There has been considerable movement in the United States toward an integrated approach to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) which leverages English/language arts, social studies/history, and the arts as contexts and tools for solving the grand STEM challenges of our society. Selective STEM schools have been demonstrated as having positive student outcomes, but enroll students based upon academic criteria rather than interest and effectively exclude underrepresented groups in STEM. In this study, we examine the impact of an integrated STEM high school on student academic outcomes. Findings indicate students significantly outperformed the 13 comparison schools in district on American College Testing (ACT) and school exams.
AdeyemiB. A. (2007). Learning social studies through mastery approach. Educational Research and Review, 2(4), 60–63.
2.
AugustineN. R.BarrettC.CassellG.GrasmickN.HollidayC.JacksonS. A.. . . ZareR. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine.
3.
BatiwallaM. (2017). Absenteeism in Tennessee schools. Attendance Works.
4.
BreinerJ.HarknessM.JohnsonC. C.KoehlerC. (2012). What Is STEM? A Discussion about Conceptions of STEM in Education and Partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.
5.
BrownB. A. (2019). Science in the city: Culturally relevant STEM education. Harvard Education Press.
6.
BrownB. A.BodaP.LemmiC.MonroeX. (2019). Moving culturally relevant pedagogy from theory to practice: Exploring teachers’ application of culturally relevant education in science and mathematics. Urban Education, 54(6), 775–803.
7.
BurrisC. C.WelnerK. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 594–598.
8.
BybeeR., (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. NSTA Press.
9.
CarnevaleA. P.SmithN.MeltonM. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
10.
CarnevaleA. P.SmithN.StrohlJ. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/help-wanted/
11.
ChangH. N.DavisR. (2015). Mapping the early attendance gap. Attendance Works.
DickmanA.SchabeA.SchmidtJ.HenkenR. (2009). Preparing the future workforce: Science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) policy in K-12 education in Wisconsin. Public Policy Forum.
EmdinC.LevyE. A. I. (2016). Hip-hop based interventions as pedagogy/therapy in STEM. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(3), 307–321.
16.
FennemaE.LederG.C. (1990). Mathematics and Gender. Teachers College Press.
17.
FinnC. E.HockettJ. A. (2012). Exam schools: Inside America’s most selective public high schools. Princeton University Press.
18.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302
GnageyJ.LavertuS. (2016). The impact of inclusive STEM high schools on student achievement. AERA Open, 2(2), 1–21.
21.
GottfriedM. A. (2019). Chronic absenteeism in the classroom context: Effects on achievement. Urban Education, 54(1), 3–34.
22.
GottfriedM. A.KirkseyJ. J. (2017). “When” students miss school: The role of timing of absenteeism on students’ test performance. Educational Researcher, 46(3), 119–130.
23.
HillC. (2019). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The American Association of University Women. https://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/
24.
JohnsonC. C. (2011). The road to culturally relevant science: Exploring how teachers navigate change in pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 170–198.
25.
JohnsonC. C. (2013). Educational turbulence: The influence of macro and micro policy on science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 693–715.
26.
JohnsonC. C.FargoJ. D. (2014). A study of the impact of Transformative Professional Development (TPD) on Hispanic student performance on state-mandated assessments of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 845–859.
27.
JohnsonC. C.FargoJ. D.KahleJ. B. (2010). The cumulative and residual impact of a systemic reform program on teacher change and student learning of science. School Science and Mathematics, 110(3), 144–159.
28.
JohnsonC. C.KahleJ. B.ZhangD. (2012). Effective science instruction: Impact on high stakes assessment performance. Research in Middle Level Education, 35(9), 1–14.
29.
JohnsonC. C.Peters-BurtonE. E.MooreT. J. (Eds.) (2015). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. Routledge.
30.
JohnsonC. C.SondergeldT. A.WaltonJ. (2019). A study of the implementation of formative assessment by master teachers in three large urban districts. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2408–2438.
31.
KraussJ.BossS. (2013). Thinking through project-based learning: Guiding deeper inquiry. Corwin.
32.
LambrosA. (2004). Problem-based learning in middle and high school classrooms: A teacher’s guide to implementation. Sage.
33.
LeslieL. L.McClureG. T.OaxacaR. L. (1998). Women and minorities in science and engineering. A life sequence analysis. Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 239–276.
34.
LevyF.MurnaneR.J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Russell Sage Foundation.
35.
LynchS. J.Peters BurtonE.BehrendT.HouseA.FordM.SpillaneN.MatrayS.HanE.MeansB. (2018). Understanding inclusive STEM high schools as opportunity structures for underrepresented students. Critical Components, 55, 712–748.
36.
Mac IverM. A.Mac IverD. J. (2019). “STEMming” the swell of absenteeism in the middle years: Impacts of an urban district summer robotics program. Urban Education, 54(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915618712
McGeeE. O.RobinsonW. H. (2019). Diversifying STEM. Rutgers University Press.
40.
MeansB.ConfreyJ.HouseA.BhanotR. (2008). STEM high schools: Specialized science technology engineering and mathematics secondary schools in the U.S. (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Report). SRI International.
41.
MeansB.WangH.YoungV.PetersV. L.LynchS. (2016). STEM-focused high schools as a strategy for enhancing readiness for postsecondary STEM programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 709–736.
42.
National Academies Press. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads.
Peters BurtonE. E.LynchS. J.BehrendT. S.MeansB. B. (2014). Inclusive STEM high school design: 10 critical components. Theory into Practice, 53, 64–71.
47.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future.
ProvinzanoK.SondergeldT. A.AmmarA. A.MelocheA. (in press). A community school reform initiative for middle grades urban and newcomer students: Using mixed methods to examine student academic and non-academic outcomes over time and compared to a matched sample. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk.
50.
RennieL.VenvilleG.WallaceJ. (2012). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. Routledge.
51.
RincónB. E.LaneT. B. (2017). Latin@s in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) at the intersections. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1301838
52.
RoehrigG. H.MooreT. J.WangH.-H.ParkM. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 119, 31–44.
53.
SchmidtW. H.BurroughsN. A.ZoidoP.HouangR. T., (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: An international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44(7), 371–386.
54.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
55.
SlavinR. (2008). Evidence-based reform in education: Which evidence matters?Educational Researcher, 37, 47–50.
56.
SondergeldT. A.BeltyukovaS. A.FoxC. M.StoneG. E. (2012). Using microanalytical simulation methods in educational evaluation: An exploratory study. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 25(1/2), 1–32.
57.
SondergeldT. A.JohnsonC. C. (2014). Using the Rasch model for the development of affective measures in science education research. Science Education, 98(4), 581–613.
58.
StinsonD. W. (2008). Negotiating sociocultural discourses: The counter-storytelling of academically (and mathematically) successful African American male students. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 975–1010. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208319723
59.
SubotnikR. F.Ta iR. H.AlmarodeJ.CroweE. (2013). What are the value added contributions of selective secondary schools of mathematics, science, and technology?Talent Development and Excellence, 5(1), 87–97.
WambuguP. W.ChangeiywoJ. M. (2008). Effects of mastery learning approach on secondary students’ physics achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 4(3), 293–302.
63.
WhalenD. F.ShelleyM. C.II. (2010). Academic success for STEM and non-STEM majors. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 11(1/2), 45.
64.
WiswallM.StiefelL.SchwartzA. E.BoccardoJ. (2014). Does attending a STEM high school improve student performance? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 40, 93–105.
65.
WrightC. G. (2019). Constructing a collaborative critique-learning environment for exploring science through improvisational performance. Urban Education, 54(4), 1319–1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916646626
66.
YoungV.AdelmanN.CassidyL.GossK.HouseA.KeatingK.YeeK. (2011). Evaluation of the Texas high school project. Third comprehensive report to the national science foundation. Texas Education Agency.
