Examining How Educators Within an Inclusive STEM High School Make Sense of "Inclusivity"

• In Event: Acknowledging and Addressing Culture, Race, and Bias Within Schools

Abstract

Purpose: High schools across the country have opened or rebranded as Inclusive STEM High Schools (ISHS) to support students from communities underrepresented in STEM fields into related college majors and careers. One derivative of this school model is the STEM College Pathway Schools (pseudonym- SCPS) that function as opportunity structures (Lynch et al., 2017) with student support systems integrated into the design of the model as intrinsic components (Bargerhuff, 2013; Bruce-Davis et al., 2014). However, while policymakers continue to promote and support the expansion of ISHSs, research on the specific opportunity structures built into the design and implementation of the model. Furthermore, little is known about how educators understand and support students in engaging in opportunity structures. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine how teachers make sense of and support students through opportunity structures within one specific

Theoretical Framework: This study’s conceptual framework brings together two key concepts including opportunity structures within the ISHS model (Lynch et al., 2013; Peters-Berend et al., 2014; LaForce et al., 2016) and teachers’ perceptions of whole-school reform implementation. Teachers have tremendous influence on the execution of the ISHS model as implementers of policy at the ground level. Therefore understanding their perceptions about the reform is essential to achieving intended outcomes (Lipsky, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2009; Rosenholtz, 1989; Desimone, 2002).

Method: This replication case study consists of interviews (n=21; 47% female; 47% white, 20% Black, 23% Latinx) discussing opportunity structures built into the SCPS model. Additionally, 69 teachers were surveyed to learn about the presence and prevalence of opportunity structures. Also, publicly available documents were reviewed. Together, the data sources offered a holistic narrative of opportunities structures designed in the SCPS model.

Findings: Findings from this study indicate that many of the opportunity structures the model afforded were already being implemented within schools prior to adoption. For example, one school administrator shared that, “the school was already engaged in many aspects of the SCPS model well before becoming a designated site, and that receiving the official title was more of a formality for them.” Additionally, findings show that new reform related opportunity structures may be exclusionary and inequitable. For example, document reviews show that some opportunity structures are only accessible with a specific grade point average and enrollment into an expedited course load. One administrator shared that the model was effective in allowing students to obtain early college course credits, some in STEM, but not in achieving the goal of supporting students into STEM careers. Another teacher wondered how her students with diverse needs would be able to engage in new opportunities structures with the existing prerequisites.

Significance: First, this research highlights the need to thoughtfully integrate and identify opportunity structures within the design of the SCPS model in order to meet the intended goals of the reform. Second, district and school leaders must develop systems to implement and support appropriate opportunity structures at the school level and communicate the need and process around how they serve each student within the school.

Author

• Gauri A. Vaishampayan, Self-employed