 21st Century Skills developed through STEM experiences, seen as key to college admissions and making ISHS students desirable college candidates.

Authors

• Sharon J. Lynch, The George Washington University

• Kathleen Ross, The George Washington University