Effective Programs for Achieving Equity and Diversity in Mathematics and Science Education Outcomes: What Have We Learned? What Do We Need to Know?

Vinetta C. Jones, Ph.D.

School of Education

Howard University

Anne Bouie, Ph.D.

Center for the Development of Schools and Communities

The Problem 

The core of American Education is burdened with inequities around access to a quality education based on race, ethnicity gender and socio-economic status. These “savage inequalities” experienced by students are seen in differential access to teachers who are certificated for work in specific subject areas and have demonstrated a positive effect on the achievement of urban students. In addition, there is a dearth of urban sites where teachers receive on going professional development, access to equipment and technology, safe school environments, a rich curriculum, and courses leading to preparation for higher education, and access to high expectations for their behavior, effort and actual achievement in school.

Mathematics and science courses serve as gatekeepers to students seeking entry into advanced coursework in all subjects. The largest discrepancies in access to and achievement in these courses is observed as students enter middle school. By the time students reach high school, advanced mathematics and science courses are practically devoid of non-Asian students of color, and students who are poor, or linguistically diverse. What becomes evident is the end-result of a pipeline that commences in kindergarten, and ends at the grade twelve. An achievement gap is fueled by policies, practices, resources and personnel finely tuned to deliver a two-tiered education system whether in different school districts, different schools in the same district, or in the same school (Jones, 1998).
 

            The educational system in the United States systematically undereducates poor students and students of color, in large part, through a system of academic tracking. The process relegates these students to low-level coursework in tracks characterized by watered-down, dead-end courses preparing them for a life of limited options, choices for higher education careers, and ultimately the permanent underclass. Differences between the access to challenging coursework, as well as actual performance on standardized test can be observed across the country between students in urban and suburban communities. Some are being prepared for mastery, others for servitude in the highly technological, global community of the 21^st century, where these students must be able to live, learn, work, communicate, and compete in order to be productive citizens. The majority of the African and Latino students are on the servitude track (Jones, 1999). This system of academic tracking establishes and holds in place an achievement gap between non-Asian students of color and white students, advantaged and economically disadvantaged students. The result is that often students who are placed in the higher tracks are offered a “gifted education” with well-prepared, highly motivated teachers and classrooms abundantly supplied with resources where active learning, high standards and high expectations abound. Students unlucky enough to land in the lower tracks typically find the opposite (Oakes, 1985, 1990: Braddock & Slavin, 1992; Braddock & Dawkins, 1993; Jones & Clemson, 1996; Jones, 1997, 1998; Heubert & Hanson, 1998). 

            The tracking policies in American schools are founded on assumptions and judgments about students’ abilities that are often based on socio-economic, racial, ethnic or gender status. In such a system, poor and minority students are underrepresented in college-preparatory classes-such as algebra, geometry, chemistry and advanced placement – and overrepresented in dead-end classes, such as consumer and business mathematics, and general science (Jones, 1998).

            Banks-Beane (1988) cites evidence that indicates that our perceptions about students influence our expectations of what they can achieve, and how they will behave. These expectations become self-fulfilling prophecies. She states that positive teacher expectations improve student behavior and increase achievement.  Research suggests that teachers tend to see students of color and those who are poor as lower achievers, and majority students as higher achievers even when performance is identical. Banks-Beane (1988) cited Washington’s study of racial differences in teacher perceptions of first and fourth grade students reported that both black and white teachers viewed black boys as most negative, and black girls next on such traits as achievement, cooperation and physical appearance. In a study of undergraduate student teachers’ interactions with a sample of 224 black and white seventh graders, it was found that black youngsters were given less attention, ignored more, praised less and criticized more than their white peers.

            Research reports that perceptions and expectations are incredibly influential. Teachers often unconsciously aid the process of girls taking a back seat in science and math classes by encouraging them to keep their contributions short, and not waiting as long for responses from them as they would for boys (Mahoney, 1985). Boys at the elementary level receive more extended conversation, direct instruction and praise than did girls (Sadker & Sadker, 1982; Dweck, Davidson, Nelson & Enna; 1978), and that boys received more praise and girls more criticism for the quality of their work. When interactions with teachers and black students were observed, while some researchers suggest that they are simply ignored, others state that more often than not, they are actively discouraged from pursuing their interests (Thomas, 1984; Malcolm, 1983; Malcom, 1983; Malcom, Hall & Brown; 1976). 

            Two recent national reports underscore the mismatch between current tracking policies and the needs for an educated workforce in the U.S. The 1998 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) report, comparing achievement scores of all U.S. students at the end of the twelfth grade to those in other countries around the world in math and science, found the U.S. students on or near the bottom. A telling fact is that, essentially, all students in other countries were expected to complete math through calculus, and science through chemistry and physics (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1998). In the U.S. however, the Council of Chief State School Officers reported in a December 1998 report that there was not a single state requiring algebra and geometry for high school graduation. For all the talk about high standards, only six states even required algebra for high school graduation. (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1998). Students cannot learn what they have not been taught. 

            Another report highlighting this mismatch was issued in the 1997 U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) study entitled “Mathematics Equals Opportunity”. It found that course- taking patterns, including algebra, geometry and chemistry, are a more powerful predictor of success in upper level courses, college-going and success rates, lifetime career earnings, and the number of times unemployed during one’s career, than whether students attended public or private school, and a number of other background variables. In fact, in a June 1999 report of the US Department Of Education, Adelman (1999) found that a solid academic core was more strongly correlated with a bachelor’s degree, than high school test scores, grade point averages, or class rank. Adelman therefore concluded that the study strongly bolsters what many school reform advocates have been saying for years. One of the best ways to close the achievement gap between poor students, students of color, and other students is to ensure that all young people complete a solid academic curriculum in high school with an emphasis on advanced mathematics and science courses.

            Since the late 1960’s intervention programs have attempted to address the issues of equity and diversity in mathematics and science by increasing the number of underrepresented minority students who excel in these areas. Obstacles to achieving equity in achievement have been identified by the most successful of these programs, and program components have been designed to overcome them. The most compelling obstacles which undergird this system include: 

·           Low expectations of teachers and other school-based adults

·           Guidance in school toward dead-end courses

·           Poor test taking and study skills

·           Few role models with whom they can identify in math and science-based fields

·           School environments which allow peer pressure to underachieve to prevail over academic norms

·           Parents who are supportive, but often lack the instrumental knowledge about the requirements for and the process of college entry and information about obtaining financial aid.

For the past thirty years, organizations and agencies ranging from the federal government to individual school sites and college campuses, along with entities from the public and private sector have designed, funded, implemented, and evaluated an array of policies, program, projects, and activities to address these obstacles. The efforts vary tremendously in scale, size and scope, length of operation, and most importantly, impact on student related outcomes. The next section of this paper examines the programmatic responses to the severe underrepresentation of traditionally underserved student populations.

Programmatic Responses 

There are many ways to approach a discussion of programs to enhance access to, and outcomes in mathematics and science achievement for students who are traditionally underrepresented in these areas. One can approach them by examining the sponsoring agent, whether that is a school district, a state, or the federal government. They can be addressed by examining the target population served. They can also be discussed by examining specific subject areas, or activities, such as mentoring, Saturday academies or science fairs. This discussion will examine these efforts at access and academic achievement by examining the different levels at which they function. The purposes of the next section of the paper are to: 

• Describe the various efforts at three levels: systemic programs, undergraduate and graduate efforts, and those aimed at pre-college students.

• Discuss examples of policies and programs at these levels

• Present what is currently known about the characteristics of effective programs at each of these levels

• Synthesize and present for discussion the most salient and consistent of these characteristics of exemplary programs, using examples of the programs at each of the levels to illustrate the characteristic in actual implementation.

• Present case studies of model programs operating at each of these levels.

Systemic Reform in Mathematics and Science Education 

            Systemic reforms represent the boldest and the broadest approaches to change in the area of pre-college mathematics and science education. They are massive in scale, size and scope, and seek to impact a broad range of societal spheres. Systemic reform in mathematics and science is a consistent evolution of less comprehensive, yet ambitious reform efforts over the last forty years. 

            Prior reforms have targeted various aspects of the educational system. In the 1950’s 1960’s and 1970’s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) reform efforts addressed various curriculum areas. The thrust to implement basic skills instructions also emerged in the 1970’s and 1980’s; teacher preparation, professional development, and summer institutes for science teachers became the focus in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and assessment and graduation requirements were seen in the 1980’s (Knapp, 1997). In addition, there were initiatives aimed at features of the school as a whole.  Examples include those targeting governance, as illustrated by the efforts to instill school-based management, or school climate and ethos. However, prior to the 1980’s, few efforts were made to address all or most of these components with a single initiative. 

            Over time, policy makers observed that investing in discrete components of the system usually brought limited or mixed results, because of constraints imposed by a component of the system which was not a target of a particular reform effort. The National Governors Association, along with policy makers like Smith and O’Day (1991) articulated the basic issues involved in systemic reform thinking. A number of systemic efforts began to take form. 

            In the mathematics and science arena, the earliest initiatives were established at the state level. California initiated reforms in the mid-1980’s to systemically align curriculum frameworks, textbook selection and assessment. Soon afterwards, the National Science Foundation (NSF) started contributing to state-level reform efforts through large-scale grants to state coalitions, seeking to retool science and mathematics teaching using an array of strategies. To date, twenty-five states and Puerto Rico have received these grants, to support attempts to align teacher preparation, curriculum, materials selection, the development of assessment and accountability systems and public perceptions of science and science education (Knapp, 1999). 

By the mid 1990’s an array of systemic reform effort were being supported nationally, regionally, and by individual districts by large private foundations as well as various agencies of the federal government.  The EQUITY 2000 districtwide systemic education reform was one of these that was sponsored by the College Board and funded by a variety of large foundations including Ford, the Dewitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund, Rockefeller, Atna and the NSF. The NSF followed its Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) with a series for large urban districts through its Urban Systemic Initiative  (USI) which was modeled after EQUITY 2000.  Next it initiated a series of large systemic grants to regional consortia serving rural areas through its Rural Systemic Initiative (RSI)  While these initiatives vary in size, scale and scope or in the elements they include, they share certain premises.

·    Program administration requires that leaders articulate a vision across many different audiences, often with competing interests and manage a strategic plan. Participating partners must pay attention to local, and often, national political issues, while also focusing on minute details. There is the necessity of modeling behaviors and strategies of collaboration, risk-taking, continuous reflection, all while focusing on the eventual institutionalization of the reform at the end of its funding cycle (Kaser & Boureix, 1999).

·    The lack of alignment among key elements of the system. Elements of the system either  directly contradict each other, ignore one another, or overlap, causing fragmented teaching,  assessment and implementation. 

·    Better teaching of science and mathematics will occur when what is taught, how learning is assessed, how teachers are prepared and supported, and how they are held accountable for student performance are aligned with challenging standards. This premise contains the notion that if high standards are applied to the full range of students across the board, equity in the systems outcomes will be enhanced. 

·    The lack of alignment is best addressed at the level at which policies and structures guiding the various systemic elements are set. 

·    Systemic reforms are not incompatible with efforts to enhance local discretion and professionalism, but can in fact, support and nurture such efforts by encouraging consensus on the overall goals of education and a respectful process of assessing whether the goals have been achieved (Knapp, 1997).

All systemic initiatives are multifaceted courses of action combining the setting of curricular standards, the development of very ambitious frameworks, and the alignment of assessments with the frameworks and the allocation of resources for a variety of forms of professional development to support the vision articulated by the project. The standards-based systemic reform efforts are significant for traditionally underrepresented students for at least two compelling reasons. First, districts and schools in several states must now report test scores for their major ethnic and racial groups. The expanded visibility of group test scores, along with the high stakes that the results have for students and those who work in the schools they attend puts more pressure on educators to improve outcomes for traditionally underrepresented students. Second, should the progress of these students continue to lag behind that of the others, or remain slow, states themselves may well come under pressure to provide more financial and other assistance to schools. The other, an obviously unacceptable option is to lower the stakes on the outcomes for students (The College Board).           

            The results of large-scale reforms indicate that many science and math teachers have been touched by the reforms, and in a variety of ways. Systemic initiatives constitute such a presence in districts that they are not ignored or invisible to classroom teachers. There are signs of attempts to realize some or many aspects of what the reforms advocate in the way of classroom practice, though there is also evidence that teachers have not fully grasped and internalized the real substance of the reform’s vision. Long-term gradual changes are beginning to be documented in some classrooms exposed to systemic reforms over time, while others reveal little change at all. 

            There is clear evidence of teachers engaging in significant new learning about their practice; while all do not appear to be learning the same thing, nor exactly what the original reform envisioned. Most systemic reforms do not have extensive data on individual student outcomes, and report incremental increases in ‘system averages”. They frequently use a modest standard of success based on countable indicators across the system such as the proportion of teachers using manipulatives, or the proportion of elementary teachers attempting science with hands-on learning activities that are thought to reveal trends in the directions desired by the reform (Knapp, 1997). 

            Some program efforts however, can report more substantial results. Evaluations of the elementary science professional development sessions in the Fresno Unified Urban School District, which started in 1995, found that 64 per cent of the participants who began the training feeling prepared to teach science. At its conclusion, 85 per cent reported that they felt prepared to teach science. Similar results were reported for secondary teachers. This is especially important in light of the NAEP findings which report that students who reported an early start in studying core subjects through substantial exposure to these content areas as early as elementary school tended to perform better in the NAEP surveys. Further, remedial courses in mathematics and sciences were being phased out. In 1992-93, there were 1,837 students enrolled in remedial classes, in the 1995-996 school term, the first year of the Urban Systemic Initiative, the number had been reduced to 343 students. The Columbus Urban Systemic Initiative also reports significant findings. Data revealed an increase in student participation rates in special events and enrichment activities, an increased interest in learning science and mathematics, and a continued rise in math achievement scores as indicated on citywide tests (Coalition of Great City Schools, 1997). 

            The Comprehensive  Management System (CMS) was initiated in 1983 in the New York City School District. During the 1996-96 school year the program was implemented in 472 schools where 350,000 students 10,000 teachers and 400 staff members were involved. The program’s objectives are to increase student achievement in mathematics and their ability to apply math skills and concepts to problem solving and decision-making in real world settings. It is an instructional delivery system comprised of challenging materials, a curriculum, and a comprehensive approach to assessment, which is criterion referenced and a computer managed reporting system. In February of 1996, an evaluation of the ten years of work under CMS reported that the percentage of CMS students scoring above grade level was substantially higher than the citywide average (Council of Great City Schools, 1999).

Profile of an Exemplary Systemic Initiative:
Equity 2000 District-wide Systemic Reform Shows Promise in Narrowing Achievement Gaps in Districts 

            In the late 1980’s the College Board commissioned a study to see what variables would facilitate closing the achievement gaps and increasing the college-going and success rates of minority and disadvantaged students. Using the High School and Beyond Data of the 1980’s and published in Changing the Odds, 1990, Pelavin and Kane found completing algebra and geometry by the 9^th and 10^th grades respectively, and having some idea about going to college highly correlated with college going and success rates. In fact, they found that if these variables were held constant, the differences in college-going and success rates essentially disappeared between minority/nonminority and disadvantaged/advantaged students. They also found that (because of tracking) only 19% of African American students and 17% of Hispanic students ever took both algebra and geometry. This research became the basis for launching a district-wide school reform effort that offered school districts an alternative to tracking students into dead-end courses and widening achievement gaps as standards were being raised. This systemic reform built on the research and documentation from the last 25-30 years on effective programs (such as MESA(Mathematics, Engineering and Science Achievement), EQUALS, SECME(Southeast Consortium for Minorities in Engineering), and MSEN(Mathematics and Science Education Network) Pre-college) working with subsets of students in a district and scaled the intervention up to address the issues of equity and diversity in a whole district. 

            Thus, ten years ago, the College Board launched a research-based school reform initiative, EQUITY 2000, in six demonstration sites involving all schools in each of the districts. (The six sites included 14 districts, 700 schools and over 5000,000 students K-12). The goal was to close the gap in college-going and success rates between minority and non-minority, advantaged and disadvantaged students. The six-year pilot program ran from 1990-1996 and used mathematics as a lever, starting initially at the middle school level to drive reform K-12 and across all disciplines. Independent evaluators found that by the end of the six-year pilot there were more students passing the gatekeeper courses of algebra and geometry than were even taking them before EQUITY 2000. Enrollment in such accelerated courses as Advanced Placement increased substantially, especially among African American and Latino students, in some cases doubling and tripling. The EQUITY 2000 program is comprised of six comprehensive, interrelated components. 

1.                  District-wide policy changes (beginning with the elimination of the dead-end math tracks and a commitment for all students to complete algebra and geometry at least by the 9^th and 10^th grades)

2.                  On-going professional development for teachers, counselors and principals (focusing on content, methodology and equity/expectations) 

3.                  Family involvement 

4.                  Safety nets 

5.                  Partnerships 

6.                  Effective use of student enrollment and achievement data to drive decisions and monitor reforms

It is important to acknowledge the implementation process issues as well. Equity 2000 

      ·    requires a long-term commitment

      ·    it is focused, it uses the power of math to drive reform

      ·    it builds on what is already working

      ·    it includes guidance counselors as part o f the leadership team

      ·    it works at all levels in the district (top down, bottom up etc).

      ·    it is data driven

      ·    it establishes on-going professional development as a norm

      ·    it connects the educators to a network of colleagues across the country

      ·    it is comprehensive

      ·    it makes high expectations for all students a primary focus with a plan

            Since 1996, the College Board has been engaged in the national dissemination of lessons learned from EQUITY 2000. The original six equity 2000 sites have become demonstration centers and continue the long-term commitment and work required to address the challenges and institutionalize the policies, practices strategies and gains made this far to close achievement gaps. Meanwhile, new districts joined EQUITY 2000 and district teams attended weeklong leadership Adoption Institutes to learn how to use the EQUITY 2000 model as a vehicle in their districts to drive reform, and narrow achievement gaps as higher and higher standards are being set for all students. Follow-up professional development workshops are offered throughout the year sharing best practices to foster excellence and equity for school counselors, math teachers, principals and other administrators. In addition, there are workshops sharing best practices on the effective use of data in school reform to drive decisions, and providing “safety nets” for students. Faculty for the “best practice” workshops are drawn from the EQUITY 2000 demonstration centers where they have been developing and honing these efforts for over 10years now. 

            Figures 1 and 2 show the dramatic increases in enrollment and passing in algebra for African American and Hispanic students at all EQUITY 2000 sites. 

Figure 1. Increase in African American enrollment and passing

All groups at all sites have made large increases. Results of this district-wide school reform model have been documented in a series of evaluation and case studies by independent evaluators (Harris, 1998). A longitudinal study following the students into college is being conducted now. Preliminary results from senior surveys indicate that these students from high minority and disadvantaged backgrounds will be attending college at higher rates than national averages overall for the general population (Bohrnstedt, Jakwerth, & Rodriguez, 1999). Much progress has been made, but there still remains much to be done and many obstacles to overcome. District-wide reform that achieves excellence and equity requires a long-term commitment. There are no silver bullets. You cannot take AP calculus if you have never taken algebra! Continuing challenges include: money for on-going professional development, an adequate supply of well-qualified teachers, teacher and superintendent turnover and attempts to retrack the curriculum. And yet the progress that has been made is set in bold relief when the data of the six original pilot districts are compared to the baseline data for new EQUITY 2000 districts. The new districts look like the pilot sites before EQUITY 2000. It is this difference that stimulates new districts to join with their colleagues from across the country to build on lessons learned from EQUITY 2000, rather than wasting time, resources and lives reinventing wheels.

Figure 2. Increase in Hispanic enrollment and passing

            Equity 2000, which has longitudinal data indicating significant increases in enrollment and passing rates for students enrolled in advanced math classes suggests benchmarks by which such initiatives might assess themselves. As additional data about the results and effectiveness of systemic initiatives are reported, a synthesis of their distinctive characteristics can be generated. Six characteristics of a systemic initiative are: 

1.                  District-wide policy and major practice changes to alter the requirements and practices of teaching, guidance, and school administration, beginning with the requirement that all students complete the gatekeeper courses of Algebra 1 by the ninth grade, and geometry by the tenth grade, in classrooms where the teachers embrace the national standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and other discipline based groups. 

2.                  On-going professional development for teachers, counselors, and administrators to update their skills and reinforce policy directives and behaviors are explored. The focus for teachers is on content, pedagogy and equity, where the influence and implications of teacher and school expectations along with their accompanying behaviors are explored. 

3.                  The establishment of academic safety nets such as Saturday academies, Summer Scholar programs and other enrichment experiences that provide supplementary academic support needed to reach high levels of achievement in more rigorous courses. 

4.                  The development of parent and familial involvement activities that empower them to be effective advocates for their children’s educational achievement. 

5.                  The formation of school-community partnerships, which provide broad-based support for the fundamental goal of academic excellence for all students. 

6.                  The effective use of student enrollment and achievement data, which has been analyzed by race. Ethnic group, social classes and genders to drive decisions and monitor the progress of reform .

Pre-College Mathematics and Science Education 

            The number and  diversity of programs providing services and resources to encourage low-income youth and students of color to finish high school and enter college have burgeoned since the early 1980’s. The mission statement of the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership program encourages states, local education agencies, community organizations and private entities to provide information and support services to elementary, middle and secondary students. Intervention programs to increase the participation of traditionally underrepresented students in mathematics and the sciences emerged form the civil rights movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. This effort had its origins in the realization and acknowledgement of the severe and graphic underrepresentation of these groups.  The programs began as local initiatives based on locally identified needs. Once established however, they began to attract national attention and, as a result, federal and philanthropic support (Malcom, 1976). The realization that interventions aimed at increasing the pool of students eligible to pursue academic and professional careers in the sciences and mathematics, on the part of researchers, practitioners and funding sources needed to begin before high school led to an increase in the number of programs targeting middle school students. 

            In 1983, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Office of Opportunities in Science conducted an assessment of pre-college programs that facilitated increased access and achievement of females, students of color and students with physical disabilities in K-12 mathematics and science education. Over three hundred such programs were surveyed; 168 responded. Colleges and universities housed half the programs that focused on women and two thirds of those focusing on students of color. Nearly half the projects at that time targeted senior high school students, most of the projects were partially supported by the host institution, nearly all of them all needed external support as well. For women’s projects, the top three funding sources were industry, private foundations and student fees for the programs. Programs serving students of color secured funding chiefly from industry, foundations and the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

            A study done for the Ford Foundation in 1987 identified and described 163 mathematics science and computer science intervention programs for students in the United States. Thirty three per cent of them targeted students of color, 13 per cent targeted females, and 54 per cent targeted females and students of color. While the study found that there were many more intervention programs in mathematics and science serving females and students of color, a review of the literature and anecdotal evidence might suggest that the number of programs targeting underrepresented students was low in relation to their numbers in the population (Clewell, Anderson, & Thorpe, 1993). 

            In 1991, the AAAS Office of Opportunities in Science conducted a follow-up survey to assess a variety of programs and services used to recruit and retain females and students of color in science and engineering at the pre-college, undergraduate and graduate levels. A total of 721 programs were surveyed and approximately 47 per cent of these responded. The 336 programs responding served a total of 144,739 students. African-American students accounted for 29 per cent of those served; Hispanic students made for an additional 15 percent; American Indians accounted for just three per cent; white students accounted for 46 percent of the students served by the programs (Matyas, 1991). As with systemic efforts, despite the vast permutations of types, structures, content, and ages served, there are similar premises that undergird math and science at these levels, as well. Most programs designed for students at these levels seek to eliminate a series of generally agreed upon barriers to their access and success in the mathematics and sciences:

·          The graphic decline of favorable attitudes towards mathematics and science among students of color and females as students reach the middle school years. 

·          A lack of preparation, expectations and rigorous work in the early years of schooling for enrollment and success in mathematics and science classes at the middle and senior high school levels. 

·          Low levels of enrollment by these students in the “gate-keeping” classes of pre-algebra as eighth graders, algebra as ninth graders, and geometry as sophomores, which subsequently precludes enrollment in some advanced math and science classes in high school. 

·          A lack of information about the instrumental step in the college-going process and about careers in mathematics and the sciences on the part on many students and their families. 

·          Limited exposure to extracurricular mathematics and science activities and personnel in general, and role of the same gender, ethnic, racial, or cultural groups in particular (Clewell, Anderson, & Thorpe, 1993). 

            In order to address these concerns, pre-college programs generally focus their efforts on a core set of programs components and activities. The AAAS survey found that pre-college programs were one of six types: 

1.                  Middle and high school science and/ or engineering programs conducted during the school year, including after school and Saturday academy programs. Examples of this type are Saturday academy programs providing four to six hours of activity based science and math activities for K-12 students of color. Spelman College, the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, and the University of Puerto Rico offer such programs. 

2.                  Summer programs in science and/or engineering that are usually residential programs where students spend one to several weeks on campus. Examples of this type are the six-week residential programs for students of color including coursework, research and career and college counseling, sponsored by such sites as Jackson State University, Northern Arizona University, The University of Puerto Rico and many of the University of California campuses. Five-week programs for students of color who are juniors and seniors and who will be entering calculus and other advanced math classes are held at the university of North Carolina A & 

3.                  Career fairs and outreaches recruiting programs, where institutional personnel travel to school or bring students to campus to provide information on future career opportunities. The Mathematics and Science Olympics, and the Math Bowl at The University of Puerto Rico are examples.

4.                  High School Research Apprenticeship Programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where students have opportunities to engage in research projects with assistance from scientists and engineers on campus. Examples include, The University of Alabama, Birmingham and the University of Puerto Rico. 

5.                  Teacher in-service programs, where K-12 teachers upgrade their content and methods skills (Matyas, 1991).

6.                  Summer workshops, to provide teachers with skills to communicate basic concepts, develop cognitive skills in science and mathematics and to adopt new teaching strategies are typical of the content of training for teachers. Numerous colleges and universities, including the university of Puerto Rico, many of the University of California campuses, and HBCU’s offer such sessions. 

            Programs intending to work with students over an extended period of time, usually focused on the development, nurture and use of higher order cognitive skills related to problem-solving in mathematics and science. Applications and hands on experience were common to nearly all the programs, and served to increase familiarity and comfort with scientific methods, jargon and tools. Career education components, working with role models, test-taking skills, field trips to scientific sites, and where appropriate, financial aid was also widely included components. The programs typically involved teachers and counselors, and resulted in an improved overall learning environment for participants as well as improved skills, confidence and interest for the individual student. 

            Short-term programs usually focused on disseminating career or course information useful to students, usually by role models that were active professionals in the targeted areas. Typically, there were some hands-on activity or demonstration. These projects were usually found to be most effective when other systems were present as a context and support for these efforts (Malcom, 1983). 

            Even though evaluation is a fundamental component of program development and implementation, the 1991 AAAS survey of pre-college mathematics and science programs indicated that just 40 per cent of the responding programs had done some type of formal report or longitudinal analysis of their program’s effectiveness (Matyas).

Clewell, Anderson and Thorpe (1993) state that all ten of the programs presented as case studies measured their goal attainment, at least partially, in terms of participant-related outcomes, such as the development of positive attitudes towards mathematics and the sciences, increased performance and achievement levels in these subjects, enrollment of participants in advanced mathematics and science classes, or progress along the career path in these areas. 

            Malcom (1983) used a rigorous process to arrive at a synthesis of the characteristics of exemplary programs.  After compiling a list of pre-college intervention programs aimed at the selected groups, directors of the program were asked to update the information sought.  More than fifty exemplary projects were visited across the United States.  After finishing the site visits, a meeting of staff, consultants and project directors was held to assess the findings and generate a synthesis based on studying the inner working of the programs.  The synthesis of the characteristics of exemplary programs from that study is: 

·         A strong academic component in mathematics, science and communications focused on enrichment rather than remediation.

·         Academic subjects are taught by instructors who are highly competent in the subject matter and also firmly and unequivocally believe that students can not only learn, but also master the material at exemplary levels.

·         A heavy emphasis is placed on the applications of science and mathematics and on careers in these fields

·         An integrative approach to teaching that incorporates all subject areas, hands-on opportunities, and computers.
 

·         There is multi-year involvements with students.

·         A strong director works with and coaches a committed, stable staff that shares the same vision and goals for the program.

·         A stable, long-term funding base with multiple funding sources so that staff does not spend large portions of their time searching for support.
 

·         Proactive recruitment of participants from all relevant targets populations in an area.
 

·         Cooperative working relationships with a university, industry, and/or school where human and materials resources are shared to support the work of the program.

·         Opportunities for in-school and out-of-school learning experiences are made available to students

·         Parental and community endorsement of and involvement in the program, along with a solid base of community support are present.
 

·         Intentional attention is put to removing educational inequities related to gender, race, and social class.

·         The steady and consistent participation of professionals and staff who look like the target population.

·         The nurture of peer support systems, which result from the presence of a critical mass of students who are female, different social classes and/or of color.
 

·         Formal evaluation, particularly of participant outcomes accompanied by long-term follow-up and careful data collection.
 

·         Mainstreaming the program elements, which are supportive of the target, groups into institutional programs (Malcom, 1983)

            From the 163 intervention programs in the three-year study preceding the report on their findings, Crewel, Anderson, and Thorpe (1993) identified ten programs for in-depth analysis in order to arrive at some conclusions regarding the characteristics of effective programs.  They used the following criteria in selecting the programs: 

·         They had been in existence at least three years and were located in an urban setting
 

·         The programs had clearly articulated goals and evidence of having fulfilled those goals
 

·         They included an array of program types; programs targeted at different groups, with different groups, with different subject focuses
 

·         The programs were among a group of programs, which had been identified as being effective, met the selection criteria, and were located in certain geographical region.

Based on their analysis of exemplary programs, they identified shared characteristics that, by inference, could be used to describe effective programs.  They identified the following shared characteristics:

·         Clear and well articulated program goals
 

·         Establishing collaborative working relationships with industry, school systems, universities and the immediate and larger communities
 

·         All the programs offered a mix of services and activities that included academically oriented activities
 

·         All of the programs emphasized enrichment, not remediation in their approaches.  Multiple approached are used, the most significant being inquiry and discovery approaches.
 

·         Training is offered to staff to introduce them to program objectives, strategies and approaches.
 

·         A high level of parental involvement where programs proactively strive to attract, involve and work with the parents of participants.

·         Goal attainment is measured in part, by participant outcomes (Crewel, Anderson, & Thorpe, (1993).

Bouie (1993) was commissioned to conduct a series of interviews with principals in the Oakland Public Schools, about their perceptions of the goals, structure, and participants that the district’s after school program should serve.  In addition, a review of the research about the characteristics of effective programs was also requested.  That synthesis resulted in the identification of the following characteristics of effective programs:

·                     An explicitly stated ethos, mission or philosophy about the program’s work and clearly articulated goals and objectives frame the program’s policies and practices.

·                     Effective programs tended to view children of color, their families and communities with respect, as resources to be developed rather than as problems to be solved.
 

·                     A committed, ethnically representative staff that has high expectations for students’ behavior, participation and academic achievement.
 

·                     Explicit, intentional attention to societal and institutional inequities around ethnicity program.
 

·                     Programs are evaluated with concern for student outcomes, and evaluation data drive design and implementation decisions. 

            These syntheses are not only quite similar, they also echo themes suggested by the characteristics of exemplary systemic initiatives, and as indicated below, those of effective undergraduate and graduate programs as well.  As noted, far too many programs lack solid longitudinal data on student outcomes.  There are programs, however, which demonstrate the power and potential of pre-college programs.  MESA began as a program serving high school students in California in 1970.  In 1996-97, the program served over 20,300 traditionally underrepresented students in California, where MESA serves 108 elementary schools, 146 junior high schools and 184 high schools, a total of 15,061 students participating in 23 centers located in 117 school districts.  Thee are 10 community college programs where 1,480 students are housed.  The MESA engineering program has 24 centers where 5,350 students are served; it boasts 991 graduates across the state.  In partnership with American Indian tribal groups, 10 centers serving 1,200 students in 16 school districts at 33 schools have been established.  The collaboration involves 10 high schools, seven middle schools and 16 elementary schools (MESA, 1999).

The program’s student outcomes provide hope for  those who do not believe that programs should be expected to, and held accountable for student outcomes. MESA’s student outcomes, with students who are traditionally not expected to achieve are exemplary:

·                     90.7 per cent of MESA high school seniors go on  to attend college

·                     31 per cent of MESA high school seniors are eligible for the University of California, a rate three times higher that the 11.1% eligibility rate for all California high school seniors.

·                     MESA seniors from underrepresented groups are eligible for the UC system at a rate ten times higher than their non-MESA counterparts.
 

·                     60% of MESA high school seniors go on in college to major in math-or science-based fields
 

·                 90% of the state’s underrepresented engineering baccalaureate recipients are California MESA students
 

·                 Over 12% of the nation’s underrepresented engineering baccalaureate recipients are California MESA students
 

·               In MESA community college centers, MESA students comprise 89% of all underrepresented students who actually transfer as math-based majors to four-year institutions (MESA)
 

            The Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program (DAPCEP) also boasts significant accomplishments with students from city schools.  Its participation in the Science and engineering Fair of Metropolitan Detroit, established in 1958, is illustrative of its work.  In 1977, DAPCEP’s first year of involvement, of 2,438 entries just 9 per cent, or 222 entries were from the Detroit Public Schools.  By 1991, the figure had risen to 2, 063,or 57 per cent of the entries to the fair.  In 1992, 238, or 46 per cent, of all gold ribbon awards, a high honor, went to DAPCEP students (Clewel, Anderson, & Thorpe 1993).

Profile of an Exemplary Community-Based After-School Enrichment Program

            Project Interface is a structured after school math and science enrichment program serving two distinct populations.  The core group is composed of high potential underachieving African-American students in junior high school who should and could be enrolled in college preparatory math classes.  They are taught, mentored, counseled, and monitored by the program’ second client group, college students, primarily enrolled at junior colleges who aspire to professional careers in the math and the sciences.  The project usually enrolls between sixty and eighty junior high school students and carries a staff of thirteen to sixteen college students.

            The project began under the joint sponsorship of the Allen Temple Baptist Church and the Northern California Council of Black Professional Engineers, whose members were concerned about the paucity of black students entering and leaving the academic pipeline as mathematics and science based academics and professionals.  The project’s initial funding came from a two-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Minority Science Improvement Program.  After two years, the program began to be supported by funds raised from corporations, foundations, and individual donors.

            The program consists of several components aimed at reaching one key goal: increasing the number of promising junior high school students who can succeed in advanced mathematics and science classes in high school, and later college.  This goal can be attained by working toward the following objectives:

·         Increase the number of middle school students who enter college prep classes in high school, and

      eventually transfer to four year schools

·         Increase the number of junior college students actually transferring to four year institutions

·         Assure that participating four-year college students actually graduate, continue their schooling and/or find

      full-time employment in science and math based careers

·         Contribute to the local, state and national efforts to develop exemplary programs that demonstrate that

      such programs can produce significant student achievement outcomes

           
The project seeks to equip its participants with the necessary skills, attitudes and knowledge to achieve these goals.  Students who are admitted to the program participate in rigorous study groups, composed of four to eight students, which are facilitated by a Study Group Leader (SGL’s).  They go on field trips, have access to academic and career counseling, work with professional scientists and engineers, and become eligible for scholarships and participation in other programs.  The typical junior high school student who enrolls in Interface is either currently enrolled in dead-end general math classes, or enrolled in college preparatory classes and doing quite poorly.  The project intentionally recruits this particular pool of students: they could and should, and are not achieving up to their potential and capacity.

Program Components

            The Math Strand.  The small math groups are the core of the program.  They are facilitated by the SGL’s, who work with a group of four to eight students on Mondays and Wednesdays after school for two hours each day. The study groups use an approach adapted from that developed by the Professional Development Program at the University of California, at Berkeley.  Students do not actually complete their homework at Interface. The math study groups work with worksheets that have problems similar to those that the students are studying in school.  The groups are heterogeneous, with students functioning at different competency levels in the same group.  The work sheet consists of ten to twelve problems, of varying degrees of difficulty.  There are some problems on the work sheet that any student in the group could complete correctly, while there are others that are beyond all of them.  The SGL coaches and guides students, and designs worksheets and other  group activities based on the work students are doing in school.

            The work sessions accomplish three major tasks.  The first is to fill gaps in student learning and develop the basic foundation necessary to master current work.  The second is to ensure mastery of current classroom work at the level of “B” or better.  The third is to introduce students to material they will use when they enroll in algebra, geometry and advanced math classes.  SGL’s use the California State standards and the Oakland Public School’s grade level proficiencies as a guide to what students should master in the study groups.  They use student homework and textbooks to ascertain where students are, where they will be going, and how they need to reinforce and supplement what the students do in school.

            Science Strand.  Tuesdays and Thursdays are science days.  Initially, students spent fourteen weeks in biology, chemistry and physical science where labs and activities were researched and developed by the SGL’s.  These were designed to spark the natural interest and curiosity of students, by involving them in hands-on experiments and labs, and to acquaint them with the fundamental concepts in which of these three subjects.  A writing component was involved as well, because students must not only write up the experiment, but are required to present them to one another and respond to questions.  Over time, the format was changed so that all students, regardless of grade, did not rotate through all areas.  Instead, student began to spend the entire year in the science being taught at their particular grade level.  This meant that seventh graders were enrolled in biology; eighth graders in earth science, and ninth graders in physical science.

            Career Exploration Strand.  This component was developed in cooperation with employees at three firms in Harbor Bay Business Park: Triton Biosciences, Integrated Automation and Kabivitrum, Inc.  The purpose of this strand was to introduce students to practicing scientists demonstrations put on by practicing scientists.

            Role Model and Mentors.  The program compiled a roster of professionals in the mathematics and sciences who shared the educational experiences, career paths and future plans with students.  The bulk of these individuals were members of one of three professional societies of African-American engineers, chemists and physicians.  They visited every other week, performed experiments and demonstrations, and provided visible proof to students that there are many ways to succeed in addition to entertainment and athletics.

            Computer Literacy.  The Xerox Corporation awarded the program twenty computers and five printers to establish an on-site computer laboratory.  The lab is staffed by professional volunteers and serves students and the immediate community.  The program’s support components include a structured, proactive set of activities to inform and involve parents.  No student can enroll in the program unless a parent, guardian, extended or fictive family member is in attendance at the opening Family Orientation Program, where goals, rules, incentives, consequences and ways for family members to become involved are presented.  Absences are reported to parents.  Parents receive a telephone call upon a student making a second infraction.  Parents receive a “touching base call” once each week and a written feedback form on their child’s progress, effort, and areas where support is needed, once a month.  Parents and students review and sign a contract committing themselves to the program’s goals and outcomes.  Students receive incentive awards at monthly ceremonies.  They also receive formal and informal motivational academic and career counseling.

        Program Results

            The project uses students performance on standardized tests as its key evaluative tool.  In addition, it assesses actual student matriculation into college preparatory classes, the subjective views of students and parents, and the transfer rate of SGL’s to four year schools, graduated school, or a career.

            Student Achievement as Measured by CTBS Scores.  The Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) is a standardized test of student achievement administered each spring by the Oakland Public Schools.  Interface reports four years of student results, where its students exceed those of comparable students not enrolled in the program for all three grades served by the program, and another year where two of the three grades served, performed in like fashion.  These results have been consistent year after year where Interface students outperform their peers in the district and at their home schools.

            Student Course Placement.  The data for the 1987-88 term are representative of student progress across the same five year period:

·         12 OF 19 seventh graders enrolled in pre-algebra as eighth graders

·         8 of 17 eighth graders moved into algebra as freshman
 

·         15 of 26 ninth graders enrolled in geometry as sophomores
 

·         42 of 62 students enrolled in college preparatory classes.
 

            In 1989, the project was identified as one of four projects in the state that demonstrated effectiveness in preparing students for the state’s college and university systems.  TheTask Force on Black Student Eligibility at the University of California states:

            “In relation to enhancing students’ preparation for higher education, it appears that students who participate in the program are “on track” when they enter high school and it appears that Interface students take college preparatory classes.”

            This finding was supported by three sources of information: Interface’s annual telephone follow-up survey to former students; interviews conducted on behalf of the Task Force with seventh grade graduates of the junior high school component who are now enrolled in the high school component; and a follow-up survey, also conducted by the Task Force.  The survey of graduates who were enrolled in high school reported that 50% of the respondents reported having taken or planning to take A-F courses.  In addition, Interface students generally score higher on the CTBS than non-participants.

            Students were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences and denied experiencing negative peer pressure from their friends.  Participants perceive and experience Interface as being an environment for achievers, a place where staff are committed, caring and concerned.  According to students, learning is fun at Interface.  Parents indicated that Interface had a positive effect on their children and that they were supportive of their children’s aspirations for high school and college.  Parents also reported feeling welcome at Interface, and like their children, they expressed appreciation for the staff’s committed, caring and concerned attitude, as well as the staff’s skills in working with adolescents. Students who reported being “turned off” in school, not working up to their potential, or who had no previous interest in math and science are now “turned on” to education, are working harder, are “on track” in their respective schools.  As a result, their grades have improved and quite possibly, their life chances.  The implication is that “when educators establish high academic standards, have high expectations of their students and create an environment that is conducive to learning, African-American children can learn and achieve.” (Task Force on Black Student Eligibility, 1989.)           

                  Undergraduate and Graduate Mathematics and Science Intervention Programs

            Research on undergraduate and graduate programs for students of color and women in science, engineering and mathematics include isolated studies and fragmented data.  The research literature does not present a comprehensive view of either the status of target groups in regards to retention, or the extent and effectiveness of programs intended to increase their participation in these fields (Matyas, 1991).  In 1985, NACME commissioned the National Association of Minority Engineering Program Administrators (NAMEPA) to document how support programs for underrepresented students within colleges and schools of engineering should be developed.

            In 1991, AAAS Office of Opportunity in Science surveyed the presidents and chancellors of over 500 higher education institutions.  The survey’s primary purpose was to obtain information on activities targeted at recruiting and retaining undergraduates, graduate students and faculty members who were of color, women, and/or physically disabled. The survey was also designed to explore the responding institutions’ level of commitment to increasing the performance and participation of these groups as well.  This concern acknowledges the reality that simply getting students to campus is really the first hurdle: retention, graduation, and in the case of faculty, tenure, all require a significant degree of institutional commitment and proactive work.  There are several criteria used to quantitatively and objectively assess the nebulous phrase “institutional commitment”: recruitment and admissions, financial aid, counseling and support services for students, placement, curriculum and environment for learning and, in the case of faculty, working (Jones & Watson, 1990).  Like systemic and pre-college programs they share certain notions about the problems such programs need to address:

·         policies for enrollment, attrition and graduation rates must be focused on consciously if they are to result in increasing these rates for traditionally underrepresented students

·         data on these figures are needed to track institutional rates and progress in these areas

·         The absence of faculty of color to serve as role models for students is a negative factor, but when present their status as professors in the institution provides strong role models

·         The climate and “tone” of the campus and the extent to which it provides a hospitable context for, and its impact on students of color those who may not be of middle class origins

·         The extent to which the students are provided adequate financial aid in ways that enhance their education

           
The AAAS survey reported an array of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels designed to address problems at this stage of the educational pipeline:

·         Engineering recruitment and retention programs

·         Science and engineering recruitment and retention programs which focused an recruiting students in a variety of fields

·         Minority Access to Research Careers and Minorities in Biomedical Research, national programs sponsored by the National Institutes of Health

·         Scholarships for students in science and/or engineering fields

·         Bridge programs to assist students in the transition from high school to college

·         Campus charters of professional associations such as the Society of Women

·         Engineers and the National Society of Black Engineer (Matyas, 1991). 

            While Shavlik, Touchton and Pearson (1994) discuss this issue as it relates to women, it is also applicable when discussing issues of social class, ethnicity and race.  They state that campus climate and related issues can be thought of as those aspects of the institutional atmosphere which foster or imped student’s personal, academic and professional development.  Campus climate issues include a wide range of individual behaviors and attitudes, as well as institutional policies and practices, formal and informal, which implicitly or explicitly reflect differential treatment of students.  Climate issues include classroom and out-of-classroom experiences that affect the learning process.  With regard to faculty, administrators and other staff, climate issues help to bring awareness to the existence and impact of subtle and professional barriers which communicate to women that they are not quite first class citizens in the academic community (Shavlik, Touchton, and Pearson, 1994). 

            This notion of climate permeates every aspect of the issues secondary programs seek to address.  Clearly, the first issues are actually getting prospective graduates to the campuses in the first place.  The traditional means of recruitment and retention have not produced numbers of traditionally underrepresented students.  As a result, institutions have implemented several strategies.  In some cases, colleges and universities have recruiters whose sole purpose is to recruit traditionally underrepresented students.  Some science and engineering departments and schools on campuses actually establish their own offices for recruitment and retention.  Staff in these offices, are responsible for recruitment, retention, management and fundraising for student financial aid, academic enrichment programs and academic support programs.  Community colleges and high schools are the primary targets of these efforts (George, 1991).

            Another strategy involves either actually establishing pre-college Programs developed by faculty and/or staff in academic or administrative offices, or by working in collaboration with programs already in existence in the surrounding school districts and communities.  Institutions hope to acquaint students to college life and routines and expectations on campuses through such programs. 

            George (1991) reports that schools and departments of engineering had the most promising models.  She attributes this to the long-term work of organizations such as the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering.  She also notes that it appears that actually declaring a major upon entry into college can help ground students and help them get subject-specific support that may be lacking in the academic support and counseling centers which are components of an office of student affairs.

            Key issues in recruitment seem to be identification, outreach and a broad net being cast to identify potential candidates for entry to college, along with provision of adequate nurture and cultivation so that, once on campus, students can thrive.  The support needed comes from a change in orientation from one of “weeding students out” to cultivating and nurturing all students in a climate that supports students and helps them persevere in the face of failures and setbacks. 

            The status of evaluation and the use of data to drive policy and practice is no different here than in other spheres of mathematics and science reform efforts.  While respondents to one survey indicated that they had performed “some type” of evaluation, no further information was provided.  All too often, evaluation consisted on an informal tally of the number of students served.  Respondents reported that overnight, residential and summer programs were the most effective strategy, along with one –on-one interactions with faculty members, hands-on laboratory experiments, proactive recruiting and identification of potential participants, tutoring and counseling services.  Academic work done in conjunction with the program, study groups, support groups and student mentors were also cited (Matyas, 1991).

            Interestingly, these components all speak to creating a context, environment , or climate where students find fellowship, acknowledgement, support and a shared sense of purpose, completing coursework and graduating.  Students who are well integrated into the academic and social environment of the institution are more likely to persist to graduation.  This finding is particularly important for students of color on majority campuses, where they are less likely to fit in and more likely to feel alienated.  A racial climate, which is psychologically and as physically safe, is associated with good academic performance and persistence   It is the feelings of alienation and not belonging that contribute to the attrition of students of color  to far greater extent, than has been acknowledged (Clewell & Ficklen, 1986).           

            The 1984 NACME report found that the programs address both academic and attitudinal barriers that prevent underrepresented students from earning engineering degrees.  The study resulted in a synthesis, which concluded that most minority engineering programs contain these components:

·         They recruit students from high schools and two year colleges

·         They monitor and assist in admissions procedures

·         They assist students’ matriculation and facilitate their maneuvering through financial aid acquisitions, budgeting, housing, diagnostic testing, academic advising, registration and orientation.

·         They provide academic support including tutoring, study skills training, shadow curses and additional recitations, and course selection.

·         They provide student study centers

·          They link students with student organizations such as the National Society of Black Engineers, the Society of Hispanic Engineers, and the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (Landis, 1985). 

A Profile of An Exemplary Undergraduate Program
The MESA Engineering Program 

The MESA Engineering Program is an academic program which supports students of color, and poor students to attend four year colleges for degrees in engineering or computer science. MEP Centers are located at all the university of California and California State University campuses, and serve over 5,000 across the state. The program is a collaborative partnership which involves the university, industry, and an array of engineering associations. The program has demonstrated that students of color and diverse social backgrounds are quite capable of rigorous work and actually graduating from college and university campuses.  Indeed, California MEP students comprise 90 per cent of the state’s underrepresented engineering baccalaureate recipients among the 1996-1997 engineering baccalaureate recipients.    

            This is important because California’s economy is the seventh largest in the world. Its economic growth is obviously dependent on the availability of a well educated, competent workforce. MEP provides a diverse pool of job-ready and experienced applicants who are able to function in professional contexts. The program’s academic content is rigorous; it provides leadership training as well as solid grounding in collaborative work and problem solving.

            This program produces students at the final phase in the matriculation process which begins in elementary school. 

Program Components:

The Student Study Center. The student study Centers are a dedicated multipurpose space for study, workshops and information sharing. They provide a safe haven for students and demonstrate the power of a nurturing environment where students feel affirmed, can “be themselves” and learn positive coping skills.

            Academic Excellence Workshops. These work sessions are scheduled in mathematics and science core classes. Students are taught how to attain and maintain high academic outcomes through the study group process. Students are not “tutored” in the conventional one-on-one approach. Rather, they come to learn to see each other as resources, and bring the support and camaraderie that exits in other spheres of their lives.

            Orientation Courses for Freshmen and Transfer Students. Formal orientation courses teach informal college survival skills to incoming students unfamiliar with the campus.  These orientation covers not only formal school policies and procedures, but also the nuances and subtleties of negotiating life in a new, possibly stressful context. These orientation sessions are often designed and implemented by students themselves,  which increases their impact on incoming students and begins the creation of s support network from the students initial days on the campus.

Career Advising. This assists students in learning the specific about the wide array of choices in engineering. Students take fiels trips to employment sites, work with and shadow practicing engineers, and receive mentors who work in the fields of their choice. 

Formal Linkages with Professional Societies. The links with ethnic professional societies are a critical component of the MEP program. Among the participating societies are the participating societies are the American Indian Science and Engineering Society, the National Society of Black Engineers, the Society of Hispanic Engineers and the Society of Women Engineers. These groups provide tangible evidence of the existence, functioning, and success of women and cultural, racial and ethnic diversity in engineering. The societies provide scholarships, mentors, guest speakers, industry tours, the opportunity for apprenticeships and networking. 

Professional Development Workshops. These sessions help groom students for the world of work and the professional environments they will enter. Mock job fairs, resume preparation, interview skills and suggestions on finding part and full-time employment are among the issues covered. These sessions are augmented by discussions with practicing engineers, and members of the professional societies. 

The Industry Advisory Board. This board is composed of industry leaders who obviously are concerned and involved in assuring the graduation and employment in the number of traditionally underrepresented students. They are a valuable connection for students. The Board provides scholarships, special summer internships, field trips, strategic planning, and other support services to students and the program as a whole. 

Student Outcomes

The MEP program operates at 24 sites across the state and served 5,350 college students in the 1998-1999 academic term. Nearly a thousand or 991 students graduated that year from one of these sites. 

What Do We Know About What Constitutes an “Effective Program”?

            It is apparent that effective programs, irrespective of scale, scope, size, location and other distinguishing variables, share similar characteristics. The National Council for the Improvement of Science Education, (NCISE), convened a group of program directors and sponsors of science and mathematics at all levels of responsibility – from national to local communities. The team read, evaluated, interpreted and summarized research and expert experience related to teacher development, teacher research, student enrichment and systemic programs. NCISE found that programs, which lead to strong significant outcomes supporting improved mathematics and science education for all students, have common components. 

·          Program administration, which entailed a clear set of program goals that understood  by participants, program staff, directors, sponsors and communities. Someone is in  charge and the reporting lines are clear.

·          Program evaluation is taken seriously, is built into the programs design and serves three key functions: it monitors key program activities ; it assesses how well it is operating during the program, and it investigates and determines actual program outcomes.

·          Follow-through, consisting of structured activities that take place as a part of the program, for the purpose of continuing and enhancing program goals.

·          The unique contribution of the host organization acknowledges the reality that all programs operate within host institutions, with specialized capabilities and resources that are integral parts of the program.

·          Systemic connections acknowledge the fact that programs do not operate in isolation, but are a part of the larger efforts connected through a shared vision of, goals, similar activities along with ongoing networking, communicating, and collaborating ( Kaser & Boureix, 1999). 

            Table I reports the syntheses cited in this paper, and the characteristics of effective programs each suggests.  This section of the paper will discuss the shared characteristics of exemplary programs, and cites examples of how these are to be found in various programs, at various levels, and of varying scale, scope, and size. 

Characteristics of Exemplary Programs: Lessons from Research and Expert Experience

1.0. A strong academic thrust and set of program activities to address skills, knowledge and competencies that are cross-disciplinary. Effective programs tend to take an "enrichment" approach to program services and content, rather than one based on remediation and explicit attention to deficiencies.  The program involves the application of knowledge, as opposed to theory, and an inductive approach to teaching and introducing new material.

             Ladson-Billings (1990) states that all eight of the effective teachers she observed presented their students with "academically challenging material".  There was no "baby work" in any of their classes, even when a good portion of the class was functioning below grade level.  In each class, there was "constant talk of the struggle in which students were engaged to make things better for themselves, their families, and their communities, and each class helped students see that the struggle could be fought, if they were armed with an education."  Admonishments to struggle and appeals to their pride were accompanied by classroom structure and challenging content.  

            This sense of purpose was also observed by Heath and McLaughlin (1991), who noted that activities young people elected to join, most often yielded a recognizable product - - a performance objective of some sort; a team record; a newspaper - - something.  They stated that youth tended to spurn purely recreational activities; they were "product oriented," and they wanted to accomplish something that signaled achievement.  Contrary to the assumptions of many program planners, youth from at risk environments seemed to recognize that they cannot really afford to spend a lot of time and energy on "just plain fun."           

            York (1991) supports both the notion of rigor and relevance, observing that youth were active participants, often engaging in goal or product oriented activities, rather than passive programs.  These goal oriented activities served to develop opportunities for achievement, and to experience success; important components of adolescent development. Once they actually succeeded at activities they never thought they could succeed at, their self-esteem increased. Interestingly enough, student perceptions of the factors they perceived as helpful to learning science, were quite similar to those observed by researchers: 

·                     actually experiencing the situations about which they were learning

·                     having live presentations by professional experts

·                     doing hands-on activities

·                     being active learners

·                     using inductive reasoning to generate new knowledge

·                     exploring transdiciplinary approaches to problem-solving

·                     having adult mentors

·                     interacting with both peers and adults

·                     establishing networks

·                     having close personal friends who shared their interest in learning

·                     trusting the individuals in their learning environment—both adults and fellow students

·                     experiencing a sense of self-reliance

            These findings suggest that middle school science teacher education, as well as elementary and secondary science teacher education would be enhanced by helping teachers to develop and implement strategies that build trust, provide immersion in learning, and use inductive reasoning (Spector & Gibson, 1991).

 

            Banks-Beane (1988) cites a study of the relationship between school setting and students' mathematics reasoning skills in three similar schools with high minority populations, which found that student attitudes toward math, and performance on reasoning tasks, were highest in the school with the most positive teacher attitudes toward students and math instruction. These teachers believed a large portion of their students were motivated to perform well in math.  Teachers felt comfortable with the math curriculum, and freely supplemented the curriculum with material that challenged students to think.  Teachers participated in regular in-service programs on the teaching of problem-solving skills, and they applied the in-service training strategies in their classrooms. 

            Malcom (1983) states that many of the minority students identified as having high potential for good work in mathematics and sciences were found to have entire content areas missing from their background.  Exemplary programs in her study stressed the need for a curriculum that is integrated longitudinally.  This is how student deficiencies in knowledge, not in their inability to learn new knowledge, were dealt with. King (1990) reports that exemplary instructional programs engage students in a cognitively complex, intellectually demanding, enriched, and prestigious curriculum that validates student language and experience, rather than placing an emphasis on discreet skills and drill and practice of remedial, fragmented and simplified content. 

            Gordon (1986) maintains that, obvious as it may sound, exposure to well structured, relevant, experiential and theoretical coursework is increasingly recognized as essential in students' academic development. He also advocates directed learning experiences designed to enhance cognitive competence such as problem solving, critical thinking, meta-cognition, and knowledge acquisition strategies. Knapp (1990) also states that curriculum for “disadvantaged”, or "slow learners” is characterized by two basic traits.  First, it tends to break mathematics and other coursework into fixed sequences of discreet skills ordered from "the basics" to the more complex, or "higher-order skills".  Second, instruction usually consists of having students master these skills by linear progression through the curricula. This is contrary to the findings of King (1991) and Malcolm (1993) in reviewing academic programs; and those of Heath and McLaughlin (1991) as well as York (1991) in reviewing programs that empower students to learn new skills and competencies through complex, goal-oriented activities. 

            The conventional approach underestimates what students are capable of; postpones interesting and challenging work for too long; fails to provide a context for learning, and meaningfully using the skills that are taught.  In reading curriculum for elementary students, an emphasis on meaning should be stressed with less emphasis on the teaching of discreet skills.  In mathematics, "a broad range of math topics, including at least geometry, estimation, probability and statistics be taught, and covered in greater depth for mastery, rather than touched upon for exposure (Banks-Beane, 1988). Knapp (1997) suggests that routine learning be balanced with appropriate novel and complex tasks from the very beginning; that clear reasons for needing the skills and knowledge be presented, along with opportunities to apply the skills.

            Malcom (1983) found that most of the exemplary programs and school curricula in math and science stressed utility and practical application rather than theory.  Programs with holding power had high levels of hands-on, laboratory and activity-oriented activities. Banks-Beane (1988) states that minority students must have many regular activities to use computers for more than drill and practice, and that science and math should be taught in an interdisciplinary manner. She further states that exposure to persons who actually use math and science at work expands student awareness of the real utility of these fields. 

King (1990), Ladson-Billings (1990), and Jordan-Irvine (1991) speak of cultural brokering, and using student experiences as the basis for introducing new material.  They also speak to rigor, challenge and high expectations. The language, culture, social values and ethnic, racial and social class histories of students should inform, influence, and undergrad the ways in which information is presented to students, the examples that teachers use and the instructional strategies that teachers select as being appropriate ( Barba & Bowers, 1997).

Effective programs give explicit attention to the socio-cultural context of learning, and deliberately work to create learning environments that nurture student achievement. Whenever multiple means of presenting knowledge and sharing learning experiences are incorporated into the learners’ experiences, the linguistic needs of culturally diverse students are more readily addressed. Instructional strategies that allow the student to build bridges between “home learning” and “school learning” are crucial in science classroom serving diverse student populations ( Barba & Bowers,1997). Instructional strategies appropriate for use with culturally diverse learners include task-centered lessons around questions or problems that have not been previously encountered by the learner, student work groups and task-oriented sharing. Most programs, which effectively engage students, employ inquiry-based instructional strategies that incorporate cooperative and group learning activities. Such learning activities also provide students with multiple means of representing their knowledge, while paying attention to mastery and high standards.

           
Research indicates that teaching strategies such as the use of culturally familiar elaborations that utilize objects, environments, contexts, examples and analogies function as powerful variables in concept acquisition by culturally diverse students (Kessler & Quinn, 1980; Rodriquez & Bethel, 1983; Williams, Fast, Berestiansky, Turner & Debreuil, 1979).  Other research has shown that culturally familiar examples proportionally benefit students who are not yet culturally and linguistically assimilated in mainstream culture (Cummins, 1979; Ehindero, 1980; Olson, 1986). Further, an increased rate of student mastery of content area concepts also results from the intentional use of culturally familiar examples.

Effective practitioners confirm the research.  Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992) note that all the programs they acknowledged as producing competent students of color in math and science were innovative in some way. DAPCEP, Mathematics, Science, and Minorities, K-6, MESA, have innovative projects designs and activities. Finding Out/Descubrimiento, Family Math, Operation SMART, Project Micro, Project SEED and the Saturday Science Academy have developed unique teaching approaches, curricula and materials for teaching math and science. Thematic problem-solving models seem to be especially effective for culturally diverse learners because they:

      ·                     provide multiple means of data representation

·                     allow for peer coaching and learning from peers as well as the teacher

·                     allow for the use of the home language or dialect in small groups

·                     create room for students to bring culturally familiar examples and elaborations  into the

            classroom

·                     encourage students to work cooperatively in constructing new knowledge

·                     create space that allows students to build their own bridges, building and adding new

            knowledge onto and with existing knowledge helps students begin to learn to function

            effectively with different cosmologies and ways of framing perceptions and knowledge

            without having to relinquish competency in the home cosmology and culture ( Barba

            & Bowers, 1991).

                
These findings are supported by results of surveys from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which found that high levels of student achievement are associated with systemic, substantial and stimulating exposure to core subjects. Students who reported more opportunities to study key topics and ideas in core subjects made higher scores on NAEP tests of achievement. Equally pertinent, students who reported an early start in studying core subjects through substantial exposure to these content areas as early as elementary school, tended to perform better in the NAEP surveys. Another finding of this report is that active learning is associated with higher student achievement.  Students who said that their teachers required them to interpret and apply knowledge to the actual completion of tasks tended to score much higher on the NAEP assessments, than did respondents who reported that their lessons were limited mostly to passive reception of knowledge through lectures and textbooks (NAEP, 1990).

2.0. An explicitly stated ethos, philosophy or mission guides policymaking and under girds goals and objectives.

For the purposes of our assessment of effective programs, we are concerned with the issues of equity in student outcomes. Equity is nurtured and flourished when programs, regardless of scale, size and scope, have an explicitly stated mission, ethos or philosophy statement about the program’s work. As in the case of Equity 2000, a model with a clear mission and focus can become a catalyst for comprehensive change in the host organization’s policies, practices and programs for all its members—staff, students and parents alike. The program’s vision can help host sites raise expectations and performance, provide rigorous academic content in target areas and can offer assistance in designing support systems for students and staff alike (Jones, 1998). Indeed, Malcom (1993) states that unless programs "for all" assess the status of clearly articulated goals for, and directly address the educational access problems of females and minorities - -and disabled youth - - they are unlikely to be effective with these populations. Banks-Beane (1988) also emphasizes the need for  'clearly articulated objectives, and clearly articulated long and short term goals." Gordon (1986) bemoans the observation that "a lack of common goals and aims; a weak focus, which is not clear about what a program hopes to achieve for a particular target population,” is a real factor affecting the quality of pre-college engineering programs.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management (1997) reports that two broad, overarching conditions are typically present in schools that successfully serve traditionally underachieving students that are applicable to effectively implemented programs and reform efforts. First, they function as caring, cohesive communities. A strong sense of community and common purpose provided the foundation for positive change. Second, with regard to “mission”, central goals are clear and widely shared. Staff members and the public alike believe failure to achieve core tasks would be disastrous. Implementation is considered a long-term process, not a quick fix, and the process is strongly supported. Shared vision, purpose and values were generally the result of mutual efforts to define common goals. Strong principals were typically good listeners who worked with all stakeholders to achieve consensus (Irmsher, 1994).

            Dornbush (1992) eloquently states that an important part of program design is setting forth a program philosophy that articulates the program's principles and goals.  There is more to this than first appears.  A philosophy statement can incorporate the ways that staffs intend to help children succeed in school; the values they hope to instill, and the expectations the staff has of the program participant He further states that a program philosophy enhances a program in several ways.  It guides staff and volunteers in their actions with children.  It can create a spirit of purpose and community among staff, parents, and program participants. It is a "significant component of program design that can provide structure and consistency to a child's learning environment.

            Heath and McLaughlin (1991) point to another function of program philosophy and goals.  They note that successful organizations adopt an approach that is both firm and flexible, and are clear about their goals with clients and their rules for membership.  They provide a strong sense of membership with numerous marks of identification.  They empower, rather than infantilize youth; they create a strong bond of membership and sense of belonging that is guided by the principles outlined in their philosophy and mission.  They state that while many organizations may not have direct links to schools, the ethos of these organizations encourage members to stay in school, keep up attendance and try harder with schoolwork. Spirit and ethos are shaped by guiding principles, and brought to life by solid staff. 

3.0. Ongoing Professional Development. Teachers and staff use instructional strategies that balance teacher and student directed learning strategies and which build on cultural strengths and values.

            Exemplary programs acknowledged the importance of staff development on issues related to cultural issues, the academic content and process of the program, engaging and managing youth, and in building solid relationships with parents and community.   During their pre-service training, and during their tenure as active teachers as well, teachers should become familiar with the culture of students with whom they will work. A basic knowledge of the cultural frameworks students bring to school with them include knowledge of the traditions, rituals, and language acquisition associated with the culture and the immediate community in which the school is located.           

            Jordan-Irvine (1991) states that teachers must be trained to understand and appreciate students' cultural knowledge, and use their students' prior knowledge in teaching.  A critical skill in teaching is the ability to use students' everyday experiences in an effort to link new concepts to prior knowledge.  It is this, finding pertinent examples, applying, comparing and contrasting, as well as using culturally familiar words, speech, and events that appear to be critically important. Knapp (1997) noted that poor students, and students of color in general, will be better able to meet the academic challenges of schooling if the learning program supports them in drawing upon, rather than in rejecting the experiences and learning styles they have, while at the same time, exposing them to unfamiliar experiences and ways of thinking. 

            Morgan (1979) notes that teachers need to learn classroom techniques that reflect a concern for the "subjective world of the students" they teach, in other words, what is "real" to them.  This concern suggests the importance of teaching a talent for empathy.  Morgan further states that it is also important that teachers be familiar enough with their teaching fields that they can find meaningful links to the students' world.  As noted, culture plays an important role in understanding this phenomenon. Duran and Dugan (1997) note that effective teaching dictates that students be validated in the use of their everyday language while engaging in collaborative discourse. Students’ oral use of language is critical to developing instructional conversation in the classroom. This requires that the teacher knows their level of language skill and content knowledge, and use it as a basis for further learning. Rather than worry about what students did not bring to school, they reorganized and restructured their instructional processes to adapt to students without diluting quality or rigor.  

            Camino (1988) notes that while the attainment of individual autonomy is considered to constitute a universal task of adolescence, the specific meaning of autonomy is constructed differently across cultural lines.  Among whites, autonomy connotes independent and competitive behavior; for Native American and African-American children, it involves a great deal of cooperative and interdependent relationships. Banks-Beane (1988) suggests that evidence indicates that some of the "unstructured, open-ended or highly competitive approaches to learning may have actually inhibited academic achievement in many minority children, because these strategies were incompatible with the way children are initially taught." Malcom (1993) notes that exemplary programs found that the approaches that stressed working alone, or competitively may be incompatible with the personal or cultural styles of females, and some minority groups.  Many of the exemplary programs in her study stressed team approaches to learning under the direction of a teacher or "coach". Gordon (1986) cites the work of Uri Triesman at the University of California, Berkeley, who designed a program to stop the high failure rate of African-American and Latino students in "gatekeeper" math and science courses.  Triesman introduced study teams among these students in mathematics, chemistry and physics; an approach contrary to their pattern of "going it alone.” 

            This understanding can facilitate learning how to design and deliver instructional plans which reflect knowledge of, and sensitivity to cultural differences, as well as helping them cultivate dispositions that will allow them to interact with an array of students in ways that build trust and create a sense of belonging (Luft, Bragg & Peters, 1998). Staff training is advocated in three general areas: multi-cultural training; specific training in academic content and process, and in working with the parents and community.

           Camino (1988) notes that staff are often beset by the question of whether it is more important to have staff who display caring and sensitive attitudes towards youth, or those who share membership, in particular, racial and ethnic groups with participants.  Staff in several programs shared that it was not absolutely essential to share racial and ethnic characteristics with young people; others reported that this sharing provided a fundamental foundation of credibility and trust, qualities that are necessary for building positive relationships with minority youth. Camino concludes that the dichotomy is false, because one can be caring and sensitive and still do not know which specific actions and behaviors are appropriate for members of certain groups.  On the other hand, membership in an ethnic or cultural group neither guarantees cultural competence within that culture, or even a respect for and identification with it, and its members. 

            As a result, prevailing thinking holds that all staff can benefit from cross-cultural training.  Because everyone employs cultural blinders to some degree, staff in youth programs may operate from well-intentioned, but naive assumptions that minimize the importance of cultural differences. Such assumptions as, "intelligent people already know their biases and prejudices and are in control of them;" or "any caring person will be able to operate with intercultural effectiveness," or "merely placing culturally different people together will enable them to overcome their prejudices" are detrimental, and actually contribute to the set of affairs they claim to ameliorate. 

            Banks-Beane (1988) states that if minority students are going to achieve higher levels, most of their teachers will need strong support systems.  She notes that over two-thirds of the teachers participating in a national survey perceived deficiencies in science content and science teaching methods as barriers to effective science teaching. Malcom (1993) found that, in particular, long-term intervention programs offered a range of training for staff, including teams of scientists and teachers working together; creating master teachers, and the provision of on-site teacher training and summer training programs.  Training also addressed the relevance of science and mathematics to life's work, and careers in these fields.  It also focused on subject matter competence and teaching techniques. 

            The major focus of the Fresno Systemic Initiative is to build staff capacity and support for student learning. This sustained effort is a seen as a key feature to the initiative’s successful implementation. Comprehensive staff development for all the district’s elementary and secondary teachers in mathematics and science undergirds its efforts. Every teacher will receive 100 hours of professional development, including technology integration in mathematics, science, standards and best practices (Council of Great City Schools, 1991). Banks-Beane (1988) states that an effective elementary school program must include an emphasis on "both the content and the process skills" that help children learn, and learn how to learn.  She further states that there is a growing demand that instructional programs include strategies that address the needs of various students learning styles. 

            Morgan’s (1979) study of effective teachers in an urban high school suggests generalizable conclusions about what is effective.  The study found that certain teaching approaches do indeed have a significant, positive effect on students' feelings of purposeful involvement in classroom learning - an obvious prerequisite if they are to learn anything.  Teachers need training and coaching so that they become skillful in executing an array of pedagogical techniques associated with student engagement. These include explicitly teaching the underlying thinking processes and skills within units of instruction; gradually turning over responsibility for the learning process to students; encouraging students to use each other as learning resources, and structure the interactions accordingly, as in many cooperative or team learning arrangements.  In observing effective teachers, Morgan found that regardless of subject matter, personal style of the teacher, and the characteristics of the student, the "positive impact teachers" played an active role in structuring and directing classroom learning activities. 

            Each teacher's activism was apparent in the way each took charge of whole group discussions by prodding students with questions, and each created structured learning situations which allowed individual or small groups to pursue sub themes within a larger framework. 

            Jordan-Irvine (1991) echoes the process styles that Morgan observed.  She states that effective teachers wait longer for students to respond, probe and prompt more; they praise and encourage student responses lavishly.  The pacing, coverage and time are different.  These teachers use an abundance of interactive techniques during the large group discussions such as acceptance of student ideas, frequent feedback, demonstrations, explanations, questions, rephrases, reviews, drills, recitations and monitoring. 

            While Knapp (1997) cautions about "generic" approaches, he also points out some specific subject matter strategies.  He states that there is "widespread agreement that good math instruction involves the explicit teaching of mathematical problem solving strategies, teacher-student and student-student discourse about mathematical ideas and skills and their application to real life situations, and multiple representation of mathematical ideas and operations, including graphical design and manipulatives." Banks-Beane (1988) echoes this, and requests that teachers should not teach "as if math has no relation to the child's real world, using irrelevant word problems and unfamiliar analogies and examples. Don't present math as a paper and pencil activity, and neglect the tactile or kinesthetic-based learning needs of children.  Don't disregard the need for systematic instruction in how to solve problems.” 

            Banks-Beane (1988) provides cogent insights into science instruction.  She cites research that compares activity-based science programs and teacher-text programs.  The study, which involved 13,000 students in 1,000 classrooms, found that students in activity-based science showed substantial improvement in science process skills, and creativity, when compared with students in teacher-text programs.  Students in activity-based science programs also showed more improvement in the areas of science content, perception, logic, language development and mathematics, and expressed more positive attitudes toward science. 

            Even more telling, students in activity-based science efforts showed an average of 34 percentile points over the control group in an assessment of science process skills such as observing, classifying, communicating, measuring, hypothesizing, predicting, designing investigating, and drawing conclusions.  Students in activity-based science classes showed average gains of 20 percentile points over the control group on assessments of science content, and 12 percentile points on logic development. Such classes consider a variety of learning styles that require that students understand and apply concepts to their own environment; promote a highly cooperative, rather than a competitive environment. In summary, there are guidelines for instructional practices that distinguish effective programs from their less effective counterparts.  These include processes that use a variety of group configurations; build upon student strengths while exposing them to new material, include challenging material and tasks; integrate skills and provide opportunities for their application. 

4.0  A Committed, Ethnically Representative Professional and Support Staff Which Maintains High Expectations for Students’ Behavior and Academic Achievement 

             Knapp (1997) observes that the Chapter I program is deeply rooted and grounded in the notion that disadvantaged students "need something extra," and that they are "deficient in ways that influence their performance in school." He cites a corollary assumption that "disadvantaged students' families have given them a bad start in life" - - an assumption, which in effect, locates the problem in the learner and in his or her background. Heath and McLaughlin (1991) point out however, that a lack of opportunity is not the whole, or even the most important reason why young people, especially teenagers, are generally not involved in organized, constructive activities during after school hours.  They state that practitioners say that a major problem they confront is attracting and sustaining the involvement of young people, especially teenagers.  They cite well-equipped gyms that are often empty; computer laboratories serving a handful, instead of a room full, and sitting to make small talk with adults waiting for tutees who never appear. 

            The conventional wisdom which undergirds Title I and many programs serving poor students and those of color, can be challenged on at least on two grounds.  First, Knapp (1997) states that "stereotypic ideas about the capabilities of a child who is poor, or belongs to an ethnic (or racial) minority will detract from an accurate assessment of the child's real educational problems and potential. Second, by focusing only on family deficiencies, the conventional wisdom often misses the strengths of the cultures from which many disadvantaged students come. Knapp does not suggest that dysfunction is nonexistent, but suggests that this focus may obscure the larger picture of a community's culture, and its strengths. Finally, he points to the adverse consequences of the conventional wisdom: low expectations for what these students can accomplish in academic work; failure to carefully examine what schools exacerbate -- or facilitate -- the solution of learning problems, and culture and its strengths in the misdiagnosis of the learning problems these face. 

Malcom (1983) notes that a "hallmark of exemplary programs in math and science has been that the academic components were delivered by persons who were both subject matter competent and confident of the students' ability to learn." Ladson-Billings (1990) noted that she was astounded by the teachers she observed -- black or white, in their constant, unwavering faith in their students.  Even when they scolded their students, they would remark, "You're too smart to be doing that," or "You cannot convince me that you're not worth the effort”. Knapp (1997) notes that the disadvantaged child may indeed bring to school; speech patterns, cognitive experiences, and behavior patterns that do not match the way things are done in school.  There may be gaps in these students' experience, for example, limited exposure to print, and more serious gaps in the family’s ability to help children successfully negotiate the system. However, educators can benefit from research which indicates, that these children come to school with far more sophistication and more active inquiring minds than the conventional wisdom model indicates. 

            York (1991) observed that most of the promising programs in his study used an "indirect, or back-door approach" by embedding drug abuse prevention in the context of activities, rather than addressing it directly. Many of the programs did not emphasize to youth that the programs they were involved in were designed to prevent drug abuse. Rather, they were presented in much more general recreational and skill building opportunities.  Youth were attracted to the programs by their activities. Youth were not confronted with prevention topics; the topics were introduced as natural outgrowths of the activities in which they were involved. Program staff reported that it was important to avoid further stigmatization of youth which could result from the more overt labeling of programs, and that many parents and youth may only seek assistance from such programs that avoid such explicit labeling. 

             The obvious application is a suggestion not to present or describe a program as "remedial", or for those "in need", or for students who are "culturally deprived" or “at-risk”, or who needs “one-on-one tutoring”. In presenting the program in this manner, the very students that the program seeks to serve will avoid it. Gordon (1986), observed that many of the tutoring programs in his study were under-utilized because "students think there is a stigma attached to needing tutorials.' He observed that some programs sought to overcome this attitude by inviting older students to address freshmen at orientation about their positive experiences with tutoring, and to encourage them to take advantage of the service. 

            Aside from the stigma attached by students of color to programs that present themselves as remedial in nature, there appears to be questions about their effectiveness.  Banks-Beane (1988) notes that while it appears that the basic drills of remedial mathematics have paid off to some extent, educators must "move on to help students develop proficiency in translating and solving word problems." She states that in order to improve their general performance in science, it is necessary for minority students to participate in experiences where they can recognize problem situations; develop procedures for addressing the problems, recognize and evaluate problems, and apply solutions. 

            Knapp (1997) observed that the conventional wisdom around educating disadvantaged youth has emphasized learners' deficits and sets forth solutions in the form of curriculum oriented to discreet skills that emphasize essential mastery of these skills ordered from the "basics" to higher order skills; teacher directed instruction where the teacher presents material and supervises students closely, and the grouping of students by ability, not only within the class, but through supplemental programs for children with the greatest educational need. 

            Gordon (1986) notes that remediation has traditionally been the primary focus of much of the effort at providing tutorial support to students.  He states that it is usually designed to provide supplemental structured learning experiences for students who are assumed to be, or have been determined to be deficient in their mastery of one or more academic subjects.  He further states that the research on the effectiveness of such remedial practice is equivocal. It seems to be of some help to relatively strong students, but appears to be insufficient to the needs of weak students. 

            Knapp (1994) agrees that there is much to be said for the "conventional wisdom;" applied skillfully, as it tends to result in good student performance on current standardized tests, especially the tests administered in the elementary grades which emphasize basic skills.  He acknowledges that this is not a trivial outcome, and that many classrooms now fall far short of effectively implementing the conventional wisdom, and might benefit from doing so. This formula for effective academic instruction may not succeed in meeting all the educational goals for disadvantaged - or any youngsters. According to Knapp (1994), there is increasing reason to believe that it may place an unintended ceiling on the learning of the disadvantaged student population by repetitively exposing them to an impoverished "basics only" curriculum and nothing more. King (1991) notes that exemplary instructional programs engage students in a cognitively complex, intellectually demanding, enriched, and prestigious curriculum that validates student language and experience, rather than placing an emphasis on discreet skills and drill and practice of remedial, fragmented and simplified content. 

            A salient characteristic of those organizations that are successful in attracting and engaging youth is that they share a common conception of young people as resources to be developed, rather than as problems to be managed.  This view of young people generates program activities that "respect the views and abilities youths bring with them; that are attuned to the developmental needs and cultural differences. 

            In sum, effective programs build upon student strengths while helping them with acknowledged learning needs. Jordan-Irvine (1991) states, "teachers’" personal belief systems, especially the belief around their role as teacher directly influences minority student achievement. She presents four types of conventional teachers for urban youth of color.  Tutors, who felt their role was to simply provide instruction; "general contractors," who felt students needed additional help, but that this was the responsibility of the Chapter I student; custodians, who believed that little or nothing could be done, and "referral agents," who made regular use of special education teachers and psychologists. She contrasts these notions with that of the "cultural broker, or mediator who can be conduits through which mono-cultural minority youngsters become multi-cultural and multilingual. " They are comfortable, knowledgeable, and sensitive about minority children's language, style of presentation, and community values, which are positively inclined to the minority culture as well as the dominant culture of the school. 

5.0.            Effective programs were characterized by rules and standards for behavior, and were highly structured, yet flexible and reflected student interests and input. 

            Heath and McLaughlin (1991) noted that effective programs literally enveloped their teens firmly in a socializing community that holds them accountable for their own actions.  The central rules were found to be broad and simple; no hanging out with gang members; no smoking dope; leave the area as you'd like to find it; doing the dozens.  Within the broad rules are numerous others about appropriate dress, language and so forth. The consistent and reliable adults enforce the rules, and make it clear that all are responsible for monitoring the behavior of those who come into the organization.  Rules are clear, and enforcement is certain; it is "tough love". Flexibility does not come in mitigating consequences of inappropriate behavior, but in the willingness of staff to help youth plan, reform and assess events within the organization. Morris (1992) found youth wanted a program staffed by caring adults who listen to, and respect young people; a place where they felt safe and protected, where they can "be themselves".  They expressed a need for adults who could guide them, nurture them, and provide structure in their lives.  Many expressed a desire for adults whom they could trust, and who teach them to "do the right thing." 

            York (1991) found that structure and discipline were emphasized in every possible way -- program design; well-planned and highly supervised activities in which all youth are required to participate; making all the information needed for participation very clear. Ladson-Billings (1990) stated that all the exemplary teachers in her study were perceived as "strict" or "stern", yet they all indulged in lots of touching, and positive affirmation of students.  Despite the grade levels, there was a great deal of mothering in the classes; they believed they were responsible for what happened to their students, and consequently, they made almost no referrals to the principal's office or support staff. Morgan (1979) found that a "structure of expectations" pervaded the classrooms of highly effective teachers through specific grading criteria, and clear standards of acceptable classroom behavior.  That structure enabled students to clearly understand the social meaning of their behavior within the context of the classroom and school. Knapp (1997) states that classroom management should be intimately linked to the nature of the academic work being done there.  Teachers are most effective when they set expectations for classroom work and order that are appropriate to the academic work at hand, within broad boundaries established for overall behavior in the room.  Students need to be explicitly taught noise levels, the degree of movement about the room may vary etc., and understand which circumstances are appropriate for which kinds of work.  They should anticipate resistance to the new and novel and the unfamiliar work that is necessarily a part of a more challenging curriculum. 

6.0.        The active involvement of role models and mentors in program activities with children and youth.

Social learning, developmental and instructional theories, not to mention common sense, view role models as a significant means of transmitting new attitudes, perceptions, behaviors and skills (Bandura, 1977; Gagne, 1977; & Hill, 1980). Exemplary intervention programs recognize the importance of providing role models to students. They are tangible evidence of the end results of the schooling and career process; they serve as a source of identification and motivation to pursue mathematics and the sciences and encourage students to pursue careers in these and related areas.  When the role models look like the students being served by a particular program, they can share their own experience and strength about the obstacles they confronted and overcame.

They can assure students of support along the way, and that it is possible, appropriate and necessary that they do well in, and complete their studies. Having early exposure to, and interaction with, professional role models in the natural and technical sciences have been found to be critical for recruiting and retaining students’ interest and participation in mathematics and science. Indeed, the lack of role models has been suggested as yet another factor that inhibits the recruitment of young African-Americans and females into science. Role models who look like the students can often address issues students might not address with others, and offer first hand evidence of having actually walked in the students’ shoes. They can say, “ I know what it is to be a young African-American male with dreams and no money,” or “the only one in the classroom”, or having people not believe I can do the work – issues that students of color, girls, and those of lower socioeconomic origins often confront, but do not deal with in a constructive manner. They can talk about being of color, raised in a middle class family, and having attended private school, being perceived as “different from” other students of color. Conversely, these same students can be perceived as requiring exactly the same kinds of academic and social supports that students of color from less privileged backgrounds may need. Often, role models who look like the student can discern these subtle nuances, and help their colleagues do so as well. 

            In the case of black students, it is illustrative to note that despite shifting undergraduate enrollment patterns from historically black colleges to predominately white colleges, the historically black colleges continue to produce a disproportionately high percentage of black scientists and engineers. This pattern has at least been partially attributed to the fact that the majority of academically employed black American scientists and engineers are on the faculties of HBCU’s, where they provide visible role models for students as teachers, researchers, and administrators (Hill, Pettus, & Hedin (1990). Barba and Bowers (1993) note that it has been well acknowledged that the presence of culturally familiar role models, or significant others such as the classroom teacher and community resource persons, both in person and in printed materials and texts, positively impacts the cognitive learning of all students.  

            The presence of culturally familiar role models in textual materials significantly increases students’ self-esteem, concept acquisition, and motivation to pursue science careers (Barba &  Bowers, 1993). Project Interface had members of three African-American professional societies, chemists, engineers and physicians, who came every other week to conduct demonstrations and experiments, work with small groups of students, or make a presentation to the entire group. These members also served as coaches and tutors for the college students who served as Study Group Leaders to the junior high school participants. Students repeatedly stated that one of their “favorite” aspects of the program was the fact that role models took time from their really busy schedules to address them. The role models were members of three African-American professional societies. These chemists, physicians and engineers were a powerful component, which did indeed serve to motivate, engage and inspire students in this program. In addition to nurture and care, role models are tangible proof of success in the work world, and the ability of "someone who looks like me" to make it.  Malcom (1983) states that exemplary programs in her study make intensive use of "people who looked like the participants", as role models.  They discussed careers, succeeding in school, and how they overcame obstacles of race, sex and/or poverty or other difficult home situations. Banks-Beane (1988) pointed out the fact that role models can help overcome stereotypes that science is a white male domain.  Like Gordon (1986), she encourages the introduction of female and minority persons with math and science related careers, and interactions with older, successful minority students. 

Cited in the ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education (2000), the commissioned paper by Lockwood and Secada state that having a mentor can help students withstand the peer, economic, and societal pressures that lead to dropping out. Lennox Middle School, which has a student population that is 95 per cent Hispanic, has an “Adopt-A-Student” component which provides at least one hour a day of one-on-one student-teacher contact and out-of-school activities as well. The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program enlists employees of the corporation to serve as tutors. (ERIC, March 2000)  Role models who do not look like the students have an equally important role and message. They help students learn to see beyond the boundaries of gender, ethnicity, race and social class. They are first hand evidence to students that many experiences are common to all people, and that there are always supportive people to be found in any setting. These are important messages for students to internalize if they are to succeed in school.

Role models also bring expertise, access to additional resources for the program, and a window to the world from which they come, be it industry, post-secondary education, or the public sector. Recognizing the impact of models in shaping behavior and attitudes, most intervention programs involve role models using demonstrations, discussions, “fireside chats” and presentations to inform students about career options, the work they themselves do, and the paths they took to their present positions in science. In addition to peer mentors, MESA provides adult mentors in the form of program advisors, and visits to various job sites. It also maintains a library of career awareness materials for use with students.. DAPCEP in Detroit, Michigan involves role models to make presentations, host field trips, and prepare audiovisual presentations prepared by DAPCEP corporate and university sponsors.

7.0.            Effective programs see parents, guardians, and extended family as an integral part of the program's design and activities. 

            Dornbush (1992) notes that extensive research has shown that parental involvement is important for children's success in school.  His story observed that most programs surveyed conducted some form of outreach to parents and guardians.  This effort generally had two objectives.  First, to gain a better understanding of the child's family circumstances so staff and volunteers can provide appropriate support, when necessary.  Second, to encourage parents to participate actively in their children's education. 

            Camino (1988) also found that programs demonstrate success when an effort is made to engage children and youth of color in, and view them as, members of families and communities. Programs that seek to "integrally involve family and community members in program plans and activities as well as to involve youth in community activities” are more likely to obtain familial endorsement and involvement. Morris reports that youth participate in family-centered activities, and these kinds of activities should be a program component.  At the very least, they state that family participation should be encouraged and promoted.  Parents could be "recruited as coaches, or asked to volunteer in program activities." 

            Malcom (1993) found that parents in exemplary programs she studied had to advocate, monitor, or facilitate their children's participation in the program in some way.  They had to pledge to monitor attendance, provide time so that the student could do homework; agree to provide or arrange transportation for various activities.  Many parents served as chaperones on tours and field trips.  In several cases, parents received information through a newsletter; in one case, parents produced the newsletter. Parents must at least actively consent to their child's participation.  They must be considered in the recruitment process.  She notes that in cultures where the movement of young females is greatly restricted and controlled, parental advocacy and consent are essential to being able to have children in the program. Contrary to the perception of unsupportive, or uninvolved parents, Morris (1992) found that the vast majority of youth actually learned of programs through their parents, and goes so far as to suggest that publicity and media work be directed to parents.  They state that public service announcements and other media could be used to promote programs to parents, and encourage them to involve their children. Public/Private Ventures found that youth who enrolled and remained in programs reported that parental encouragement provided a more positive incentive.  Their comments suggest that parents may be an underutilized resource in motivating students to enroll and remain in support programs.  Ogbu (1984) calls this "pushing" students. Lockwood and Secada (2000) note that schools should recruit Hispanic parents and extended families into a partnership of equals for educating Hispanic students. The Lennox School works with a core group of parents that uses a peer approach to involve other parents and is sensitive to parents’ schedules when planning meetings and events. The elementary school promotes the idea of graduating from college, to keep students focused, and to help parents plan for it and learn the operational steps to apply for college and securing financial aid for their children.

8.0.Strong support from the central office site administrators and teachers for the program itself, its staff and participants.

            Cole (1986) states that in his opinion, the first, and perhaps most important ingredient, is a strong commitment by teachers, counselors and the school system itself" to a program of academic enrichment and support.  This commitment must be backed by adequate financial support to augment the human resources already available to implement the program.  Banks-Beane (1988) echoes this by noting that "the support of school administrators who are committed to program objectives, and will act as facilitators," is a component of successful programs. 

            Banks-Beane (1988) further states that effective schools are characterized by strong instructional leadership from the principal; the entire staff firmly believes, and is committed to all students mastering the common curriculum.  She states that effective schools are lead by effective principals, who, in comparison to their less effective counterparts, conduct more observations of teachers in classrooms.  These principals "recognize the importance of math and science competency for all children, and deploy human and material resources to support teachers and students." 

            Jordan-Irvine (1991) is an advocate of teachers being freed of the "rigid and confining nature of school organizations which impede the implementation of effective teaching strategies for children of color.”  She states that they must be empowered by increasing their participation in decision-making, school management and curriculum development. 

            Knapp (1997) states, that local leadership makes a difference in the implementation of innovative ideas. Superintendents and principals can use their line authority to insist upon change, and provide support in the implementation process. The advocacy and support of programs by key staff, and the involvement of teachers to insure their support, are key factors in the effective implementation of a new program, or program component. These findings are confirmed by the experience of the systemic initiative in Fresno, where the involvement of all stakeholders—employee unions, parents, the mathematics and sciences communities, businesses and teachers—is cited as one of the principle factors in the success of the program. The fact that they can acknowledge a key challenge to be that of addressing teachers and staff that are reluctant to change is in itself an indicator of the program’s success. (Council of Great City Schools 1991).  

            This is echoed by Irmsher (1997) who reports that in the most successful reform efforts, decisions were made, sustained and supported at the building, district and state levels under standards similar to high-reliability organizations.. Successful schools are strongly supported by the community of adults working within the school, the surrounding community, and the district’s central office, as well as state-level decision-makers and program developers. It is understood that implementation is not a “quick fix” and that the mobilization of appropriate resources, be they monetary, human, material, or political, by all parties involved is essential.

8.0.Partnership and Collaboration with Like-Minded Organizations 

            One of the most successful and effective examples of a program involving the private sector in all areas of its work is the MESA program. From the earliest planning sessions, the founders of the MESA program recognized the critical importance of linking with industry and business. Role model engineers who could meet with students and financial support from industry were both recognized as essentials for program success. The earliest MESA committees included representatives from both public and private organizations employing engineers, scientists, and mathematicians. These committees developed a multi-faceted plan for industry involvement, which became the foundation for MESA’s long-term program as well as its expansion into other states and at other educational levels The plan included: 

·                     Involving industry leaders on state and local MESA governing and advisory boards

·                     Increasing the number of participating companies

·                     Developing a multi-leveled participation in the delivery of services to students

·                     Using industry participation in MESA as a leverage with other institutions for their

            Involvement (The MESA Way).

            Many of the schools that were found to be effective in educating traditionally underachieving students received additional monetary resources and enhanced credibility through their association with colleges and universities. Several sites formed relationships with local companies and firms. Tapping into these linkages opened a flow of fresh volunteers, generated funds for the purchase of supplies and materials, and provided opportunities for students to learn job related skills while earning a salary (Irmsher, 1997) 

9.0                 Evaluation of Programs based on student-centered, achievement-oriented outcomes.

            The Carnegie Foundation created an entire taskforce to deal with the issue of evaluation, stating that it was an area that was often neglected particularly when choices between supporting the program and paying for an evaluation had to be made. Dornbush (1992) noted that that many program staff simply did not have the expertise to evaluate programs, and thus shied away from it. Further, while many agree that student achievement is a highly valued outcome, many believe that it is not reasonable to expect that a single teacher development, teacher research, student enrichment or even systemic program can bring about and sustain this change (Kaser & Bourexis, 1999). 

            In spite of the reluctance of some programs to use student achievement of high standards as a measure of program or intervention effectiveness, others believe that this measure is essential. Malcom (1993) notes that the long and short term goals of the truly exemplary programs that she observed were "well articulated," and expressed in terms of the needs of the population being served.  She states that the best programs measure movement to these goals as a way of achieving accountability and of determining which parts of the program should be changed. 

            Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1993) found that the programs in their study used evaluative data to help program administrators and staff to understand what was effective about their work. It assisted them in making decisions and allocating staff and resources and in making improvements in the program. Finding out/Descubrimiento, a skills development program, and Project Interface, a math and science enrichment program, evaluated participants using the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). Finding Out also used the Language assessment Scale, The Cartoon Conservation Scale, which measures intellectual development across Piagetian-based tasks, and a test measuring participant’s grasp of program content. Effectiveness of their teacher training component is assessed by pre and post-program observations.

            MESA maintains a sophisticated data-collection system that allows it to track its participants to determine the number and percentage of those who go on to college as math or science majors, as does Project Interface. Project SEED conducted a longitudinal evaluation of six groups of former SEED students, and six comparison groups, to ascertain the long-term and short-term impact of the program on their mathematics achievement. 

            Solid evaluation and a willingness to evaluate a program based on student achievement outcomes are an indicator of high expectations for staff and student alike. As opposed to teaching to a test, or merely stating standards to be addressed, these expectations lead to support for staff and students alike. Staff are supported with ongoing training in effective pedagogy and in curriculum content, and coached and encouraged. Adults who are nurtured and well supported can in turn provide quality content, instruction and support for students. Evaluation of program outcomes keeps the focus on those variables within a program’s control. Equity 2000 program designers, cite evaluation as a key component in guiding policymaking and programmatic decisions. A solid evaluation also provides assurance to the funding agency and the community at large that the program’s resources are being used responsibly. Rather than being a mere after thought and tallying of subjective experiences alone, evaluation is most helpful when built into the planning stage and implemented throughout the life of the program or reform effort.

Future Research: What We Need to Know?

Recommendations for future research include the following:

a.                   Connections between the research on resilience and the research on effective programs to address equity and diversity in mathematics and science education need to be made systematically.

b.                   What role can changing the prevailing practice of tracking existing mathematics and science  (non-Asian) teachers of color into lower level, basic, non-honors and non-gifted classes play in closing the achievement gap?

c.                   What can be done to change teacher/counselor/administrator expectations?

d.                   What system changes can be made to distribute limited resources more equitably within districts and schools.

e.                   What are the obstacles to high achievement in math and science faced by middleclass African American students from homes where a high value is placed on education?

f.                    How can data be used more effectively in schools, districts and states to help close achievement gaps.

g.                   What impact have site-based management and performance-based testing had on the achievement in math and science of diverse populations?

h.                   How can successful programs working with subsets of students be more effectively “scaled-up”, institutionalized and disseminated to whole schools, districts, states, etc.?

i.                     How can the knowledge and strategies from these successful programs become part of the mainstream preparation of educators?  How can it influence such disciplines as educational psychology?

j.                     What are the implications of Feuerstein’s “Instrumental Enrichment” work on the instruction and testing of diverse student populations?

k.                   Much of the gender research confounds gender with race and ethnicity.  What are the implications for understanding and developing effective strategies for equity issues in math and science?

l.                     What role can technology play in addressing diversity and equity issues in math and science?

m.                 How does the disproportionate number of non-Asian students of color being placed in special education classes for “discipline” reasons impact the achievement gap?

n.                  What impact have the pre-college math/science programs in NAPD, such as MESA, SECME, PRIME, MSEN, LEAP, NACME had on the increase in the number of students of color going into math, science and technology fields. What role have anti-affirmative action efforts had in reducing the numbers/percentages?

REFERENCES  

Adelman, C. (1999).  Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

Barba, R. H., Bowers, R. S. (1993). Multicultural infusion: A culturally affirming strategy for science teacher preparation. In P. A. Rubba, L. Campbell, & T. Dana (Eds.), Excellence in Educating Teachers of Science, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, 89-113. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

 

Bloom, B.S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

 

Bohrnstedt, G., Jakwerth, P., & Rodriguez, C. (1999) The EQUITY 2000 Evaluation: The senior survey analysis of cohorts 1, 2, & 3. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute of Research.

Bouie, A. (1993). Assessment of demonstration school principals, characteristics of exemplary programs and recommendations for action. Unpublished report Oakland Public Schools.

 

Braddock, J. & Dawkins, M.P. (1993). Ability grouping, aspirations, and attainments: evidence from the national longitudinal study of 1988. Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 1-13.

Braddock, J., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). Why ability grouping must end: Achieving excellence and equity in American education. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED355 296 Paper presented at the Common Destiny Conference at Johns Hopkins University : Baltimore, MD.

 

Camino, L. (1988). Racial, ethnic and cultural differences in youth development programs. Carnegie Council on Adolescent development. Commissioned Paper. Washington D.C.

Clewell, B. C, Taylor-Anderson B., & Thorpe, M.E. (1993). Breaking the barriers: Helping female and minority students succeed in mathematics and science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1998). Key state education policies on K-12 education: Content standards teacher licensure, time and attendance. Washington, DC: Author.

Cota-Robles, E. & Gordon E. (1999). Reaching the top: A report on the national task force on minority high achievement. New York: The College Board Publications.

Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice, New York: Longman Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996).  What matters most: Teaching for American’s Future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America Future.

Duran, B. J., & Dugan, T.(1997). Increasing teacher effectiveness with language minority s students. High School Journal, 80(4), 238-247.

 

Dweck, S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268-276.

Educational Testing Service. (1990). Accelerating Academic Achievement, America’s Challenge: A Summary of Findings from Twenty Years at the National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1990). Princeton, NJ: Author.

 

Ehindero, O.J. (1980). The influence of two languages of instruction on students’ level of cognitive development and achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17,(4) pp. 283-288.

George, Y. S. (1991). Nurturing talent: Reports from the field. In Investing in human potential: Science and engineering at the crossroads. M. Lakes-Mayas & S. M. Malcolm, (eds.), Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science pp. 117-190

Gordon, E. W. (1986). A descriptive analysis of programs and trends in engineering education for ethnic minority students. Institution for Social Policy studies. New Haven, CT: Yale University  

Halpern, D.F., Hansen, C., & Riefer, D. (1990). Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), pp. 298-305.

Harris, C.D. (1998). EQUITY 2000 and district change signs of success. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Herbert, J. P. & Hauser, R. M. (1998).  High stakes: testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Hill, O.W., Clinton, P., & Hedin, B. A. (1990). Three studies of factors affecting the attitudes of blacks and females toward the pursuit of science and science-related careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), pp 289-314.

          Irmsher, K. (1992). Education reform and students at risk. Eric Document 405642.  

Jones, D.J. & Watson, B.C. (1990). High risk students and higher education: Future trends, ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report No. 3, Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Jones, V.C. (1999). Academic tracking: Systematically undereducating African American, Latino and poor students American style. Unpublished manuscript.

Jones, V.C. (1998). Improving black student performance on a large scale: The lessons of EQUITY 2000 program.  In L.A. Daniels (Ed.), The State of Black America. (pp.173-194). New York: National Urban League.

Jones, V.C. (1997).  “What a difference a standard makes. In D. Bartels & J. Opert Sandler (Eds.) Implementing science education reforms: Are we making an impact?  Washington, DC: American Association of the Advancement of Science.

Jones, V.C. & Clemson, R. (1996).  Promoting effective teaching for diversity.  In L. Rendon & L. O. Hope (Eds.) Educating a new majority (pp. 149-167).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, V. C. (1998). “Improving black student performance on a large scale: The lessons of Equity 2000.In Lee A. Daniels (ed.), The state of Black America (pp.173-194). New York National Urban League.

 

Kaser, J. & Bourexis, P. S. (1999). Enhancing program quality in science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwrin Press.

 

Kesler, C. & Quinn, M.E. (1980). Bilingualism and science problem-solving ability. Bilingual Education Paper Series, 4, pp. 1-30.  

 

Knapp, M. (1997).  Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266.  

 

Landis, R. B. (1985)  Handbook on improving the retention and graduation of minorities in engineering. New York, National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering.

 

Mahoney, P. (1985). School for boys? London: Hutchinson Press,

 

Malcom, S. (1983). An assessment of programs that facilitate increased access and achievement of females and minorities  in K-12 mathematics and science education, Washington, DC: Office of Opportunities in Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science .

 

Malcom, S. (1985). The Place of minorities in the scientific and technical workforce. Black Scholar, 16, 50-55.

 

Malcom, S., Hall, P., & Brown J. (1976). The double bind: The price of being a minority woman in science. Washington, DC: The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

 

Matyas. M. L. & Malcolm S. (1991). Programs for women and minorities: Creating a clear pathway for future scientists and engineers. In Investing in human potential: Science and Engineering at the Crossroads, Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

 

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. twelfth grade mathematics and science achievement in international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. NCES- 98- 049.

 

Pelavin, S. & Kane, M. (1989). Changing the odds: Factors increasing access to college. New York, NY: The College Board.

 

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: How schools structure inequality.  New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The effects of race, class, and tracking on opportunities to learn math and science. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

 

Ortiz, A. A. & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Recognizing learning disabilities in bi-Lingual children: How to lessen inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education”, Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 2(1), 43-56

 

Rodriquez, I. &  Bethel, L. J. (1983). An inquiry approach to science/language Teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, pp. 291-296.

 

Sadker, M. & Sadker D. (1982). The sex equity handbook for schools. New York, NY: Longman Press.

 

School Practices To promote The Achievement of Hispanic Students. (2000). Eric Clearinghouse on Urban Education. EDO-UD-00-2

 

Somerton, W., Smith M. P., Finnell, R. & Fuller, W. T. (1994). The MESA Way, pp. 98. San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.

 

Spector, B. S. & Gibson C. W. A qualitative study of middle school students: Perceptions of factors facilitating the learning of science: grounded theory and existing theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(6), 467- 484.

 

Thomas, G. (1984). Determinants and motivations underlying the college choice: Major choice of race and sex groups. Washington, DC: The National Science Foundation.

 

U.S. Department of Education (1997). Mathematics Equals Opportunity. (White Paper prepared for U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley)  Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

 

Watts., S. (1986). Science Education For A Multicultural Society. In R.K. Arora & C.G. Duncan, (eds.), Multicultural Education: Towards Good Practice (pp 135-160.). London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.

 

Williams, H., Fast, J. Berestiansky, J., Turner, C.W., & Debruil, L. (1989) Designing Science Lessons to Promote Cognitive Growth The Science Teacher, 46, 26-29.