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.
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 21st 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 9th
and 10th 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 9th and 10th 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.