Pathways to STEM Among Low-Income Students of Color in Four Buffalo High Schools

• In Event: 26.036 - Pathways to STEM Among High-Achieving Low-Income High School Students of Color in Two Cities

Abstract

Using comparable sampling and methodology described in the Denver paper above, this presentation focuses on STEM-related school opportunity structures in 4 non-selective urban public high schools in 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, secondarily 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 48 focal students and their parents, counselors, science and math teachers, and principals. Coding is in accordance with that described in the Denver paper above.
Results show that public high schools in Buffalo that serve the targeted research population have attempted to expand offerings for STEM for low-income students of color. Yet despite these positive signs, expanded offerings have not all been sustained, and standardized tests reveal increasingly serious academic weakness in math and science. Data indicate that opportunities in Buffalo are markedly constricting, thereby “effectively maintaining” inequalities (Lucas, 2002) via knowledge economies that do not promote access in spite of the stated intention of the district. In addition, 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 somewhat divergent findings from the two cities. We attend 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 a few test-in magnet schools that “cream” top students, leaving other schools relatively abandoned in light of increased disinvestment in public schools. Affirming the NRC report (2011), our two-city data suggest that institutional and social context matter, thereby challenging the notion that one best STEM school solution—whether in a STEM school or in augmented opportunities in comprehensive schools--will substantially alleviate STEM weaknesses or poverty. In light of Arcidiacono’s (2004) argument that STEM holds out the possibility of authentic social mobility for students, our data across city suggest substantial “leakage” of opportunities for STEM among talented low-income students of color, rendering this a serious issue related to enhanced social justice.

Authors

• Kristin Cipollone, Ball State University

• Amy Elizabeth Stich, Northern Illinois University

• Lois Weis, University at Buffalo - SUNY