Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) live in the American imagination as promising tools for solving pressing global challenges and enhancing quality of life. However, STEM learning opportunities are unevenly distributed, and the experiences an individual has in STEM education are likely to vary tremendously based on their race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, gender, and myriad other factors.
Equity in STEM education is not merely a singular goal but rather an on-going process that requires intentional decision-making and action toward addressing and disrupting existing inequities and envisioning a more just future. Given the specific histories and contexts of different schools, districts, communities and regions, equity related goals and the strategies for achieving them may vary substantially from place to place and may need to change over time.
The education system in the United States is organized across multiple levels, including federal, state, district and school level policies and practices. Opportunities to advance equity in STEM learning exist at each of these levels. Identifying these opportunities requires an understanding of the policies, the key actors in the context, potential resources to leverage and a willingness to be creative. Consequential decision making for increasing equity in STEM education involves balancing short term gains while maintaining a vision for and strategic action toward long term, continuous and broad systemic change.
The report puts forth a framework to guide decision makers short- and long-term goals for equity and to make decisions about policy and practice. While each frame is described as distinct, the concepts and principles can overlap in practice and do not have to be completed in the sequential order. The frames were created with the intention to meet stakeholders where they currently are and help them move toward more equitable opportunities within the education system.
For a complete list of recommendations, see the Summary. The report includes several concrete examples for motivated decision makers, across all levels of the system, these include:
New approaches to STEM learning and teaching that emphasize engagement in disciplinary practices and the importance of learners’ interest and identity open up productive spaces for advancing equity. In order to shift instruction in ways that advance equity in STEM classrooms, STEM educators in school and in out of school settings will need to reflect on and interrogate routine instructional practices in STEM for how they may be providing (or limiting) opportunities for learners based on learners’ social identities. They will need to implement instructional approaches in STEM that draw on asset-based perspectives, center students’ sensemaking as tied to their cultural and socio-political worlds, and frame STEM practices and knowledge as dynamic, evolving, and connected with other disciplines both within and outside of STEM.
Educators cannot be expected to make the necessary changes to instruction on their own. They need high quality, on-going professional learning opportunities related to equity in STEM. To enact instruction that advances equity in STEM requires understanding how to interweave pedagogy that supports the development of competencies in the concepts and practices of the disciplines with pedagogy that promotes learners’ agency, leverages their cultural and linguistic assets and centers their competence as sense-makers. There are research-based models for advancing this kind of instruction that can be leveraged to support educators as they reflect on and transform their own practice.
Instructional materials are often not designed to incorporate explicit strategies for addressing equity beyond somewhat surface features such as ensuring a diverse array of individuals are represented or describing some strategies for differentiation of instruction. Designers and developers of materials will need to attend to equity in the design process. Individuals at the district and state level who have roles in selecting instructional materials will need to develop processes for adoption that allow them to identify instructional materials that align with and advance their vision for equity in STEM.
In contrast to the oft-cited “STEM pipeline”, there is no single pathway to STEM learning and success, and success can be interpreted in a number of ways from person to person. There are a number of barriers to pathways—including course requirements, bias, lack of out of school programs, etc.—built into current systems that often limit peoples’ STEM learning opportunities. To address such barriers, state-level decision-makers will need to review how state level policies need to change to build equitable STEM pathways. This could include attention to policies related to district and school funding formulae; assessment; course access, placement and sequencing; graduation requirements; and instructional time. Similarly, district and school administrators should consider ways to modify or eliminate course and program placement policies that limit students’ access to advanced coursework and programming.
The current system for documenting the state of STEM education focuses primarily on student achievement on standardized test scores. Such a measurement is inadequate for documenting how policies and practices contribute to inequities and do not provide sufficient information to guide systemic changes that can address gaps in opportunity, access, and quality of experience.
In pursuit of assessment systems that support a vision of equity in STEM education, the report recommends that state departments of education should establish new metrics for equity in STEM that are supported by research and go beyond student achievement, such as measurements of student experience and resource allocation related to those experiences; develop systems approaches (e.g., portfolio-based approaches) to measuring the performance of districts, schools, and educators that reflect multiple measures beyond student achievement; develop assessment policy that leverages the expertise and judgment of educators, while also developing their capacities, and enacts wider, more substantive views of student achievement.
Families and communities can be critical partners in K-12 STEM education. The experiences that students have within their families and communities can be rich resources for classroom learning. These family and community connections can offer insight into local context and history, may have STEM-related experiences and expertise to share, and can be valuable partners in developing learning experiences that are grounded in issues and questions that are relevant to learners.
The report recommends that district and school leaders recognize students’ families and communities as an asset and invest in the development of mutually beneficial partnerships between schools, districts, families and communities.
