Summary

What I will gain most from this collaborative doctoral dissertation is that I will continually use my academic degree to address the ideologies that underlie and perpetuate the deficit perspective. I want to have real impact on public education via STEM. As I become well-versed in defeating deficit ideology, I will feel more comfortable in guiding teachers and educational leaders in this same

process. In terms of my professional development, I will continue to “spot” STEM-foundational thinking deficit ideologies within our school district (Gorski, 2010, p. 20). It is a continual, uphill process of reminding teachers not to identify various student problems as “cultural.” Personally, I am always trying to “reflect on [my] own class socialization” (Gorski, 2010, p. 20), which actually brought me to this doctoral program. However, the largest obstacle I will face is getting teachers in our district to not “refuse to attribute oppression as ‘problems of culture’” (Gorski, 2010, p. 20). For example, we have multicultural nights where the focus is on culture and not systemic anti-racism. I would much rather spend our time together discussing what Howe (1992) refers to as equal education opportunity.

The benefits of collaboration with local school districts and other educational organizations are extensive. However, for our school district, I see the following advantages (in relation to STEM-foundational thinking and students of color) as paraphrased by William Powell: (a) STEM foundational thinking, instructional activities, and STEM pathways become more accessible to all students, (b) increase of direct student-teacher contact time, (c) greater and more varied (culturally responsive) ways to check for understanding, (d) fewer student referrals to the principal’s office, and (e) professional and personal growth through shared reflection and ongoing feedback. For example, current STEM instruction is not equitable for students of color. “This predicament necessitates the creation of a counter frame for what it means to be both racially conscious and an effective teacher, to the benefit of all students” (Cobb & Haynes, 2016, p. 284). This counter frame is culturally responsive pedagogy. Students of color are currently being disproportionally referred to the principal’s office or the responsibility for these students is being passed to special education teachers. Current assessments are biased against marginalized students. Having conversations on STEM-foundational thinking, race, and student achievement will give teachers the tools they need to create meaningful relationships with their students of color. All of this is vital if we are to close the STEM opportunity gap.

Obstacles are to be expected, the largest one being resistance to changing the current system of privilege. My goal is to use this dissertation research as a vehicle for creating what Caine and Caine (1991; 1997) refer to as “relaxed alertness” or the “optimal state for reflection and learning (Powell). This work will be challenging, but I want teachers, instructional coaches, and other educational leaders to not feel fear of being criticized, or worse, being called a racist. Overcoming biases and understanding privilege and oppression bring about knee-jerk defensive reactions. However, in order to successfully raise student achievement you must be willing to talk about students, and “if you can’t talk about racial identity, then you can’t talk about [students of color]” (Singleton & Linton, 2006, p. 168).

          Institutional level. According to Henze, Katze, Norte, Sather, & Walker (2002), institutional racism is the sum of racial prejudice and institutional power. There are many different institutions where White racial knowledge in STEM operate. I have already discussed recommendations to provide more equitable STEM opportunities for students of color (see What next report). In order to disrupt systems of power and privilege, where STEM continues to be “only for White people” (Delpit, 2012, p. 14), I must continue working on the goals that I have set forth. I will push for deeper equity professional development within my own school district with topics in power dynamics, privilege, oppression, STEM-foundational thinking, and student achievement. Don Miguel Ruiz says:

Imagine living your life without the fear of being judged by others. You no longer rule your behavior according to what others may think about you. You are no longer responsible for anyone’s opinion. You have no need to control anyone, and no one controls you, either.
Imagine living your life without judging others. You can easily forgive others and let go of any judgments that you have. You don’t have the need to be right, and you don’t need to make anyone else wrong. You respect yourself and everyone else, and they respect you in return.
Imagine living without the fear of loving and not being loved. You are no longer afraid to be rejected, and you don’t have the need to be accepted. You can say, ‘I love you’ with no shame or justification. You can walk in the world with your heart completely open, and not be afraid to be hurt.
Imagine living your life without being afraid to take a risk and to explore life. You are not afraid to lose anything. You are not afraid to be alive in the world, and you are not afraid to die.
Imagine that you love yourself just the way you are. You love your body just the way it is, and you love your emotions just the way they are. You know that you are perfect just as you are (1997, pp. 124-125).

This is the life that I want to live. This is the life that I envision for my own children and the students learning within my school district. In life, we are all interdependent. As a society, either we all succeed, or we all fail. With this in mind, I will work to end injustice in all forms, while perpetuating social justice for everyone. Imagining is the first step toward action and social justice action requires not only imaging a world without oppression and privilege, but also imagining what that looks like when these things do not exist within us.

Appendix A. Reflection

Educational organizations are very complicated, and it is no small task to dismantle systems in inequity and racism within. As Gloria Ladson-Billings (2011) states:

…classrooms are complex organisms. The students bring with them richly textured biographies that go beyond their racial and ethnic categorizations, and their teachers bring their own sets of complexities. Somewhere in the nexus of this humanity, we are charged with producing literate, numerate young citizens who are capable of learning more and faster than any generation that has preceded it (pp. 13-14).

My charge was to co-design a comparative case-study in order help identify where STEM inequity exists and offer recommendations in order to create multiple systems of opportunity where everyone’s knowledge, background, ethnicity, and race count. By looking specifically at STEM-foundational thinking at seven urban elementary schools, I wanted the elementary school level to be the unit of change so students of color have equitable STEM outcomes. I must work to change the current paradigm to a new ideology, one born out of a radical and defiant response to the historical sickness of oppression. I have always believed that the “knowledge and skills to educate all children already exists” (Hilliard, 1995, p. 200). No one ever said that restructuring our educational system so that all children reach their full academic potential would be easy. In fact, “thinking our way toward progress or taking action as a single individual is not likely to make any great impact on the powerful systems of oppression we face as teachers” and as students of color face in their classrooms (Gutierrez, 2016, p. 274). However, I feel that I have a civic and moral responsibility to educate. Teaching is difficult, but when have moral responsibilities ever been easy? It is important to “resist intellectualizing the struggle, and instead, live it. Living it means action, such as taking risks in our everyday lives” (Gutierrez, 2016, p. 274). This dissertation in practice was a balancing act between intellectualizing STEM inequity and providing usable knowledge for improvement at the classroom or building level.

In the past my action research on the opportunity gap focused on qualitative data because In order to understand our national opportunity gap, one must first come to understand how students learn, which in turn, determines how teachers teach. Volumes of research have been conducted and a myriad of theories have been proposed as to how to solve this national epidemic in education. If learning and teaching were straightforward, we would have found a solution decades ago. At the time, I felt that I could not study my research questions using abstract or quantifiable methods, instead interrupting how particular focus group of students learned in order to improve my own developing pedagogy. This dissertation in practice study (at least my specific role) focused more on quantitative survey data from teachers, students and school leaders. I struggled to find meaning in

frequency tables, ANOVA tables, Cronbach’s alpha measures, and other statistical measures. My purpose was to gain new insights and possible explanations for an academic gap based solely on skin color. I wanted to be able to explain why certain learning behaviors and/or expectations existed at various elementary schools and teachers could increase STEM-foundational thinking in the classroom. I felt that I was missing key qualitative information about each school and the pedagogical practices present. For example, “if as a nation, we develop communities in which people can speak honesty and productively about racism and heal from its hurts, we can change biased practices and attitudes” (Singleton & Linton, 2006, p. 270). I believe that the single greatest hurdle in closing the STEM opportunity gap lies in having these conversations. If teachers are unable to discuss issues of race, privilege, oppression, and student achievement, then students of color will never perform to their fullest potential, with or without STEM opportunities. Worse, White students will continue to perpetuate a system that gives them privilege while supporting systemic racism. Racism affects everyone, not just the oppressed racial groups, and by not standing up as an ally, White students internalize these negative stereotypes, furthering systems of privilege and oppression. In life, we are all interdependent. As a society, either we all succeed, or we all fail. As a school, teachers need to be united behind a vision that promotes equity for every student.

I believe in using conscious, anti-racist dialogue among staff that will sustain and deepen authentic understanding about systemic racism, while working to dismantle those inequitable educational systems. In relation to STEM curriculum, these conversations about race and racism will work to ameliorate the lack of diversity, simultaneously improving student achievement in STEM by examining the racial stratification in these course and careers, and promote equal educational outcomes for students of color. It is not what teachers do or not do in the classroom that promotes equitable access for students of color. It is what they see or do not see. Studying urban elementary schools based mainly on survey data and archival documents (e.g.: mission and vision statements, curriculum maps) made it difficult as a researcher to truly get a feel for what is happening and not happening within each building. Although this is a mixed-methods multi-site, comparative case study,

I felt that our research team focused too heavily on quantitative data. Our results (see full findings report) indicate a scattered amount of STEM-foundational thinking occurring within buildings. In order to analyze these findings, requires a more substantial qualitative methodology. For example, I would have liked to break this research project into two phases. The first phase would be designed to determine teachers’ beliefs and expectations about marginalized students’ STEM-foundational thinking. I would also have liked to analyze this student population’s beliefs and academic networks that support their engagement in STEM curricula and achievement in STEM courses and instructional activities. The main instruments during this phase would be teacher and student surveys eliciting their beliefs about STEM-foundational thinking, academic achievement, and equitable STEM opportunities for students of color. I would supplement this data with student interviews in the second phase in order to understand students’ perceptions of themselves and teacher expectations of their students of color with regards to STEM-foundational thinking. I would use this interview data to construct a narrative of a sampling of students of color and an account of their school experiences in order to collaboratively create with students and teachers, a STEM learning community. This STEM-foundational thinking collaborative for students of color would be a three-year structured cohort of students and teachers designed to increase the achievement of students of color in STEM curricula, while influencing current educational gatekeepers (see Practitioner paper Recommendations for Practice for a more specific outline).

Facilitated study with C-PEER

I felt that the potential for ongoing relationships with school districts, schools, community organizations, and other higher education institutions was conductive to ongoing collaborative research based on the unique needs of each partner. Having individual schools or districts co-design research studies allow for the best chance of supporting student learning and growth at the school level. However, with C-PEER being in its inaugural year, many of these relationships have not yet been formed, making our doctoral work separate from broader, longitudinal studies already in progress in many metro school districts. For this dissertation in practice, we had seven participating schools and 65-85% teacher participation rate. Having such a small sample size, albeit decent teacher participation, makes our findings difficult to generalize to a school district in need of school improvement. With that said, the collaboration with doctoral peers made various aspects of this project easier (e.g.: IRB approval, data analysis, and dissemination of results). Having doctoral research tied to a broader research project gave me incredible insight into University-level research. Although messy at times, the research tools I learned as part of this doctoral program will help me greatly in my practice as an educator. Teaching is no longer just a job that I enjoy and do well. There is just too much at stake for it to just be a job. Teaching, and my educational leadership, represents my duty to encourage and elevate the thinking of today’s youth, especially my non-dominant students of color (Gutierrez and Arzubiaga (2008). And while I will continue to create communities within my classroom, my school, and district, and make meaningful connections to my students, I take the research methods and inquiry I learned seriously. I will apply this to challenging problems of practice within my school district. Through learning-focused leadership, collaboration, and effective STEM programming, I hope to encourage faculty to be anti-racist teacher-leaders. More importantly, however, I am satisfied knowing that I am a positive agent of change– an absolutely necessary change towards excellence and equity in STEM education.

Conclusion

The problem in U.S. Educational systems is simply stated, but very complex in nature: American schools were never designed to authentically educate students of color. Instead, schools in the United States marginalize and under-educate children of color, especially in STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities. In order to address issues of disproportionality and racial predictability in the lowest and highest achieving students, teachers must “engage [staff] in narratives that compel [them] to synthesize [their] knowledge and transform it into direct and measurable action” (Singleton, 2013, p. 7). Engaging every staff member is essential for implementing a STEM-equity leadership effort thereby closing these STEM opportunity gaps. In order to design equitable learning experiences that support traditionally underperforming students of color, we, as educational leaders, need to develop adequate indicators for the capacity of elementary schools to close STEM inequity gaps. Teachers need to be trained using stronger pedagogical frameworks that support marginalized students and accurately measure their success. The current metrics used, which determine the efficacy of pedagogical practices to close equity gaps, are not sufficient. For example, state standardized testing such as the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) are not authentic indicators of the capacity for schools to close equity gaps. PARCC and other state measures are proximal indicators of student achievement, representing second- and third-hand effects of effective gap-closing efforts at the school and district level. I feel that academic growth, achievement, and assessment, no matter the design, all need to be authentic and culturally relevant to all learners. Students should not fear assessments because they should be presented as opportunities to share their knowledge, and or progress toward a learning goal, with the teacher. Teachers should not fear assessments because they should be received as such. Nothing punitive. Nothing final. Just a snapshot of where each learner is on the continuum of growth. I believe that educational leaders need to guide schools through multiple conversations speculating what the most accurate measures of success would be if applied an equity lens, and pinpointing the design of learning experiences and support traditionally underperforming, vulnerable student. These students, continuously marginalized by systemic prejudice and inequity, should be an active participants in setting their learning goals and action plans for achieving those goals. Student growth in STEM foundational thinking is measurable. STEM-foundational thinking connects principles of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to solve problems face by individuals in society. Pedagogy focused on STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities instills a deep and extensive understanding of STEM content applied in real-world contexts. I feel that both students and teachers should be driven more by design thinking than by data. Teaching is an interaction and relationship between a teacher and a child. If one compromises this relationship in order to gain in standardized test scores, then they will be disappointed by the results. I believe that true academic achievement lies in creating a lasting, collaborative partnership between the teacher, student, and the community.

Recommendations for practice

Equity is “raising the achievement of all students while narrowing the gap between the highest and lowest performing students and eliminating the racial predictability and disproportionality of which student groups occupy the highest and lowest achievement categories.” Anti-racism is “our conscious and deliberate individual and collective action that challenges the impact and perpetuation of institutional White racial power, position and privilege” (Singleton & Linton, 2006, p. 242). There is extreme value in understanding motivation and engagement in traditionally underserved students. The urgency with which systemic changes need to be made is always present. There will always be constraints or limitations to any inquiry into the racial opportunity gap. It is vitally important that we, as educators, mentors, and role models ask this one question: Do we have the will to educate all children?

Dr. Asa G. Hilliard (1995) believes:

the knowledge and skills to educate all children already exist. Because we have lived in a historically oppressive society, educational issues tend to be framed as technical issues, which deny their political origin and meaning. There are no pedagogical barriers to teaching and learning when willing people are prepared and made available to children.
If we embrace a will to excellence, we can deeply restructure education in ways that will engage teachers to release the full potential of all our children. (p. 200).

I believe that the inability to provide equal access and opportunity of STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities for marginalized students begins with an unwillingness to acknowledge how the presence of privilege and power continue to underserve students of color, further widening the gap between access and inequity. Instead of focusing on motivating these students, initially, I believe that concentrated efforts on getting teaching staff and other educational leaders to (a) acknowledge their complicity in the oppression of their minority students, thereby resulting in an achievement gap, and (b) using this racial consciousness to create structures that will recruit, encourage, and foster students of color in STEM curricula and future careers.

Although not presented in the literature review, Dr. Erica Walker, an associate professor of mathematics education at Teachers College, Columbia University, has focused her research on social and cultural factors that facilitate mathematics engagement, learning, and performance for traditionally underserved students. I believe that her framework for engaging marginalized students at the high school level in mathematics can be applied directly to promoting STEM-foundational thinking at the elementary school level. In fact, promoting STEM-foundational thinking is not “dependent on a particular curriculum” or amount of resources (Walker, 2012, p. 86). She outlines four components that need to be integrated systems-wide in order to increase participation in mathematics’ courses. I will discuss how I believe that each component can also be applied to STEM.

          Attention to rigor. Students need to feel that their academic pursuits and hard work mean something and are worth their time and effort. Rigorous and challenging instructional activities (e.g.: STEM-foundational thinking instructional activities) promote deep learning because “learning is optimized when students are involved in activities that require complex thinking and the application of knowledge” (Hess, Carlock, Jones, & Walkup, 2009). Hess’ (2009) Cognitive Rigor matrix explains to teachers how Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s (2005) Depth of Knowledge levels are both similar and dissimilar. For example, it is a tool used for examining the depth of understanding for different tasks that initially seem to be at comparable levels of complexity (see Table 4).

Table 4. Hess’ Cognitive Rigor Matrix with Curricular Examples: Applying Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge Levels to Bloom’s Cognitive Process Dimensions

By cross-examining Webb’s (2005) Depth of Knowledge with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Cognitive Process Dimensions, it allows teachers to become “more skilled at recognizing the elements and dimensions of cognitive rigor and analyzing its implications for instruction and assessment, provid[ing] learning opportunities that benefit all students” (Hess, Carlock, Jones, & Walkup, 2009, p. 8).  I believe that with appropriate, scaffolded support, teachers will be able to increase the amount of STEM-foundational thinking occurring in their classrooms (STEM-specific or otherwise) and deepening the learning of students.

          Attention to and validation of students’ everyday experiences and interests. Despite some beliefs, all students crave academic experiences that mirror their everyday experiences.  Students have a desire to feel efficacious with regards to their cultural and academic identities.  Therefore, it is up to teachers and other school leaders to connect STEM to students’ lives both inside and outside of the classroom.  Understanding how the sciences, technological advances, engineering, and mathematics are useful in everyday lives fosters a STEM-foundational identity that can and should be tied closely tied to cultural identity.  For example, cultural identity is one of six guiding themes of Culturally Responsive Education (CRE), a pedagogical framework originally discussed by Gloria Ladson-Billings, in her book The Dreamkeepers (2009).  CRE is a framework that recognizes the importance of including students’ cultural references in all aspects of learning, and according to Dr. Adeyemi Stembridge from New York University, is the “epistemological offspring of Multicultural Education and Critical Race Theory; a mental model that is useful for identifying themes and tools of practices for closing opportunity gaps without marginalizing some students relative to others” (Stembridge, 2015).  Engaging students in STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities contributes to their development of content knowledge, as well as how their culture, race, ethnicity, gender, and academic abilities shape the perceptions of their STEM educational opportunities.  As teachers pay attention to and validate students’’ everyday experiences and interests, they are closing STEM equity gaps.   

         
          Focus on community. Learning is a social act.  Student collaboration and discussion are
essential elements of an engaging classroom and promote deeper understanding.  Elements of CRE and STEM-foundational thinking “encourage peer discourse as a critical part of teaching and learning” (Walker, 2012, p. 86).  By focusing on student learning communities, teachers promote STEM-foundational thinking while using CRE “engage students by drawing on their academic [STEM] knowledge as well as their social and cultural identities (Stembridge, 2015).   Students, in turn, will take responsibility for their learning and “feel responsible for each other’s learning” (Walker, 2012, p. 86).  A classroom that promotes and facilitates STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities is one promotes positive classroom behavior and a shared determination to achieve.

         
          Out-of-school/in-school mathematics experience connections (content and socialization). Traditionally underperforming students of color are best supported with instruction connects academic content with out-of-school experiences.  Whereas Walker (2012) focuses primarily on mathematics instruction, I believe that the same applies to STEM-foundational thinking.  When teachers use STEM-foundational thinking and deliberately design a learning experience that leverages students’ assesses, they are “bridg[ing] their academic and social identities” (Stembridge, 2015).  For example, there are numerous programs that seek to incorporate elements of this framework.  The Young People’s Project is affiliated with the Algebra Project, training young students to become “math literate” workers.  Paul Zeitz from the University of California Berkeley has created the Berkeley Math Circle, which exposes students to “engaging experiences in mathematics outside of mathematics classrooms” as well as “high-quality engaging mathematics within their local school contexts” (Walker, 2012, p. 87).  This model can be applied to STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities.

Building Mathematics Learning Communities as framework for STEM Learning Communities

There are implications for teachers, and the connection of creating classrooms that promote and foster STEM-foundational thinking.  Using the six themes of Culturally Responsive Education: (a) engagement; (b) relationships; (c) cultural identity; (d) vulnerability; (e) asset-focused factors; and (f) rigor, teachers will become attuned to instructional behaviors that are conducive to STEM-foundational thinking.  Teachers need to be aware that these behaviors “signal their interest in students’ [STEM] learning, and that students interpret these behaviors as indicators of teachers’ perceptions and expectations (or lack thereof) for student success [in STEM]” (Walker, 2012, p. 113).  I propose using Walker’s (2012) framework for building mathematics learning communities as a model for creating elementary-school STEM learning communities.  These STEM communities should focus on a few key concepts that Walker (2012) outline in her own conclusions.  First, STEM communities should not be viewed as a remedial program for underperforming students (Steele, 1997; Tresiman, 1992).  Second, STEM learning communities need to incorporate an academically supportive peer group that will foster learning and engagement.  Third, these communities need to be sustainable.  For example, school and district administrators need to make a commitment to creating and supporting STEM learning spaces within their elementary school buildings.  In order to foster teachers with skills in culturally responsive pedagogy (CRE), and the capacity to use this critical pedagogy in order to improve student achievement, I believe that frequent and continuous professional development throughout the school year is necessary.  District instructional coaches should be adequate trained in Culturally Relevant Education, Problem-based learning (Papageorgiou et al., 2015), and STEM-foundational thinking pedagogical practices (Basham, et al., 2010; Bybee, 2013; Drew, 2011; Myers & Berkowicz, 2015; Berkowicz & Myers, 2016).  School principals are responsible for their staff becoming culturally relevant in STEM-foundational thinking.  Closing STEM inequity gaps is the intended goal, and in order to be successful and to sustain this success teachers and administrators need to commit to having a racial consciousness in STEM classrooms so that STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities are not solely reserved for certain groups of students.

Recommendations for research

Current research needs to address two issues simultaneously: (a) How can one improve the performance of an elementary school (as an organization) through the use of sustained culturally relevant pedagogy to ensure that marginalized students receive a quality education, and that teachers develop a social consciousness that allows them to critique the basis of power and privilege in education? and (b) What are the components of elementary STEM opportunities to learn that foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM foundational thinking and instructional activities, especially for marginalized students of color? Where our current research intended to focus on the latter, I believe that a more dynamic, longer-ranging study is necessary to understand the intersectionality of race, STEM foundational thinking, and systemic inequity. This could take the form of an inter-disciplinary study that uses mixed methods to study STEM foundational thinking. Doing so would give teachers and anti-racist school leaders tools that are backed by research in order to dismantle the current educational system both within their building and within their school district. I believe that future research should be grounded in the frameworks of Critical Race Theory, Culturally Responsive Education, adult learning, and STEM foundational thinking professional development design so that teachers can improve their pedagogy, thereby improving the quality of education for their students of color.

Although there has been much scholarship around the best practices surrounding the design and delivery of professional development (PD), adult and professional learning, evidence-based practices related to PD, thought leadership, online tools intended for more access and support, and equity and education (including Critical Race Theory), little has been done to combine these into a single, unifying professional learning approach in order to remove the academic disparities between racial groups within an elementary school setting (via STEM-foundational thinking). Most relevant to me is how discussing race among colleagues can have detrimental effects on a staff’s cohesiveness. These racial consciousness conversations about skin color, socio-economic status (SES), gender, and academic achievement need to come before any educational reform efforts. However, at times conversations around a students’ identity background and their perceptions of their own educational opportunities lead to unintended implications of racism on the part of individual teachers. Litowitz (1997) mentions “critics also worry that CRT’s emphasis on racism promotes ‘balkanization’ and racial divisiveness.” I have been witness to this in my own career as a teacher, educational leader, and instructional coach. I feel that the major reason a STEM inequity gap persists is because of a lack of open and frank communication between administrators, teachers, parents, and students about how different students learn, and the academic potential of traditionally underperforming students of color. We seem to recognize the need to differentiate instruction for our individual students’ needs; however, once the topic of race is added, people shy away from recognizing that students of different colors may learn differently (Cokley, 2003, p. 529) or are inhibited from learning based on systemic assumptions about their ability to achieve academic success.

Evidence-Based Leadership Strategies for Achieving Integrated STEM Foundational Thinking

Improving student achievement begins with evidence-based leadership strategies for improving the quality of instruction. Successful leadership (a) reinvents leadership practices to use a distributed leadership style, (b) organizes school supports for school improvement, and (c) turns schools into equitable centers of high-quality education. In the following sections, I will describe leadership
strategies that reflect current research on best practices for teachers and administrators. I will end with explaining how these interventions will produce significant gains in marginalized student achievement.

          Improved student learning through distributed leadership. Leadership projects, such as the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota, have investigated links to improve student learning through leadership that focuses on “shared and contingent responsibility” and “on leadership exercised by those most directly responsible for student learning—principals and teachers” (Seashore-Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstom, & Anderson, 2010, p. 17). This distributed leadership philosophy has positive effects on teachers, students, and principals. For example, by creating an effective professional community, the staff creates a school climate that “encourages levels of student effort above and beyond the levels encouraged in individual classrooms” (Seashore-Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstom, & Anderson, 2010, p. 37). This is especially important for marginalized students because systemic levels of STEM privilege and oppression have caused these students to underperform in all content areas as compared to their White peers. By using professional development focused on STEM equity and racial consciousness, teachers will become STEM-foundational thinking facilitators and anti-racist leaders who instill the levels of trust necessary for increased student achievement in STEM content areas. Research indicates that “when the professional community focuses on the quality of student learning, teachers adopt instructional practices that enhance students’ learning” (Seashore-Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstom, & Anderson, 2010, p. 42).

          School improvement. STEM-foundational thinking and learning-focused leadership (a) means a “persistent, public focus at all levels of the system to improve the quality of instruction”, (b) invests in people and positions to enhance instructional leadership, (c) “reinvents leadership practice within schools”, (d) creates “differentiated, responsive relationships within schools”, and (e) uses evidence from many kinds of leadership work as constant reference points (Knapp, Copland, Honig, Plecki, & Portin, 2010). In order for professional development on race and STEM student achievement to be sustainable, closing the opportunity gap must be a priority at all schools, but especially within elementary schools where students’ learning experiences are more naturally integrated. This will require persistent focus from the classroom to the hallways, to the staff lounge, to the principal’s office; all levels of the system must be held accountable for closing this gap. Schools must invest in

this process by investing time, money, and in the teachers themselves. For example, successful professional development (e.g.: book study or STEM community cohort) require resources for teachers to use in exploring their own systems of privilege and oppression. This includes, but is not limited to staff meeting agenda time, books, substitute teacher pay for release days, individual grade level collaboration time, and guest speakers. By focusing on learning-focused leadership, the staff must identify and address problems of culturally insensitive instructional practice. To do this, requires STEM-focused teacher leaders to “model ways of thinking and acting [in a culturally-responsive manner]” and “developing and using tools in one-on-one assistance relationships” with marginalized students (Knapp, Copland, Honig, Plecki, & Portin, 2010, p. 14). Creating differentiated relationships within elementary schools, the principal must create “more responsive supervisor-teacher relationships inside the school” (Knapp, Copland, Honig, Plecki, & Portin, 2010, p. 15). For example, an instructional rounds model may work well for supporting this type of continuous professional development (Marzano, 2011; City, 2009). This would affect the way teachers are evaluated both formally and informally. Culturally responsive pedagogy must be a priority for all teacher evaluations. Finally, our professional development must use current data and evidence “provide continual feedback loops to teachers, teacher-leaders, and the school’s supervisory leaders” (Knapp, Copland, Honig, Plecki, & Portin, 2010, p. 17). Public schools are data-driven systems when it comes to content-area instruction; they must also be data-driven for anti-racist teaching and learning and STEM-foundational thinking.

Engaging others in the STEM-reform Effort

Engaging every staff member is essential for implementing this STEM reform effort to provide equal access and opportunities for STEM foundational thinking. Below I will define current research on collaborative research, and discuss the benefits and obstacles with these strategies.


          Collaborative leadership. Collaborative leadership “distributes power, authority, and responsibility across [a] group” (Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Boone, Kwiatkowski, et al., 2004, p. 4). True collaboration require an interdependence “characterized by trust, norms of give-and-take, shared responsibilities, consensus-building and conflict resolution mechanisms, shared power and authority and shared information and decision-making systems” (Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Boone, Kwiatkowski, et al., 2004, p. 2). Design principles and strategies for collaboration and collaborative leadership are numerous; however, here I will focus on three: (a) environment, (b) structure, and (c) purpose. Creating an environment of trust is the first priority for schools engaging in Culturally Responsive Education (CRE) professional development with a STEM-foundational thinking focus. Teachers must be willing to acknowledge their privileges and authority within the school system. Teachers must be willing to see systems of privilege and oppression clearly before they can analyze how the system works. The ability to compromise will be difficult for some, especially when denial of oppression is strong. Finally, in order to obtain our goal of closing these STEM opportunity gaps, teachers must be unified in that single purpose. Collaborative teachers must agree to this purpose before they can proceed. Research indicates that the use the professional development to illustrate how “commitment to the overall purpose will support their own interests” (Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Boone, Kwiatkowski, et al., 2004, p. 9) is vital to sustainability. Collaborative leadership is definitely a team approach to solving school-wide inequity problems. There will be conflict, yet these conflicts must be handled tactfully so that teachers can get to the business of increasing the integration of STEM-foundational thinking in all content areas.

Chapter V. Conclusions, Discussion, and Suggestions for Future Research

Introduction

In conducting this collaborative, mixed-methods, multi-site comparative case study with the Center for Practice Engaged Education Research (C-PEER), I wanted to understand aspects of systems that impact schools operating as effective learning communities, specifically with regards to systemic STEM inequities. In the following sections, I summarize my findings based on qualitative archival data coding and quantitative survey analysis. I revisit my original research questions and draw conclusions based on the data I received. My discussion of the data leads into two recommendations: (a) recommendations for future/continued research; and (b) recommendations for supporting teachers’ practice. It is my hope that these recommendations further the conversation around adult professional development and the pedagogical practices necessary for moving teachers to make meaningful changes current pedagogy, which perpetuates inequitable systems of learning.

Summary of Findings

This study intends to answer: (a) What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas? (b) Do these supports differ for sub-groups of students, i.e. students of color, students in poverty, and English language learners? (c) What are the components of elementary STEM opportunities to learn foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for marginalized students of color? Researchers examined a combination of quantitative and qualitative data sources, which included the Effective Learning Teacher Survey (ELTS), the Effective Learning Leader Survey (ELLS), extant student perception survey data provided by the partner district, de-identified teacher evaluation data under the professionalism domain on the teacher evaluation rubric, extant district data, like school UIP’s and SPF’s, and archival documents provided by participating schools, including any professional learning plans and calendars for each school. Key findings from the participating schools in this focus-study include: (a) no evidence of integrated STEM-foundational thinking and STEM instructional activities into content areas; (b) a lack of an explicit STEM agenda for each elementary school; (c) no explicit structures in place for underperforming subgroups of students to access STEM-foundational thinking; (d) the alignment of student perceptions about a teacher’s ability to facilitate STEM-foundational thinking with reported teacher perceptions about current instructional practices and the schools’ identified performance level (as determined by the Colorado Department of Education); and (e) the misalignment between school’s perceptions about STEM-foundational thinking and instructional practices and teacher perceptions about the effectiveness of using STEM to in improving their pedagogy.

Conclusions (Organized by Research Questions)

Based on obtained qualitative and quantitative data, there are no elementary school structures present that support students in STEM curricular areas. Since there are no structures in place, students of color, students in poverty, English language learners, and other underperforming sub-groups, do not have access to STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities. Based on current research, there are specific components that elementary schools can put in place to foster student interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas. These include (a) Culturally Responsive Education professional development; (b) collaborative, distributive leadership toward STEM-foundational thinking; (c) attention to rigor; (d) attention to and validation of students’’ everyday experiences; (e) focus on creating STEM communities; and (f) out-of-school and in-school content-area connections (Cokley, 2003; Litowitz 1997; Seashore-Louis, et al., 2010; Knapp, et al., 2010; Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Boone, Kwiatkowski, et al., 2004; Hess, et al., 2009; Stembridge, 2015; Walker, 2012; Basham, et al., 2010; Bybee, 2013; Drew, 2011; Myers & Berkowicz, 2015; Berkowicz & Myers, 2016).

Conclusion

This study investigated STEM-foundational thinking and structures in place for teacher practices in relation to STEM instructional activities. Some overarching findings for the participating schools in this study indicate a relationship between isolated STEM-foundational thinking teacher practices. For example, researchers found that in participating schools, there were no statistically significant teacher perceptions of STEM-foundational thinking, and these did not align with administrator perceptions of STEM-foundational thinking. Participating schools do not indicate that they explicitly participate in STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities. Professional. Researchers also discovered that student perceptions of teachers facilitating STEM-foundational thinking aligned with teacher perceptions about the lack of STEM instructional practices. Researchers also ascertained the evidence of relationships and patterns between teacher survey responses (STEM-related sub-scales), student perceptions about their teachers’ abilities to facilitate STEM-foundational thinking also aligned with a school’s performance level. Generally speaking, in lower performing schools, teacher and student perceptions were lower than teacher and student perceptions in higher performing schools. Finally, researchers were also able to uncover evidence of relationships among the variables in responses on the ELLS and the ELTS (see Table 8). 

In terms of my original research question: What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas? and based on the quantitative data analysis, there are pockets of STEM-foundational thinking present throughout the seven surveyed elementary schools. There does not seem to a pattern among schools with regards to STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities, especially with respect to how STEM supports may or may not differ for sub-groups of students. However, as no individual school cases are meant to be generalized, I focused my efforts on exploring several sources of data. For example, when one examines the qualitative data (i.e.: curriculum documents, school improvement plans, and mission and vision statements), what stands out is the lack of a deliberate focus on STEM-foundational thinking. No school surveyed has a full agenda for how to implement or integrate STEM-foundational thinking into their curricula. No school (as indicated by the STEM survey clusters) has an entire cluster correlated to STEM-foundational thinking. Nonetheless, one school, Richard Spikes Elementary, does stand out slightly from the other schools. There appears to be a school-wide effort on student reflection in all content areas. This give students multiple opportunities throughout their school day to reflect on their thinking and academic work, a characteristic found in STEM-foundational thinking and STEM instructional activities. In terms of specific components of elementary STEM opportunities to learn that foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for marginalized students of color, I believe that consistency in pedagogical practices is important for integration of any educational philosophy. When a building embeds a certain value in multiple aspects of their organization (e.g.: mission and vision statement, professional development, curriculum guides), then that value becomes more widely adopted by staff, students, and the parent community.

Chapter IV. Research Findings

Introduction

In the following section, I present my research findings through the lens of identified themes in the literature review. The purpose of this research was to study practices for recruiting and engaging students of color in STEM curricula, as well as established structures for creating a culturally relevant school culture (e.g.: an effective learning organizations). Throughout the discussion of my findings, I address my research questions: (a) What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas? (b) Do these supports differ for underperforming subgroups of students? and (c) What are the components of elementary STEM opportunities to learn that foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for these subgroups of students? First, I describe the demographics of each participating elementary school of our partner urban school district. Next, I outline the predominant findings from our survey analysis. Based the review of literature, students who participate in STEM instructional activities collaboratively engage in (a) critical thinking; (b) scientific inquiry; (c) applying specific content knowledge to real world contexts; (d) the engineering design process; (e) evidence-based reasoning and argumentation; and (f) effective written and oral communication. I end by discussing the quantitative and qualitative data (as organized by my original research questions) while discussing the terms for STEM foundational thinking and instructional activates defined in the first chapter. I describe these findings in relation to our modified conceptual framework.

Partner School District Demographic

The elementary schools that participated in this mixed-methods, multi-site comparative case study with the Center for Practice Engaged Education Research (C-PEER) are located within a large urban district in Colorado. The partner district serves approximately 80,000 students in 162 schools and has a graduation rate of 52.7%. Enrollment, by race/ethnicity for the school district is 58.4% Hispanic, 19.8% White, 14.6% African-American, 3.3% Asian, 0.7% American Indian, and 3.1% other. Additional demographic groupings of students within the district include 72.49% of students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch and 31% of the students who are identified as English Language Learners.

School Profiles

Our primary objective for this overarching “Schools as effective learning organizations” mixed-methods multi-site, comparative case study was to focus on understanding what constitutes an effective learning community through the lens of STEM-foundational thinking. By analyzing effective school learning communities through surveying multiple elementary schools, we were able to craft a narrative of what is occurring both inside and outside the classroom and what supports or hinders a STEM mindset in students, especially students of color. Therefore, I begin by presenting a snapshot of each participating elementary school (using pseudonyms), discussing student body demographics, student academic achievement, student growth, and any other relevant factors to STEM-foundational thinking. I then present my formal findings overall (both quantitative and qualitative) in relation to our modified activity system framework from Yamagata-lynch and Smaldino (2007). My discussion is meant to begin a conversation about both students of color as STEM learners and teachers as STEM-foundational thinking facilitators that will increase the participation of racially marginalized students in STEM instructional activities.

          Annie easley elementary. Annie Easley Elementary is located in an urban area of Colorado surrounded by residential housing, a neighborhood community center, and other community organizations and businesses. A diverse, student population of 460 students with a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds exists at Annie Easley (97.8% Free and Reduced Lunch, 63.2% English Language Learners, 9.2% Special Education, and 84.3% Students of color). Annie Easley’s “Caring Community of Learners” promotes a safe, caring and respectful learning environment. The children attending Annie Easley Elementary are from a wide variety of multicultural families. These are Latin, White, Asian, Native American, African American, and African. Students at Annie Easley Elementary scored proficient and advanced on TCAP Reading between the years of 2009-2014 (37%, 34%, 32%, 41%, 49%, and 45%), resulting in a slightly upward trend that is 27% below the State expectation of 72%. In Writing students at Annie Easley scored proficient and advanced on TCAP Writing between the years of 2009-2014 has been 24%, 18%, 24%, 23%, 31%, and 34%, resulting in a slightly upward trend that is 21% below the State expectation of 55%. In Math, students scored proficient and advanced on TCAP Math between the years of 2009-2014 has been 36%, 36%, 38%, 38%, 49%, and 57%, resulting in an upward trend that is 13% below the State expectation of 70%. Students overall at Annie Easley Elementary scoring proficient and advanced in all TCAP content areas are significantly below the state expectation. Reading is 27% below the State expectation of 72%. Writing is 21% below the State expectation of 55%. Math is 13% below the State expectation of 70%.

Figure 17. Annie Easley elementary demographic information

          Benjamin banneker elementary. Benjamin Banneker School is located in an urban Colorado school district and serves a diverse community of learners. They serve students ECE (Preschool) through 8th grade. Due to the small setting of two classrooms per grade level, Benjamin Banneker offers a small community feel that supports students learning through. Teachers are able to make personal connections with students and build relationships that support students creating the college and career readiness mindset. Benjamin Banneker Elementary has 484 enrolled students with a demographic of 75.2% Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL), 22.3% English Language Learners (ELL), 9.5% Special Education (SPED), and 59.3% Students of Color. The percentage of our students scoring proficient and advanced on the reading standardized tests (TCAP/CSAP) has remained stable from 2009 to 2014 (52, 58, 55, 58, 58, 52) and is 30 points below the state’s expectation of 72 percentile. The median growth percentile (MGP) for students on the reading TCAP/CSAP has decreased from 2012-2014 (63 percentile, 59 percentile, 43 percentile) and is seven points below the state’s median of 50 percentile. The MGPs for males on the reading TCAP/CSAP have decreased from 2012-2014 (63 percentile, 50 percentile, 44 percentile for elementary students (PreK-5) and 60 percentile, 54 percentile, 36 percentile for Middle School students Grades 6-8). These are below the state’s median of 50 percentile.

Figure 18. Benjamin Banneker elementary demographic information

          Richard spikes elementary. Richard Spikes Elementary school is a traditional neighborhood school in Northwest Colorado currently serving 550 students, grades Preschool through fifth grade. Richard Spikes Elementary houses a magnet program for students identified as Highly Gifted and Talented (GT), as well as, a special education center program for students with Autism. Richard Spikes’s population consists of 40% of students who receive Free/Reduced Lunch and 38% of student who are Hispanic and 59% of students who are White. Additionally, 5% of Richard Spikes’s students speak a language other than English at home, 7% receive special education support and 20% receive gifted and talented services.

Figure 19. Richard Spikes elementary demographic information

Based on an analysis of the school performance data, Richard Spikes teachers have high levels of achievement in the school, as compared to the other participating schools in this study. Richard Spikes earned the “Meets Expectations” rating on the school district’s School Performance Framework (LEAP), which includes being rated “Meets Expectations” for Achievement Status and “Approaching Expectations” for Achievement Growth. Additionally, they met expectations for state requirements for Academic Achievement in reading, writing and math; Academic Growth was “Meets Expectations” for reading and writing and “Approaching” for math; and they are rated “Approaching” for Growth Gaps. In 2014, 76% of 3-5th graders are proficient/advanced in reading with 11% advanced in reading. 67% of 3rd-5th graders are proficient/advanced in mathematics with 36% being advanced in math. The number of students scoring in the unsatisfactory range on the 2014 standardized testing (TCAP) was 8% in reading, 9% in math, and 6% in writing for all 3rd-5th grade students. Standardized test achievement growth, Median Growth Percentile (MGP) improved from 2013 to 2014 in reading from 50.5 percentile to 54 percentile and increased in math from 45 percentile to 46.5 percentile. Though Richard Spikes has consistently demonstrated comparatively high levels of achievement within the district, especially in reading and mathematics, there are concerns about the low percentage of students who are Hispanic who score proficient/advanced in reading, writing and math. The percent of students who are White who score proficient/advanced in reading was 91%, in writing was 72% and math was 84% while the percentage of students who are Hispanic who score proficient/advanced in reading was 57%, in writing was 31% and in math was 45%. Therefore, the teachers at Richard Spikes have prioritized achievement of students who are Hispanic. Teachers at Richard Spikes are concerned about the low achievement growth in math (MGP). School-wide writing growth is increasing and above 50 percentile (44 percentile in 2009 to 49 percentile in 2010, 59 percentile in 2011, 54 percentile in 2012, 61 percentile in 2013, and 55 percentile in 2014 ). School-wide reading growth is slowly increasing and above 50 percentile (47 percentile in 2009, 53.5 percentile in 2010, 54 percentile in 2011, 54 percentile in 2012, 50.5 percentile in 2013, 54 percentile in 2014). However, the math MGP is at 46.5 percentile (42 percentile in 2009, 43 percentile in 2010, 40 percentile in 2011, 49 percentile in 2012, 45 percentile in 2013 46.5 percentile in 2014), which is below the minimum goal of 50. Therefore, teachers at Richard Spikes prioritized math achievement growth as a priority need.

          Elijah mccoy elementary. Students overall at Elijah McCoy Elementary have had persistent low achievement across all content areas that has resulted in a downward trend over the last 6 years, and are well below the state expectations in all subject areas. They have not made adequate growth in any content area as determined by the Colorado Department of Education’s (CDE) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Figure 20. Elijah McCoy elementary demographic information

          Aprille Ericsson Elementary. Aprille Ericsson Elementary student demographics are: 94% Students of color, 95% Free and Reduced Lunch, 35% ELL's and 13% Special Education. The school went through the Turnaround process beginning in 2010, with new leadership and new staff (28% of previous staff remained). The staff has remained constant throughout the last three years, with the exception reductions of staff due to decreased enrollment. The school has enrollment rate has fluctuated in the last three years due to redevelopment of the Mariposa Housing Project. Families have been relocated during this process, and enrollment has dropped from 461 in the school year 2011-12 to 395 in school year 2012-2013 to 379 in the 2013-2014 school year. However, the 2014-2015 academic school year enrollment has increased to 410 as families have returned after the relocation.

Figure 21. Aprille Ericsson elementary demographic information

          Mae jemisson elementary. Mae Jemisson Elementary is an Expanded Learning Opportunities neighborhood school in the Southwest Network of an urban school district area. Johnson’s enrollment in 2014-15 is 444 students: 97.1% Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL), 91.1% Minority, 63.9% English Language Learners (ELL), and 8.2% Special Education (SPED). Johnson is part of the district’s extended learning program, increasing instructional time for students by 70 minutes a day and doubling the required amount of planning time for teachers. Community partners and citywide organizations offer enrichments during the extended day, expanding the knowledge and experiences of Johnson students. Mae Jemisson Elementary is currently a “Meets Expectations” or green school on the School Performance Framework (LEAP) with the majority of students not yet proficient and at acceptable levels of academic growth for the next highest category. Over the past three years, the school has changed accreditation categories moving from “Accredited” on Probation red in 2012 to our current rating as “Meets Expectation” green in 2014. Johnson meets expectations in growth, but does not meet expectations in status. The school is approaching expectations on student engagement and satisfaction at 33.3%. They meet expectations for reenrollment at 75.0% and meet expectations for parent satisfaction and engagement at 62.5%. Similarly, Mae Jemisson Elementary met its UIP performance targets in academic growth and growth gaps, but did not meet its performance targets in academic achievement. The magnitude of the performance challenges for Mae Jemisson Elementary is great. In order to meet state expectations for proficiency, Johnson is trying to increase achievement levels in reading by 30.95%, in writing by 30.8%, in math by 33.8%, and in science by 45%, substantially increasing the number of students who currently score proficient or advanced.

Figure 22. Mae Jemisson Elementary demographic information

          Quantitative data trends. Jemisson’s three greatest successes, as indicated by quantitative data trends, include: (a) Upward growth trends for the last 2 years in Access scores with an increase in Median Growth Percentile (MGP) up to 75.5; (b) Student Performance Framework (SPF) over the past 3 years from “Accredited” on Probation red in 2012 to “Accredited” on Watch yellow in 2013, to their current rating as “Meets Expectations” green in 2014 (LEAP, 2015); (c) Reading, writing, and math all averaging an MGP of 55 percentile. The two key concerns in terms of quantitative data trends include: (a) The percentage of students overall at Johnson scoring proficient or advanced on TCAP Reading, Writing, Math and Science are significantly below the state expectations: Reading 40.7% (71.65%), Math 37.06% (70.89%), Writing 22.73% (53.52%), and Science 3% (47.53%); (b) Johnson’s MGPs are below the Median Adequate Growth Percentiles (MAGP) necessary for students to reach proficiency within three years: Reading MGP 49 (MAGP 57), Math MGP 53 (MAGP 74), and Writing MGP 59 (MAGP 68).

          Qualitative data trends. Mae Jemisson Elementary has leveraged its expanded learning time to restructure and increase instructional time and teacher planning time. The three things that accomplished during the 2014-2015 academic school year were: (a): Longer teaching (192 hours) and more direct instruction (35% increase); (b) Supplemental instruction including targeted 45 minutes of daily enrichment and academic language support and 45 minutes per day of best practice flooding model for reading intervention; and (c) 80 minutes twice a week for professional learning communities which consist of collaborative teacher data analysis. The school’s three greatest achievements, as indicated by qualitative data, include: (a) Positive, values-based school culture, students and staff (see Technical report); (b) Student learning is maximized through expanded learning, intervention and enrichment; and (c) Academic and behavioral interventions and supports are in place for struggling students. When asked to describe the school environment, 43% of teacher respondents indicated the overall culture was positive. 25% associated the environment with terminology linked to school value statements (see Technical report). Three concerns that emerged from the qualitative data analysis include: (a) Instruction is not always intentional, engaging, or effectively aligned to Common Core state standards or with the LEAP framework in mind (38% of teacher respondents); (b) Assessment results are not used in a timely manner to systematically make responsive adjustments to instruction (42% of teacher respondents); and (c) Students know and act with school values when it comes to behavior, but fail to transition them in relation to their academic performance (44% of teacher respondents) (see Technical report for more details).

          Shirley jackson elementary. Shirley Jackson Elementary is a small school in an urban CO school district, serving students Preschool through the fifth grade. They have three classrooms for students with significant special education needs. Students who qualify for free/reduced lunch over the past 4 years have increased from 76% to 81%. The current demographic of Shirley Jackson is 66% Hispanic, 24% White, and 10% “other” (Vietnamese, African American, Native American and multiple). Approximately 16% of Shirley Jackson’s students receive services through an ELA pull-out model with a qualified ESL resource teacher and all teachers are ELA-E certified. Approximately 20% of the school’s students have an IEP. The percentage of Proficient and Advanced students overall at Shirley Jackson Elementary on TCAP reading between the years of 2009-2013 has been 56%, 51%, 47%, 53% & 61% resulting in stability until 2012 where upon there was an increase of 8%, which is less than the state expectation of 72%. The percentage of Proficient and Advanced students overall at Shirley Jackson on TCAP math between the years 2009-2013 has been 45%, 58%, 56%, 47% & 55% resulting in a slight increase that is 16% below the state expectation of 71%. The percentage of Proficient & Advanced students overall at Shirley Jackson Elementary on TCAP writing between the years of 2009-2013 has been 36%, 41%, 41%, 40% and 44% resulting in a very slight upward trend that is an 8% increase but 10% below the state expectation of 54%. The percentage of Proficient & Advanced students in our ELL/non-ELL group at Shirley Jackson Elementary on TCAP math between the years 2009-2013 has been 38, 52, 36, 33 & 32 resulting in a downward trend of a 28% gap.

Figure 23. Shirley Jackson elementary demographic information

Each participating elementary school is ranked in terms of performance levels as determined by the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) School Performance Framework (see Table 2). “Performance Plan” schools are meeting or exceeding statewide expectations on the four performance indicators, which include academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, and postsecondary/workforce readiness. The CDE determines that “Improvement Plan” schools are just below statewide expectations on the four performance indicators. “Priority Improvement Plan” level schools score moderately below the statewide expectations on the four performance indicators, while “Turnaround Plan” level schools perform significantly below the statewide expectations on the four performance indicators. If a school remains on a “Priority Improvement” or “Turnaround” status for five consecutive school years, the Colorado Board of Education will direct the district to either restructure, or close the school.

Elementary School	CDE Performance Rating
Richard Spikes	Performance (66.3%)
Shirley Jackson	Performance (64%)
Annie Easley	Performance (54.7%)
Benjamin Banneker	Improvement (61.5%)
Mae Jemison	Improvement (53.5%)
Elijah McCoy	Priority Improvement (48.2%)
Aprille Ericsson	Turnaround- Year 4 (40%)

Table 2. Participating school performance ratings (from Colorado Department of Education)

Final Instrumentation (Effective Learning Teacher Survey for STEM-related Outputs)

The Effective Learning Teacher Survey (ELTS) was co-designed with C-PEER and doctoral candidates/researchers as a way to study comparative perspectives on teaching and learning in public schools. For STEM-related outputs, survey constructs were adapted from the Teaching and Learning International Survey, looking at STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities through the lens of teachers. Researchers wanted to examine how STEM-foundational thinking is perceived and implemented in elementary schools and classrooms. Teacher survey questions were split into two survey blocks. Questions were randomized in order to improve the survey’s validity and reliability. The use of two survey blocks decreased the amount of time required by participants so that the survey could be completed 20 minutes or less. Each ELTS block (see Fig. 15) is approximately 40 questions. Survey questions related to STEM-foundational thinking utilized a five-point Likert Scale where 1 is “Almost Neve,” and 5 is “Almost Daily” (see Fig. 15). Teachers who took the survey were de-identified through the use of a participant constructed, confidential identification code, which allowed researchers to connect responses across schools without providing any identifiable personal information. Instructions for completion of the survey were accessed by the subjects at a specified URL. The results of the survey were compiled and analyzed by C-PEER.

These features of the ELTS need to be taken into account when interpreting the results. For example, while teacher responses offer insight to the culture of a building, they are still subjective data points akin to interviewing individual teachers. C-PEER and researchers took great care in designing this instrument in order to ensure that the data are reliable and valid across elementary schools.

Effective Learning Leader Survey

The Effective Learning Leader Survey (ELLS) was also co-designed with C-PEER and doctoral candidates/researchers as a way to better understand the role that participation in teacher leadership networks plays in supporting and retaining effective teachers in urban schools. Researchers wanted to understand how opportunities for collaboration and leadership (within and beyond the classroom) can increase teacher efficacy and effectiveness for STEM-foundational thinking, while improving the retention of highly effective teachers. The ELLS was designed to be completed in less than 20 minutes, and is approximately 30 questions (see Fig. 16). ELLS questions related to the STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities utilized a four point Likert Scale, (1 is “Not at all true,” and 4 is “Very much like my school”), as well as a text response and multiple choice. The ELLS was also administered online using the Qualtrics Survey Software. Participants who took the survey were de-identified through the use of a participant constructed, confidential identification code, which allowed researchers to connect responses across schools without providing any identifiable personal information. Instructions for completion of the survey were accessed by the subjects at the provided URL. The results of the survey were compiled and analyzed by C-PEER.

Student Perception Survey

The Student Perception Survey (SPS) is designed to provide important feedback regarding teacher behaviors and the classroom environment. SPS results can point to strengths and opportunities for greater growth for teachers’ pedagogical practice. I focused primarily on how students perceived STEM-foundational instructional activities in the classroom. The survey (see Table 1) is comprised of 30 questions and can be administered in 45 minutes. According to the school district’s LEAP Handbook, “the SPS is administered once per year in the late fall to students in grades 3-12,” in order for administration and teachers to use results from the survey to make adjustments to instructional practices (LEAP, 2015). Responses are scored on a four point Likert Scale where 1 is “Never,” and 4 is “Always.” For this focus-study, the responses for items under the SPS construct of Facilitates Learning were analyzed. The results of the survey were compiled by the school district. Results for the participant schools provided by the district were analyzed for variance and correlation by C-PEER. The STEM-foundational thinking questions were derived a variety of sources (see Technical Report) (Seidel, et al. 2016).

LEAP Framework for Effective Teaching

Researchers specific to analyzing STEM-foundational thinking, examined results for teachers in participating schools on nine indicators on the framework for effective teaching (LEAP, 2015). From the Framework for Effective Teaching Observation Domain, these include: 

• LE.1: Demonstrates knowledge of, interest in and respect for diverse students’’ communities and cultures in a manner that increases equity (Positive Classroom Culture and Climate).
• LE.3: Implements high, clear expectations for students’ behavior and routines (Effective Classroom Management).
• I.1: Clearly communicates the standards-based content-language objective(s) for the lesson, connecting to larger rationale(s) (Masterful Content Delivery).
• I.2: Provides rigorous tasks that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure students’ success (Masterful Content Delivery).
• I.3: Intentionally uses instructional methods and pacing to teach the content-language objective(s) (Masterful Content Delivery).
• I.4: Ensures all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language (Masterful Content Delivery).
• I.5: Checks for understanding of content-language objective(s) (High-Impact Instructional Moves).
• I.6: Provides differentiation that addresses students’ instructional needs and supports mastery of content-language objective(s) (High-Impact Instructional Moves).
• I.7: Provides students with academically-focused descriptive feedback aligned to content-language objective(s) (High-Impact Instructional Moves
• I.8: Promotes students’ communication and collaboration utilizing appropriate digital and other resources (High-Impact Instructional Moves

Teachers are evaluated on a four-point rubric, where 1 is “Not Meeting” and 4 is “Distinguished.” The results of these evaluations for teachers in the district were compiled by the district and analyzed for each participating school. Researchers analyzed school-by-school factor runs ANOVA scale checks and possible correlation.

Figure 15. Sample questions from teacher survey

Figure 16. Sample questions from leader survey

Q#	Item	SPS Category
1	My teacher listens to me.	Supports Students
2	My teacher helps me understand my mistakes so that I can do better next time.	Facilitates Learning
3	My teacher makes sure that the class rules are clear.	High Expectations of Students
4	My teacher makes learning interesting.	Facilitates Learning
5	In my teacher's class, I have to work hard.	High Expectations of Students
6	Q06: My teacher explains what we are learning and why.	Facilitates Learning
7	My teacher ignores me (reverse-coded).	Supports Students
8	My teacher wants me to think about things I learn and not just memorize them.	Facilitates Learning
9	My teacher encourages me to share my ideas.	Facilitates Learning
10	My teacher makes sure that we all treat each other with respect.	High Expectations of Students
11	My teacher helps me learn new things.	Facilitates Learning
12	My teacher uses examples in class that I understand.	Facilitates Learning
13	I like the way my teacher treats me.	Supports Students
14	In my teacher's class, we learn to correct our mistakes.	Facilitates Learning
15	My teacher hurts my feelings (not used in scoring).	Filtering Use Only (not used in scoring)
16	My teacher checks to make sure I understand.	Facilitates Learning
17	In my teacher's class, I have to think hard about the work I do.	High Expectations of Students
18	My teacher believes in me.	Supports Students
19	My teacher makes sure that students do what they're supposed to be doing.	High Expectations of Students
20	My teacher only accepts my best effort.	High Expectations of Students
21	My teacher is good at explaining things that are hard to understand.	Facilitates Learning
22	I get bored in my teacher’s class (not used in scoring).	Filtering Use Only (not used in scoring)
23	My teacher explains things in different ways.	Facilitates Learning
24	My teacher makes sure that students in this class behave well.	High Expectations of Students
25	In my teacher's class, I have to explain my answers.	Facilitates Learning
26	My teacher is nice to me when I need help.	Supports Students
27	My teacher makes sure I do my best in school.	High Expectations of Students
28	The rules in my teacher's class are fair.	Supports Students
29	My teacher knows when the class does not understand.	Facilitates Learning
30	My teacher cares about me.	Supports Students

Table 1. Questions from student perception survey with coding categories