The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides numerous provisions to support science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). These provisions do not necessarily address persistent achievement and opportunity gaps. We contend that if states, districts, and local schools capitalize on the autonomy provided in the ESSA, access, equity, and achievement in STEM can be attainable to traditionally underserved populations of learners. The purpose of this article is to review the enumerated provisions pertinent to STEM and, based on these provisions, present recommendations to support access, equity, and achievement in STEM content areas. Our review indicates that the ESSA presents provisions in five areas related to STEM education: (1) standards, (2) assessments, (3) accountability, (4) teacher effectiveness, and (5) well-rounded education. Using these five areas as an organizational framework, we provide recommendations to support enduring challenges related to equity, access, and achievement in STEM education. These recommendations are based on current high-yield practices used to support equity, access, and achievement in STEM content.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of University Women. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
ArcherL., DeWittJ., OsborneJ., DillonJ., WillisB., & WongB. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old school children's constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639).
3.
BohrnstedtG., KitmittoS., OgutB., ShermanD., & ChanD. (2015). School composition and the Black–White achievement gap (NCES 2015-018). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
4.
BowenW. G., KurzweilM. A., & TobinE. M. (2005). Equity and excellence in American higher education. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
5.
BrickhouseN. W., LoweryP., & SchultzK. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 441–454).
6.
BrotmanJ. S., & MooreF. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002).
7.
Business-Higher Education Forum. (2011). Creating the workforce of the future: The STEM interest and proficiency challenge. BHEF Research Brief. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
CeciS. J., WilliamsW. M., & BarnettS. M. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261).
9.
CholewaB., & West-OlatunjiC. (2008). Exploring the relationship among cultural discontinuity, psychological distress, and academic outcomes with low-income, culturally diverse students. Professional School Counseling, 12(1), 54–61).
ContreraJ. (2013). Statewide robotics event aims to boost STEM interest. Indianapolis Business Journal, 34(40), 15A.
12.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). The fat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
13.
DasguptaN. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 231–246).
14.
DasguptaN., & StoutJ. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29).
15.
DelpitL. (2012). Multiplication is for White people: Raising expectations for other people's children. New York, NY: The New Press.
16.
DemetriouA., & ChristouC. (2015). Understanding and facilitating the development of intellect. Educational Practices Series, 26, 7–9).
17.
DesimoneL. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68–71).
18.
DesimoneL., SmithT., & PhillipsK. (2013). Linking student achievement growth to professional development participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal study of elementary students and teachers in Title I schools. Teachers College Record, 115(5), 1–46).
19.
DottererA. M., LoweK., & McHaleS. M. (2014). Academic growth trajectories and family relationships among African American youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(4), 734–747).
20.
EisenhartM., WeisL., AllenC. D., CipolloneK., StichA., & DominguezR. (2015). High school opportunities for STEM: Comparing inclusive STEM-focused and comprehensive high schools in two U.S. cities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 763–789).
21.
GundersonE. A., RamirezG., LevineS. C., & BeilockS. L. (2011). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender- related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3), 153–166).
HeckR. H., & MahoeR. (2010). Student course taking and teacher quality: Their effects on achievement and growth. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 56–72).
24.
HeilbronnerN. N. (2011). Stepping onto the STEM pathway. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(6), 876–899).
25.
HoldrenJ. P., & LanderE. S. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Executive Report). Washington, DC: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
26.
HoldrenJ. P., LanderE. S., & VarmusH. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America's future (Executive Report). Washington, DC: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.Retrieved from http://stelar.edc.org/sites/stelar.edc.org/files/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf
27.
HuttonP., & VandenBurgT. (2011). STEM for all. Educational Facility Planner, 45(4), 19–23).
28.
HydeJ. S., LindbergS. M., LinnM. C., EllisA. B., & WilliamsC. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance, Science, 321, 494–495).
29.
KannoY., & KangasS. E. (2014). “I'm not going to be, like, for the AP”: English language learners’ limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848–878).
30.
KnezekG., ChristensenR., & Tyler-WoodT. (2011). Contrasting perceptions of STEM content and careers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 92–117).
31.
KrullM. (2014). Time to end “separate and unequal” schools. Sojourners Magazine, 43(9), 9–10).
32.
KuechlerW. L., McLeodA., & SimkinM. G. (2009). Why don't more students major in IS?Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(2), 463–488).
33.
LeaperC., & BrownC. S. (2008). Perceived experiences with sexism among adolescent girls. Child Development, 79, 685–704).
34.
LichtenbergerE., & George-JacksonC. E. (2013). Predicting high school students’ interest in majoring in a STEM field: Insight into high school students’ postsecondary plans. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 28(1), 19–38).
35.
LiuF. (2008). Impact of online discussion on elementary teacher candidates’ anxiety towards teaching mathematics. Education, 128(4), 614–629).
36.
MartinD. B. (2012). Learning mathematics while Black. Journal of Educational Foundations, 26(1/2), 47–66).
37.
McFarlandJ., HussarB., de BreyC., SnyderT., WangX., Wilkinson-FlickerS., … HinzS. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144
38.
McGrayneS. B. (2005). Nobel Prize women in science: Their lives, struggles, and momentous discoveries (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
39.
MillarR. (2010). Analysing practical science activities. Hatfield, England: Association for Science Education.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
42.
OakesJ. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science (Report No. NSF-R-3928). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
43.
PerezW., EspinozaR., RamosK., CoronadoH. M., & CortesR. (2009). Academic resilience among undocumented Latino students. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31(2), 149–181).
44.
PolikoffM. S., & PorterA. C. (2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 399–416).
45.
ReevesE. B. (2012). The effects of opportunity to learn, family socioeconomic status, and friends on the rural math achievement gap in high school. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(7), 887–907).
46.
SahinA. (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(1), 5–11).
47.
SchmidtW. H., & MaierA. (2009). Opportunity to learn. In SykesG., SchneiderB., & PlankD.N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 541–559)). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
SchneiderB., JudyJ., & MazucaC. (2012). Boosting STEM interest in high school. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(1), 62–65).
49.
ShapiroJ. R., & WilliamsA. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women's performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 175–183).
SnyderT. D., DillowS. A., & HoffmanC. M. (2009). Digest of education statistics, 2008 (NCES 2009-020). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
52.
TheokasC., & SaarisR. (2013). Shattering expectations: Finding America's missing AP and IB students. Washington, DC: Education Trust.
53.
WangM. C., HaertelG. D., & WalbergH. J. (1997). Fostering educational resilience in inner-city schools. In WangM.C., HaertelG.D., & WalbergH.J. (Eds.), Children and youth (pp. 119–140)). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
54.
WoolleyM. E., StrutchensM. E., GilbertM. C., & MartinW. G. (2010). Mathematics success of Black middle school students: Direct and indirect effects of teacher expectations and reform practices. Negro Educational Review, 61(1–4), 41–59).
55.
YoungJ. L., Ero-TolliverI., YoungJ. R., & FordD. Y. (2017). Maximizing opportunities to enroll in advanced high school science courses: Examining the scientific dispositions of Black girls. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 13, 174–183).
56.
YoungJ. L., & YoungJ. R. (2017). Opportunity knocks, will she answer: Dispositions and participation of girls of color in STEM enrichment. Journal of Expanded Learning Opportunities, 1(4), 12–25).
57.
YoungJ. L., YoungJ. R., & CapraroR. M. (2017). Gazing past the gaps: A growth-based assessment of the mathematics achievement of Black girls. The Urban Review, 50(1), 156–176).
