Despite the strategic investment of the Perkins IV legislation to promote a broader application of career and technical education (CTE) to all students, it is unclear whether these initiatives distinctively support the needs of students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields of study. This is a critical lapse in the research, as knowing the efficacy of CTE experiences in promoting the STEM pipeline will be important for policy makers as they consider new or revised educational policies to support the pursuit and persistence of students with disabilities into STEM fields. This study evaluates whether two CTE experiences (applied STEM course taking and school-based experiential programs) in high school differentially predict the declaration of STEM college majors for students with and without disabilities. Assessing nationally representative data, the analyses suggest that CTE experiences consisting of applied STEM courses and school-based experiential programs may both be sufficient to move through the STEM pipeline for students in the general population, but both are insufficient for supporting students with disabilities.
ArcherL.DeWillJ.OsborneJ.DillonJ.WillisB.WongB. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 881–908.
2.
BashamJ. D.MarinoM. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8–15.
3.
BlackorbyJ.WagnerM. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–414.
4.
BradbyD.HudsonL. (2007). The 2007 revision of the Career-Technical Education Portion of the Secondary School Taxonomy (NCES 2008-030). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
5.
BurgstahlerS. (2001). A collaborative model promotes career success for students with disabilities: How DO-IT does it. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 209–216.
6.
BurkamD. T.LeeV. E. (January2003). Mathematics, foreign language, and science coursetaking and the NELS:88 transcript data (Working Paper, NCES 2003–01). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
7.
ChenX.WekoT. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
8.
FaulknerV. N.CrosslandC. L.StiffL. V. (2013). Predicting eighth-grade algebra placement for students with individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 329–345.
9.
FedermanM. (2007). State graduation requirements, high school course taking, and choosing a technical college major. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 7, 4.
10.
GottfriedM. A.BozickR.SrinivasanS. V. (in press). Beyond academic math: The role of applied STEM coursetaking in high school. Teachers College Record.
11.
HudsonL.LairdJ. (2009). New indicators of high school career/technical education coursetaking: Class of 2005 (NCES 2009–038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
12.
KellyR. R.LangH. G.PagliaroC. M. (2003). Mathematics word problem solving for deaf students: A survey of perceptions and practices in grades 6-12. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 104–119.
13.
LambP.BrownM.HodgesB.FoyD. (2004, April). Building bridges toward science careers for youth with disabilities (Research to Practice Brief: Improving Secondary Education and Transition Services Through Research, Vol. 3, pp. 1–5). Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/pubLications/researchtopractice/NCSETResearchBrief_3.2.pdf
14.
LongM. C.CongerD.IatarolaP. (2012). Effects of high school course-taking on secondary and postsecondary success. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 285–322.
15.
MargolisJ.Suárez-OrozcoM. M. (2014, January19). Handing out iPads isn’t enough. Los Angeles Times, p. A25.
16.
MoonN. W.ToddR. L.MortonD. L.IveyE. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Findings from research and practice for middle grades through university education. Atlanta: Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute of Technology.
17.
National Governors Association and Council of State Chief School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Available from http://www.corestandards.org/
18.
National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010 (NSB 10–01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
19.
NeumarkD.RothsteinD. (2006). School-to-career programs and transitions to employment and higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25, 374–393.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. (1984). Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense.
22.
PlankS.DeLucaS.EstacionA. (2008). High school dropout and the role of career and technical education: A survival analysis of surviving high school. Sociology of Education, 81, 345–370.
23.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the common core standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 38–48.
24.
RuleA. C.StefanichG.HaselhuhnC.PeifferB. (2009). A working conference on students with disabilities in STEM coursework and careers [Abstract]. Iowa City: College of Education, University of Iowa.
25.
SchneiderB.SwansonC.Riegle-CrumbC. (1998). Opportunities for learning: Course sequences and positional advantages. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 25–53.
26.
ScruggsT. E.BrighamF. J.MastropieriM. A. (2013). Common core science standards: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 49–57.
27.
ShandraC.HoganD. P. (2008). School-to-work participation and the post-high school employment of young adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29, 117–130.
28.
ShifrerD.CallahanR. M.MullerC. (2013). Equity or marginalization? The high school course-taking of students labeled with a learning disability. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 656–682.
29.
SteereD. E.RoseE.CavaiuloloD. (2007). Growing up: Transition to adult life for students with disabilities. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
30.
SupaloC. A.MalloukT. E.RankelL.AmorosiC.GraybillC. M. (2008). Low-cost laboratory adaptations for precollege students who are blind or visually impaired. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 243–247.
31.
TysonW.LeeR.BormanK. M.HansonM. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 243–270.
32.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics, 2011. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
VosganoffD.PaatschL. E.ToeD. M. (2011). The mathematical and science skills of students who are deaf or hard of hearing in inclusive settings. Deafness & Education International, 13, 70–88.
34.
WangX. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1081–1121.
35.
WellsT.SandefurG. D.HoganD. P. (2003). What happens after the high school years among young persons with disabilities?Social Forces, 82, 803–832.
36.
WimberlyG. L.NoethR. J. (2005). College readiness begins in middle school. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
37.
WombleM.WalkerG. (2001). Teaching biology to the visually impaired: Accommodating students’ special needs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 394–396.
