11

Supporting Equitable Pathways in STEM Learning

Previous chapters focused on enhancing the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning experiences of children and youth through attention to instruction, curriculum, and teachers’ learning. In this chapter, we step back to look more broadly at how learners navigate across different settings in their communities and connect their STEM learning experiences across months and years. We begin by defining what we mean by “pathways” and contrasting them with a commonly used policy term “STEM pipelines.” We then discuss the factors than can shape learners’ pathways and how inequitable access to different kinds of learning opportunities across settings can limit or open up possibilities in STEM for children and youth. Finally, we explore strategies for supporting and expanding equitable STEM pathways including examples of promising programs. We examine how systems can be organized to support multiple pathways in STEM education that advance equity goals.

WHAT ARE STEM PATHWAYS?

Achieving equity in preK–12 STEM education requires broadening our perspectives in order to see that there are numerous and diverse STEM learning pathways that people both have access to and build for themselves. These pathways are not set “tracks” in a school system, nor a set and rigid trajectory that students must follow with the primary goal of a STEM career (more details below). Rather, the notion of “pathways” describes the numerous ways learners move between different STEM learning experiences across different settings and how these varied experiences can

contribute to the development of proficiency in STEM disciplines, perceptions of the disciplines, and a sense of competence and identity in STEM.

Many discussions of students’ progress in STEM over time focus on whether or not students ultimately enter a STEM career. In contrast, we think of a “successful” STEM learning pathway as one that is marked by positive experiences that uplift the learning goals and interests of an individual, while supporting and facilitating a healthier and more fulfilling life for that individual, their community, and the planet. In other words, successful and equitable STEM pathways do not always lead to working in a STEM-related job, but may also include experiences such as using STEM learning in community organizing efforts around water quality in one’s city, or toward designing a landscape architecture project around the theme of volcanic island formation while celebrating the ahupua’a histories of Hawai’i, or shaping the patterns of a musical score for an Angolan interpretation of Vivaldi’s Four Seasons.

This notion of pathways draws on scholarship highlighting the importance of building connected learning opportunities across youths’ learning ecologies (see Chapter 7) in ways that encourage positive identity development and STEM engagement in conjunction with interest development and growth with STEM fields (Akiva et al., 2017; Hecht et al., 2019; Ito et al., 2020; Penuel et al., 2016). This research emphasizes that pathways should encourage “freedom of movement” that is supported by stronger connections made between opportunities, settings, and people (Pinkard, 2019) including experiences in school, in families, in communities, and online. At the same time, a learner’s movement through STEM pathways will be shaped by sociohistorical factors, institutional structures, economic influences, and sometimes even unexpected life events that can work to either limit or open up opportunities for individuals differentially based on the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender identity, socioeconomic class, disability status, and more.

Pathways, Not Pipelines

This concept of pathways contrasts with the oft-cited idea of a STEM “pipeline” which focuses on a single route to one final destination, a STEM career. For decades, researchers and policymakers used the pipeline metaphor, often discussing the problem whereby many students entered the pipeline but “leaked out” before reaching a STEM occupation (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2007). Within this narrative, the goal was to identify common points of “leakage,” and seek to patch them so that students stayed in the pipeline; women and students of color were often named as most at risk for diverging from this single path and “leaking out” (Blickenstaff, 2005). Specific definitions of what

comprised the pipeline varied across research studies and national reports, but often included K–12 benchmarks such as students taking algebra in eighth grade and calculus in high school, together with holding expectations to major in STEM fields in college; and high levels of math achievement on standardized tests were often invoked as necessary to support progress through the high school component of the pipeline. Subsequently the next segment of the pipeline was entry to a STEM major and persistence to a degree in that major, with the final culmination of entering and persisting in a STEM occupation (Cannady et al., 2014).

There is certainly a logic behind the idea of a STEM pipeline; course taking in math in K–12 prepares students to learn more STEM content in college. However, the notion of a single lockstep path to a STEM occupation is not empirically supported. For example, utilizing data from a nationally representative cohort of high school students, Cannady et al. (2014) found that among those who later entered STEM professions as adults, approximately half of them had not taken calculus in high school, and that approximately 20 percent of them had not taken calculus nor expressed intentions to major in STEM as high school students. An earlier national study by Xie and Shauman (2003) similarly critiqued the notion of a single STEM pipeline, as they found that many students entered STEM majors in college who had not previously expressed intentions to do so. Such findings suggest that students’ pathways should be viewed as more dynamic or in flux, rather than firmly entrenched in a prescribed linear path.

Further, while attention to the so-called “leaky pipeline” was often motivated from an equity lens of wanting to increase access to STEM occupations for women and those from minoritized groups (i.e., Frame 2), empirical research presents compelling evidence that the STEM pipeline is a particularly ill-fitting metaphor to fully describe the STEM trajectories of these individuals. For example, many national studies have confirmed that girls move through the so-called academic benchmarks of the K–12 STEM pipeline at the same rate as boys (e.g., taking calculus, earning high math grades and high test scores), but are much less likely to express intentions to pursue STEM majors (Cimpian et al., 2020; Morgan et al., 2013; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012; Xie & Shauman, 2003). Indeed, research suggests that girls are often likely to consider multiple domains of future study, supported by their high performance across different subjects (Rask, 2010; Stearns et al., 2020). Yet the prevalence and salience of the STEM pipeline metaphor continues to shape popular narratives around women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields as the result of them being under-prepared, rather than explicitly acknowledging the gender norms and stereotypes that shape inequality in STEM expectations and experiences (Cheryan & Markus, 2020; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).

At the same time, racially minoritized students do not have comparable opportunities as their white and certain Asian peers to participate in the preK–12 academic benchmarks commonly viewed as part of the STEM pipeline. Research finds that the high school math trajectories of Black youth do not often follow the assumed linear progression from eighth-grade algebra to advanced high school math such as calculus. This is mitigated by both individual (e.g., choice) and structural factors discussed in Chapter 4 (e.g., course offerings). Rather, research has shown that Black youth are more likely to retake algebra in high school regardless of grades earned when they had previously taken the course, and less likely to enroll in later advanced courses despite having met the academic prerequisites; this pattern may be most pronounced for Black male students (Irizarry, 2021; Riegle-Crumb, 2007). Yet research has found that, conditional on college matriculation, Black youth are typically as likely as their peers with racial privilege to enter STEM majors (Chen, 2009; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2015). Clearly, the notion of a single STEM pipeline obscures the frequent decoupling of high school course taking and STEM college entry observed among students who are not white and male.

Indeed, there is no place in the pipeline metaphor to acknowledge the systemic racism that students encounter. Black and Latinx high school students express strong levels of interest in math and science (Hurtado et al., 2010; Xie et al., 2015), yet are often segregated within schools that do not offer advanced courses, have teachers that are not qualified, and experience bias and microaggressions in classrooms (McGee & Martin, 2011). At the postsecondary level, Black and Latinx students are more likely to depart STEM majors than their white and specific Asian peers; yet several recent national studies make clear that their exit rates are not explained by lower academic performance (Hatfield et al., 2022; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2020). Overall, to the extent that the pipeline metaphor of a clear and sustained path from high school STEM spaces into college and labor force STEM spaces is applicable to capture the realities of lived experiences, it applies primarily to white and male students, who arguably “over-persist” in STEM fields even when they have low achievement (Cimpian et al., 2020; Penner & Willer 2019). In other words, those with privilege can move from one space to the subsequent one within the STEM ecosystem because such spaces are both physically and socially accessible to them.

Further, the STEM pipeline metaphor holds up one particular pathway as the most desirable. But this pathway is not actually accessible to many, nor should it be viewed as universally desirable or valuable. Similarly, defining the ultimate endpoint as STEM careers with articulated economic “value” and/or a money-making, status-acquiring purpose—as so often happens—is often at odds with the communal values and goals expressed

more commonly among women and racially minoritized youth (Diekman, 2019; McGee, 2020).

WHAT SHAPES PATHWAYS?

Importantly, there are many factors impacting peoples’ possible pathways that relate directly to issues of equity in education, and equity in preK–12 STEM education specifically. Following from our discussions of patterns of inequity mentioned earlier in this report (see Chapters 3 and 4), broad patterns of inequity at the macro level of society have specific, observable consequences for students’ individual pathways. Inside of the U.S. education system, the same dominant power structures that we have discussed throughout this report also work to create a series of barriers that prevent students of color, poor students, disabled students, and other students from marginalized groups from achieving their STEM-specific goals. In this section, we discuss how this differential distribution of power and opportunity can either constrain or enable students.

Distribution of Opportunity: The Importance of Geography and Wealth

Physical geography, a concept which is shaped by the intersection of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic class, and policies meant to protect those who hold wealth and power, has considerable impact on students’ access not only to educational opportunity, but also to the health and wellbeing needs that support their ability to learn and grow. Briggs (2005) and the University of California, Los Angeles Civil Rights Project provide important analyses of how racial and socioeconomic segregation—influenced by patterns of wealthier families abandoning older communities and taking their resources with them (e.g., white flight) or wealthier individuals taking over neighborhoods that initially have lower property value and making it impossible for lower-income families to stay and afford the subsequent rising home prices (e.g., gentrification)—have direct impacts on the opportunities available to the majority of families with regards to housing, health care, jobs, and food, as well as education. Tate (2008) describes how geographies of opportunity directly influence educational pathways for youth as well, offering Dallas as a case study. Youth-led research illuminated the negative impacts of a concentrated and high number of liquor stores in their low-income, Black community, and how the lack of physical opportunities available for high-quality food, health care, safety, education, etc., were compounded by a lack of civic dialogue due to the city failing to invest in urban planning and government capacity-building in the region (Tate, 2008). Youth were well aware of how these factors impacted the educational opportunities

they had to pursue their academic and personal interests, as well as support their futures, families, and communities. A wide range of studies have used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping to produce analyses of resource/opportunity availability and segregation (e.g., Holme & Rangel, 2012; Jocson & Jocson & Thorne-Wallington, 2013; Miller, 2012; Milner, 2013).

In rural communities, there are often challenges to offering extensive STEM learning opportunities due to a variety of factors including fewer STEM teachers, fewer opportunities to take advanced STEM courses, and fewer out-of-school STEM learning opportunities (Crain & Webber, 2021; Saw & Agger, 2021; Showalter et al., 2017). The current teacher shortage, which is worse in rural districts than urban (Ingersoll & Tran, 2023), may make it particularly difficult to recruit and retain STEM teachers in rural schools. Rural practitioners, both in schools and out-of-school settings, also struggle to offer students adequate transportation; this can raise programmatic costs or, in some cases, prohibit in-person gatherings (Collins et al., 2008; Showalter et al., 2017; Strange et al., 2012). Students attending rural schools have less access to Advanced Placement (AP) courses and are more likely to attend a school that offers no AP course at all (Chatterji et al., 2021). At the same time, students in suburban communities are much more likely to attend schools that offer multiple AP courses than students in either rural or urban areas (Chatterji et al., 2021). School funding is another challenge for many rural districts; because so much of school funding is dependent on property taxes, areas with low property wealth, including many rural places, are challenged to raise funds sufficient to support costs (Strange, 2011).

A number of studies document how patterns of housing segregation by race and class shape where people can live and, thus, the types of resources to which they have access. It is already well known that neighborhoods with more wealth also have more STEM education programs, access to STEM internship and job opportunities, access to STEM mentors, and community members who work in STEM fields (Change the Equation, 2017). Wealthier private and public schools have the resources from both parents and private funders to pay for better materials and tools, to pay higher salaries to highly qualified educators, to pay for field trips to STEM museums and companies that open up new opportunities for youth, and more (see, for example, Condron & Roscigno, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1998; Mackevicius, 2022; Spatig-Amerikaner, 2012). Similarly, wealthier families have the resources to spend more on out-of-school learning opportunities that, especially in STEM education, can support advancements not only in academic pathways that result in higher-level coursework, but also social network pathways that create opportunities to meet more mentors in STEM fields or access internship opportunities that can affect the life choices one makes along one’s lifetime (discussed further below; Duncan & Murnane, 2011). In the field of computer science, those who have been able to afford

things like robotics kits, summer camps, and, simply, devices and Wi-Fi at home have been wealthier white families (Margolis & Fisher, 2002; National Center for Women and Information Technology, 2022).

There are also variations in access and opportunity, and in observed opportunity gaps, across states, across districts within a state, and even across schools within a district. These differences reflect variations in state, district and school policy; patterns of segregation; and the histories of different communities. For example, there are striking state differences in patterns of access to AP courses, enrollment in them, and passing rates on the AP exams (Chatterji et al., 2021). Also, looking across the country, access to AP courses is concentrated in urban and coastal areas, while dual enrollment (where students are able to enroll in community college classes while attending high school) is more widespread, including in rural areas (Xu et al., 2021). Further, racial equity gaps in participation in both AP and dual enrollment vary substantially between districts in the same state and among schools within the same district (Xu et al., 2021). There is similar variation in access to accelerated STEM opportunities prior to high school such as gifted and talented programs due to differences in policy and practice, such as how students are identified for inclusion (Meyer et al., 2024). This variability in patterns of inequity indicates that, as discussed in Chapter 6, policies and decisions at state, district, and school levels have dramatic impacts on students’ opportunities and the pathways available to them.

Identifying Assets and Mapping Opportunities: Cities of Learning

While we have discussed above many of the challenges of geography and access to equitable STEM pathways, there are also many assets in communities that can be leveraged. Youth and their communities are not passive, and a number of important efforts reveal how, despite negative impacts of institutionalized racism, socioeconomic class oppression, lack of attention to rural communities, and more, youth and their families can use STEM tools to shine a light on these issues impacting their educational pathways and opportunities, and seek solutions to the differential resources, learning, and mentors they have access to in their communities (e.g., Rigolon, 2017; Tate & Hogrebe, 2011; Taylor & Hall, 2013). Indeed, as noted by Green (2015), there is also opportunity in geography.

“Cities of Learning,” one such effort, focuses on increasing the depth, breadth, and number of learning pathways available to youth via a region-specific web-based platform where users can find out-of-school opportunities using interactive maps. The Chicago City of Learning online platform—created by Nichole Pinkard and the Digital Youth Network in collaboration with Chicago Public Schools—provides youth with access to thousands of programs and learning opportunities (e.g., sports camps,

coding academies, design classes, etc.) that they can search based on personal interest and curiosity. At the same time, this resource provides mappable data about which neighborhoods have the most resources and which students have access to those resources in the high-income and racially segregated city of Chicago (Poon, 2017). Together, the ways that youth use the platform and the data made available about where programs exist and who enrolls in them helps researchers explore issues of spatial equity in learning ecologies. More specifically, the pathways that youth can access via the online platform reveal ecosystem richness, abundance, and evenness (Quigley et al., 2016). Richness refers to the diversity of learning opportunities in particular neighborhoods; abundance refers to the total number of programs in each ZIP code; and evenness refers to how many specific types of programs exist in specific neighborhoods (Quigley et al., 2016).

Efforts such as these provide an important opportunity to increase and diversify the types of STEM learning pathways youth can pursue. However, in order for learning pathways to be equitable and valuable for all youth, there needs to be equal richness, abundance, and evenness across a geographic region. For Chicago, this was not the case. While the majority of ZIP codes had richness of learning opportunity, most programs were clustered in specific areas where there are cultural institutions (e.g., museums). Furthermore, evenness scores were low in many areas south of downtown (which tend to be less affluent), showing that there were more of one specific kind of program in that area, whereas wealthier neighborhoods had a wider range of types of programs available to youth (Quigley et al., 2016).

The Cities of Learning concept has been picked up in many other parts of the world, including Italy, Lithuania, Serbia, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, Germany, the United Kingdom, and more.¹ Quigley et al.’s (2016) findings reveal that the online platform may connect youth to opportunities in the ecosystem, but more importantly it helps shine a light on ways that youth can get tracked in or out of potential pathways of STEM learning based on demographics tied to ZIP codes. Cities of Learning can help make disparities visible in ways that can then be addressed through targeted efforts to offer greater richness, evenness, and abundance of STEM learning opportunity for youth across learning ecosystems. However, the work of addressing the epistemological roots of STEM knowledge/practice or foregrounding ways to use STEM for larger social and socioecological justice movements is not central to the Cities of Learning platforms (which reflect more of an Equity Frame 2 (expanding opportunity and access) approach). That said, there is a range of approaches featured in Cities of Learning as visible in programs like Digital Youth Divas that reflect more of an Equity Frames 3 (embracing heterogeneity) or 4 (promoting justice) approach.

___________________

¹ See https://www.citiesoflearning.net/

Social Capital, Relationships, and Mentors

Another important factor impacting STEM pathways includes access to supportive relationships and mentors along one’s learning trajectory. This can involve a teacher who encourages a young woman to challenge sexist stereotypes about who should excel in math, or an aunt who offers to support the creation of an afterschool STEM program in one’s library, or a school alum who returns to their school and shares about their STEM experiences to make visible the possibilities and challenges youth can expect but also overcome in their futures. Social capital clearly has a huge impact on the kinds of learning experiences and opportunities one has in both school and out-of-school contexts, and the relationships one has to people who encourage, support, and uplift learners along their STEM pathways are key to successful learning experiences and future opportunities both in and beyond careers.

Just as positive youth relationships with parents and educators are important for their wellbeing and learning, so too are relationships with other adults across the learning ecology outside of schools, and especially for STEM pathways (Chen & Soldner, 2013; Gupta & Negron, 2017; Kekelis et al., 2017; Larson et al., 2004; Lerner et al., 2003; McCreedy & Dierking, 2013; Rhodes, 2004; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). As noted by Allen et al. (2018), interest is not the sole motivator for youth to enter STEM learning pathways and persist in exploring new opportunities, but rather social connections play a critical role, and key sponsorship moments along a STEM pathway (specifically having a knowledgeable other support involvement, having one’s interest and expertise recognized by others in a community, and being able to see a future for oneself in STEM) can encourage continuous movement along STEM pathways (Allen et al., 2018).

For example, out-of-school programs that have caring adult staff working with youth can open up pathways to new interests in STEM careers (DeWitt et al., 2011; Price et al., 2018), but also in challenging assumptions about who can and should pursue STEM learning pathways with mentors who reflect the intersectional identities of youth STEM program participants (Calabrese Barton & Yang, 2000; Ginwright, 2007). While many mentoring programs or mentoring efforts embedded in out-of-school programs have focused more narrowly on preparing youth for STEM degrees and careers, or measure their success based on traditional notions of academic achievement (e.g., test scores, grades, decisions to study STEM beyond high school, etc.), much can be learned from their approaches that centers positive relationships as a means to open up new experiences, opportunities, and pathways through STEM learning that may have been previously unavailable.

Mentorship from caring adults within school contexts has also shown to have positive impacts on youth’s academic engagement/interest, and

particularly for students underrepresented in STEM fields (Gordon et al., 2009), especially when mentors use “culturally relevant care” that is humanizing, maintains high expectations for youth, supports a sense of community, and integrates knowledge of youth’s cultural wealth (Watson et al., 2014). Teachers and school counselors also play critical roles in shaping students’ pathways both through mentoring and advice and actively through recommendations regarding placements in programs or courses.

Finally, research shows that one’s peers are also hugely influential in STEM learning pathways. Beyond the ways that peers are known to shape learners’ ideas of self and identity, educational expectations, personal interests, etc., peers have also been important for “brokering” access to new learning and resources for one another (Penuel et al., 2016).

HOW CAN DISTRICT, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY LEADERS EXPAND PATHWAYS?

In the previous section, we described the various ways that inequity shapes possibilities for students in STEM. Given these myriad barriers and challenges, we now ask: how can systems be organized to support multiple pathways in STEM education that advance equity goals? Below are various case studies that may serve as starting points for further investigation into approaches that systematically address issues of equity in preK–12 STEM education with attention to developing more robust pathways for youth. Within each of these cases, we note how important it is for decision makers to take on an asset-based lens when assessing students’ potential, as well as how critical it is to cultivate and sustain an awareness of implicit biases. Lastly, we note the essential role of school and district leaders in using creative approaches to make the kinds of systemic change necessary to address major barriers and challenges.

Access to STEM Experiences and Courses in School

While full pathways, as we envision them, include connections between in-school and out-of-school STEM learning experiences, school offerings play a significant role in shaping students’ opportunities to pursue STEM. The problem of tracking—the sorting of students by race, ethnicity, and social class with students of color and low-income students tracked into lower-quality STEM courses—is well established (Ainsworth & Roscigno, 2005; Oakes, 1983, 2005). The trends shared in Chapter 4 and earlier in this chapter document that continued problem of inequities in access and enrollment in STEM courses. Recognizing this problem, states and districts as well as, in some cases, the federal government have been implementing

policy changes intended to create more equitable course sequences and options for all students.

Career and Technical Education

Career and Technical Education (CTE; formerly referred to as vocational education) was identified as particularly problematic with sorting of students of color and low-income students into vocational programs that often offered low-quality instruction and limited students option after high school. Recently there have been concerted efforts to improve the quality of CTE programs and to link them more closely to careers paths that can provide well-paid jobs (Imperatore & Hyslop, 2018). Also, federal legislation supporting CTE now includes accountability measures intended to ensure that CTE students meet the same academic standards and graduation requirement as students who are not in CTE (Lindsay et al., 2024). These changes are relatively recent, however; there is not yet evidence on whether the policy changes are leading to more equitable outcomes as envisioned.

In a recent meta-analysis of the impact of CTE looking only at students with causal designs, there was evidence that participation in CTE positively impacts high school completion, increases enrollment in two-year colleges and the likelihood of employment after high school. There was no evidence connecting CTE to enrollment in four-year colleges, or to college persistent and attainment. Given the many gaps in the research on CTE and the recent policy changes to advance equity in CTE, it is difficult to identify clear strategies for making CTE pathways more equitable for students.

Increasing Access to Advanced Courses

Our discussion in Chapter 3 and previously in this chapter illuminated the many inequities related to advanced coursework in STEM. In exploring strategies for moving toward more equitable pathways, AP courses and dual enrollment have both received substantial attention. In an analysis of how to close equity gaps in AP access, enrollment, and success, Chatterji et al. (2021) provide a useful analysis of areas where schools or districts can take action and identify corresponding measures of progress toward equity. The authors refer to these four areas as the “AP funnel,” which includes the following

1. Offering access to AP coursework is measured by level of AP course availability.
2. Student identification and course enrollment are measured by enrollment in AP courses.
3. Engagement and exam funding are measured by the number of students taking AP exams.

4. Teacher and student supports are measured by students passing AP exams.

In order to fully understand patterns of AP course taking and success, Chatterji et al. argue that it is necessary to examine and track each of these areas. They emphasize that there are equity gaps each of the four areas with variation across states, districts, and schools. Based on their analysis, they frame several recommended actions for states and districts (see Box 11-1).

As noted above, there are also inequities in access to dual enrollment opportunities, which represent another way for students to engage in advanced courses. The Community College Research Center at Columbia University and the Aspen Institute have developed The Dual Enrollment Playbook (Mehl et al., 2020), which describes the practices of nine dual enrollment programs across three states that have narrowed or closed equity

gaps. The playbook identifies five promising strategies and describes specific practices related to each. The strategies are

1. Set a shared vision and goals that prioritize equity.
2. Expand equitable access.
3. Provide advising and supports that ensure equitable student outcomes.
4. Provide high-quality instruction that builds students’ competence and confidence.
5. Organize teams and develop relationships to maximize potential.

Mathematics

Efforts to address inequities in access to and movement through expanding access to mathematics courses and rethinking mathematics pathways and course sequences have been ongoing for at least two decades. These includes efforts to increase access to algebra in eighth grade as well as more recent attention to rethinking the mathematics course sequences through high school and into postsecondary education. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics engaged in a comprehensive look at K–12 mathematics education with a focus on catalyzing positive change (NCTM, 2018, 2020a,b). The work involved administrators, higher education faculty, educators, and leaders in mathematics education and the resulting reports and guidance address policies, practices, and issues and include practical recommendations (see Box 11-2).

Algebra for All.

“Algebra for All” initiatives at the state and local level, drafted in response to federal mandates, have been shown to result in increased test scores, though not uniformly. For example, in California, increasing access to eighth-grade algebra remained a key focus of policy makers and administrators in California throughout the first two decades of this century (Domina et al., 2015). Legislation including the Public Schools Accountability Act (1999) and the Common Core Standards: Mathematics (2010) created incentives for schools to enroll most or all of their students in algebra in eighth grade. This resulted in increased algebra enrollments, especially of previously underrepresented groups; schools across the state saw higher percentages of enrollment among Black students, Latinx students, and students from low-income backgrounds (Domina et al., 2015). Similarly, an “Algebra for All” program initiated by the Chicago Public School system in 1997 required universal enrollment in algebra in ninth grade (and eliminated the existence of remedial coursework). This was supplemented by the “Double-Dose Algebra” program, which required that ninth-grade students with lower levels of prior performance (defined as test scores below the national median) would have two class sessions of algebra;

the new program also provided new support and professional development for teachers. As with California, Chicago’s programs were shown to be successful in increasing access to algebra coursework. In evaluating the effectiveness of the 1997 policy, Allensworth et al. (2009) found evidence that “the policy reduced inequities in ninth grade course work by entering ability, race/ethnicity, and special education status” (p. 367). The new “double-dose” curriculum resulted in increased achievement test scores for those labeled as higher performing or lower performing. There was also evidence of substantial increases in achievement for students with “average” levels of prior performance when their double-dose classrooms were more academically heterogeneous (Nomi & Raudenbush, 2016). Somewhat paradoxically, research showed that there was also an increase in course failure rates (Nomi & Allensworth, 2013).

As both the California and Chicago initiatives show, policies establishing universal access to algebra did not necessarily result in universally higher test scores or more equitable outcomes. In California, course failure rates and rates of repeating the course increased alongside enrollment numbers (Allensworth et al., 2009). Additionally, the achievement test scores of students who were considered low performing before taking the course did not substantially improve after taking the course, and high-performing students scored somewhat lower than expected, suggesting the implementation of the reform slightly dampened their achievement as measured by standardized tests (Nomi, 2012; Penner et al., 2015). In their study of Chicago’s “Algebra for All” program, Allensworth et al. (2009) found an average increase in failure effects, with null effects on standardized test scores and rates of college entrance.

Universal access initiatives like those in California and Chicago have other factors that influence the success of the program, research shows. Researchers evaluating the impact of California’s policies to encourage universal eighth-grade algebra enrollment point to the complexity of implementing a large system-level reform in course enrollment, particularly when teachers were given little professional development or resources to help navigate this new landscape where students at all levels of math performance were expected to enroll in the course (Domina et al., 2015). As mentioned above, teacher support was also shown to be critical in the Chicago initiative. Additionally, the ultimate impacts on students’ overall educational gains must also be considered alongside other, unintended cascading impacts. In the case of the “double-dose” initiative in Chicago, adding a second session of algebra to students’ course loads invariably means that students are spending less time learning other subject areas such as science, social studies, the arts, etc. So, while the overall results from the Chicago policy show progress toward equity in learning outcomes when systematic attention is given to supporting both teachers and students in the

context of change, it is important to consider that progress in the context of all goals, not just those specific to algebra.

Furthermore, research shows that simply increasing access to STEM courses taught by qualified teachers is not enough to close equity gaps. Scholars have argued that, while content area knowledge is key to ascertaining the “quality” of teachers for the purposes of promoting equity, equally important is an understanding of the lived experiences of diverse learners and teachers’ ability to utilize pedagogy and assessments that recognize and value such experiences (Berry et al., 2014; Louie, 2018; Martin, 2007). In this regard, NCLB was not only silent, but likely discouraging of such priorities. Indeed, its focus on assigning labels, both to schools and to students, reified racial stereotypes (Horn, 2018) and deficit thinking about teachers and students.

Mathematics Pathways.

Much of the current mathematics pathways work originated with efforts to address issues in postsecondary mathematics especially in courses identified as “remedial.” This work has led to reexamination of high school course sequences and even examination of middle and elementary school content. States are grappling with the question of which high school mathematics content all students need as a foundation and when students should transition to specific courses that will help them develop specialized mathematics knowledge and skills for particular fields of study or areas of interest (Charles A. Dana Center et al., 2022). In a recent report that examined course-taking patterns of middle and high school students and included lessons learned from state leaders in mathematics education in 13 states, the authors assert that there is little consistency or consensus on the best approach to creating relevant and rigorous mathematics pathways (Charles A. Dana Center et al., 2022). The authors also found that data on course taking are not readily accessible or available in many states and that states face both internal and external barriers to making changes to course pathways in mathematics. Internal barriers included ideologies, policy and practice structures, and capacity of states’ educational systems and school districts. External barriers included social contexts, equitable access, and building postsecondary connections. Recent efforts to reform mathematics pathways in San Francisco illustrate the complexity of the challenge of redesigning pathways to promote equitable outcomes (Huffaker et al., 2023).

Computer Science (CS)

CS is another STEM content area where the interplay of access, policy, and equity impacts students. Whereas math and science have important federal and state policies that cascade to schools and classrooms, CS has little federal or state policy that mandates what states should teach or

what curriculum materials can be used in computer science classes.² For example, there are neither federal learning standards nor federally required accountability or assessment requirements. The absence of federal policy has left space for a variety of stakeholders to shape decisions regarding what “counts” as computer science and computing. The main federal or national policy influences have come from the research funding priorities of private foundations and the National Science Foundation, and coalitions of teachers, teacher educators, governors, business leaders, and advocacy groups who have sought to strengthen computer science offerings (Santo et al., 2020). State and local community engagement have also been influential in defining and operationalizing CS education, which is notably different from the STEM disciplines of mathematics and science.

Within the range of foci rapidly emerging in CS state policymaking, some stakeholders such as the National Governor’s Association and the Code.org advocacy coalition have focused primarily on expanding access (Code.org Advocacy Coalition et al., 2022), with attention to students being prepared to participate in technology-related pathways in higher education and within the workforce. For example, one report (Code.org Advocacy Coalition et al., 2022) from computer science advocacy group Code.org suggested that access to CS links preK–12 student success to later-life pathways:

From this access perspective, there has been rapid uptake of computer science. Half of the states require the offering of computer science in high schools, and most of those states also require it in elementary schools.

One might presume that this less rigid, newer policy environment would lead to less inequity across student groups. Regrettably, despite rapid and important progress on access to computer science courses, the inequities of other STEM disciplines are visible in this field, and there are still large equity issues in access, participation, and outcomes. Further, in computer science there are few state policy initiatives that substantively address racial equity, justice, and non-dominant ways of knowing and being.

One aspect of equity and access can be seen in the type of CS courses offered in schools. Not all courses are considered foundational, i.e., a course

___________________

² Although President Obama helped shape the CS for All initiative in 2016, no specific laws were put into place regarding what computer science is and how it should be taught.

that occurs during the school day and “includes a minimum amount of time applying learned concepts through programming (at least 20 hours of programming/coding for grades 9–12)” (Code.org Advocacy Coalition et al., 2022, p. 25). Foundational courses are different from technology-based courses such as robotics, computer aided design, or 3-D printing. There has been an uptick of foundational computer science in high schools across the country, going from 36 percent of high schools offering at least one computer science course in 2018 to 53 percent in 2022 (Code.org Advocacy Coalition et al., 2022). However, this apparent increase in access nationally hides wide disparities across states and schools. There are eight states in which 80 percent of their high schools teach at least one foundational computer science course, while in nine states 40 percent or fewer of their high schools teach such a course (Code.org Advocacy Coalition et al., 2022).

The rapid growth of CS education in the context of a markedly informal, unregulated, and evolving policy environment has been characterized with deep disparities in who has access to foundational computer science courses. In addition to state-to-state policy differences, since advocacy group Code.org has tracked access to and participation in high school computer science, there have been concerns regarding inequitable access. In particular, high schools in rural and urban areas and those with high percentages of economically disadvantaged students are less likely to offer foundational computer science (Margolis et al., 2012, 2015).

Even within schools that do offer advanced computer science courses, racially minoritized students are commonly underrepresented in those pathways or academies (Nasir & Vakil, 2017; Ryoo et al., 2015). Furthermore, compared to their respective overall state populations, students who are economically disadvantaged, Latinx, female, have disabilities, and are English language learners are underrepresented in foundational computer science high school courses. While more CS courses are being implemented in public schools, the difference in participation in such courses reflects how biased belief systems about who can or should excel with computing, tracking policies based on those beliefs, and other policies that institutionalize segregation of students and communities based on race, gender identity, socioeconomic class, immigration history, language, and more have overlapped in ways that result in, for example, fewer women pursuing careers in computing today than in the 20th century (Margolis et al., 2008/2017). For this reason, early efforts to increase access to quality CS education emphasized that policies must move beyond access to new curricula, toward deeper efforts addressing institutional inequities in schools and computing (Goode et al., 2014, 2018; Margolis et al., 2012).

Linked Learning: Expanding Pathways

Within formal K–12 schooling contexts, “Linked Learning” has emerged as one approach to dismantling tracking practices while ensuring all students graduate prepared for college, career, and civic participation through in-school academic models merged with real-world experiences outside of the classroom. Linked Learning is a California-based alliance of education researchers, policymakers, and practitioners that work together to support of a particular approach to building student pathways: rather than remain limited by school structures and capacities, Linked Learning pathways build on community partnerships and instructional staff’s skills and backgrounds so that youth experience all four key components of Linked Learning throughout their schooling years:

• the academic core required for entry into public college and universities;
• a technical/professional core in which youth apply their learning to practical use for high-skill and high-wage employment opportunities;
• real-world learning through meaningful work-based internships, apprenticeships, and school-based enterprises; and
• support services from expert peers and adults who help youth master academic and technical content via counseling, supplemental teaching, and connection to mentoring (Saunders et al., 2013).

The ultimate goal is to ensure that youth are not forced to follow a single track that narrowly prepares them for either an academic or a vocational education.

However, Linked Learning is not achieved simply by providing youth with internship opportunities in an academic pathway that they are interested in pursuing. Saunders et al. (2013) outline six conditions that are critical for Linked Learning to meet success:

1. Have an equity-based purpose as the foundation that builds on the needs and strengths of the surrounding community.
2. Connect various aspects of Linked Learning curricula that may seem quite distinct or separate via a shared theme or goal.
3. Create a culture of care and support between adults and students.
4. Establish relationships with real-world institutions, people, groups, and organizations outside of schools through partnerships.
5. Offer adults a meaningful and healthy professional work environment through distributed leadership, collaboration, and support.
6. Measure success according to students’ enthusiasm for life-long learning, civic orientations, and college and career readiness beyond academic test scores.

The Linked Learning approach to public schooling has had positive outcomes for some California schools, with higher rates than state averages of completing academic requirements for state colleges and universities; higher retention and lower dropout rates than local district and state averages; higher attendance rates than state averages; and deep engagement with project-based learning and assessments that reflect student commitment to high achievement and learning (Saunders et al., 2013). However, Linked Learning is not without its challenges. Hubbard and McDonald (2014) share principals’ perspectives about the challenges of maintaining youth in Linked Learning cohorts while keeping class sizes down when dealing with complex master course schedules; the difficulties of connecting to local businesses to ensure youth have internship opportunities; and their frustrations with larger systemic equity issues that impacts their abilities to provide Linked Learning opportunities. These systemic issues include socioeconomic and racial segregation, decreased resources with decreased enrollment in school districts, and struggles to find high-quality, consistent teaching staff that can build the relationships and Linked Learning culture/community that principals desire.

Partnerships, Collaboration, and Connections

Equitable pathways often require collaboration and connection across different actors and organizations in communities so that all stakeholders are involved in identifying and shaping the supports needed for STEM success (as well as in order to define “STEM success” according to the needs and wants of the community). This requires organization and coordination of people across various institutions; otherwise the efforts of one group may inadvertently undo the efforts of another. A shared understanding of the range of possible pathways and how best to support youth toward STEM success in relation to youth’s own goals and interests is essential. Schools, postsecondary institutions, out-of-school programs, community organizations, families, religious institutions, museums, and other sites where people gather and wish to support the wellbeing of youth cannot work in silos.

Relationships that are central to successful STEM pathways involve all stakeholders, but also require attention to how these relationships are built. This means attention to power dynamics between various stakeholders with efforts to ensure decision making that impacts definitions of STEM and how youth are encouraged to engage with it is evenly distributed among community members (including families), program organizers (who are not always community members), funders, and the youth themselves. But also, in order to support meaningful relationship-building between mentors and youth, professional development opportunities that encourage culturally responsive care, social justice, and race equity training are critical

(Anderson & Sánchez, 2021; Anderson et al., 2018; Watson et al., 2014). In particular, learning effective practices for brokering future learning opportunities along a person’s pathway with STEM—by connecting youth to other people, programs, internships, etc.—can be a critical motivator to explore new pathways in STEM for individuals who may not have considered themselves previously interested or engaged with STEM (Ching et al., 2016). See Box 11-3 for insight from the committee’s regional expert consultations and pathway building.

4-H STEM Programs

4-H has offered in- and out-of-school learning opportunities for over 100 years through a “Cooperative Extension” of over 100 public universities across the United States that partner with volunteer adult mentors to support youth in making connections between hands-on learning and who they are and what they care about.³ Through projects focused on health, science, agriculture, and civic engagement, youth work with mentors to

___________________

³ https://4-h.org

complete projects that build their leadership skills while creating opportunities to learn about STEM career pathways, thereby creating opportunities for youth to connect along multiple levels of the learning ecosystem. In recent years, 4-H clubs have taken on a focus on equity with goals to reach youth who have limited access to STEM learning opportunities while incorporating activities that address social issues of local interest.

More recently, the National 4-H Council collaborated with an aeronautical engineering corporation to create “4-H Science: Building A 4-H Career Pathway Initiative.” While this initiative is focused on career pathways and building a STEM workforce of women and minoritized communities with a more “pipeline” approach to STEM education—and not geared on building pathways that have broader goals beyond work/careers—the 4-H approach has traditionally sought to connect experiences across youth’s learning ecologies in ways that could potentially be useful for building upon for an equitable STEM pathways approach. More specifically, 4-H uses a Positive Youth Development approach (focused on skill-building, long-term engagement with a caring adult, and experiences with meaningful leadership) with the goal of supporting youth’s confidence, personal character, and competence with STEM in ways that are caring and connected so that they can eventually make a positive contribution to society.⁴ In an evaluation of successful 4-H program practices, Riley and Butler (2012) outlined the following as central to youth development in 4-H:

• providing opportunities for developing positive relationships across participants/adults in a science context;
• structuring science activities to promote the development of life skills;
• involving youth in their communities through science projects;
• building opportunities for youth to take on leadership roles;
• enabling youth to make meaningful choices about what they learn and how they learn it so that content is partially driven by youth interest and input; and
• developing program activities that expose youth to diverse science fields and careers.

Through this approach to building learning experiences that potentially engage youth across diverse pathways in the learning ecology, Policy Studies Associates evaluated the impacts of the 4-H Science Initiative through a survey of 418 youth ranging from nine to 18 years in 2013. Among other findings, the evaluation showed that 77 percent of respondents agreed they

___________________

⁴ https://4-h.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/4-H-Science-from-Inception-to-Impact-Executive-Summary.pdf

would like a science-related job after high school, compared to 37 percent of National Assessment of Educational Progress respondents (Mielke & Butler, 2013). Donaldson and Franck (2020) found that the support and mentorship that 4-H professionals and volunteers (both community and corporate) provided to girls and minoritized youth resulted in their increased engagement and enthusiasm for STEM.

This program offers insight into how a national organization can partner with local communities to create more equitable and diverse STEM pathways of learning through hands-on programs that bring together community and STEM corporate adult mentors with youth in contexts that are not limited to thinking within the boundaries of classroom walls. However, these programs are geared specifically toward feeding the STEM pipeline and national STEM workforce, which ultimately limits how program leaders, volunteers, and youth experience STEM in this program (Equity Frames 1 [gap reduction] and 2 [expanding opportunity and access]): If the goal is to help youth understand STEM careers, they may not be exposed to broader understandings of how STEM is engaged in our daily lives or understood in our cultural communities outside of the STEM work pipeline (Equity Frame 3 [embracing heterogeneity]). Some 4-H programs seek to use STEM as a tool for social justice and socioecological justice efforts while centering youth identity, culture, and community (Equity Frame 4 focused on social justice),⁵ but many programs are still bounded within traditional notions of STEM. Thus, this example illustrates only one approach to equitable STEM pathway development.

CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we discuss how a STEM learning ecosystem encompasses schools, community settings, and informal experiences and functions differently from student to student. When we think about learning through these ecosystems, we are then able to use “pathways” as a way to consider the different impacts and consequences on a learner’s experience in STEM disciplines. Pathways are not pipelines, in that there is no set course to a final outcome that a student must complete to be “successful.” Rather, pathways revolve around equitable, positive learning experiences that bolster the learning goals and interests of a student and support the student’s understanding and being in their respective surrounding world. With pathways, students may not end up working in a STEM-related career, but they will have enough experiences to continue to implement what they learned in their culture and communities.

___________________

⁵ https://4-h.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/4-H-Social-Justice-Youth-Development-Professional-Development-Resource-FINAL-004.pdf

Pathways are the fluid and dynamic ways that people take up different STEM learning experiences over time and space that ultimately influences what they do with their STEM learning. There is no single pathway to STEM learning and success (which can be interpreted in a number of ways from person to person). Peoples’ pathways are directly affected by their relationships, their identities, social and cultural factors influencing access to opportunities, and how peoples’ knowledge and skills are valued (or not).

This chapter also discusses the types of barriers (institutional racism, sexism, etc.) that students can encounter on their pathways that accounts for why pathways look different from student to student and how these same barriers for one group of students is actually beneficial for others. When we think about creating pathways for students, it is important to also consider the access to various mentors and support systems, as their experiences can help build something more sustainable and equitable for future generations. Finally, we provide a few examples of pathways that can serve as a starting point for further exploration into approaches that address inequitable STEM learning opportunities.

Conclusion 11-1: There are a number of barriers to pathways—including course requirements, bias, etc.—built into current systems that often limit peoples’ STEM learning opportunities. Simultaneously, interpretations of pathways can be limiting for youth when approached as set tracks or pipelines that learners must follow based on their race, gender, socioeconomic class, language proficiency, or disability status.

Conclusion 11-2: Building equitable pathways often involves mentors, role models, support systems, and structural changes such as designing new course sequences or altering requirements.

In our final chapter, we explore new potential visions of equitable preK–12 STEM education, offer recommendations, and discuss a research agenda.

REFERENCES