Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
1
EFFECTIVE STEM INITIATIVES
IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
by
Kelly Altobelli
_____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2016
Copyright 2016 Kelly Altobelli
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the love of my life, my husband, Cos.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It’s probably safe to say that very few people are able to complete a doctoral degree
program without support from their academic teachers and peers, their family and their friends.
This has been particularly true for me. I would like to acknowledge the people whose support has
been essential in helping me to complete USC’s rigorous Doctor of Education program.
First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia, my dissertation chair, and Dr.
Rudy Castruita and Dr. Lena Richter, who comprised my dissertation committee. Dr. Garcia, Dr.
Castruita and Dr. Richter generously shared their insight and expertise in program coursework as
well as in their role as members of my dissertation committee. Their tutelage, support and
encouragement helped me to navigate and complete the requirements for the doctoral degree,
including the development of this dissertation.
I would also like to thank the rest of the faculty members I have encountered in the USC
Rossier School of Education Doctor of Education program. I began this program after working
for more than 15 years in the field as both a teacher and a teacher specialist. The concepts I
learned from the faculty in this program enriched my perspective and deepened my
understanding of the big picture context in which the daily work of education takes place.
I also want to thank my fellow students in the Doctoral program. I embarked on this
journey after a ten-year break from formal education. My peers generously supported me, and
encouraged me and shared their strategies for balancing the academic commitments of a rigorous
doctoral program with all the responsibilities, including family and work, that make up students’
lives outside of academia.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
4
Special gratitude goes to the principals, assistant principals and teachers who allowed me
to interview them for this dissertation. Every educator I know is looking for more hours in each
day, and I appreciate the fact that you took time to speak to me about your experience with
improving academic achievement in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)
disciplines in high-poverty schools. Without your participation, this dissertation would not have
been possible. It is educators like you, working daily on the front lines, who motivate me to take
what I have learned at USC and continue to explore how I can further support teachers and
students in my continuing professional role in the educational system.
In addition to my academic mentors, peers and colleagues, my family and friends have
contributed essential support and inspiration. My friends have been especially understanding as I
have turned down repeated invitations for dinners, movies and other social engagements in order
to work on my course assignments and dissertation. I look forward to spending more time with
you now that my academic work is complete.
My sisters, Shannon and Tracy, provided me with both encouragement and inspiration.
After working in education for fifteen years, I have a very clear understanding of the importance
of committed parenting to children’s success in school and in life. You are two of the best
mothers I know, and are both a continual inspiration to me.
I absolutely could not have completed this program without the support of my husband,
Cos. Cos, you supported my desire to go back to school and sustained that support unwaveringly
throughout the process. You made sure I had everything I needed – from dinner, to quiet time –
to complete this program. My participation in this program changed the dynamic in our home for
almost three years, and you bore the brunt of it. I love you!
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….. ...2
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ...3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….....7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study…………………………………………………………….....9
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… ...9
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………. ...12
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...14
Importance of the Study……………………………………………………………... ...14
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………... ...15
Delimitations………………………………………………………………………… ...15
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………….. ...16
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………... ...18
Leadership as the Driver for Change…………………………………………………...19
The Importance of Parent-Community Ties…………………………………………....22
The Role of Professional Capacity…………………………………………………......25
A Student-Centered Learning Climate………………………………………………. ...31
Instructional Guidance………………………………………………………………. ...36
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...38
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………….. ...43
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………… ...44
Population and Sample………………………………………………………………....45
Research Design……………………………………………………………………... ...47
Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………....48
Data Collection………………………………………………………………………....49
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………...49
Ethical Considerations……………………………………………………………….....49
Summary…………………………………………………………………………….. ...50
Chapter 4: Findings………………………………………………………………………….. ...51
Overview of the Schools Studied……………………………………………………. ...51
Alignment of Findings with the Five Essential Supports……………………………....54
Additional Findings………………………………………………………………….....85
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
6
Chapter 5: Discussion……………………………………………………………………….. ...87
Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………... ...88
Implications for Practice…………………………………………………………….. ...94
Future Research………………………………………………………………………...94
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...95
References…………………………………………………………………………………… ...97
Appendix A: Interview Questions………………………………………………………….....108
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Strategies Used to Facilitate Parent Engagement………………………………….....65
Table 2. Strategies Used to Enhance Professional Capacity………………………………... ...76
Table 3. Instructional Guidance Strategies…………………………………………………. ...84
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
8
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to discover how STEM initiatives are implemented effectively in
high-poverty schools. The research questions were: (1) what do administrators and teachers in
successful high-poverty elementary schools perceive as effective strategies for improving
science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) academic achievement in their schools? (2)
What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools perceive as
ineffective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their schools? And, (3)
What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools perceive as
the barriers to STEM academic achievement in their schools? A qualitative, multi-case study
design was used. The study focused on three schools which met the study criteria: (a) high-
poverty; (b) a demonstrated commitment to STEM education; and (c) above-average
performance on state measures of academic achievement in science and math at the fifth-grade
level. Eleven staff (three principals, one assistant principal and seven, fifth-grade teachers)
across the three schools participated in structured interviews. The interviews were audio-
recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. The study used the “five essential supports” for school
improvement and student academic achievement in high-poverty elementary schools as the
theoretical framework for analyzing the findings. The study found that the deliberate
commitment to STEM education at each of these schools also characterized the schools’
approaches to the “five essential supports” as described by Bryk. That is, the same planned and
purposeful commitment that characterized each school’s approach to STEM, also characterized
each school’s approach to the five essential supports described by Bryk: leadership, parent and
community involvement, professional capacity, a student-centered learning climate and
instructional guidance.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
9
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Researchers have noted the emergence of a global labor market for workers with science,
technology, engineering and math (STEM) skills (Craig, Thomas, Hou & Mather, 2011). Studies
indicate that highly skilled labor forces are correlated with economic advancement not only for
the individual, but for the respective country’s economy as well (Peterson, Woessman,
Hanushek, & Lastra-Anadón, 2011). The research of Peterson et al. (2011) suggests a link
between student achievement in math and annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth per
capita, supporting the need for emphasis in STEM fields for a robust economy.
Peterson et al. (2011) states “at a time of persistent unemployment, especially among the
less skilled, many wonder whether our schools are adequately preparing students for the 21
st
-
century global economy (3).” The United States Department of Commerce predicts by 2018, the
United States will have 1.2 million high-paying unfilled jobs in the fields of science, technology,
engineering and math (STEM) (Langdon, McKittrick, Beede, Khan, & Doms, 2011). Yet the
U.S. continues to have significant unemployment—due, in part, to a workforce lacking STEM
skills (Langdon et al., 2011).
STEM Education in the United States
National-level data on student academic achievement in the United States comes
primarily from two sources. First, there is the National Assessment of Student Progress (NAEP)
which measures fourth, eighth and twelfth grade students’ performance in reading and math.
Second, there are international assessments, which measure students’ academic performance in a
global context. International assessments include the Trends in International Mathematics and
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
10
Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Scott,
2003). The TIMSS report assesses skills taught; PISA assesses the application of those skills
(U.S. Department of Education, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012).
Statistics from the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicated
that only 48% of 4th-grade students were proficient or advanced in mathematics; by 8th grade,
the number of students proficient or advanced in mathematics had decreased to 36% (U.S.
Department of Education, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013). Over
the past two years, proficiency in mathematics has dropped even lower: 2015 NAEP results show
that only 40% of all 4th-grade students were proficient or advanced in mathematics; and only
33% of 8th-grade students were proficient or advanced in mathematics (NAEP, 2015).
Similarly, data from the 2011 TIMSS shows that in 4th grade, 15% of U.S. students
tested advanced in science and 49% tested high in science (U.S. Department of Education,
TIMSS, 2011). By 8th grade, those numbers dropped to 10% of U.S. students testing advanced in
science and 40% testing high (U.S. Department of Education, TIMSS, 2011). (Note: The results
of TIMSS 2015 will not be published until 2017).
Results from the 2012 PISA assessments showed average scores in mathematics literacy
ranged from a high of 613 in Shanghai-China to a low of 368 in Peru. The Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 494 was 13 points higher than the
U.S. average score of 481 (U.S. Department of Education, PISA, 2012). In science literacy the
average scores ranged from a high of 580 in Shanghai-China to a low of 373 in Peru. The U.S.
average score of 497 was four points lower than the OECD average of 501 (U.S. Department of
Education, PISA, 2012). (Note: The results of PISA 2015 will not be published until December
2016).
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
11
In response to this low performance, the U.S. education system is attempting a
transformational change in state standards. In 2010, 43 states across the U.S. adopted similar
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to help all students receive a quality education that will
prepare students for the 21st century workforce (CDE: CCSS, 2014). The math standards, in
particular, will prepare students by providing them with the knowledge and skills that will be
necessary to prepare them for college and careers, and will hold them to the same high standards
in mathematics as their global peers (CDE, 2013).
California has adopted CCSS and is in the process of implementing the Next Generation
Science Standards (CDE: NGSS, 2014). The National Research Council (NRC)—the staff arm of
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)—developed the framework using the most current
research on both science and science learning in order to prepare students for tomorrow’s labor
force. The NGSS describe key scientific ideas and practices that all students should learn before
graduating from high school (CDE: NGSS, 2014).
The Socioeconomic Achievement Gap
U.S. elementary school students’ overall performance in STEM disciplines, as noted
above, suffers in comparison to many other developed countries. Furthermore, performance by
demographic subsets—in particular, socioeconomically disadvantaged students—is even more
alarming (Reardon, 2013). In the U.S. there has been a long-standing achievement gap between
socioeconomically disadvantaged (low-income) students and those who are not
socioeconomically disadvantaged (Reardon, 2013). The Nation’s Report Card reflects this trend:
since 2003, 4th and 8th-grade students that qualified for the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP) have demonstrated slow growth in math and have consistently trailed their non-
qualifying counterparts (U.S. Department of Education, NAEP, 2015). For example, in 2015,
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
12
only 24% of 4th-grade students who were eligible for free lunch assessed proficient or above in
math; while 58% of their non-eligible peers assessed proficient or above in math (U.S.
Department of Education, NAEP, 2015).
Reardon (2013) states that over the past 60 years, the income achievement gap has
become greater than the achievement gap between Black and White ethnicities. This income
achievement gap, which is evident at the lowest grade levels, and across all disciplines (STEM
and non-STEM), persists throughout a student’s educational career (Coley & Baker, 2013).
According to Blazer and Romanik (2009) childhood poverty poses serious problems for students
in public education and forms the single greatest factor limiting student achievement.
Increasing Poverty in U.S. Schools
In U.S. public schools, socioeconomically disadvantaged students make up an
increasingly larger share of the total school population (Kena et al., 2014). In America,
approximately 44% of children live in low-income families; 22% (more than 16 million children)
live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level (National Center for Children in
Poverty (NCCP), 2013). Approximately 2.8 million children are classified as being in extreme
poverty (Coley & Baker, 2013).
In California, 47% of children live in low-income families, defined as income below
200% of the federal poverty level; 23% of children live in families with incomes below 100% of
the federal poverty level (NCCP, 2013). The poverty rate is greatest in California’s Central
Valley, including Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced and Tulare counties (Reidenbach, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
Several trends in education outline the foundation of the problem addressed in this study.
First, STEM literacy has become increasingly critical within the context of the new global
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
13
economy (Fan & Ritz, 2014). The United States Department of Commerce estimates within a
few years there will be over 1.2 million unfilled STEM positions because the workforce will not
have the interest or skill to fill them (Bertram, 2014). President Barack Obama has addressed the
lack of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) college graduates as a crisis in
America, explaining that business leaders around the country want to hire in the United States
but cannot find skilled workers (Koebler, 2012).
Secondly, in the U.S. there has been a long-standing achievement gap between
socioeconomically disadvantaged (low-income) students and those who are not
socioeconomically disadvantaged (Reardon, 2013). Reardon (2013) states that over the past 60
years, the income achievement gap has become greater than the achievement gap between Black
and White ethnicities. This achievement gap, which is evident at the lowest grade levels, and
across all disciplines (STEM and non-STEM), persists throughout a student’s educational career
(Coley & Baker, 2013).
Finally, in U.S. public schools, socioeconomically disadvantaged students make up an
increasingly larger share of the total school population (Kena et al., 2014). In America,
approximately 22% of the nation’s children are impoverished and approximately 2.8 million of
these children are classified as being in extreme poverty (Coley & Baker, 2013).
For STEM initiatives to be implemented successfully in the U.S., the question of which
STEM strategies are most effective for socioeconomically disadvantaged students must be
addressed. This study sought to discover how STEM initiatives can be implemented effectively
in high-poverty schools.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
14
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to discover how STEM initiatives can be implemented
effectively in high-poverty schools. To that end, the study identified high-poverty elementary
schools that have effectively implemented STEM initiatives and examined the strategies the
principals and teachers at these schools used to successfully implement STEM at the elementary
level. The following questions will be used to guide the research.
Research Questions
1. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as effective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
2. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as ineffective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
3. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as the barriers to STEM academic achievement in their schools?
This study used qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis included interviews of three
principals, one assistant principal and seven teachers at three high-poverty schools with effective
STEM programs.
Importance of the Study
As the NAEP, TIMSS and PISA data indicate, loss of proficiency in the STEM
disciplines happens early in a student’s education. That is why it is especially important to
discover STEM interventions that are effective at the elementary school level (NAEP, 2015;
TIMSS, 2011). Mounting research and evidence suggests that early literacy in math and reading
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
15
predicts future academic success. Science and technology literacy are also front and center as
critical competencies for success in the 21st century; to be learned early and used in conjunction
with other STEM disciplines.
There are an abundance of studies on STEM education in middle school, high school, and
higher education, however, there is far less information on elementary schools. This study
contributes to the study of STEM initiatives at the elementary school level by discovering and
identifying the characteristics of effective STEM practices in low-income elementary schools.
This study adds to the field by focusing on STEM early in a child’s education, which can benefit
all students as well as those low-income students who are challenged by a persistent gap in
academic achievement and who are underrepresented in the field of science. The information can
be used by elementary school principals and other stakeholders interested in promoting academic
achievement and 21st century skills via a focus on STEM implementation in elementary school.
Limitations
The study was limited by the following:
1. The validity of the qualitative data conducted through interviews and observations is
limited by the interpretations of the researcher as the primary instrument.
2. There is no nationally-standardized assessment for ‘STEM’, per se, at the elementary
level. Therefore performance in STEM is inferred from student academic outcomes
on standardized achievement tests at the elementary level in disciplines directly
related to STEM, e.g. math and science.
Delimitations
The study was delimited by the following:
1. The study was limited to three high-poverty, public elementary schools.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
16
2. The study was limited to “successful” high-poverty elementary schools, i.e., high-
poverty elementary schools with aggregate fifth-grade scores in math (2015
CAASPP) and science (2015 CST) that were both above State of California averages.
3. In terms of geographic scope, the schools in which observations and interviews were
conducted was limited to California.
4. Because the study was limited to high-poverty elementary schools, the student
population studied consisted largely of low-income students, as defined by eligibility
for the free or reduced-price lunch program.
5. The study was limited to voluntary participants.
Definition of Terms
21st Century Skills: The skills needed by students in order to compete in a global
economy.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): The California
Department of Education’s standardized testing program for the State, which was established
January 1, 2014. CAASPP includes mathematics assessments in grades three through eight, and
eleven. CAASPP includes science assessments (California Standards Tests, a.k.a. CST) in grades
five, eight and ten.
California Standards Tests (CST): Designed to measure the degree to which students are
achieving the content standards adopted by the California State Board of Education.
High-performing STEM school: For the purposes of this study, the working definition of
a ‘high-performing STEM school’ is a school which: (a) declared a commitment to STEM
education (primarily evidenced by referencing one or more of the STEM disciplines in the school
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
17
name); and, (b) demonstrated student academic achievement above State of California averages
in math and science.
High-poverty elementary school: For the purposes of this study, ‘high-poverty elementary
schools’ are defined as Title I schools in which a minimum of 40 percent of the students in the
school, or residing in the attendance area served by the school, are from low income families
(CDE, 2014).
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED): The California Department of Education
defines the “socioeconomically disadvantaged” subgroup as (a) a student neither of whose
parents have received a high school diploma; or, a student who is eligible for the free or reduced-
price lunch program, also known as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR): The California Department of
Education’s previous standardized testing program for the State. STAR testing was discontinued
July 1, 2013, and replaced by CAASPP.
STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
Student academic achievement: Student academic achievement as measured by
standardized state testing. In California, the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program
(STAR) has been replaced by the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP). This change was effective beginning January 1, 2014.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
18
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study was to identify how STEM initiatives can be implemented
effectively in high-poverty schools to improve academic achievement. To that end, the study
identified high-poverty elementary schools that have effectively implemented STEM initiatives
and examined the strategies the principals and teachers at these schools have used to successfully
implement STEM at the elementary level. The focus of the study was strategies that can be
feasibly implemented at the school, rather than district, level.
An examination of the field literature revealed a few studies which specifically addressed
STEM academic achievement at the elementary school level. Therefore this literature review
focuses on factors that influence general academic achievement at the elementary school level,
based on the assumption that strategies that support academic achievement in general would also
support academic achievement in STEM disciplines (particularly math and science at the
elementary level). This literature review uses the school improvement framework delineated by
Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu and Easton (2010) to examine components associated
with increased academic achievement in high-poverty elementary schools. The five “essential
supports” in this framework are identified as: (1) leadership as the driver for change; (2) parent-
community ties; (3) professional capacity; (4) a student-centered learning climate; and (5)
instructional guidance (Bryk et al., 2010).
This review uses the five essential supports identified by Bryk et al., (2010) to look at the
role each support plays in school improvement in general, and, more specifically, as it may apply
to STEM education at the elementary level. This review is presented in the following sections:
(a) Leadership as the Driver for Change; (b) The Importance of Parent-Community Ties; (c) The
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
19
Role of Professional Capacity; (d) A Student-Centered Learning Climate; and (e) Instructional
Guidance.
Leadership as the Driver for Change
Bryk et al., (2010) identifies leadership as the first “essential support” for school
improvement. More specifically, the authors identify “principals as catalytic agents for systemic
improvement” (Bryk et al. 2010, 45). A large and growing body of research documents a
positive, but indirect, relationship between leadership characteristics and student outcomes
(Orphanos & Orr, 2014). For example, Giles, Johnson, Ylimaki, Brooks and Jacobson (2007)
used a case-study approach to examine successful leadership in high-poverty urban schools. The
authors posit there are common qualities in transformational leadership, which they identified in
all three of their case studies of three different high performing elementary schools. The study
examined beliefs and practices of the staff of these principals. The schools were chosen because
of their high-poverty demographics and because each school experienced improved student
outcomes. The principals responded to the challenges of high-poverty schools and communities
by creating “safe, nurturing environments” for both students and staff (Giles et al., 2007). They
also set high expectations for student performance, and held all stakeholders – including parents
– accountable for meeting those expectations. Although each administrator had different years of
experience and different leadership styles, each had a vision for the school and modeled the
desired practices (Giles et al., 2007). This study concluded that districts interested in improving
student achievement at high-risk public schools should be purposeful in their choices due to the
level of challenges and barriers leadership will face (Giles et al., 2007).
Heck and Hallinger (2009) used a longitudinal study to specifically examine the impact
of shared leadership on school improvement. This study is particularly relevant to STEM, as the
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
20
authors used improvement and growth in math achievement as their measure of school
improvement. According to the authors, 50 years of research on leadership has shown that
leadership makes a difference, but no studies have assessed the impact of collaborative
leadership on school improvement. In this study, the authors used empirical analyses over four
years, using a large sample of U.S. elementary schools. The authors’ findings supported the
positive effects of a collaborative leadership style on student learning in math (Heck &
Hallinger, 2009).
The results of Heck and Hallinger’s (2009) study suggest that school improvement results
from a mutual influence or a reciprocal process. The authors suggest that collaborative leadership
can positively impact learning by building staff and school capacity (Heck & Hallinger, 2009).
Their findings show leadership is a dynamic relationship, associated with and interacting with
other organizational processes (Heck & Hallinger, 2009). This study emphasizes how changes in
collaborative leadership affect school improvement, capacity and growth in student learning.
Distribution of leadership is an effective strategy that can be used by leaders to achieve support
for promotion of policies, such as STEM innovation. When leaders build the capacity of staff by
involving them in the work of the organization, then sustained changes leading to improvement
in academic achievement, can take place (Heck & Hallinger, 2009).
Thoonen, Peetsma, Oort and Sleegers (2012) examined the role of leadership in
contributing to a school’s capacity for continuous improvement. The authors suggest a link
between transformational leadership, innovation, social network position and an innovative
climate (Thoonen et al., 2012). A transformational leader can be defined as a leader who
provides individual consideration and support, and who is able to build a vision, and provide
intellectual stimulation (Thoonen et al., 2012). Along the same lines, Orphanos and Orr (2014)
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
21
found that as more principals were sought out for advice by their teachers, the more involved
teachers became in the adoption of new practices and policies. This principal/teacher relationship
also improved the school climate creating a culture of innovation (Orphanos & Orr, 2014). These
types of capacity-building behaviors and strategies would be beneficial to a principal interested
in implementing an innovative STEM initiative.
Orphanos and Orr (2014) state that one of the gaps in leadership literature revolves
around the relationship between leadership preparation programs and how they translate into
leadership practices that influence teacher performance and school outcomes in elementary
schools. The authors conducted a study on how school leaders influence teachers, with the
purpose of understanding the moderating influence of innovative leadership preparation on
leadership practices, job satisfaction and teacher collaboration (Orphanos & Orr, 2014). They
found teachers whose principals were prepared in exemplary leadership programs exerted
statistically significant leadership practices and indirectly influenced teacher collaboration and
teacher satisfaction, resulting in higher student outcomes (Orphanos & Orr, 2014). Their study
determined that leadership program design can play a role in facilitating school improvement by
increasing teacher contentment, which in turn promotes teacher collaboration, support of the
principal and their vision for school improvement (Orphanos & Orr, 2014). Many studies have
been done on the implications of teacher preparation for student outcomes; Orphanos and Orr
(2014) are among the few who focused specifically on leadership preparation programs. Because
of the specialized discipline knowledge required for STEM implementation, leadership
preparation may be a particularly significant consideration for the implementation of STEM
programs.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
22
The Importance of Parent-Community Ties
Parent-community ties are the second essential support identified by Bryk et al. (2010).
The authors state that urban schools are often disconnected from the children and families they
serve (Bryk et al., 2010). The authors further suggests that by encouraging relationships with
parents and surrounding communities, school staff can make a school a welcoming environment
and develop a partnership with parents, working together in the best interests of each student
(Bryk et al., 2010).
Parent-community ties can be broken down into two separate themes: parent involvement
and community ties. Parent involvement (PI) is of such importance that it is addressed in
legislation related to educational policies and initiatives. For example, Section 1118, Title I of
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (P.L. 107-110, H.R. 1), specifically addresses
parental involvement. It requires that every district and school receiving Title I funds must
develop a written policy addressing parent involvement, and specifies that this policy must be
developed in conjunction with parents and community members. Section 1118 further specifies:
(a) the effectiveness of the parental involvement policy will be evaluated annually; and (b) in the
parental policy should identify and address barriers to parental participation (with specific
attention to parents who are economically disadvantaged, disabled, have limited English
proficiency, limited literacy, or of a racial or ethnic minority background).
These legislative mandates are implemented at the local school level through the
inclusion of parents in advisory bodies such as the School Site Council (SSC), District Advisory
Council (DAC), and the English Language Acquisition Council (ELAC). These advisory
councils are to provide an opportunity for parents to provide feedback on school budgets and
programs related to student achievement.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
23
Epstein (2006) defined six types of parental involvement that are important to student
learning, including (1) parenting; (2) communicating, (3) volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5)
decision-making, and (6) collaborating with the community. Epstein’s comprehensive model
includes sample practices for each type of involvement, as well as challenges, redefinitions, and
expected results of each practice for students, parents and teachers (Epstein, 2009). Epstein’s
model is one of the most widely referenced frameworks used for parental involvement (Bower &
Griffin, 2011). In 2011, researchers Bower and Griffin used a case-study approach to examine
the applications of Epstein’s model in a single, high-minority, high-poverty school (Bower &
Griffin, 2011). The authors noted that “traditional definitions of parental involvement require
investments of time and money from parents” (Bower & Griffin, 2011, 78). The authors further
note that parents deemed uninvolved may simply have barriers to involvement due to their
impoverished socioeconomic status; they may not have the time or the money to participate in
school activities in traditional ways (Bower & Griffin, 2011). The authors conclude that “the
Epstein model may not fully capture how parents are or want to be involved in their children’s
education, indicating that new ways of working with parents in high-minority, high-poverty
schools are warranted” (Bower & Griffin, 2011 page citation needed).
Haeseler (2011) also examined barriers to parental involvement by examining two high-
needs elementary schools in western New York. Twenty educators serving in the two schools
answered a confidential survey to elicit qualitative and quantitative information about how to
enhance the home-school-community connection (Haeseler, 2011). In order to expand advocacy
for school children at risk, the author suggested, educators need the support of administration
including guidance in collaborating more with parents, caregivers, and outreach community
social service providers (Haeseler, 2011). When families with low-income levels are minorities,
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
24
and live in a community with high crime, survey findings were generally ominous. Many times
parents of children in high-need schools lack transportation and phones and they may have
limited time to meet with their student’s teachers due to working many jobs. Haeseler’s (2011)
study suggested that most of the teachers did not fully understand the challenges experienced by
the parents and the reasons for their diminished involvement in the school.
Arias and Morillo-Campbell (2008) point out that traditional definitions of parental
involvement may not be appropriate for English Language Learner (ELL) populations.
Definitions of traditional parent involvement include parents attending parent-teacher
conferences, and attending back-to-school night and open-house school functions. It can also
include volunteering for functions such as fundraisers, assisting in the classroom or taking an
active role in supporting their child with homework and academic support (Arias & Morillo-
Campbell, 2008). The authors state that although research supports a connection between
parental involvement and student academic achievement, parents of ELLs face barriers to
involvement including an inability to understand English, lack of familiarity with the school
system, and differences in cultural norms (Arias & Morillo-Campbell, 2008). In this situation,
non-traditional forms of parental involvement, e.g. a reciprocal relationship between school and
parents with parents contributing by supporting their student’s teachers at home, talking with
their children, preparing them for school and nurturing the importance of education, may be
applicable (Arias & Morillo-Campbell, 2008).
Oxford and Lee (2011) used NICHD Early Child Care and Youth Development data to
examine how socioeconomic context affected early school achievement in reading and math.
Disaggregating features of family stress, early parenting, and school readiness, the authors found
family processes to be significantly different between socioeconomic groups (Oxford & Lee,
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
25
2011). The findings showed it would be effective to tailor supports based on the needs and
stresses particular to the context of the recipients. This proposal is relevant for those engaged in
working with children in the educational system such as administrators, teachers and support
staff, who interact every day with children who are struggling academically. Oxford and Lee
(2011) suggest a better understanding will improve educational professionals’ capacity to
guiding educational policy, intervention, and prevention.
Noguera (2004) asserts that when parents are respected as partners in the education of
their children, and provided information and school support, the culture of the organization can
be renovated. Parents have knowledge of children's lives outside of school, which can be helpful
for supporting students. This reciprocal relationship can transform urban schools from alien
organizations into community assets (Noguera, 2004).
Epstein (2009), Haeseler (2011) and Orphanos and Orr’s (2014) research all support the
idea that the principal has a critical role to play in establishing a school culture that welcomes
and supports parental involvement. Orphanos and Orr (2014) extended their study on how school
leaders influence teachers in order to understand the influence of leadership practices. The
authors included the effect of parent support of teacher’s work as another influencing factor in
building teacher satisfaction, building on their findings regarding teacher collaboration and
instructional effectiveness (Orphanos & Orr, 2014). Epstein (2009) suggests that the principal
should set the tone that S/he cares about and is an advocate for parent-school collaboration
through school policies, staff decisions, and actions.
The Role of Professional Capacity
Professional capacity, defined as both the quality of new staff and professional
development supports for existing staff, is the third essential support (Bryk et al., 2010). The
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
26
authors suggest that all institutions depend on the quality of their work force, but that
professional capacity is especially critical in education where the effectiveness of schooling is
dependent on the capacity of the teachers (Bryk et al., 2010).
Moolenaar, Daly and Sleegers (2010) studied the relationship between transformational
leadership, social network position and innovation in schools. The authors’ findings suggest that
one of the ways transformational leaders innovate is by encouraging staff to spend time on
training and professional development (Moolenaar et al., 2010). Participation in professional
development activities can increase teacher knowledge, skills and confidence, which can set
innovation in teaching into motion. The authors stated that the more closely principals were
connected to their teachers, the more willing the teachers were to engage in innovative practices
(Moolenaar et al., 2010).
Several studies have specifically examined the relationship between instructional
professional capacity and STEM education at the elementary school level. Ledbetter (2012)
states that American public schools suffer from a significant lack of teachers who are qualified to
teach in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The author
notes that qualified STEM graduates who start teaching in public schools often have high
turnover, leaving for job opportunities in other professions that their STEM skills afford them
(Ledbetter, 2012).
Ledbetter (2012) points out that the National Science Foundation (NSF), which was
created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science, offers a number of training and
scholarship programs designed to address the lack of STEM-trained teachers in public schools.
One of the programs the author discusses in detail is the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship
Program. First established in 2002, the program is designed to encourage STEM majors and
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
27
STEM professionals to pursue teaching careers. Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship winners are
awarded significant financial support to help them complete their STEM coursework as well as
earn a teaching credential; in return, awardees commit to teaching in a high-need school district
for two years, for every year of scholarship support they receive (Ledbetter, 2012).
The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program is considered the gold standard for
teacher preparation, as program graduates are equipped with the knowledge and skills to engage
students effectively in the STEM disciplines in the classroom. Teachers are prepared with
knowledge of both scientific content and engaging pedagogy. Ledbetter (2012) states that more
than 5000 Noyce Scholars have completed the program.
Nadelson et al., (2013) also studied the relationship between teacher preparation/teacher
professional development and efficacy in teaching STEM at the elementary level. The authors
identified three challenges that occurred when investigating teaching students STEM curriculum
at the elementary level: (1) access to appropriate resources; (2) too much focus on English
language arts and mathematics standards; and (3) and lack of teacher preparedness to teach
STEM curriculum (Nadelson et al., 2013).
The authors state that students’ foundational knowledge of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics is formed in their elementary years, however, paradoxically, the
majority of elementary teachers are not prepared to teach the STEM disciplines confidently and
adequately (Nadelson et al., 2013). The authors found that without the appropriate tools,
knowledge and training in STEM, teachers may feel uncomfortable and ill prepared to teach
basic STEM concepts to children. The association between teacher preparation to teach STEM
and student achievement in STEM motivated the authors to create and implement a professional
STEM learning program for educators. The learning program created by the authors was a three-
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
28
day, STEM-focused, learning institute, with four goals: (a) to increase teacher confidence in
teaching inquiry-based STEM; (b) to increase teacher competence in teaching inquiry-based
STEM; (c) to increase participant’s knowledge of K-5 STEM curriculum; and (d) to familiarize
participants with STEM careers (Nadelson et al., 2013).
The authors’ analysis of findings from two different cohorts of participants indicated
significant increases in STEM-institute participants’ knowledge, confidence and efficacy related
to teaching STEM (Nadelson et al., 2013). These findings on professional development show
that even a three-day institute on STEM can have a positive effect on teachers’ knowledge,
perceptions and competence related to STEM instruction.
Nadelson et al., (2013) emphasized inquiry-based STEM instruction in the STEM
professional development institute the authors developed. Colburn (2000) points out that
developing an inquiry-based science program is central to the National Science Education
Standards. Colburn (2000) defines inquiry-based instruction as “the creation of a classroom
where students are engaged in essentially open-ended, student-centered, hands-on activities”
(42).
Froyd and Simpson (2008) identify inquiry-based learning as one of a number of
approaches to the larger heading of “student-centered learning” approaches. The authors list
active learning, collaborative learning, inquiry-based learning, cooperative learning, problem-
based learning, peer-led team learning, team-based learning, peer instruction, inquiry guided
learning, just-in-time teaching, small group learning, project-based learning and question-
directed instructions as part of the broad spectrum of named approaches to student-centered
learning (SCL) (Froyd & Simpson, 2008). The authors further note that studies support the
effectiveness of student-centered learning methods, citing Handelsman et al. (2004), who stated
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
29
in an article in Science, “There is mounting evidence that supplementing or replacing lectures
with active learning strategies and engaging students in discovery and scientific process
improves learning and knowledge retention” (Froyd & Simpson, 2008 page citation needed).
Tutwiler, Gruner, Johnkoski, Inga and Brady (2014) examined how whole-school
inquiry-based teacher professional development impacted STEM achievement using longitudinal
data with a case study approach. Teachers in the study participated in 152 hours of professional
development over a three-year period, including (a) a week-long summer institute on inquiry-
based teaching; (b) a two-day follow-up during the academic year; and (c) additional
professional development between the first and second summer. The professional development
was provided by the Anne Fisher School (Anne Fisher STEM Academy) in the Hartford Public
School District. Tutwiler et al., (2014) found a “strong positive observational relationship”
between student achievement in the science portion of the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and
teacher participation in whole-school inquiry-based professional development (Tutwiler et al.,
2014). The authors conclude that the methodologies employed can be used to evaluate the effect
of the professional development programs at additional schools, as well as those used by other
STEM education researchers in the field (Tutwiler et al., 2014).
In 2010, Georges, Borman and Lee looked specifically at teacher quality related to
instruction in mathematics. Georges, Borman and Lee (2010) found a vast shortage of qualified
elementary math teachers by analyzing math content standards, assessments and accountability,
and teacher licensure information for all 50 states. Their study uncovered very different
standards and quality of math programs from state to state (Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010).
Although many states have updated their licensure requirements, they continue to be weakly
aligned with student expectations. One example of the disparity and disconnectedness are the
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
30
mathematics content requirements for Missouri, North Carolina, and Kentucky. In these states
teachers were ranked moderately rigorous, yet these states also ranked among the top ten states
in assessments and accountability policies. In New York the mathematics content requirements
were ranked strongly, but that was not the case in the area of assessments and accountability
policies at the elementary grade levels. One of the few exceptions is Oregon, because the state’s
mathematics content requirements were strong and assessments and accountability policies were
also strong. According to the authors, Oregon’s expectations for students and teachers were more
aligned compared to other states (Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010).
When analyzing state assessments and standards, the authors found gaps between policy
and teacher certification requirements. When they reviewed in-service and professional
development trainings, they found them to be were weakly aligned with the academic standards
(Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010). According to Georges, Borman and Lee (2010), both the gap
between what students are expected to know and the lack of teacher preparation in math weaken
student learning both conceptually and procedurally. The authors’ findings suggest educational
reform would be more effective if each component was aligned towards higher student outcomes
(Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010). There should be rigorous math standards and there should be
teacher preparation and licensing requirements aligned with these standards, so that programs
graduate qualified teachers who are prepared to teach to rigorous standards (Georges, Borman &
Lee, 2010).
Dyehouse, Yoon, Lucietto, and Diefes-Dux (2012) examined the effects of an
engineering teacher professional development program on elementary students’
science/engineering content knowledge and engineering identify. The authors found the
treatment group scored higher than students who were in the control group, and also showed
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
31
higher engineering career identity than students in the control group (Dyehouse, Yoon, Lucietto,
& Diefes-Dux, 2012).
In summary, these studies indicate that many elementary school teachers are inadequately
prepared to teach to the STEM disciplines effectively and competently (Dyehouse, Yoon,
Lucietto, and Diefes-Dux, 2012; Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010; Ledbetter, 2012; Nadelson et
al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014). However, with appropriate teacher preparation and/or
professional development interventions, a significant difference can be made in both teacher
effectiveness and student outcomes in STEM (Dyehouse, Yoon, Lucietto, and Diefes-Dux, 2012;
Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010; Ledbetter, 2012; Nadelson et al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014). In
particular, inquiry-based instruction is seen as foundational to elementary STEM instruction
(Colburn, 2000; Nadelson et al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014).
A Student-Centered Learning Climate
The fourth essential support is identified as a student-centered learning environment
(Bryk et al., 2010). The authors define this as “an overall normative environment where students
feel safe and are pressed and supported to engage (and succeed) in more ambitious intellectual
activity” (Bryk et al., 2010, 46). In their report, Successful K-12 STEM Education, the National
Research Council of the National Academies (2011) also identified a student-centered learning
climate as one of the critical components of an effective elementary school.
In 2013, Thapa, Cohen, Guffey and Higgins-D’Alessandro conducted a comprehensive
review of the literature on school climate. The authors focused on five dimensions of school
climate: safety, relationships, teaching and learning, institutional environment and the school
improvement process (Thapa et al., 2013). The authors defined the first dimension, “safety,” as
feeling socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically safe in school. It includes rules, norms
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
32
and the perception of fairness as it relates to behavior. The second dimension, “relationships,”
focused on “how connected people feel to one another.” The third dimension, “teaching and
learning” refers to the norms, goals and values that characterize the learning and teaching
environment and which support students’ abilities to learn (Thapa et al., 2013). “Institutional
environment” refers to both “school connectedness/engagement” and the physical layout and
environment of the school, including the availability of resources and supplies. Finally, the
authors review studies that address the impact of school of school climate on school reform
programs, i.e. the “school improvement process.” (Thapa et al., 2013).
The authors’ review of the vast evidence-based research shows a positive school climate
can have a positive impact on the social, emotional, intellectual and physical health and safety of
students. The authors point out that many studies have documented a number of positive
outcomes associated with a positive school climate, including increased student motivation to
learn and mitigating the negative impact of socioeconomic context on academic success (Thapa
et al., 2013). The research also links positive school climate to lower absenteeism, lower
substance abuse, reduced aggression, and higher self-esteem (Thapa et al., 2013). Although
school climate research is complicated by the various definitions and measures used to document
climate, the authors nevertheless conclude “school climate matters” (Thapa et al., 2013).
Bryk et al., (2010) subdivides the student-centered learning climate support into three
sub-categories: (a) order and safety; (b) teachers’ academic press and personalism; and (c)
supportive peer norms. Bryk et al., (2010) is one of many researchers who have taken an in-
depth look at these aspects of school climate.
Chen (2007) developed a school safety and student achievement model to study the
relationships between students’ backgrounds, school structure and culture, school disorder, and
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
33
student academic achievement. In the study, the author applied the model to more than 600
elementary schools in New York City. Chen chose to use statistics from the New York City
Department of Education to test the model because it is the largest urban school district in the
country and it represents a national picture of urban education (Chen, 2007). The study analyzed
data over a three-year period in order to test a link between school disorder and student
achievement.
Chen (2007) used New York State Grade 4 English Language Arts (ELA) and Grade 4
Mathematics (Math) mean scores to measure academic achievement. The author used three
indicators for the school disorder measure: major crime, minor crime and non-crime incidents
(Chen, 2007). Crime data was collected from the New York City Police, as they are responsible
for safety on the school campuses. The reports were broken into major crimes, minor crimes, and
non-crime incidences. School size and student attendance were also tracked variables. Finally,
student background, as indicated by poverty (percentage of students eligible for the free lunch
program) and ethnicity, was also accounted for. The author notes that although the two student
background variables (poverty and ethnicity) correlate with each other, the two variables were
treated as separate variables in the author’s model (Chen, 2007).
Statistical analysis of the relationship between the measured variables and student
academic achievement demonstrated that the model accounted for 71% of the variance in student
academic achievement (Chen, 2007). Other significant findings included: (a) higher levels of
poverty correlated with higher measures of school disorder; (b) poverty, as measured by
eligibility for the free school lunch program, had a strong predictive effect for both student
academic performance and student attendance; (c) academic performance decreased as school
size increased; (d) student attendance directly impacts student achievement (Chen, 2007).
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
34
Chen’s (2007) study, therefore, confirmed correlations between student background,
school disorder, attendance, and student achievement. The study also reaffirmed previous studies
on poverty and its negative impact on student outcomes. Chen (2007) suggests there are possible
opportunities for public schools to mitigate the negative effects of poverty through the
development of a strong and positive school climate. The author further recommends that policy
makers take a closer look at school culture to address the widening socioeconomic disparities
emerging in urban schools (Chen, 2007).
Hazel (2010) conducted a small-scale, qualitative study in a suburban elementary school
to examine perceptions about bullying contrasted with the school’s preoccupation with high-
stakes testing. The author’s findings suggested that while students perceived bullying to be a
significant problem, teachers’ perceptions were that it was not a significant problem (Hazel,
2010). The author suggests that the pressures of high-stakes testing may sometimes take
precedence over meeting children’s social-emotional needs. Hazel’s (2010) research suggests
that academic learning can be optimized if effort is spend addressing students’ social-emotional
needs. The author’s findings showed that a lack of support and interventions addressing such
things as school-wide bullying can decrease students’ ability to focus on learning and thereby
negatively impact academic engagement (Hazel, 2010).
Bryk et al’s, (2010) second subcategory under school climate is “teachers’ academic
press and personalism.” Rubie-Davies et al. (2014) studied the effects of teacher expectations on
achievement measures. The authors analyzed four types of teacher expectation effects: within-
year effects of individual teachers, across-year effects of individual teachers, mediated effects of
individual and multiple teachers, and compounded effects of multiple teachers (Rubie-Davies et
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
35
al., 2014). The population for the study included 110 students tracked from preschool through
Grade 4.
The study provided insight into the effects on student achievement of multiple year
teacher expectations. Teacher expectations were found to significantly predict students’ year end
outcomes at grade levels for kindergarten, first and fourth grade (Rubie-Davies et al., 2014). The
relationship between teacher expectations and the cumulative impact they have on later student
achievement emphasizes the necessity of proactively supporting student learning through both
student-teacher relations and teacher expectations.
Bryk et al’s, (2010) third subcategory under school climate is supportive peer norms. The
authors suggest that peer interactions informally guide student behavior in schools, and that the
less time schools spend managing poor behavior choices, the more time there is to concentrate on
learning (Bryk et al., 2010).
Masland and Lease (2013) looked at the relationship between peer group norms and
conformity with respect to academic behaviors. Following 455 children from third grade to fifth
grade, Masland and Lease (2013) investigated influences of academic achievement, motivation
and social identity and the relationship to positive academic behavior. Using structural equation
modeling, the findings confirmed peer group norms—such as common academic pursuits—
influenced positive academic behaviors of peers. For students that were not interested in
academic pursuits, simply belonging to a group of peers with high standards could influence
students to conform if certain variables were in place (Masland & Lease, 2013).
The purpose of the study was to better understand why some children conform
academically in relationship to their peer group and why others do not. Using the expectancy-
value perspective, children with high levels of expectancy and high levels of academic value are
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
36
motivated to higher academic attainment. However, Masland and Lease (2013) also
acknowledge the susceptibility to negative peer influence and explain there are moderating
variables, such as depression, which can influence students to conform negatively. Masland and
Lease (2013) believe norms explain what group members normally do and what they are
expected to do. A surprising fact from their research was the lack of social identity and academic
conformity. It was hypothesized that children who feel strongly connected to their peers would
more likely conform than children who feel less positively however, the effects of academic
expectancy on conformity were measurably insignificant (Masland & Lease, 2013). This study
contributes to the literature by documenting the positive effects of peer group norms on academic
achievement.
Instructional Guidance
The fifth and final essential support identified by Bryk et al. (2010) in the school
improvement framework is instructional guidance, including supports for curriculum and
instruction. Bryk et al (2010) explains that content, pacing, and grades map what students are
expected to learn; curriculum organization specifies what will be learned over time, and the
instructional guidance system describes how knowledge will be learned. Instructional guidance is
of particular importance in STEM. As previous researchers have noted, inquiry-based instruction
is particularly relevant to and aligned with the STEM disciplines (Colburn, 2000; Nadelson et al.,
2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014).
Newmann, Smith, Allensworth and Bryk (2001) examined the importance of instructional
program coherence to school improvement. The authors found that multiple, unrelated,
unsustained “improvement” programs dilute instructional resources and actually work against,
rather than support, student academic achievement (Newmann et al., 2001). The authors point
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
37
out that connected learning experiences across multiple contexts are more impactful than
disconnected learning experiences (Newmann et al., 2001). They conclude that instructional
program coherence—the development of a common instructional framework—is critical in
supporting student academic achievement.
One approach to instructional program coherence is integrated or connected instruction.
Yoon, Dyehouse, Lucietto, Diefes-Dux and Capobianco (2014) examined the impact of
integrated science, technology and engineering (STE) instruction at the elementary school level.
Elementary school teachers participated in a week-long professional development program
before implementing the integrated instruction in their classrooms (Yoon et al., 2014). The
authors found that integrated STE education had significant effects on ethnically diverse
elementary students STE content knowledge and engineering identity (Yoon et al., 2014).
Thadani, Cook, Griffis, Wise and Blakey (2010) examined learning benefits for students
when instruction was changed from a didactic, teacher-centered model to an inquiry-based
model. The authors state that didactic, teacher-centered instruction is disproportionately present
in schools with high numbers of low-income and minority students, a phenomenon referred to as
“the pedagogy of poverty” (Haberman, 1991). The authors’ results were mixed. On one hand,
their findings suggest that inquiry-based instruction can be a more “socially just” pedagogy
(Thandani et al., 2010). On the other hand, the authors note that “inquiry-based teaching is
difficult”, and that many other factors, such as teachers’ beliefs and experiences, also play a role
in the “pedagogy of poverty”; they conclude that curricular-based interventions have both
promise and limitations (Thandani et al., 2010).
Cuevas, Lee, Hart and Deaktor (2005) also examined the use of inquiry-based instruction
in a diverse elementary school population. The study focused specifically on science inquiry with
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
38
third and fourth grade students from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds (Cuevas et
al., 2005). In the treatment group, teachers were given instruction and curricular support in
implementing inquiry-based science instruction units. Students were taught how to conduct
science inquiry, and how to use specific inquiry skills. Defining points crucial to the study and
also relevant to STEM were that the inquiry-based science instructions integrated English as part
of the instruction, and integrated students’ home language and culture in the learning process.
Although the sample size was small, gains in academic achievement were made by all
subgroups with a minimum of two points to over 5 point gains on the post-test. The intervention
positively impacted students’ inquiry ability regardless of grade, achievement, gender,
socioeconomic status, ethnicity, home language or English proficiency (Cuevas et al., 2005). The
authors state that further research might include the use of a control or comparison group since
that methodology was not used in this particular study (Cuevas et al., 2005).
Conclusion
The five “essential supports” described by Bryk et al. (2010) provide a robust framework
for looking broadly at variables that impact student achievement in high-poverty schools.
Literature about variables impacting STEM academic achievement generally tends to focus on
upper grades (middle school, high school, and beyond). In part, this may be due to the fact that
the breadth of disciplines encompassed by STEM—science, technology, engineering and math—
are not often explicitly addressed or assessed at the elementary school level. Standardized test
results in English Language Arts (ELA) and/or math often stand in as measures of overall
academic achievement. Math, as one of the four STEM disciplines, is sometimes used as a
marker of STEM academic achievement at the elementary level, and a number of the reviewed
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
39
authors used student performance in math as a measure of academic success (Chen, 2007;
Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010; Heck & Hallinger, 2009).
However, using student achievement in math or science alone to measure STEM success
may be inadequate. Many researchers emphasize the importance of inquiry-based instruction in
teaching STEM (Colburn, 2000; Nadelson et al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014). Other researchers
have emphasized the importance of integrated teaching methods across disciplines as
foundational to STEM instruction. Non discipline-specific measures of successful STEM
instruction at the elementary school level are yet to be developed.
Nevertheless, Bryk et al.’s (2010) five essential supports, insofar as they are applicable to
general academic achievement in high-poverty schools, still apply to the topic at hand: STEM
academic achievement in high-poverty schools. The critical role of leadership in school
improvement has been discussed by many researchers beyond those reviewed here (Giles et al.,
2007; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Orphanos & Orr, 2014; Thoonen et al., 2012). Bryk et al. (2010)
cites the importance of “principals as catalytic agents for systemic improvement” (Bryk et al.
2010). Given that STEM achievement is not the focus of most elementary schools, it makes
sense that in order to focus a school on STEM achievement, visionary leadership would be
essential. Giles et al. (2007) emphasizes the role of the leader in creating “safe, nurturing
environments” for students and staff as a prerequisite for successful leadership in high-poverty
urban schools. Heck and Hallinger (2009) focused on collaborative leadership as having a
positive impact on math achievement. Thoonen et al. (2012) and Orphanos and Orr (2014)
emphasized the importance of the principal/teacher relationship as essential to creating a positive
school climate and supporting a culture of innovation. Finally, Orphanos and Orr (2014)
addressed the role of leadership preparation programs in creating effective leaders. None of the
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
40
reviewed studies specifically addressed the role of leadership in facilitating STEM academic
achievement at the elementary school level. There appears to be room for exploration of the
relationship between STEM academic achievement and school leadership.
Bryk et al.’s (2010) second support was defined as parent-community ties. The role of
parental support in student academic achievement is so universally acknowledged, that it is even
embedded in Section 1118 of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Epstein (2006)
defined a framework of six types of parental involvement that are important to student learning.
Bower and Griffin (2011) looked at Epstein’s framework in the context of a high-minority, high-
poverty school. Bower and Griffin (2011) concluded that “traditional definitions of parental
involvement requires investments of time and money from parents” (78). The authors further
pointed out that these types of investments of time and money may be prohibitive for families of
low socioeconomic status (Bower & Griffin, 2011). Haeseler (2011) also addresses barriers to
parental involvement for low-income families, and Arias and Morillo-Campbell identified
barriers to parental involvement that are specific to ELL populations. These authors’ findings
provide a starting point for answering the third research question addressed by this author’s
study: What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as the barriers to STEM academic achievement in their schools?
Bryk et al. (2010) defined the third essential support as professional capacity. The
reviewed literature related to professional capacity and STEM instruction came to consistent
conclusions: the reviewed studies indicate that many elementary school teachers are inadequately
prepared to teach to the STEM disciplines effectively and competently (Dyehouse, Yoon,
Lucietto, and Diefes-Dux, 2012; Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010; Ledbetter, 2012; Nadelson et
al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014). However, with appropriate teacher preparation and/or
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
41
professional development interventions, a significant difference can be made in both teacher
effectiveness and student outcomes in STEM (Dyehouse, Yoon, Lucietto, and Diefes-Dux, 2012;
Georges, Borman & Lee, 2010; Ledbetter, 2012; Nadelson et al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014). In
particular, inquiry-based instruction is seen as foundational to elementary STEM instruction
(Colburn, 2000; Nadelson et al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014).
The role professional development plays in effective STEM instruction provides a
starting point for this author’s first research question: What do administrators and teachers in
successful high-poverty elementary schools perceive as effective strategies for improving STEM
academic achievement in their schools?
Bryk et al. (2010) defined the fourth essential support as a student-centered learning
climate. Thapa et al. (2013) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on school
climate, concluding that “school climate matters” in relationship to student academic
achievement. Chen’s (2007) model on school safety and student achievement found correlations
between poverty and school disorder which negatively impacted attendance and academic
achievement. The study reaffirmed previous studies on poverty and its negative impact on
student outcomes (Chen, 2007). Chen (2007) believes a positive school climate may have a
mitigating effect on the negative effects of poverty. These findings suggest starting points for
this author’s three research questions: (1) What do administrators and teachers in successful
high-poverty elementary schools perceive as effective strategies for improving STEM academic
achievement in their schools? (2) What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty
elementary schools perceive as ineffective strategies for improving STEM academic
achievement in their schools? (3) What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty
elementary schools perceive as the barriers to STEM academic achievement in their schools?
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
42
Bryk et al. (2010) defined the fifth essential support as instructional guidance. Newman
et al. (2001) emphasizes the importance of instructional program coherence in program
improvement. The authors found that a connected learning framework was more conducive to
improvements in academic achievement than a disconnected collection of individual
improvement initiatives (Newman et al., 2001). One possible approach to program coherence is
to use integrated instruction. Yoon et al. (2014) found positive effects from the integration of
science, technology and engineering (STE) instruction at the elementary school level.
Professional development provided to elementary school teachers was key to this intervention
(Yoon et al., 2010).
Some researchers (Cuevas et al., 2005; Thadani et al., 2010) have found that inquiry-
based instruction can be effective in schools with diverse learning populations, leading to
improvements in academic achievement for all students, including socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. This is particularly relevant to this author’s study, because previous
authors (Colburn, 2000; Nadelson et al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014) have identified inquiry-
based instruction as particularly appropriate for the STEM disciplines. The suggested efficacy of
inquiry-based instruction for STEM and for diverse populations provides a starting point for this
author’s first research question: What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty
elementary schools perceive as effective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement
in their schools?
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
43
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The goal of this research was to discover how STEM initiatives can be implemented
effectively in high-poverty schools. This chapter discusses this study’s research questions in
addition to the research methods, sample, population and instrumentation that were used to
collect information, as well as the processes for collecting data and for analyzing the data.
As data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) indicate, loss of proficiency in the STEM disciplines happens early in a
student’s education (U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), 2015; U.S. Department of Education, Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA), 2012; U.S. Department of Education, TIMSS, 2011). This is why it is
especially important to discover STEM interventions that are effective at the elementary school
level (NAEP, 2015; TIMSS, 2011). Mounting research and evidence suggests that early literacy
in math and reading predicts future academic success. Science and technology literacy are also
front and center as critical competencies for success in the 21st century; to be learned early and
used in conjunction with other STEM disciplines.
There are an abundance of studies on STEM education in middle school, high school, and
higher education, however, there is far less information on elementary schools. This study
contributes to the study of STEM initiatives at the elementary school level by discovering and
identifying the characteristics of effective STEM practices in low-income elementary schools.
This study focused on STEM at the school level, rather than the district level, so that the lessons
learned may be applied at the school, rather than district, level. This study focused on STEM
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
44
early in a child’s education, which can benefit all students as well as those low-income students
who are challenged by a persistent gap in academic achievement and who are underrepresented
in the field of science.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to discover how STEM initiatives are implemented
effectively in high-poverty schools. The goal was to identify effective, replicable strategies that
can be used in other high-poverty elementary schools to increase academic achievement in the
STEM disciplines.
The research questions were:
1. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as effective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
2. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as ineffective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
3. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as the barriers to STEM academic achievement in their schools?
These three research questions were examined using the five “essential supports” of
school improvement as defined by Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) in
their book-length study, Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. The
authors identify these supports as essential for school improvement, including the improvement
of academic achievement at high-poverty schools (Bryk et al., 2010). The five “essential
supports” in this framework are identified as: (1) leadership as the driver for change; (2) parent-
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
45
community ties; (3) professional capacity; (4) a student-centered learning climate; and (5)
instructional guidance (Bryk et al., 2010).
Population and Sample
The intent of this study was to focus on high-poverty elementary schools, which
demonstrated student academic achievement in the STEM disciplines at levels above state
averages as measured by standardized tests.
For logistical purposes, this study was limited to elementary schools in the State of
California. Because this study specifically focused on high-poverty schools, it focused
specifically on Title I schools in the State of California, that is, institutions in which a minimum
of 40 percent of the students in the school, or residing in the attendance area served by the
school, were from low-income families (schools where at least 40% of the population was
enrolled in the free- or reduced-price lunch program) (California Department of Education
(CDE), Title I, 2014). Publicly available data files from the California Department of Education
(CDE) were examined to identify elementary schools that met Title I criteria in 2014-15
(California Department of Education (CDE), 2015).
This study focused on high-poverty elementary schools with a demonstrated commitment
to STEM education. As of this writing, the State of California does not maintain a registry of
STEM schools (C. Breazeale, personal communication, January 27, 2015). Since an official
State designation as a STEM school was not available, references to STEM in the school name
were used as evidence of commitment to STEM education. That is, the study was limited to high
poverty schools in California which referenced “science” and/or “technology” and/or
“engineering” and/or “math” and/or “STEM” in the official school name.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
46
Additionally, this study focused on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)
student achievement within high-poverty schools. In California, there are currently no statewide
tests on “technology” or “engineering” specifically at the elementary school level. (Technology
and engineering are two of the four disciplines included in STEM.) There are, however,
statewide tests at the elementary school level in science and math. Therefore, schools’ aggregate
standardized test scores in science and math were used as a proxy for above-average STEM
achievement in this study.
The lowest grade level at which the California Standard Tests (CSTs) in science are
currently administered is fifth grade; therefore, for the purposes of this study, school-level
performance at the fifth-grade level, on the CST administered in Spring 2015, was used to
identify schools performing above the State average (Proficient + Advanced = 55%) in science
(California Department of Education, CST, 2015).
The California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) System was
established in California to replace the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program
effective January 1, 2014 (California Department of Education, CAASPP, 2015). Under
CAASPP, math assessments are administered in grades three through eight and eleven
(California Department of Education, CAASPP, 2015). In order to use a measure comparable to
the science measure being used, only results from math assessments administered to fifth grade
students in the spring of 2015 were used. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, school-level
performance at the fifth-grade level, on the CAASPP administered in Spring 2015, was used to
identify schools performing above the State average (Standard Met + Standard Exceeded = 30%)
in math (California Department of Education, CAASPP, 2015).
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
47
The three schools studied met all stated criteria: (1) Title I elementary school; (2) STEM
reference in the school’s official name; (3) fifth grade performed above the State average on the
spring 2015 CST (science); and (4) fifth grade performed above the State average on the
CAASPP (math).
Research Design
This study used qualitative data. The research method followed Creswell’s (2014)
research design protocol which includes the purpose of the research, the preferred type of data
and form of data collection, the population, sampling, instrumentation and analysis (Creswell,
2014). It was designed as an ethnographic, multi-case study.
The qualitative study was conducted in the form of face-to-face interviews with the
school site administrators (three principals and one assistant principal) and fifth-grade teachers
from each school. The participants included three principals (one from each of the three schools);
one assistant principal (only one of the schools employed an assistant principal); and seven fifth-
grade teachers (two each from the first two schools studied; three from the third school studied)
for a total of eleven interviewees. Teacher interviews were limited to fifth-grade teachers
specifically since fifth-grade performance on state assessments was used to identify the high-
performing schools.
Merriam (2009) states that qualitative inquiry focuses on meaning in context and the
meaning people construct. Creswell (2014) suggests that face-to-face interviews are useful when
observation is not a possibility, because the participants can provide historical information.
Interviews also allow the research some measure of control over the inquiry process (Creswell,
2014).
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
48
Data collection and analysis took place in two phases: during the first phase, schools
were identified that met the study criteria; principals of eligible schools were contacted and
invited to participate in the study; and then one-on-one, face-to-face interviews were conducted
with the selected participants at three schools identified as meeting study criteria. Interviews
were audio-recorded, with consent. During the analysis phase, interview responses were
organized by reviewing the transcribed interviews, coding the raw data, and comparing and
analyzing the findings.
Instrumentation
Qualitative Research
The qualitative research design included interviews with principals and teachers at the
identified schools. The interviews provided information from the natural setting (offices and
classrooms); and provided an opportunity to collect both primary source data and to learn
firsthand what happened both in the past and what is happening presently at the school sites
(Creswell, 2014).
Interview protocols were used to ensure consistency in questioning, to support the
validity and reliability of the data collected. Patton (2002) states, that when conducting
interviews it is important to provide an opportunity for the interviewee to have the final say. The
author states that he received some of his best data from the closing question (Patton, 2002).
Therefore my interview protocol included one open-ended question at the end of the interview.
The interview protocol used in the study is included in Appendix A.
The researcher contacted principals at each of the identified sites to explain the purpose
of the research and to seek approval to interview the principal and teachers. During the initial
visit, a copy of the research questions and interview questions were provided, and interview
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
49
dates were scheduled. During the initial visit, the researcher also provided copies of the IRB
consent form(s) and explained the study’s protocols around privacy and confidentiality. The IRB
forms were left with the principals to review and voluntarily sign for approval to conduct the
study.
Data Collection
The qualitative research data was collected in person, by conducting and audio-recording
semi-structured interviews. After each interview concluded, the interviewer used the reflective
memo technique to record impressions and ideas that occurred during the interview. The
interviews, prompts and final open-ended questions were confidentially transcribed.
Data Analysis
The researcher reviewed interview transcripts in order to develop a comprehensive
analysis of the findings. The findings were compared to Bryk et al.’s (2010) essential supports in
order to determine convergent or divergent themes and patterns. The qualitative data was read,
re-read, studied, coded and labeled.
The researcher is aware that by choosing to conduct face-to-face interviews, the
researcher becomes the primary instrument, and may introduce biases during data collection
(Merriam, 2009).
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines
require a review of methods, questions, and surveys when researching human subjects. In
adherence to the IRB protocols, subjects received information about the purpose of the study in
order to provide informed consent. Participants were given time to consider their participation as
well as made aware their participation was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
50
IRB guidelines also require confidentiality. Creswell (2014) explains researchers need to
protect the participants and guard against personal disclosure and other improprieties.
Confidentiality was protected by using pseudonyms and abbreviations instead of identifying
names and places. All identifying information was available only to the researcher during
collection, storage (password protected), analysis and final reporting.
Summary
There are an abundance of studies on STEM education in middle school, high school, and
higher education, however, there is far less information on elementary schools. This study
contributes to the study of STEM initiatives at the elementary school level by discovering the
barriers as well as the effective implementation of effective STEM practices in low-income
elementary schools. This study focused on STEM early in a child’s education, which can benefit
all students as well as those low-income students who are challenged by a persistent gap in
academic achievement. The findings from the study are presented in Chapter 4.
Recommendations for further research follow in Chapter 5.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
51
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to discover how STEM initiatives are implemented
effectively in high-poverty schools. The goal was to identify effective, replicable strategies that
can be used in other high-poverty elementary schools to increase academic achievement in the
STEM disciplines. The research questions guiding this study were as follows:
1. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as effective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
2. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as ineffective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
3. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as the barriers to STEM academic achievement in their schools?
Overview of the Schools Studied
A qualitative study design was used to answer the research questions. First, elementary
schools in California that met the criteria outlined for the study were identified. The qualifying
criteria included: (a) high-poverty, as evidenced by designation as a Title I elementary school in
2014-15; (b) a demonstrated commitment to STEM education, as evidenced by a reference to
“science” and/or “technology” and/or “engineering” and/or “math” and/or “STEM” in the
official school name; (c) above-average performance on State measures of academic
achievement in science and math, as evidenced by the school’s aggregate fifth grade
achievement on the Spring 2015 CST (science) and Spring 2015 CAASPP (math) as compared to
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
52
the State averages for these same assessments. After identifying schools that met the criteria,
three schools were contacted and invited to participate. School leaders (principals, assistant
principal) and fifth-grade teachers at each of the three participating schools were interviewed.
The study was limited to three elementary schools that met the study criteria. Each of
these schools is described briefly in this section. The schools have been assigned pseudonyms
(School A, School B, and School C) in order to protect the identity and confidentiality of the
interview sources.
School A
School A is a public elementary school located in a small, rural community. School A is
designated as a STEM magnet school. Median income for the community is slightly below the
overall U.S. median income. Total enrollment (K-6) is under 300 students, which makes it the
smallest school, by enrollment, included in this study. Student ethnicity at School A is more than
75% “White, not Hispanic”, with the next largest ethnicity (more than 15%) being “Hispanic or
Latino of Any Race.” Fewer than 10% of the enrolled students are designated as English
Language Learners (ELLs).
School A’s combined scores (percentage of fifth-grade students meeting and/or
exceeding state standards in math plus the percentage of fifth-grade students assessing as
proficient and/or advanced in science) were the lowest of the three schools studied, although this
school still met the study criteria of exceeding the State averages in both math and science.
I interviewed the Principal (Principal A) and two fifth-grade teachers at School A
(Teacher A1, Teacher A2) using the interview protocol included in Appendix A.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
53
School B
School B is a public elementary school located in a highly urban area. School B is a
“school of choice”, i.e. families who live in the attendance area may register their students to
indicate interest, but actual enrollment is determined by lottery. Median income for the city the
school is located in is about 15% lower than the median income for the United States. Total
enrollment (K-6) is over 800 students, making it the largest of the three schools studied. Student
ethnicity at School B is slightly more than 50% “White, not Hispanic”, with the next largest
ethnic group “Hispanic or Latino of Any Race” at 40%. Fewer than 10% of the enrolled students
are designated as English Language Learners (ELLs).
Although School B met the Title I criteria for this study, the principal of the school did
not expect the school to meet Title I criteria for much longer. Principal B said that because the
school is a “parent choice” school with an emphasis on STEM, it is attracting a different
population which is in turn impacting the demographics of the student population.
We get a lot of families whose students are in private school inquiring about the school.
People will come here, take a tour of the school, and say, ‘How much does it cost to go
here?’ and we will say, ‘It’s free.’ So we get students from private schools enrolling.
I interviewed the Principal (Principal B), the Assistant Principal (Assistant Principal B)
and three fifth-grade teachers at School B (Teacher B1, Teacher B2, Teacher B3) using the
interview protocol included in Appendix A.
School C
School C is a public elementary school located in a suburban area, with total enrollment
(K-5) falling about halfway between that of the smallest school (School A) and the largest school
(School B) in the study. Like School B, School C is a “school of choice”, i.e. families who live in
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
54
the attendance area may register their students to indicate interest, but actual enrollment is
determined by lottery.
The median income in the city School C is located in is nearly 85% higher than the
median income for the United States. At School C, the largest ethnic group is “Hispanic or
Latino of Any Race” at 50%, with the next largest group “White, not Hispanic” at a little over
25%, followed by a significant number of students (15%) identifying as “Asian, not Hispanic.”
Approximately 35% of School C’s students are designated as English Language Learners.
Principal C noted that the school’s ELL population is increasing.
School C’s combined scores (percentage of fifth-grade students meeting and/or exceeding
state standards in math plus the percentage of fifth-grade students assessing as proficient and/or
advanced in science) were the highest of the three schools studied.
I interviewed the Principal (Principal C) and three fifth-grade teachers at School C
(Teacher C1, Teacher C2, Teacher C3) using the interview protocol included in Appendix A.
Alignment of Findings with the Five Essential Supports
The school improvement framework delineated by Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu
and Easton (2010) was used as the framework for this study, providing the structure for both the
literature review (Chapter 2) and the interview protocol for the research subjects (Appendix A).
Bryk et al., (201) identify “five essential supports” related to school improvement and student
academic achievement in high-poverty elementary schools. The five “essential supports” in this
framework are identified as: (1) leadership as the driver for change; (2) parent-community ties;
(3) professional capacity; (4) a student-centered learning climate; and (5) instructional guidance
(Bryk et al., 2010). The findings, as related to the research questions, are presented in the
following sections which align with the five essential supports.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
55
Leadership as the Driver for Change
Bryk et al., (2010) identifies leadership as the first “essential support” for school
improvement. Accordingly, interview subjects at the three schools were asked the following
question: “What was the role of school leadership as a factor in your students’ academic
achievement in math and science?”
Effective strategies. In response to the interview question, the principals used words like
“encourage,” “provider,” “facilitator,” “support,” “innovate,” and “servant to teachers” to
describe leadership’s role. Principals’ responses to the interview questions indicated they saw
themselves as being in a position to impact the big picture:
[Over the course of my career] I developed leadership capacity and the compassion to
look at making large-scale change … impacting entire schools, and creating
environments that were good for kids, and really looking how to get kids to achieve more
and enjoy school more … I came to the public school system with the hope of
transforming schools and transforming people. (Principal C)
Related to the idea of big-picture impact, is the idea of leadership as visionary and intentional.
Giles et al., (2007) concluded that districts interested in improving student achievement at high-
risk public schools should be purposeful in their choices. Principal C sees this intentionality as
part of the role of leadership at the school level as well:
A very long answer to the role of leadership is to first really identify why you exist as a
school, what your fundamental purpose is. For us, it's very clear: our purpose is to
maintain our STEM focus. Since that's the case, then we need to communicate that to
everyone, ‘this is who we are.’ And that translates into, "Here's what everybody needs to
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
56
be doing," which translates into, "What do I need to do to make you feel comfortable
doing it?"
Heck and Hallinger (2009) suggested that collaborative leadership can positively impact
learning by building staff and school capacity. Each of the three principals interviewed appear to
have a collaborative leadership style, based upon the interviews conducted with each of them as
well as the interviews conducted with the teachers reporting to the principals.
I'd love to take more credit than is due probably for my role as the principal. I mean, as
you know, the bulk of the work is what happens in the classroom on a day-to-day basis.
We've seen over and over that teacher effectiveness is what is going to drive [assessment]
results. However, at the same time, I think leadership has a very big role in terms of: what
philosophy do we bring? How do we support the programs? How do we create the
conditions and the space for these subjects to thrive and for these students to thrive in
these [STEM] areas? How do I support teacher training? How do I provide resources? A
big part of my role is pushing the thinking, continually getting the teachers to reflect:
what can we try? What can we do? How can we push the envelope? (Principal C)
Both Principals B and C emphasized the supportive role of leadership, particularly for
principals of schools. “The bulk of the role of leadership is support,” said Principal C.
“I like being the provider for the teachers,” said Principal B. “I learned as an
administrator, we are a servant for the teachers, as well as for other staff members, but
particularly for the teachers, because they are on the frontlines.”
Teacher interviewees used words such as “provide,” “facilitate,” “coach,” “support,”
“encourage,” “high expectations” and “accommodating” to describe leadership’s role in STEM
academic achievement at their respective schools. Teachers emphasized the importance of
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
57
receiving support from their principals in order to implement innovative strategies within the
classroom.
Teacher A1 described the importance of support from leadership when he initiated a
student-centered learning model in a classroom that had previously used a more traditional
instructional methodology.
I developed some methodologies on student-centered learning and ran it by [the
Principal], and he was really encouraging about it. He gave me permission to do
everything. I said, "I want to do this," and he said, "Okay go do it." Politically, it
was pretty rough starting out. A lot of parents had this idea of a traditional
classroom, and they didn’t like the idea of student-centered learning where all of
the kids were working in groups all of the time. But the principal supported what I
was doing and helped me with answering the parents’ questions. And so that was
very, very helpful.
Orphanos and Orr (2014) found that when principals were often sought out for advice by
their teachers, the more involved teachers became in the adoption of new practices and policies.
Principal C described a situation in which project-based learning was being used to teach a
science concept in a second-grade classroom at School C. Two teachers were facilitating the
activity. One teacher, who was working on a Master’s degree in STEM education at the time,
was quite comfortable with the project-based activity; the second teacher, who was used to direct
instruction in a traditional classroom, was less comfortable with the new approach.
I went in the classroom to observe and I could see that she [the second teacher] was
uncomfortable because it's messy, it's loud, and kids have a lot of stuff going on. I asked
her, ‘What's this like for you?’ She said, ‘It's really hard because I'm used to being in
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
58
control and controlling every step all of the way: build it like this, first take this piece of
paper then take this piece of paper. This is new territory for me to allow them to select
different things and try different things.’ She said, ‘But, I now can't imagine doing it any
other way because I hear the conversations, I hear the learning that's taking place, and the
conversations the kids are having and the rationale are just so much richer than if I said,
okay, step one, take your paper bags, step two ...’ (Principal C)
Principal C concluded that, “A big role of leaders is being learners, alongside our
teachers.”
Orphanos and Orr (2014) also found that a collaborative principal/teacher relationship
improved school climate, creating a culture of innovation. Teacher C2 said, “[The Principal]
wants us to be innovators in all of our areas. Whether we are doing math or science or social
science, you know, he's always wanting to be innovators of the forefront of those areas.”
Meaningful support for teachers included not only support for innovative approaches to
the classroom, but also practical support, including time for professional development and the
provision of teaching resources, including classroom supplies and laboratory space. Speaking of
a previous principal at School A, one teacher noted:
[The previous principal] was one of these just over-the-top energy people. She
took on a lot of projects personally. For example, one of the local colleges was
rebuilding a science lab, so she got lab equipment and supplies and furniture from
them. And she got it delivered and set up so our kids have a science lab. She even
broke all the sets apart and categorized them into different little sets so that we
could easily find the thermometers if we wanted to do an experiment, things like
that. So the kids got to do a lot of real good hands-on stuff because it was easy for
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
59
teachers to use. And I felt like that was really important for the science portion of
it with the kids. (Teacher A2)
Finally, both principals and teachers identified leadership as being important in setting an
overall expectation of high academic performance for the school as a whole. “I think we are held
to a very high standard here. They [administration] let us have a lot of freedom, but they also
hold us to a very high standard,” said Teacher B1. Teacher B2 concurred, “There's just a strong
relationship between administration and the teachers here. We're all kind of on the same page
and we have very high expectations.”
Ineffective strategies. In general, the interviewees focused on the aspects of leadership
they felt effectively contributed to each school’s above-average performance in math and
science. None of the interviewees identified ineffective strategies specific to leadership.
However, one teacher’s response implied that an involved leader who is focused on the wrong
priorities might be less than effective in supporting teachers’ investment in STEM:
The current principal offers us a ton of support. A ton of support is such a good feeling.
Our principle will say to us, ‘What do you need? Let me know what you need. I can get
that for you. I'll make it happen.’ Or he will be just checking in, asking, ‘How are things
going?’ That's a good feeling to feel that support. I haven't always had that. I've had
someone in the leadership role be more concerned with what's on my bulletin board than
what is happening in the classroom … (Teacher C3)
Beyond this single comment, interviewees seemed disinclined to discuss negative aspects
of leadership or leadership strategies they might have experienced.
Barriers. The interviewees had little to say about barriers related to leadership, with one
exception. Several interviewees mentioned the challenges of moving forward with STEM
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
60
initiatives in the context of significant leadership turnover. Several teachers had experienced
periods of significant principal turnover during their careers and they noted that with each new
principal came a new vision and new priorities, making it challenging to move forward
consistently with STEM initiatives from one year to the next. Similar challenges occurred when
district leadership changed, or when district priorities and initiatives changed from year to year.
The Importance of Parent-Community Ties
Parent-community ties are the second essential support identified by Bryk et al. (2010).
The authors suggest that by encouraging relationships with parents and surrounding
communities, school staff can make school a welcoming environment and develop a partnership
with parents, working together in the best interests of each student (Bryk et al., 2010). Interview
subjects at each of the three schools were asked, “What was the role of parent-community ties to
the school as a factor in your students’ academic achievement in math and science?”
Effective strategies. Epstein (2006) defined six types of parental involvement that are
important to student learning, including (1) parenting; (2) communicating, (3) volunteering, (4)
learning at home, (5) decision-making, and (6) collaborating with the community. Each of these
aspects of parental involvement was referenced over the course of the eleven interviews.
Parenting. The majority of the interviewees viewed parental involvement as critical to
student success.
We have a lot of helicopter parents, but we also have just involved parents. And I'll trade
a helicopter parent for somebody who's absent any time. The kids get a lot of support at
home, and that, I think, makes them more successful at school. (Teacher A2)
Communicating. Each of the three schools studied placed importance on parent-school
communication, although each school used different types of strategies to facilitate
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
61
communication. School B, in particular, uses a variety of methods to ensure communication with
parents, including opt-in text notifications for parents; email communications; a requirement that
every teacher in the school maintain an updated website; and regular opportunities for face-to-
face interaction between school staff and parents.
At one time I was an assistant principal under a principal who got dinged by the teachers
for lack of communication. And I decided, then, that I would never be accused of that.
People joke about how many e-mails I send out now, but I never want people to not know
something that they should know. (Principal B)
Principal B hosts an informal, open meeting for parents every other month, immediately
after school starts for the day. He finds that since parents are already there, dropping their
children off at school, they are sometimes more likely to attend this informal gathering then an
evening event. He reports that as many as 30 parents regularly participate in this informal
meeting. Principal B uses this time to talk about what is going on at the school and to discuss
parents’ concerns and gather information about topics they would like to know more about.
As a follow-up, several times a year, School B hosts evening training sessions, called
‘Parent Academies,’ geared toward parents. Using the information he gathers during the informal
morning meetings as a guide, the Principal will schedule an evening training session on a topic
such as ‘Common Core Math.’ During these sessions, teachers from the school come in and
teach parents about the evening’s topic.
Each of the three schools studied also offered evening activities for students and their
families that emphasized the STEM focus, including ‘Family Science Night’ and/or ‘Family
Math Night’ and/or ‘STEM Night.’ These events facilitate sharing about science and math
projects, activities and concepts between students, teachers and parents.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
62
Volunteering. All three schools welcome parent volunteers. Teacher A1 spoke for many
of the teacher interviewees when he stated, “I always like to have parent volunteers. I think that's
where the parents really help me out the most.” (Teacher A1) School B provides guidelines for
potential parent volunteers in the school’s parent/student handbook and also posts volunteer
guidelines on the school website. School B also created a ‘parent center,’ a dedicated room for
parent volunteers with young children, so parent volunteers can work on projects for teachers
without the younger children disrupting the classroom.) (Principal B)
Epstein (2009) suggests the principal sets the tone as an advocate for parent-school
collaboration through school policies, staff decisions, and actions. It appears that each of these
three schools has done so successfully, as each school reported countless parent volunteers.
As a parent-choice school, there's no way anyone comes close to us in the amount of
parent volunteers we have. We have so much parent involvement we had to split our
back-to-school night into two nights because it's so crowded. And as far as parent-teacher
conferences, we regularly hit a 99% attendance rate. (Principal B)
Both School B and School C both mentioned that as parent-choice, STEM-focused
schools, they seem to attract students whose parents are employed in STEM-related fields. This
creates a so-called “virtuous circle” for these schools, as parents employed in STEM-related
fields contribute resources that further enrich each school’s STEM environment. “We find out
who the engineers are, who the scientists are, and so on. Last year, one student’s father was a
scientist, and he would come in and work with students in his daughter’s grade level, doing
experiments with them …” (Principal B)
School C is located in a community that is surrounded by biotechnology, robotics and
other companies that hire engineers.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
63
That helps us tremendously. The kids get a lot of enrichment activities. We get a lot of
speakers, parents coming in and doing presentations. Or the parents knowing somebody
who can come in and do a STEM presentation, or provide other resources. (Principal C)
School C’s parents are so enthusiastic about STEM they created a booster club, outside
the auspices of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), specifically in order to raise funds to
support STEM programming at the school.
Learning at home. The abundance of parent involvement at school not only makes
everyone more accountable, but also carries over into expectations of learning at home.
[Parent involvement] makes a big difference. Our parents are very involved at this school
and the kids know it, the teachers know it and it makes everyone pay a little bit more
attention. You know when you have that kind of accountability, you step up a bit more,
and the kids are the same way. The kids know, 'Mom and Dad are going to ask me what's
going on when I get home'. The parents expect their best work. They expect A's from
these kids. (Teacher B1)
Decision-making. Noguera (2004) asserts that when parents are respected as partners in
the education of their children, and provided information and school support, the culture of the
organization can be renovated. School C, in particular, has been intentional in including parents
not only as volunteers, but in a decision-making capacity as well.
At this school, the parents have been included in everything along the way. I've been
involved in a lot of the steering committees for the different things that we've done at the
school, and there's always been parent involvement. And by involvement, I mean they
have been invited to participate in steering committees in a voting capacity. They
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
64
participated in the steering committee that helped us transition to a focus on science and
technology ... the parents have a say in where we are going. (Teacher C1)
In all, the schools studied used a variety of traditional and creative strategies to facilitate
parent involvement. Table 1 summarizes the different strategies used by each school.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
65
Table 1
Strategies Used to Facilitate Parent Engagement
Strategy School A School B School C
Opt-in texts x
Email x
Individual teacher websites, regularly updated x
Informal morning meeting with principal x
Parent volunteers x x x
Parent Center for volunteers x
Parent guest speakers x x
Parent Academy x
Family Math Night x x x
Family Science Night x x
Family STEM Night x
STEM Booster Club x
Parent involvement in decision-making bodies x
Collaborating with the community. The three schools studied focused their engagement
activities more on parent involvement than on general community involvement. In many ways,
community collaboration evolved naturally from parent involvement, as when a parent’s
employer provided STEM-focused resources, such as guest speakers, for the schools.
School B leverages the display of student’s science projects during Family Science Night
to engage members of the general community, in addition to parents.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
66
We will invite community members to come in and judge science projects and give prizes
related to that. Maybe a local restaurant will give a prize to the best science project that
has to do with food. Or a bank will give a prize to the best science project that has to do
with data and numbers, and they will give the student a pencil and a gift card. Altogether
we have about ten community members come in and they give prizes based on their
company's theme. Which, which is pretty cool. Because it may not actually be the best
project, the student may not have actually won anything in the regular science fair. But
that community member saw the project and went, "That's pretty cool." (Principal B)
Ineffective strategies. None of the interviewees identified specific strategies for
parent/community engagement as being ineffective. As illustrated in Table 2, each school used a
variety of different strategies that they found to be effective for their particular school and their
particular community.
Barriers. In Bower and Griffin’s (2011) case study of the application of Epstein’s
parental involvement model in a single, high-minority, high-poverty school, the authors noted
that “traditional definitions of parental involvement require investments of time and money from
parents” (78). Furthermore, they stated that parents deemed uninvolved may simply have barriers
to involvement due to their impoverished socioeconomic status; they may not have the time or
the money to participate in school activities in traditional ways (Bower & Griffin, 2011).
Each school in this study served a student population with a mix of socioeconomic
characteristics. On the one hand, committing to a STEM focus “attracts a lot of the higher socio-
economic status people to that school” which can contribute to high parent engagement and
involvement (Principal C). On the other hand, all of the schools in this study were designated as
Title I schools at the time of the study. High parental involvement from the families on the
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
67
higher end of the socioeconomic scale has the potential to mask a lack of accessible involvement
from parents of students living in poverty, or facing language barriers and other challenges.
A challenge for any child in any school, not just ours, is what kind of support the parent
can provide at home. It's not a matter that they don't want to, it's just, what can they do?
Common core and our emphasis on science and math, are way above what many of our
parents can provide. Many of our parents in poverty have not gone past third or fourth
grade [in their own education], so they can't provide the conversation at home that brings
the children up. And they don’t have the tools, either. We can’t say, “Here, save your
document on Google Docs and when you get home you can work on it,” because they
don’t have a computer at home. I see that as our biggest challenge: the economic
challenges the children are facing at home. (Teacher C1)
To address this, School C offers before school and after school programs for students that
offer homework help, science labs, and enrichment activities such as music and drama.
Nevertheless, as Bower and Griffin (2011) concluded, “the Epstein model may not fully capture
how parents are or want to be involved in their children’s education, indicating that new ways of
working with parents in high-minority, high-poverty schools are warranted” (85). The parent
involvement strategies described in this section are most accessible to parents without
educational, socioeconomic or language barriers. Clearly, there is more research to be done on
how to meaningfully engage parents facing these challenges.
The Role of Professional Capacity
Professional capacity, defined as both the quality of new staff and professional
development supports for existing staff, is the third essential support (Bryk et al., 2010). The
authors suggest that all institutions depend on the quality of their work force, but that
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
68
professional capacity is especially critical in education where the effectiveness of schooling is
dependent on the capacity of the teachers (Bryk et al., 2010). As part of the interview protocol,
interviewees were asked, “What was the role of the professional capacity of your teachers as a
factor in your students’ academic achievement in math and science?” (Appendix A).
Effective strategies. With professional capacity, as with the previous supports, each of
the three schools studied was purposeful and deliberate with respect to the development of
professional capacity. When School B became a parent-choice school with a focus on STEM,
leadership had the opportunity to create a committed teaching staff from scratch. The opportunity
to assemble a staff of enthusiastic teachers who were committed to STEM education was critical
(Principal B)
When we first started the school, our teachers came from all different schools, teachers
from maybe five or six different elementary schools coming together. Which is tricky,
because nobody knows each other. But we started with the belief that hardworking people
want to work with hardworking people. A lot of the teachers that came here were kind of
the lone rangers at their school, they wanted to get away from the dead weight that wasn’t
doing anything. So it was people who wanted to come together and work with other
people that care and that work hard. And we still have that. (Principal B)
The Assistant Principal at School B concurred that intentional hiring practices are
important. “You really have to see, ‘Are they going to be a good fit here?’ If you have any doubt,
you can’t settle. That’s really part of it” (Assistant Principal B)
School A’s experience was different, because they transitioned to a STEM focus with
existing teaching staff already in place. “We’re really trying to make this transition from a
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
69
traditional school to a STEM school. Some of the teachers are a little bit farther along than others
at this point” (Teacher A1).
As Bryk et al., (2010) points out, the quality of new staff is only one aspect of
professional capacity: support for staff professional development is the other part of the equation.
Principal A believes that professional capacity is the most significant of the five essential
supports. “I would say that [professional capacity] is the strongest factor … training our teachers,
and having our teachers come back as experts is probably one of the biggest factors influencing
our student test scores” (Principal A).
Nadelson et al., (2013) found that students’ foundational knowledge of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics is formed in their elementary years, however,
paradoxically, the majority of elementary teachers are not prepared to teach the STEM
disciplines confidently and adequately. The authors found that without the appropriate tools,
knowledge and training in STEM, teachers may feel uncomfortable and ill prepared to teach
basic STEM concepts to children (Nadelson et al., 2013).
Leadership at each of the schools studied for this project understood the need for STEM-
specific professional development for teachers as an integral part of their commitment to STEM
learning. The teachers interviewed also showed awareness of the need for specialized training
related to STEM instruction.
I’m a new teacher. I came to teaching after a career in accounting. I obviously have my
credential, and I did get my master’s degree before starting, but I struggle with teaching
math. To me, it’s just obvious, you know, so when kids struggle with it, it’s like, why
don’t you get this? Because I’m good at it, it’s a little harder for me to teach that specific
topic. (Teacher B1)
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
70
The majority of professional development offered in each school relates to STEM in
some fashion, including how to develop STEM curriculum, STEM content and resources, and
how to integrate STEM-friendly learning methodologies, such as project-based learning (PBL)
into the classroom. Generally, the professional development support offered by the schools
studied falls into one of four categories: (a) professional development offered by external
providers; (b) district-driven professional development; (c) school-based, in-house professional
development; and (d) peer support strategies.
Professional development offered by external providers. External professional
development strategies included sending teachers to conferences or specialized trainings.
Numerous studies support the positive effects of targeted teacher training opportunities on
student outcomes (Dyehouse, Yoon, Lucietto, and Diefes-Dux, 2012; Georges, Borman & Lee,
2010; Ledbetter, 2012; Nadelson et al., 2013; Tutwiler et al., 2014). School B was able to partner
with a second school and send teaching staff to the Buck Institute of Education for specialized
training in project-based learning (PBL), which is a particularly STEM-friendly instructional
methodology. However, external training can put a strain on school resources, due to costs
related to travel, registration and lodging, along with the costs of hiring a substitute teacher to
cover the classroom while the teacher attends the training (Principal B).
Some of the schools have had success funding external professional development
opportunities through STEM-specific grant programs (Principal A). As noted in Chapter 1, the
lack of STEM skills in education is attracting State and national attention. As a consequence,
numerous STEM-specific professional development opportunities are being made available by
various State and Federal sources, including the California Department of Education and the
National Science Foundation (Principal A).
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
71
One of the teachers interviewed had participated in intensive professional development
training through the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Teacher Resources for
Achievement, Collaboration, Knowledge and Standards (STEM-TRACKS) grant program. The
program offers professional development including Summer Intensive Institutes that help
teachers incorporate the STEM disciplines into classroom instruction. The STEM-TRACKS
program is the result of a grant funded by the California Math and Science Partnership through
the California Department of Education.
A second interviewee had participated in STEM-specific professional development
through a previous grant program. Also funded by the California Math and Science Partnership
(CaMSP), this grant provided professional development related to STEM instruction to more
than 45 teachers in three counties over the course of three years.
School C enhances professional capacity through a partnership with a nearby university’s
School of Education. School C and the University use a Professional Development School (PDS)
model, whereby approximately 10 teacher candidates per year from the University are placed as
co-teachers with veteran teachers in the school. Rather than the traditional eight-week teaching
assignments, these teacher candidates work with mentor teachers “from the first day of school to
the last day of school” (Principal C).
… they [teacher candidates] bring new ideas. And they are often more comfortable with
the STEM projects and ideas, so our staff is also learning by working alongside them. I
think that is a big factor in our success. At the end of the day, to me it's about connecting
with kids so they have hope. And when you have more qualified good adults and good
people connecting with kids, then your environment's going to be richer. (Principal C)
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
72
In addition, faculty members from the University offer professional development at the
school site for both teacher candidates and mentoring teachers. Faculty also lead classes at the
school site to demonstrate different methods and techniques. “I really grow from that,” said
Teacher C1.
District-driven professional development. Leaders and teachers at all three schools found
the District to be a good source of professional development opportunities.
Our district has a really good curriculum director … she put together a few really nice
programs for teachers, to show us new methods, particularly with science, and focusing
on doing projects with the kids. We also talked about doing little science stories with the
kids, so after you do an experiment, you have them write a little story about doing that
experiment afterwards, things like that. Those kinds of professional development
[activities], when the professional development is right on target and something I could
use … they’ve really helped out. (Teacher A1)
The District office offered professional development after school, both in math and
science. I went to several of those. It wasn't just simply how to teach fractions or how to
teach math, it was about higher order thinking … like ‘number talks,’ making them think
about numbers and connect the things that they already know to the new things they're
learning. For example, just putting a number on the board and brainstorming everything
you know about that number and what it could mean and just any thoughts that come to
their head. There was training on things like that. (Teacher B1)
School B’s District also provides curriculum/content coaches for the schools in their
district (Assistant Principal B). The curriculum/content coaches conduct staff trainings in
specialized subjects such as math and science.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
73
We had the science coach come in and train the teachers on how to read the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Because you look at [the standards] and it’s like,
"Hmm, this is colorful. Like what does this mean?" And so bringing in the coaches and
providing training has been encouraging for the teachers. (Principal B)
Content coaches also work one-on-one with new teachers as part of the District’s
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction program. “My [induction] coach
has given me some good tools. She’s probably been my best resource” (Teacher B1).
School-based, in-house professional development. All three schools made use of the
“train-the-trainer” model, wherein select teachers would attend professional development
provided by external organizations, and then bring back knowledge and strategies to share with
the rest of the teaching staff. The “train-the-trainer” model was seen as one way to mitigate the
costs of external professional development, in order to use limited professional development
resources effectively (Principal B).
Peer support strategies. Each of the schools studied also used peer-to-peer support
strategies to enhance teachers’ professional capacity as well.
Technology is playing an increasingly important role in all classroom instruction,
including STEM instruction. Assistant Principal B noted, “We are getting more and more
technology in our school, and our students are exposed to more and more technology. Our
students are beginning to surpass us in technology skills.” Teacher B2 said, “You have to be
literate in technology to be successful [in this school].” To that end, School B initiated a weekly,
voluntary, once per week “Tech Time” for teachers to meet and provide peer support in the use
of technology in the classroom. The weekly support group includes teachers with advanced
technology skills, and those who are still learning, and provides a resource for using technology
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
74
in the classroom, including help with troubleshooting technology problems and informal
instruction on how to use interactive white boards in the classroom (Assistant Principal B).
Schools B and C also use professional learning communities (PLCs) to enhance
professional capacity. School B’s district adopted a PLC approach to implementing Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS) across the district, but allows each school within the
district to implement the PLC structure in their own way (Principal B).
School B’s PLCs are comprised of both grade-level teacher groups and adjacent-grade
teacher groups, to facilitate vertical articulation within the school (Assistant Principal B). PLCs
at School B focus on the “four essential questions” of a PLC, including (1) What do we expect
our students to learn? i.e. goals and expectations; (2) How will we know they are learning? i.e.
assessments; (3) How will we respond when they don’t learn? i.e. intervention strategies; and (4)
How will we respond if they already know it? i.e. gifted students (Principal B).
School B’s teachers have access to and have been trained on a software resource that
allows them to create common assessments aligned with content standards. After the assessments
are administered, the PLCs review the resulting data to identify which content areas need
additional work and which have been mastered, by looking at individual student results, small
group results and results by classroom and grade level.
The PLCs play a huge part here. The teachers are able to work together and develop
common assessments, and then look at the data, look at the results and decide how that
will affect what they are going to do next. They use the results of the common
assessments to look at re-teaching [content]. They discuss, ‘What are we going to do with
the kids that got it? And what are we going to do with the kids that didn’t get it?’ They
share classroom strategies and come up with solutions. (Assistant Principal B)
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
75
School C also uses PLCs. Within the context of the PLCs, teachers reflect on classroom
practices and share effective strategies. “If something’s not working, we’ll problem solve on how
to get it working” (Teacher C3). Teachers also use PLC time to design interventions for students.
“At PLC time we will sit down and go over our class list, and we can talk about what is going on
with a particular kid and how we might modify instruction accordingly” (Teacher C3).
One additional peer-centered strategy for enhancing professional capacity identified by
School C was using a team-teaching approach at the 5th grade level. This strategy enhances
professional capacity by allowing each teacher to specialize in a particular subject, rather than
attempting to be an expert across all content, thus extending professional capacity across the
grade level.
We each have our specialized subjects for science, social science and math. We each get
to focus on the one of the three areas that we feel is more of our strength, and that helps
when we teach the kids. The kids need to have that teacher whose strength is science, or
math, or social science. And the specialization helps you [as a teacher] have a little more
passion … (Teacher C2)
Teacher C2 also noted, that as a side benefit, the team teaching approach helps prepare
fifth graders for middle school, where rotation between classrooms is the norm, rather than the
exception (Teacher C2).
Table 2 summarizes the different strategies used to enhance professional capacity.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
76
Table 2
Strategies Used to Enhance Professional Capacity
Hiring External District In-House Peer
Vet for STEM fit Conferences District training Train-the-trainer Peer tech group
Training Content coaches PLCs
Grant programs Induction Team teaching
PDS partner
Ineffective strategies. None of the interviewees identified specific strategies related to
increasing professional capacity as being ineffective.
Barriers. The Principals interviewed echoed the findings of Nadelson et al., (2013) who
found that traditional teacher training programs do not necessarily prepare teachers to teach
STEM content and concepts.
Our biggest challenges is keeping the staff in a position to focus on STEM and bring
STEM thinking and STEM activities into the classroom, so that it's an ongoing part of
our culture in every classroom, not just for the specialist focus. That's a big challenge,
having teachers feel comfortable and knowledgeable enough to do the STEM thinking
activities, lesson planning and designing and not leave it just for the specials. And that
comes from the majority of them not having a math or science background and feeling
uncomfortable with it. (Principal C)
Although many STEM professional development training opportunities are available
(training from external providers, conferences, national resources, district resources, etc.)
accessibility is limited by each school’s resources, including time and money.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
77
A second barrier is the increasing demand on teachers’ time in the service of multiple
professional development priorities. For example, in 2010, California’s State Board of Education
adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (CDE, 2016a). In the years since CCSS was
adopted, many teachers’ limited professional development time has been focused on
implementation of the new standards, leaving little time for professional development focused on
other areas (Principal C).
Principal A noted that it is common for teachers to respond to new professional
development initiatives by saying, “I’m being spread too thin! Too many things are being thrown
at me!”. “I was a teacher for a long time and I know what that feels like,” said Principal A.
“That’s why I try to focus on one thing at a time. One thing at a time allows you to perfect and
master that” (Principal A).
A Student-Centered Learning Climate
Bryk et al. (2010) defines the fourth essential support as a student-centered learning
environment. The authors further subdivide student-centered learning climate into three sub-
categories: (a) order and safety; (b) teachers’ academic press and personalism; and (c) supportive
peer norms (Bryk et al., 2010). In the structured interview, each interviewee was asked, “What
was the role of having a student-centered learning climate (safe supportive school environment)
as a factor in your students’ academic achievement in math and science?” (Appendix A).
Effective strategies. Interviewees from each of the three schools agreed that order and
safety must be in place in order for learning to take place. Principal C stated, “If you want any
learning to be done, you have to have a safe, nurturing and supportive environment. I think it is
one of the most critical elements, and it doesn’t really matter what subject you are doing.”
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
78
In response to the question about the learning climate, only School B described using a
specific, external, behavioral standard school-wide that reaches every level of student (Assistant
Principal B and Teacher B1). School B adheres to the behaviors advocated in the book, “The 7
Habits of Highly Effective People,” by Stephen R. Covey. Posters describing the “7 Habits” are
placed around the school; teachers and staff are encouraged to use the language of the program in
the classroom; and a version of the “7 Habits” is posted on the school’s website (Assistant
Principal B).
We use the language of the Seven Habits starting in kinder and going up through sixth
grade. The office staff use it, the teachers use it and the students use it, so it's ingrained
over and over in their heads. When you hear a kindergartner say, "That student is being
proactive," you're like, uhmmm ... but if you ask that kindergartner what it means, they
will say, 'It means they know what to do without having to be told.' They can explain it.
It's not just a word to them. That's why I think it's effective. (Assistant Principal B)
Use of the ‘7 Habits’ at School B also provides a common language for behavioral
accountability. “There’s no way for students to say, ‘oh, I didn’t know that’ or ‘I haven’t heard
of that,’ because everybody in our school is using that language” (Assistant Principal B).
With respect to order and safety, none of the three schools reported significant problems
with bullying or related behaviors (Principal A, Principal B, Principal C). With respect to
teachers’ academic press, all three schools reported maintaining high expectations for students
(Principal A; Teacher B1; Principal C).
I do think though that the rigor of our work is higher than what we're seeing at other
schools. When we compare what we're doing to the other schools in the same district,
we're definitely seeing that we're asking more of our students here, and that's starting
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
79
from kindergarten. My daughter was in kindergarten here last year and I was shocked at
the things that they were doing. But if you expect more, the kids do more. That's just how
it is. You know, you raise the expectations and they'll meet them. They'll do their best to
jump up and do it. They're used to those high expectations and it's just not a big deal to
them. They rise up. (Teacher B1)
Teacher B1’s perspective aligns with the research of Rubie-Davies et al. (2014) whose
research found that teacher expectations were found to significantly predict students’ year end
outcomes at grade levels for kindergarten, first and fourth grade.
Teachers at School C reported additional activities geared toward making students feel
safe, although these were smaller in scope than School B’s school-wide strategy. For example, at
the end of the year, the third and fourth grade teachers and their classes met so that the third
graders could meet their next year’s teachers and ask questions of the fourth graders about what
to expect in fourth grade (Teacher C2). In Teacher C3’s classroom:
I have a little mailbox, so if they need to talk, and it is not something they want to say out
loud, or say in front of everybody, they can put a note in there. Then I can talk to them, or
if they don’t want to talk to me, they can talk to the counselor. (Teacher C3)
Only School C mentioned the school learning climate in the context of their identity as a
STEM school.
… with respect to math and science, it's really about building confidence. A lot of what
we do is focusing on the girls as well as the boys, to really break down those stereotypes.
We tell the boys and the girls they can all be scientists, they can all be engineers, because
the goal is to think like it. You don't have to be a genius mathematically or scientifically
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
80
but our goal is to get them to think about problem solving: here is the problem, how are
we going to solve it? (Principal C)
Ineffective strategies. None of the interviewees identified any specific strategies related
to school learning climate that they felt were ineffective in and of themselves.
Barriers. None of the interviewees identified barriers specific to creating or maintaining
a student-centered learning climate. The researcher’s observation is that because the other
supports named by Bryk et al. (2010) tend to take priority (i.e. leadership, professional
development, parent engagement and instructional guidance), there appears to be little
professional development or purposeful strategy around this topic beyond simply making school
counselors available.
Instructional Guidance
The fifth and final essential support identified by Bryk et al. (2010) in the school
improvement framework is instructional guidance, including supports for curriculum and
instruction. Bryk et al (2010) explains that content, pacing, and grades map what students are
expected to learn; curriculum organization specifies what will be learned over time, and the
instructional guidance system describes how knowledge will be learned. In the structured
interviews, each interviewee was asked, “What was the role of instructional guidance (school
wide supports for curriculum and instruction) as a factor in your students’ academic achievement
in math and science?” (Appendix A).
The instructional guidance strategies used at each of the schools studied are happening in
the greater context of major instructional shifts taking place throughout the State of California.
As noted previously, in 2010, California’s State Board of Education (SBE) adopted the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) (CDE, 2016a). In 2013, California’s SBE adopted the Next
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
81
Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (CDE, 2015b). Thus teachers at the three schools studied
are tasked with developing curriculum that not only aligns with CCSS and NGSS, but also
furthers the STEM mission of each of the schools.
Effective strategies. Three distinct instructional strategies emerged in the discussion
about instructional guidance: (1) infusing STEM throughout the curriculum; (2) an emphasis on
the “Four Cs”, i.e., collaboration, communication, collaboration, and creativity; and (3) support
for student-centered learning methodologies.
Infusing STEM throughout the curriculum. Teacher A2 stated that School A places a
continual emphasis on infusing a STEM focus throughout the curriculum.
Since we became a STEM school, we have all been not only encouraged, but we've been
supported in locating materials to help us integrate both science and math across the other
curriculum. As a teacher, I’m a lot more aware of what I am doing. For example, how can
I teach art with an engineering bent? I might change my lessons so they are more focused
on design than on imitating a famous artist, something like that. I try to teach everything
through the lens of math and science. So we read, but we read about math and science
topics as much as possible. Or when we read a novel, I try to bring in the math and the
science that's in it to draw those connections for the kids …you can layer that in on the
current curriculum that you have. And it just gives the kids a deeper, wider understanding
of both science and math. (Teacher A2)
Schools B and C reported similar approaches to integrating STEM throughout the rest of
the curriculum (Principal B; Principal C).
We're encouraged to [use science and math] cross-curricularly. So sometimes I'll have a
math problem that is using the science that we're working on, or using the social studies
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
82
that we're working on. Some people say you can't use math cross-curricularly, but you
definitely, definitely can. (Teacher B1)
The “Four C’s.” School B emphasizes the “Four Cs” in instruction, i.e. collaboration,
communication, collaboration, and creativity, with a particular emphasis on collaboration
(Principal B).
[collaboration] is our focus … you know, where unless the kid is being assessed, there
shouldn't be a quiet classroom. They should be talking to each other. And it shouldn't be
the teacher lecturing, ‘Okay here's your 20 problems in your math book. Ready, quiet, get
to work.’ That is hopefully becoming more and more of a thing of the past. (Principal B)
Support for student-centered learning methodologies. All of the schools mentioned are
transitioning away from traditional, direct instruction and moving toward integrating more
student-centered learning (SCL) methodologies into the curriculum. As noted in Froyd and
Simpson (2008), student-centered learning encompasses a broad number of named
methodologies, including inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-based
learning.
As noted previously, School B sent staff to external professional development training to
learn project-based learning teaching methodologies. “We are trying to push project-based
learning because of the way it ties into science” said Principal B.
School C has incorporated student-directed learning into the curriculum, via an activity
labeled ‘Genius Hour.’
…we basically got the idea from Google … they started this idea where they would give
workers 20% of their week to try something they had a passion for, or something that
would relate back to work and help them … [one of the other teachers] had a great
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
83
example happen in her class. Two girls wanted to have a nail salon business. So they
went through and researched what it would take, how many booths, how to run a
business. And another one of the groups wanted to be architects, so they researched that.
And what ended up happening, was the architect group came up and did their little thing,
and then the nail salon group came up and did their little thing, and then the two groups
started talking in the corner and saying, ‘You know what? We are architects, so can we
design your nail salon?’ … (Teacher C2)
Table 3 summarizes the different strategies used by each school.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
84
Table 3
Instructional Guidance Strategies
Strategy School A School B School C
Infusing STEM across the curriculum x x x
Student-centered learning x x x
Collaboration x x x
Problem-based learning x
Project-based learning x x
Student-directed x
Ineffective strategies. None of the interviewees identified specific strategies related to
instructional guidance that they felt were ineffective in and of themselves. They noted they were
moving to incorporate more student-centered learning methodologies into instruction, but none
of them labeled traditional, direct instruction as ‘ineffective.’ One of the problems with
answering this question, is that the research question did not define specifically what
‘ineffective’ instructional guidance is.
Teacher A1 did state that the open-ended nature of student-centered, project-based
instruction might not line up exactly with content standards in the same way that direct
instruction does.
I'm moving from student-centered to this project-based learning. I'm not sure how well
I'm going to be doing on the tests, because with the project-based learning, studies show
that the kids do ‘as well.’ There's no guarantee that they're actually going to do better on
these tests, probably. But they do ‘as well,’ and then they just get a whole lot of other
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
85
learning that's beyond what the standards are, with the project-based learning. (Teacher
A1)
Barriers. Student-centered learning methodologies allow for flexibility in the content,
process and pace of learning (Froyd & Simpson, 2008). As such, the learning that occurs may
not directly line up with content standards in the same lock-step fashion that can be designed into
direct instruction (Teacher A1). The open-ended nature of student-centered learning may then
conflict with and educational system that depends upon increasingly precise content standards
for assessment.
Teacher A1 also experienced push-back from parents when he first began moving to
student-centered instruction.
Because it [student-centered learning] was kind of a new kind of methodology,
particularly for this area, it turned out to be very controversial, starting a student-centered
classroom. We started getting some parents who were not on board with the student-
centered thing. They were worried that since it's group work, that one kid will be doing
all the work, and if it's a smart kid they'll be held back by the other kids. [The Principal]
really helped me out with explaining it to the parents. One parent who actually
complained to the superintendent, and [the Principal] helped me with that as well.
(Teacher A1)
Additional Findings
Beyond the direct answers to the three research questions, three additional themes
emerged from the study:
(1) The five “essential supports” identified by Bryk et al. (2010) appear to play a
role in STEM academic achievement in high-poverty elementary schools. Each of the three
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
86
schools studied had implemented one or more strategies in at least four of the five categories
Bryk et al (2010) identifies as essential supports.
(2) Although each school did not necessarily use identical strategies in each of the
five ‘essential support’ areas, there were commonalities among their approaches. As
illustrated in the preceding section, strategies such as supportive leadership; an emphasis on
parent engagement; diverse strategies for enhancing professional capacity and using student-
centered methodologies for instructional guidance were common across all three schools.
(3) The purposeful commitment to STEM at each school seemed to drive
intentionality across the five “essential supports” identified by Bryk et al (2010). The
deliberate commitment to STEM education at each of the three schools studied also
characterized the schools’ approaches to the “five essential supports” described by Bryk et al.
(2010). That is, the same planned and purposeful commitment that characterized each school’s
approach to STEM, also characterized each school’s approach to at least four of the five essential
supports described by Bryk et al. (2010): leadership, parent and community involvement,
professional capacity, a student-centered learning climate and instructional guidance.
In other words, each school had a unifying vision of STEM instruction. In turn, each
school had a plan to execute that vision. In order to execute that plan, each school needed to
select the right leadership; engage with parents and the community; develop professional
capacity in STEM through hiring and professional development practices; support a student-
centered learning environment; and align instruction with best practices in STEM instruction.
The commitment to STEM became a driver that led to the purposeful review of all aspects of the
learning environment, i.e. the five ‘essential supports’ defined by Bryk et al (2010).
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
87
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
STEM literacy has become increasingly critical within the context of the new global
economy (Fan & Ritz, 2014). The United States Department of Commerce estimates within a
few years there will be over 1.2 million unfilled STEM positions because the workforce will not
have the interest or skill to fill them (Bertram, 2014). The U.S. continues to have a long-standing
achievement gap between socioeconomically disadvantaged (low income) students and students
who are not socioeconomically disadvantaged (Reardon, 2013). The income achievement gap,
which is evident at the lowest grade levels, persists throughout a student’s educational career
(Coley & Baker, 2013) and this is while socioeconomically disadvantaged students increasingly
make up a larger share of the total school population (Kenya et al,, 2014).
The purpose of this study was to discover how STEM initiatives may be implemented
effectively in high-poverty schools. The study identified high-poverty elementary schools that
have effectively implemented STEM initiatives and examined the strategies the principals at
these schools used to successfully implement STEM at the elementary level. The research
questions guiding this study were as follows:
1. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as effective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
2. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as ineffective strategies for improving STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
88
3. What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty elementary schools
perceive as the barriers to STEM academic achievement in their schools?
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this study was to identify effective strategies for teaching STEM in high-
poverty elementary schools. This study used the five essential supports identified by Bryk et al.,
(2010) to look at the role each support plays in school improvement in general, and, more
specifically, as it applies to STEM education at the elementary level. The five “essential
supports” specified in this framework are: (1) leadership as the driver for change; (2) parent-
community ties; (3) professional capacity; (4) a student-centered learning climate; and (5)
instructional guidance (Bryk et al., 2010).
Research Question 1: What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty
elementary schools perceive as effective strategies for improving STEM academic
achievement in their schools?
Although each school did not necessarily use identical strategies in each of the five
‘essential support’ areas, there were commonalities among their approaches. The commonalities
in interviewees’ answers to the first research question are summarized below.
Leadership as the driver for change. Principals across all three schools used words like
“encourage,” “provider,” “facilitator,” “support,” “innovate,” and “servant to teachers” to
describe leadership’s role (Principal A; Principal B; Principal C). The teachers used words such
as “provide,” “facilitate,” “coach,” “support,” “encourage,” “high expectations” and
“accommodating” to describe leadership’s role in STEM academic achievement at their
respective schools Teachers A1 & A2; Teachers B1 & B2; Teachers C1, C2 & C3).
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
89
Parent-community ties. Parent engagement was identified as an important support at
each of the three schools. At least thirteen different strategies for parent engagement were
described (Table 1). These strategies generally fell into one of the six types of parental
involvement described by Epstein (2006) including (1) parenting; (2) communicating, (3)
volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision-making, and (6) collaborating with the
community. Two of the schools (School B and School C) noted that as ‘parent choice’ schools,
parents demonstrated an initial commitment to engagement by choosing to enroll their student(s)
in the school. (Principal B; Principal C).
Professional capacity. Each of the three schools used a variety of strategies to enhance
professional capacity among teachers (Table 2). School B noted the importance of the initial
hiring process, including finding teachers who would be a ‘good fit’ with the STEM mission and
culture of the school (Assistant Principal B). After initial hiring, continued professional
development was seen as a critical component of each school’s student academic achievement in
STEM. Principal A identified teacher training as “probably one of the biggest factors influencing
our student test scores” (Principal A). Effective strategies identified as enhancing professional
capacity included sending teachers to conferences and external training; taking advantage of
STEM professional development for educators provided by grant programs; partnering with a
nearby university using a Professional Development School (PDS) model; leveraging District-
provided training; making use of District-provided content coaches to help both veteran teachers
and new teachers (induction) with content, strategies and methodology; using a train-the-trainer
model to extend limited resources; and using peer-to-peer strategies, including peer tech support
groups; Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and team teaching strategies.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
90
A student-centered learning climate. Of the three schools studied, only School B
identified a specific, school-wide strategy for creating a student-centered learning climate.
School B uses the tenants of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” to establish behavioral
norms and create a common vocabulary of expectations throughout the school.
Instructional guidance. Instructional guidance strategies identified as effective across
each of the three schools included infusing STEM throughout the curriculum (cross-curricular
instruction) and moving away from traditional, direct instruction toward more student-centered
learning strategies, including collaboration, problem-based learning, project-based learning and
student directed learning.
Research Question 2: What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty
elementary schools perceive as ineffective strategies for improving STEM academic
achievement in their schools?
Interviewees generally had little to say on the topic of ineffective strategies. No single
strategy was cited specifically as being generally ineffective for STEM instruction.
Research Question 3: What do administrators and teachers in successful high-poverty
elementary schools perceive as the barriers to STEM academic achievement in their
schools?
During the interviews with leadership and teachers, the interviewees focused mostly on
effective strategies, rather than on ineffective strategies or barriers to STEM education in high-
poverty schools. However, the findings in response to Research Question 3 included the
following:
Leadership as the driver for change. Several interviewees mentioned the challenges of
moving forward with STEM initiatives in the context of significant leadership turnover.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
91
Turnover in principals, as well as changes in District leadership and priorities were identified as
obstacles to moving forward consistently with STEM initiatives from year to year.
Parent-community ties. Each school in this study served a student population with a mix
of socioeconomic characteristics. High parental involvement from the families on the higher end
of the socioeconomic scale has the potential to mask a lack of accessible involvement from
parents of students living in poverty, or facing language barriers and other challenges. As Bower
and Griffin (2011) concluded, “the Epstein model may not fully capture how parents are or want
to be involved in their children’s education, indicating that new ways of working with parents in
high-minority, high-poverty schools are warranted” (85). The parent involvement strategies
identified by the schools in this study are most accessible to parents without educational,
socioeconomic or language barriers.
Professional capacity. The Principals interviewed echoed the findings of Nadelson et al.,
(2013) who found that traditional teacher training programs do not necessarily prepare teachers
to teach STEM content and concepts. In addition, although many STEM professional
development training opportunities are available (training from external providers, conferences,
national resources, district resources, etc.) accessibility is limited by each school’s resources,
including time and money. The teachers themselves are also spread thin by competing priorities
for their limited professional development time.
A student-centered learning climate. None of the interviewees identified barriers
specific to creating or maintaining a student-centered learning climate. The researcher’s
observation is that because the other supports named by Bryk et al. (2010) tend to take priority
(i.e. leadership, professional development, parent engagement and instructional guidance), there
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
92
appears to be little professional development or purposeful strategy around this topic beyond
simply making school counselors available.
Instructional guidance. Barriers to using the student-centered learning methodologies
that align with the STEM disciplines, include the fact that these open-ended instructional forms
may not align precisely with content standards articulated in assessments in the same way that
direct instruction can align with content standards.
Emergent Themes
Beyond the direct answers to the three research questions, three additional themes
emerged from the study.
(1) The five “essential supports” identified by Bryk et al. (2010) appear to play a
role in STEM academic achievement in high-poverty elementary schools. Each of the three
schools studied had implemented one or more strategies in at least four of the five categories
Bryk et al (2010) identifies as essential supports.
(2) Although each school did not necessarily use identical strategies in each of the
five ‘essential support’ areas, there were commonalities among their approaches. As
illustrated in the preceding section, strategies such as supportive leadership; an emphasis on
parent engagement; diverse strategies for enhancing professional capacity and using student-
centered methodologies for instructional guidance were common across all three schools.
(3) The purposeful commitment to STEM at each school seemed to drive
intentionality across the five “essential supports” identified by Bryk et al. (2010). None of
the three schools set out to intentionally address the five ‘essential supports’ developed by Bryk
et al. (2010). However, in the course of deliberately implementing their commitment to STEM
education throughout the school environment, all three schools purposely, but unknowingly,
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
93
ended up developing robust instances of four of the five supports (leadership, parent ties,
professional capacity, and instructional guidance) identified by Bryk et al. (2010).
The purposeful commitment to STEM education seemed to drive intentionality in other
aspects of the school as well. This aligns with the research of Giles et al. (2007) who used a case-
study approach to examine successful leadership at three high-performing, high-poverty urban
elementary schools. The principals responded to the challenges of high-poverty schools and
communities by creating “safe, nurturing environments” for both students and staff (Giles et al.,
2007). They also set high expectations for student performance, and held all stakeholders –
including parents – accountable for meeting those expectations. Although each administrator had
different years of experience and different leadership styles, each had a vision for the school and
modeled the desired practices (Giles et al., 2007). The study concluded that districts interested in
improving student achievement at high-risk public schools should be purposeful in their choices
due to the level of challenges and barriers leadership will face (Giles et al., 2007).
The significance of a purposeful, unifying vision also aligns with the research of
Newman et al. (2001) who examined the importance of instructional program coherence to
school improvement. The authors found that multiple, unrelated, unsustained “improvement”
programs dilute instructional resources and actually work against, rather than support, student
academic achievement (Newmann et al., 2001). The authors point out that connected learning
experiences across multiple contexts are more impactful than disconnected learning experiences
(Newmann et al., 2001). They conclude that instructional program coherence—the development
of a common instructional framework—is critical in supporting student academic achievement.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
94
In this study, Schools A, B and C all use STEM as their common instructional
framework. Furthermore, the implementation of STEM cross-curricularly provides the connected
learning experiences across multiple contexts cited as critical by Newmann et al. (2010).
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study suggest that the essential supports defined by Bryk et al. (2010)
can be implemented intentionally and applied in the context of STEM education to support
academic achievement in the STEM disciplines. If a STEM school is not getting the results they
think they should be getting with respect to student academic achievement in the STEM
disciplines, it might be helpful to examine their environment in the context of the five ‘essential
supports’ identified by Bryk et al. (2010). Struggling schools might reflect upon where they are
not being intentional with respect to the five ‘essential supports’ and develop purposeful
strategies for areas of weakness. For example, it was clear that School B was extremely
intentional about parent communication and involvement. The school provided text messages to
parents, emails, family science nights, parent academies and was intentional about making sure
every classroom has an updated website to facilitate communication with parents. The teacher’s
websites at School B were developed at different technological levels; however, the existence of
individual websites for each teacher was required and intentional. All schools could probably
benefit by reviewing the school environment in the context of the five ‘essential supports’ for
school improvement identified by Bryk et al (2010).
Future Research
Future research as a result of this study should include further exploration of effective
STEM instructional practices at the elementary school level locally, statewide, nationally, and
globally. Additional questions that emerged from the findings in this study include:
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
95
• Does designation as a STEM school predictably impact the demographics of the
student body? The Principals of both Schools B and C noted that as parent choice
schools, self-selection seemed to have an impact on overall student demographics.
Specifically, designation as a STEM school appeared to attract families on the higher
end of the socioeconomic scale. Is this a predictable effect that occurs at all schools
designated as STEM schools?
• What specific parent engagement practices serve families who face socioeconomic,
language, or educational attainment barriers? All of the schools studied benefited
from high levels of parent engagement. However, much of this engagement appeared
to be driven by parents from the higher end of the socioeconomic scale. As Bower
and Griffin (2011) concluded “the Epstein model may not fully capture how parents
are or want to be involved in their children’s education, indicating that new ways of
working with parents in high-minority, high-poverty schools are warranted” (85).
• This study focused on the fifth-grade classroom level. Further research might focus
on effective STEM instructional practices in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten,
and first through fourth grades. This could also provide insight into how each grade
level is preparing students to matriculate into the next grade at a STEM elementary
school.
Conclusion
STEM education continues to grow as an important component of the world economy. At
the same time, the academic achievement gap between socioeconomically disadvantaged
students and those who are not socioeconomically disadvantaged continues to grow. Purposeful
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
96
implementation of the five ‘essential supports’ identified by Bryk et al. may provide one
effective way of addressing this academic achievement gap in elementary STEM education.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
97
REFERENCES
Arias, M. B., & Morillo-Campbell, M. (2008). Promoting ELL parental involvement: Challenges
in contested times. The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice. Retrieved
from: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Arias_ELL.pdf
Bertram, V. (2014, January 28). The most important resolution: STEM education. [Blog post].
Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from
http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/the-most-important-
resolution-stem-education
Blazer, C., & Romanik, D. (2009). The effect of poverty on student achievement. Information
Capsule Research Services, 0901 (July 2009): Miami-Dade County Public Schools. ERIC
Number: ED544709. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544709
Bower, H. A., & Griffin, D. (2011). Can the Epstein model of parental involvement work in a
high-minority, high-poverty elementary school? A case study. Professional School
Counseling, 15(2), 77-87. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2011-15.77
Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S. and Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing
Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
California Department of Education (CDE), Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2015).
California Standard Tests (CSTs). Retrieved from
http://californiatac.org/about/cst/index.html
California Department of Education (CDE). (2013). California Common Core State Standards:
Mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/ccssmathstandardaug2013.pdf
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
98
California Department of Education (CDE). (2014a) NGSS Frequently Asked Questions.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/ngssfaq.asp
California Department of Education (CDE). (2014b) Schoolwide Programs. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/rt/
California Department of Education (CDE). (2014c). Title I, Part A – CalEdFacts. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/ceft1pa.asp
California Department of Education (CDE). (2014d). What are the Common Core Standards?
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/tl/whatareccss.asp
California Department of Education (CDE). (2015a). California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress (CAASPP). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/
California Department of Education (CDE). (2015b). Next Generation Science Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/ngssintrod.asp
California Department of Education (CDE). (2015c) Unduplicated Student Poverty: Free or
Reduced Price Meals Data 2014-15. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filessp.asp
California Department of Education (CDE). (2016a). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
California Department of Education (CDE). (2016b). Student & School Data Reports. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/
Chen, G. (2007). School disorder and student achievement. Journal of School Violence, 6(1), 27-
43. doi:10.1300/J202v06n01_03
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope [H.W.Wilson - EDUC], 23(6), 42.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
99
Coley, R.J., & Baker, B. (2013). Poverty and education: Finding the way forward. Princeton:
ETS Center for Research on Human Capital and Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/s/research/pdf/poverty_and_education_report.pdf
Craig, E., Thomas, R.J., Hou, C. & Mathur, S. (2011). How the Global Market is Producing the
STEM Skills Needed for Growth. Research Report, Accenture Institute for High
Performance. Retrieved from
http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Accenture-No-Shortage-of-
Talent.pdf
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary
students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-
357. doi:10.1002/tea.20053
Dyehouse, M., Yoon, S. Y., Lucietto, A., & Diefes-Dux, H. (April, 2012). The effects of an
engineering teacher professional development program on elementary students’
science/engineering content knowledge and engineering identity. 2nd P-12 Engineering
and Design Education Research Summit, Washington, DC.
Epstein, J. L. (2006). Families, schools, and community partnerships. YC Young Children, 61(1),
40-40.
Epstein, J. L. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
100
Fan, S-C. C., & Ritz, J. M. (2014). International views on STEM education. In de Vries, M. J.
(Ed.), Proceedings PATT-28 Conference, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from
http://www.iteea.org/Conference/PATT/PATT28/Fan%20Ritz.pdf
Fink, A. (2012). How to conduct surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc..
Froyd, J., & Simpson, N. (2008). Student-centered learning: Addressing faculty questions about
student-centered learning. Presented at the Course, Curriculum, Labor and Improvement
(CCLI) Conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://ccliconference.org/files/2010/03/Froyd_Stu-CenteredLearning.pdf
Georges, A., Borman, K. M., & Lee, R. S. (2010). Mathematics reform and teacher quality in
elementary grades: Assessments, teacher licensure, and certification. Archivos Analíticos
De Políticas Educativas = Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(13).
Giles, C., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., Brooks, S., & Jacobson, S. (2007). Successful leadership in
three high-poverty urban elementary schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4),
291-317. doi:10.1080/15700760701431553
Haberman, M. 1991. Pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4): 290–
294.
Haeseler, L. (2011). Home-school-community connection: Elementary school leaders' solutions
for improvement. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 8(5), 487-500.
doi:10.1080/19371918.2011.597300
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J.,
Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.M., & Wood, W.B., (2004). Scientific teaching.
Science 304(5670), 521–522. Doi:10.1126/science.1096022
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
101
Hazel, C. (2010). Interactions between bullying and high-stakes testing at the elementary school
level. Journal of School Violence, 9(4), 339-356. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.507142
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to
school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 46(3), 659-689. doi:10.3102/0002831209340042
Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., & Kristapovich, P. (2014).
The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clb.asp
Koebler, J. (2012, January 25). Obama pushes STEM in State of the Union. U.S. News & World
Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/stem-
education/2012/01/25/obama-pushes-stem-in-state-of-the-union
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., and Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs
Now and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief #03-11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce. Retrieved from
http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf
Ledbetter, M. L. S. (2012). Teacher preparation: One key to unlocking the gate to STEM
literacy. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 216-220. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-06-0072
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position:
Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position,
and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670.
doi:10.1177/0013161X10378689
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
102
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM
perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for
elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157.
National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP). (2013). California: Demographics of Low-
Income Children. Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/profiles/CA_profile_6.html
National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP). (2013). Child Poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective
approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Committee on Highly
Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education
and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program
coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational
Evaluation & Policy Analysis [H.W.Wilson - EDUC], 23(4), 297.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6053 et seq. (2002). See also:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1118
Noguera, P.A. (2004, October 17). Transforming urban schools through investments in the social
capital of parents. In Motion. Retrieved from http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/district-
leadership/Transforming_Urban_Schools.pdf
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
103
OECD (2014), PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in
mathematics, reading and science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014), PISA,
OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-
results-volume-I.pdf
Orphanos, S., & Orr, M. T. (2014). Learning leadership matters: The influence of innovative
school leadership preparation on teachers’ experiences and outcomes. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 680-700.
doi:10.1177/1741143213502187
Oxford, M. L., & Lee, J. O. (2011). The effect of family processes on school achievement as
moderated by socioeconomic context. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 597-612.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.06.001
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Peterson, P.E., Woessman, L., Hanushek, E.A. & Lastra-Anadón, C.X. (2011). Are U.S. students
ready to compete? The latest on each state's international Standing. Education Next,
11(4), 51-59. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG11-
03_GloballyChallenged.pdf
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8),
10-16. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/may13/vol70/num08/The-Widening-Income-Achievement-Gap.aspx
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
104
Reidenbach, L. (2014, January 8). A county-by-county look at poverty in California. California
Budget Bites. California Budget Project. Retrieved from
http://californiabudgetbites.org/2014/01/08/a-county-by-county-look-at-poverty-in-
california/
Rubie-Davies, C. M., Weinstein, R. S., Huang, F. L., Gregory, A., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P.
(2014). Successive teacher expectation effects across the early school years. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 181-191. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.03.006
Scott, E. (2003). Comparing NAEP, TIMSS and PISA in Mathematics and Science [PDF
document]. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/pdf/naep_timss_pisa_comp.pdf
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385.
Thoonen, E., Peetsma, T., Oort, F., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Building school-wide capacity for
improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher
factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 441.
doi:10.1080/09243453.2012.678867
Tutwiler, M.S., Gruner, H., Johnkoski, J., Inga, S. and Brady, M. (2014). The impact of whole-
school inquiry-based teacher professional development on STEM achievement: A case
study. Connecticut Science Center. Retrieved from
https://www.ctsciencecenter.org/documents/educate/STEM_Paper_2014.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder. 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates: Median Household Income. Retrieved from
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml#
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
105
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Mathematics and
Reading. What level of knowledge and skills have the nation's students achieved?
Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/what-knowledge
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2015 Mathematics and
Reading Assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics?grade=4
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Mathematics and
Reading. What proportions of student groups are reaching Proficient? Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012. Overview.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/index.asp
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012. Selected Findings
from PISA 2012. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_1.asp
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
106
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. TIMSS
Results 2011, Figure 6. Percentage of 4
th
grade students reaching the TIMSS
international benchmarks in science, by education system: 2011. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/figure11_6.asp
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. TIMSS
Results 2011, Figure 8. Percentage of 8
th
grade students reaching the TIMSS
international benchmarks in science, by education system: 2011. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/figure11_8.asp
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Mathematics and
Reading. What level of knowledge and skills have the nation's students achieved?
Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/what-knowledge
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Mathematics and
Reading. What proportions of student groups are reaching Proficient? Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012. Overview.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/index.asp
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
107
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012. Selected Findings
from PISA 2012. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_1.asp
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. TIMSS
Results 2011, Figure 6. Percentage of 4
th
grade students reaching the TIMSS
international benchmarks in science, by education system: 2011. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/figure11_6.asp
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2011. TIMSS
Results 2011, Figure 8. Percentage of 8
th
grade students reaching the TIMSS
international benchmarks in science, by education system: 2011. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/figure11_8.asp
Wise, J., Griffis, K., Blakey, A., Thadani, V., & Cook, M. (2010). The possibilities and
limitations of curriculum-based science inquiry interventions for challenging the
"pedagogy of poverty". Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 21-37.
doi:10.1080/10665680903408908
Yoon, S. Y., Dyehouse, M., Lucietto, A. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2014).
The effects of integrated science, technology, and engineering education on elementary
students' knowledge and identity development. School Science and Mathematics, 114(8),
380-391. doi:10.1111/ssm.12090
STEM INITIATIVES IN HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
108
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What did you wish for when you became a principal, assistant principal or teacher?
2. Your school was selected for this study because your fifth grade students scored higher than
the state average in the areas of math and science. I am going to ask you about five different
factors that may have contributed to your students’ performance, and I would like your
opinion on whether or not you believe these factors are relevant, and how you think they
impacted your students’ performance.
a. What was the role of school leadership as a factor in your students’ academic
achievement in math and science?
b. What was the role of parent-community ties to the school as a factor in your students’
academic achievement in math and science?
c. What was the role of the professional capacity of your teachers as a factor in your
students’ academic achievement in math and science?
d. What was the role of having a student-centered learning climate (safe supportive
school environment) as a factor in your students’ academic achievement in math and
science?
e. What was the role of instructional guidance (school wide supports for curriculum and
instruction) as a factor in your students’ academic achievement in math and science?
3. What other factors, that we have not already discussed, do you think played a role in your
students’ above-average achievement in math and science?
4. Is there anything else you would like to add on this topic before we conclude the interview?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners
PDF
Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher advis...
PDF
Schoolwide structures, systems, and practices that are closing the achievement gap at a Southern California high-performing, high-poverty urban public elementary school: a case study
PDF
Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California
PDF
Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty
PDF
Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher a...
PDF
The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools
PDF
An investigation of the relationship between educational attainment goals and motivation theory: a mixed-methods study of past and present graduate students in the United States
PDF
Overcoming a legacy of low achievement: systems and structures in a high-performing, high-poverty California elementary school
PDF
The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools
PDF
A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California
PDF
How the leaders of one high-achieving, large, urban high school communicate with Latino families about math
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high-poverty schools
PDF
Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students
PDF
A study of academic success with students of color: what really matters? Lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools
PDF
Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools
PDF
Response to intervention: factors that facilitate and impede the process of implementation for administrators of Head Start preschools
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from a high-performing, high-poverty urban school
PDF
Identifying resiliency factors viewed by fourth and fifth grade teachers that foster academic success in elementary minority Hispanic students in Orange County
Asset Metadata
Creator
Altobelli, Kelly
(author)
Core Title
Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
07/05/2016
Defense Date
04/25/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
effective STEM initiatives,elementary education,engineering and mathematics (STEM),five essential supports,high-performing STEM schools,high-poverty elementary schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,Science,STEM academic achievement,Technology
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Richter, Lena (
committee member
)
Creator Email
altobell@usc.edu,kellyaltobelli@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-262222
Unique identifier
UC11281333
Identifier
etd-AltobelliK-4507.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-262222 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AltobelliK-4507.pdf
Dmrecord
262222
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Altobelli, Kelly
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
effective STEM initiatives
elementary education
engineering and mathematics (STEM)
five essential supports
high-performing STEM schools
high-poverty elementary schools
STEM academic achievement