Critical Race Theory

The most controversial, but most important element of achievement and race is Critical Race Theory (CRT). Critical race theory is a way of understanding race relations in the United States. This intellectual movement began in the 1970’s when civil rights lawmakers felt that the 1960’s movement was beginning to slow. CRT scholars analyzed how the legal system influenced this slow pace of racial reform. Primarily, “CRT scholars redefined racism as not the acts of individuals, but the larger, systemic, structural conventions and customs that uphold and sustain oppressive group relationships, status, income, and educational attainment” (Taylor, 2006).

Although this intellectual and political paradigm is multifaceted and complex, it has four basic tenets. First, Racism has a historical context so deeply ingrained, that it is a normal part of American society. The history of the opportunity gap in the United States is often viewed concurrently with the history of the United States. Racial inequalities have been present since the founding of our nation; however, depending on one’s perspective, these divisions may be difficult to see. Conversations about race and achievement often leave out a historical context in favor of discussing other explanations (poverty, community support, educational values). Race is an uncomfortable topic to discuss for many. It is not surprising, then, that an alarmingly high number of students do not know basic African-American history beyond that of slavery.

Next, narratives are used as a form of racial storytelling to deepen one’s understanding of race. Being exposed to multiple and varying perspectives is a powerful experience. “Critical Race Theory scholarship uses narrative—what it calls racial reality—to make visible the distinctive experiences of people of color” (Taylor, 2006). When looking at these racial realities, STEM inequity is made clear. Racial autobiographies are essential if one is to understand how skin color is related to how one is treated in our society.

Interest convergence: the majority racial group will only encourage racial equality for the minority group when it is in the best interest of the majority social group. The current demographics in any STEM program within public education or in STEM careers, indicates that hegemony is the status quo. White and Asian males dominate these fields (Change the Equation, 2015). Although we have officially desegregated schools with Brown v. Board of Education, there are still a high percentage of schools segregated, especially when looking at school programs (e.g.: Advanced Placement, SPED, and STEM). Unfortunately, the “best” education is not always one offered from a racially diverse school. This holds true for traditionally African-American schools as well.

Finally, racism is a permanent aspect of society. Although there have been amazing gains since the civil rights movement, racism has moved from a public event to a systemic (sometimes even subversive) act. Many feel that racism ended with Brown v. Board of Education, but the unseen (or ignored) is oftentimes the most damaging.

Most relevant to this dissertation is how discussing race, specifically within the context to STEM curricula and teachers’ expectations for students of color, can have detrimental effects on a faculty’s cohesiveness. Pacific Educational Group, which partners with educational organizations to “transform beliefs, behaviors, and results” (Pacific Educational Group, 2015) refer to these conversations as “Courageous Conversations” and encourages discussion about race and achievement (using a specified protocol) to come before any culturally responsive pedagogy (Singleton & Linton, 2006). However, many times these conversations 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.” Teachers recognize the need to differentiate instruction for individual students’ needs; however, once the topic of race is added, people shy away from recognizing that students of different colors learn differently (Cokley, 2003) and are capable of learning 21st century skills such as: (a) critical thinking; (b) collaboration; (c) communication; (d) creativity and innovation; (e) self-direction; (f) making global connections; (g) making local connections; and (h) using technology as a tool for learning. This indicates, and research literature supports, a lack of racial consciousness in STEM classrooms.

STEM Identities

Research indicates that very few students view themselves as STEM learners when investigating a question or problem in their community. Whereas previous research indicates a lack of diversity in STEM education and careers and specific schools structures that support successful STEM integration, there is a greater need to research what elementary school structures support students of color in STEM curricular areas. When researching mathematics education in working class Latina/o communities, Marta Civil (2014) feels that her interests in learning as a cultural process, and in particular the concept of funds of knowledge, can be extended to STEM learning. For example, Luis Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Neff, and Norma Gonzalez (2005, p. 72) explain “we use the term funds of knowledge to refer to these historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being.” By placing STEM education under a sociocultural lens, Civil (2014) sees connections between making connections to mathematics in the real world and STEM. STEM learning must be connected to the real world. At its heart, the engineering-design process lays a lifelong framework of the continual process of improvement by connecting the principles of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. She goes on to say that “we need to understand better the role of valorization of knowledge particularly as it applies to everyday practices versus practices in STEM disciplines” (Civil, 2014, p. 15). All students, especially marginalized students, need to see themselves as learners. Research supports that when students bridge out-of-school concepts with in-school content, they make “robust, authentic connections” in this third space (Gutierrez, et al. 1999). Researchers agree on the need to reform traditional ideologies of a rigorous education to one of STEM-foundational thinking. However, STEM education reform at the elementary school level, is missing from current educational research.

STEM Education Reform

According to Bybee (2013), STEM education reform differs from other educational reforms due to four STEM themes: (a) addresses global challenges that citizens must understand allowing for (b) changing perceptions of environmental and associated problems; (c) recognizing the importance and need for 21st century workforce skills; and addressing (d) the continuing issues of national security (p. 33). However, what good is a STEM education, if we, as a society, cannot provide equal access and opportunity to marginalized students of color? “Dually disadvantaged” people (both underrepresented minorities who are also poor, working poor, or working class) “collectively comprise the largest group left out of the expanding roster of people working in or training for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics” (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2015, p. 27).

Underrepresented minority groups (URM) face a myriad of systemic barriers to accessing a highly rigorous education. For example, when just looking at socioeconomic status, in 2013, “one if five children lived below the poverty line. Fewer than 10% of White and Asian children lived below the poverty level. 38% of Black children and 30% of Hispanic children lived in poverty” (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2015, p. 30). Poverty matters. As Bozeman & Gaughan (2015) ask, “How, exactly, is the nation supposed to produce scientists from hungry children who cannot read when they get to school, and who then attend a failing school with other hungry children living in dangerous places” (p. 30)?

Obviously, it is a rhetorical question. Even more obvious is the fact that “STEM-related education should be accessible for everyone” (Findley, 2014, p. 19). Unfortunately, marginalized groups are underrepresented in STEM-related fields and STEM curricular courses in school. In the next twenty years, STEM-related jobs will increase faster than any other field. In fact, “between 2014 and 2024, the number of STEM jobs will grow by 17%, as compared to 12% for non-STEM jobs” (Rosen, 2015). African Americans’ and Latinos’ populations have grown substantially, but they are less likely to pursue a career in engineering, computer science, or advanced manufacturing than in 2001.
Research abounds surrounding the critical race theory, growth versus fixed mindsets, and stereotype threat. However, very little has been done to synthesize neuroscience and educational research with race and STEM education. With multiple attempts and failures at education reform, STEM education provides the first real opportunity for sustained culturally responsive, educational reform. Ann Myers and Jill Berkowicz (2015) call this a “STEM shift” which “encourages, reimagining schools, from Kindergarten through the 12th grade, including the way curriculum is designed, organized, and delivered” (p. 8). Their call to action is deeper than a stronger focus in the individual STEM content areas (e.g.: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). They call for an “entire systemic shift in how learning happens” (Myers & Berkowicz, 2015, p. 8). STEM educational reform is about “the learning process of inquiry, imagination, questioning, problem-solving, creativity, invention, and collaboration” (Myers & Berkowicz, 2015, p. 8).

Design Principles to Guide the Development of Equitable STEM Education

 Draw on values and practices from multiple settings. Instead of focusing research on obtaining specific goals for a single learning environment, STEM-education research should “require a more diverse set of perspectives for articulating learning goals, identify potential challenges to meeting those goals, and identify and leveraging resources that can overcome those challenges” (Penuel & Fishman, 2012, p. 6). It is not fruitful to assume that structures for STEM-foundational thinking in one learning environment will easily transfer to another school. One must take into considerations the differences in the organization of practices and values before importing new practices to another setting.

Co-design in initiatives focused on promoting learning across settings. This requires the perspectives and voices of multiple stakeholders. Any initiative, including STEM education, should be a collaborative effort that strives to create lasting partnerships for all members involved. In structuring these partnerships, “it is important not only to consider what stakeholder groups need to be involved, but also the history of communities and the relations among different stakeholder groups” (Penuel & Fishman, 2012, p. 8). Without taking these into account, any change initiative will not be sustainable.

Engage participants in building artifacts that facilitate meaning across contexts. STEM-foundational thinking and access to that learning requires strategies that learning across educational settings, and into the real world. Penuel et al. (2014) discusses the use of “Transmedia storytelling” to engage learners in “creating a single story or story experience across different media” (p. 8). Students are active members of creating these stories that then translate to lessons in questioning, observations, and constructing claims, evidence, and reasoning for real-world scenarios.

 Help youth identify with the learning enterprise. Penuel et al. (2014) discuss the importance of identifying and integrating students’ cultural practices into deep learning experiences. This is how students co-create their STEM identities that do not conflict with their cultural identities. A STEM identity “develops as people transform their participation in culturally valued activities and come to imagine new possible futures for themselves and others” (Penuel & Fishman, 2012, p. 9). Students need multiple opportunities to develop their STEM identities while solving authentic problems.

Use intentional brokering to facilitate movement across settings. STEM-foundational thinking does not solely live in the classroom. Students take themes and content knowledge from STEM instructional activities and use them in other settings, mainly outside of the classroom. This type of brokering “facilitates a form of learning that comes about form expanding personal networks” (Penuel & Fishman, 2012, p. 11). Students can then become active members of their communities because they have developed social networks of others who have knowledge, skills, or resources needed to solve authentic problems.

Research literature on systemic change states that any lasting initiative is more likely to occur and be successful through an emphasis on multiple co-designed capacities because “the focus is on developing and testing innovations that can improve the quality and equity of supports for implementation of [STEM] reforms” (Penuel & Fishman, 2012, p. 282). Unfortunately, there is a lack of STEM self-identity for students of color at the elementary level.

Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM)

STEM learning aims to “foster connections among people, settings, and practices” (Penuel, Lee, & Bevan, 2014, p. 2). In fact, fostering diversity in STEM education promotes equity by (a) expanding access to STEM learning opportunities; (b) brokering continuing opportunities for participation in STEM learning opportunities; and (c) helping young people appropriate STEM practices to address issues they feel matter to their personal lives or communities (Penuel, Lee, & Bevan, 2014, p. 1). This includes leveraging minoritized students’ background knowledge or schema from a classroom setting to outside the classroom, or from one context outside of a classroom to another, different context. Therefore, in order to promote equity in STEM, requires attention to providing young people access to powerful settings for learning; supporting them to make connections and take up opportunities across settings, and attending to how access to disciplinary practices is shaped by what goes on in particular learning environments” (Hand, Penuel, & Gutierrez, 2012, p. 255). Penuel and colleagues (2014) synthesized current equitable STEM learning and identified characteristics for effectively supporting access to STEM learning across educational settings (i.e. formal and informal learning environments). Greater equity in K-12 STEM education requires: (a) expanding access for students of color to learning opportunities (e.g. Bevan et al., 2013; National Research Council, 2012), (b) brokering STEM learning across practices (i.e. disciplinary, cultural; see Bell et al., 2013) as well as across informal settings (e.g.: school, home, community; see González, Moll, & Amanti, 2013), and (c) supporting students of color in connecting STEM education content to their own interests, communities, and cultures (e.g. Civil, 2014). Penuel et al. (2014) recommends five design principles to guide the development of equitable STEM education: (a) draw on values and practices from multiple settings to articulate learning goals and identify resources to meet those learning goals; (b) structure partnerships to encompass multiple stakeholder groups as a way of supporting co-design of initiatives focused on promoting learning across settings; (c) engage participants [students of color] in building stories, imaginative worlds, and artifacts that span contexts and that facilitate meaning making across contexts; (d) help youth [students of color] identify with learning enterprise by supporting and naming them as contributors to authentic endeavors; and (e) use intentional brokering to facilitate movement across settings, preparing both educators and parents to be brokers.

Chapter II. Review of Literature

In the following section, I review the current literature on STEM, equity, and culturally relevant pedagogy by focusing my discussion a review of previous theoretical and empirical research. My purpose here is to historically place this doctoral dissertation in practice in the context of what has been accomplished in the past. Finally, I outline our current conceptual framework, which reflects a modified activity theory. I also explain how we used this modified activity system as a framework to engage both student learners and teachers as learners in order to produce significant gains in STEM-foundational thinking for traditionally underperforming students.

Introduction

As long as there has been education, from the ancient Egyptians’ library built by Ashurbanipal, the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (685-627 B.C.E.), to Confucius during the Zhou Dynasty (551-479 B.C.E.), to Hippocrates (c. 460-370 B.C.E.), Socrates (c. 470-399 B.C.E.), and Aristotle (c. 384-322 B.C.E.), there has been debate about how it should be organized, managed, who it should be for, and how knowledge should be disseminated to people (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2011). Through philosophical debates, educational theorists such as John Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1997), Paolo Freire’s Education for Critical Consciousness (2005), Kenneth Howe’s Equality of Educational Opportunity (1993), and W.E.B. DuBois’ “Talented Tenth”: a passionate belief that African Americans need greater access to higher education (DuBois, 2002, pp. 68-72) educators and critics have tried to understand how a system is unable to adequately service all students. A racial gap is apparent when one looks at the achievement of White students compared to the achievement (or rather underachievement) of those marginalized such as African-American and Hispanic students (Schmidt, 2012). What has become known and accepted as the opportunity gap, can unfortunately predict a child’s success in public education based solely on skin color (Carter, 2013). How does one “not merely apply theory, but use it to create equity-oriented and meaningful change in ourselves and the systems we’re in “(Gutierrez, 2010, p. 104)? For some, the answer lies in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. I will identify current academic research of STEM education, Critical Race Theory, racial consciousness in STEM classrooms, and the differing perspectives of what constitutes STEM education. It is my contention that there are some holes in this research, and that combining recommendations from each of these areas will help create equitable structures for students of color supporting these traditionally under-performing students with STEM-foundational thinking. I believe that longer-ranging research is needed in order to better understand the intersectionality of race, STEM foundational thinking, and systemic inequity.

Research Questions

This study intends to answer:
(a) What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas?
(b) Do these supports differ for subgroups 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 that foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for marginalized students of color?

Significance of Study

There is great significance in focusing on STEM equity and access to STEM-related content and activities for all students in elementary grades, including general supports for critical and creative thinking and innovation. I focus on elementary levels because research shows that it is in these early years that students find their natural interest in STEM foundational thinking either supported or discouraged, with the result that they are variously successful in the content areas as they grow older (Moomaw, 2013; Helm et al., 2001; Katz et al., 2000; Katz, 2010). Elementary-school students are most likely to gain STEM foundational thinking when they have opportunities to engage in in-depth investigations of phenomena around them worthy of their knowledge and understanding (Katz & Chard, 2000).

Definition of Terms for STEM Foundational Thinking and Instructional Activities

STEM connects the principles of the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics in order to solve problems faced by individuals and society. STEM-focused foundational thinking, teaching, and learning all instill a deep and extensive understanding of STEM content as it is applied to the real world. 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.

          Critical thinking. Critical thinking is an important STEM skill that takes time and practice. It requires students to understand their own reasoning, while dissecting their thinking, and looking at how that thinking is constructed. Finally, critical thinking requires students to evaluate and judge the quality of their own or another’s thinking. These are all needed in order to be successful in society. For example, with such an emphasis on improving test scores, many students are graduating school lacking the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in higher education or in the workplace

(Szymanski, 2013). Current research on critical thinking indicates that by having a more in-depth focus on enhancing critical thinking skills in schools, it can increase academic rigor and the scores on the standardized assessments (VanTassel-Baska, Bracken, Feng, & Brown, 2009; McCollister & Sayler, 2010; Snodgrass, 2011; Tsai, Chen, Chang, & Chang, 2013). When teachers create and facilitate STEM instructional activities that enhance critical thinking, students are better able to understand why something has occurred instead of only understanding what has occurred. This deeper understanding “allows the students to better analyze the circumstances surrounding the occurrence and differing viewpoints about the occurrence” (Tsai et al., 2013).

          Scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry is vital to understand scientific concepts, as well as “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work” (National Science Education Standards, 2004, p. 23). Students who are participating in scientific inquiry during STEM instructional activities are formulating questions that can be answered through investigation. Students must have a content knowledge that is specific to various aspects of the real-world problem being investigated, while engineering solutions that can be tested scientifically. The National Science Education Standards, which were developed by the National Research Council (1996), and updated and renamed the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2016) state that students need multiple opportunities to:

Use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in ways associated with inquiry, including asking questions, planning and conducting investigations, using appropriate tools and techniques to gather data, thinking critically and logically about relationships between evidence and explanations, constructing and analyzing alternative explanations, and communicating scientific arguments" (p. 105).

Scientific inquiry is a very powerful way to not only understand science content, but how to ask questions, search for supporting evidence from a variety of sources, and communicate and defend one’s thinking to a real audience.

          Content knowledge application. STEM foundational thinking and instructional activities draw on a large base of content knowledge. In order to tackle real-world problems, students need to be able to apply a variety of content knowledge (e.g.: mathematics, science, social studies, technology). Problems need to be authentic, and the content needs to be pedagogically grounded in academic standards. Doing so gives students insight into the interconnectedness of various curricular content areas and how they can be used together to solve novel problems facing society.

          Engineering design process. Best pedagogical practices indicate that teachers need to design lessons that introduce creativity and innovation in order to help students with career exploration and development, especially female students and students of color. By helping students build a strong foundation in problem-solving, teachers allow students to use cross-disciplinary tools for discovery and for developing solutions to problems that are open-ended and embedded in the real world. Classrooms that focus on STEM foundational thinking shift students away from learning isolated engineering-design model as a framework for instruction, teachers can advance students’ academic abilities, creativity, and learning. Students will have a framework for thinking systematically about problem-solving. This framework includes: (a) identifying the problem; (b) exploring possible solutions or researching needed information; (c) designing a solution; (d) creating or building the prototype solution; (e) testing the idea; and (f) redesigning or modifying the solution to make it better. This framework focuses on teamwork and open-ended design while emphasizing creativity and feasibility.
facts, moving towards experience-based inquiry with multiple opportunities for independent learning. By using the

          Evidence-based reasoning. Identifying sound evidence and drawing logical conclusions is critical to problem-solving. This skill allows students to transfer knowledge from one content area to another and apply to potentially unrelated real-world contexts. In order for teachers to effectively engage their students in reasoning, they must shift their role from that of a lecturer, imparting wisdom for the students, to a facilitator of learning, allowing for discussions and encouraging an open thought process. Teachers need to encourage students to ask questions, evaluate multiple, sometimes conflicting, answers and opinions (Henderson-Hurley & Hurley, 2013; Tsai et al., 2013). Educational philosopher John Dewey always believed that students are motivated to problem solve because they have an “innate love of learning” based on their survival instincts (p. 611). In fact, the simple act of discovery plays a central role in learning. When students “become interested in a problem as a problem and in inquiry and learning for the sake of solving the problem, [student] interest is distinctively intellectual” (Dewey, 1939, p. 614). Students who are strong reasoners will grow up thinking critically about problems and making better decisions as adults; they will be creative, imaginative people who understand the world on a deeper level.

          Effective communication. Communication is a learning and innovation skill (Framework for 21st Century Learning, 2007). Effective written and oral communication requires students to “articulate thoughts and ideas effectively” while informing, instructing, motivating, or persuading others (Framework for 21st Century Learning, 2002). Students need to make connections between classroom writing and practical, real-world applications. This includes reflecting on problem solving and technical writing for STEM-related jobs. STEM instructional activities combine oral and written communication with information and technology literacy.

Limitations and Delimitations

The limitations of this study relate to our sample size and lack of qualitative data such as classroom observations and student interviews, making subgroups of teachers and leaders surveyed too small to permit meaningful disaggregated analysis. We had a sample of seven urban elementary schools from an urban public school district in which to survey teachers, students, and other educational leaders. I would have liked to have more schools participate, possibly from different school districts, so that our data analysis might be generalizable to different schools. Although I understand that with regards to many types of educational reform, one size does not fit all; what works as a change effort or leveraging point in one school may or may not work in another building with a different student demographic population. However, I feel that STEM foundational thinking is apropos for raising student achievement in all content areas, preparing students with 21st century skills necessary for college and career readiness. Including an elementary school with a strong STEM focus would also have given this multi-site comparative case study a different context with which to analyze both qualitative and quantitative data.

Conclusion

So far, I have outlined the background of STEM inequities in public education. I described the purpose and significance of our study, while naming our specific research questions. I described STEM foundational thinking and instructional activities, as well as defining relevant terms. Finally, I discussed my limitations in disaggregating our data analysis in order to generalize our results. I also discussed the boundaries we have set for this study, and why I feel that STEM foundational thinking is appropriate for raising student achievement.

Chapter I. Introductory Justification

There is much debate about public education in the United States. From John Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1997) to Paolo Freire’s Education for Critical Consciousness (2005) to Geoffrey Canada and Waiting for Superman (2010), educators and critics have tried to understand how a system is unable to adequately service all students. A racial gap is apparent when one looks at the achievement of White students compared to the achievement (or rather underachievement) of those marginalized such as African-American and Hispanic students. What has become known, and to a degree accepted as the opportunity gap, can unfortunately predict a child’s success in public education based solely on skin color.

Background of the Problem

Many of STEM initiatives appear to be working; between 2002 and 2012, the number of graduate students in STEM classes grew 35%. However, the majority of this growth is comprised of White males and non-White students are vastly underrepresented in STEM classes (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). Racism and prejudice are pervasive in our society. Schools, and classrooms in particular, are accurate representations of students’ worlds, making “STEM disciplines representative of the gated community because of its elitism” (Cobb & Haynes, 2016, p. 285). It is this gatekeeper mentality that perpetuates systemic racism determining who can and should participate in STEM. This is why it is so important to counter that narrative that STEM is only for “White people” (Delpit, 2012, p. 14), replacing it with one that redefines “what it means to be both [a] racially conscious and an effective teacher to the benefit of all students” (Cobb & Haynes, 2016, p. 284). Students of color do not have equal access to STEM programs in public elementary schools. As the demographics of American students become increasingly diverse racially and ethnically, it is imperative that American educators must work to engage students from all backgrounds in STEM education. For example, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, students of color in the United States represent 50.3 percent of the total student population (Maxwell, 2014, pp. 14-15).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of our research was to ascertain what practices are in place for recruiting and engaging students of color in STEM curricula, as well as recommendations for creating a culturally relevant school culture (e.g.: an effective learning organizations). We are highlighting critical practices already happening in elementary schools that promoted diversity in its participating student body. This was completed through researching schools and districts’ current STEM practices and the impact those practices have on students of color’s participation and academic growth in STEM subjects. I believe that STEM education is the tipping point in this long struggle for equitable access and educational outcomes for students of color. I believe that ALL students should have access to an education of their own design for their own purposes, which represents their culture, heritage, race, and ethnicity. Our research team focused our study on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) equity and access to STEM content. Specifically, we researched STEM curricular activities in the elementary grades (K5) because research shows that it is in these early years, students of color find their natural interest in STEM content supported or discouraged. We believe in using conscious, anti-racist dialogue among staff that will sustain and deepen authentic understanding about systemic racism in relation to STEM curriculum. I researched what school structures are currently in place in the various school districts available through C-PEER, which support students of color in STEM curricular areas. I also observed successful components are available in elementary STEM programs. Current research literature sheds light on the narrative of systemic racism in schools and how STEM education and White racial knowledge can be used to narrow the opportunity gap for marginalized students. It is the intent of this doctoral dissertation study to not only add to the current literature, but to suggest practical suggestions for teachers, administrators, district leaders, and policy makers to create equal educational STEM opportunities for students of color.