Using observations and interviews, the researchers explore the experiences and perspectives of students, teachers, and administrators at six specialized high schools with a focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as they pertain to the practices and structures affecting student outcomes. Four themes were found to be common across schools: a culture of intellectualism and inclusion, a valuation on research, the role of inquiry, and the importance of personal responsibility and independent learning for students. Nuanced differences were noted across sites, notably the difference in student-reported levels of stress; however, substantial differences in student experiences based on STEM school model type were not observed.
BrodyL. (2006, September). Measuring the effectiveness of STEM talent initiatives for middle and high school students. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Academies Center for Education, Washington, DC.
4.
BruhwilerC.BlatchfordP. (2011). Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome. Learning and Instruction, 21, 95-108. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.004
DavalosR. A.HaenslyP. A. (1997). After the dust has settled: Youth reflect on their high school mentored research experience. Roeper Review, 19, 204-207. doi:10.1080/02783199709553830
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockC. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.
11.
FeldhusenJ. F.JarwanF. (1995). Predictors of academic success at state-supported residential schools for mathematics and science: A validity study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 505-512. doi:10.1177/0013164495055003018
12.
FrancoM. S.PatelN. H.LindseyJ. (2012). Are STEM high school students entering the STEM pipeline?NCSSSMST Journal, 17, 14-23.
13.
HanfordS. (1997). An examination of specialized schools as agents of educational change. New York, NY: Columbia University.
14.
HillH.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 42, 371-406. doi:10.3102/00028312042002371
15.
HutchinsonD.WarshawS. (2011). STEM leaders roundtable: Part I—Research and the curriculum. NCSSSMST Journal, 16, 34-36.
16.
Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. (2011). Available from http://www3.imsa.edu/
MinnerD. D.LevyA. J.CenturyJ. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496. doi:10.1002/tea.20347
20.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted programs. Washington, DC: Author.
21.
National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (2011). Available from http://www.ncsssmst.org/
22.
National Research Council Committee on Highly Successful Schools in Programs for K-12 STEM Education. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Peters-BurtonE. E.LynchS. L.BehrendT. S.MeansB. B. (2014). Inclusive STEM high school design: 10 critical components. Theory Into Practice, 53, 64-71. doi:10.1080/00405841.2014.862125
25.
Peters-BurtonE.KaminskyS. E.LynchS. J.BehrendT. S.RossK. M.HouseA.HanE. M. (2013). Wayne School of Engineering: Full case study. Available from http://ospri.research.gwu.edu/
26.
PfeifferS. I.OverstreetJ. M.ParkA. (2009). The state of science and mathematics education in state-supported residential academies: A nationwide survey. Roeper Review, 32, 25-31. doi:10.1080/02783190903386579
27.
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. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President.
28.
RenzulliJ. (2000). One way to organize exploratory curriculum: Academies of inquiry and talent development (Part 1). Middle School Journal, 32(2), 5-14.
SubotnikR. F.TaiR. H.AlmarodeJ. (2011, May). Study of the impact of selective SMT high schools: Reflections on learners gifted and motivated in science and mathematics. Paper presented for the Committee on Highly Successful STEM Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM Education, Washington, DC.
31.
SubotnikR. F.TaiR. H.RickoffR.AlmarodeJ. (2009). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years?Roeper Review, 32, 7-16. doi:10.1080/02783190903386553
32.
SullinsA. C. (2010). Factors related to student persistence in a new residential STEM high school: The case of the Tennessee Governor’s Academy for Mathematics and Science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nashville, University of Tennessee.
33.
SwaratS.OrtonyA.RevelleW. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 515-537. doi:10.1002/tea.21010
ThomasJ.LoveB. (2002). NCSSSMST longitudinal study of graduates: A three-year analysis of college freshmen & college seniors. NCSSSMST Journal, 7, 4-8.
36.
ThomasJ.WilliamsC. (2009). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation and role of the NCSSSMST. Roeper Review, 32, 17-24. doi:10.1080/02783190903386561
37.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Higher education: Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs and related trends [Report to the Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives (GAO-06-114)]. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
YoungV. M.HouseA.WangH.SingletonC.KlopfensteinK. (2011, May). Inclusive STEM schools: Early promise in Texas and unanswered questions. Paper presented for the Committee on Highly Successful STEM Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM Education. Washington, DC.
