Jesse Braxton

March 9, 2016
STEM Report Card
That Pomona appears to be quite mediocre on its STEM report card in spite of having a
science department that compares favorably to most other schools in the school district is quite
an indictment of the state of science education in the district as a whole. Pomona is regarded as a
successful school, with school district indicators of student achievement, school climate, and
college and career readiness all well above average. Within the school, the science department is
widely considered the strongest in the institution (J. Dink, personal communication, February 23,
2016). My own observations support this view. The six teachers (two each in biology,
chemistry, and physics) that make up the science department all have strong content knowledge,
and each runs effective lessons in his or her own classroom (C. Allman, personal communication,
March 8, 2016; J. Braxton, field notes, February 24, 2016). These six science teachers work
effectively as a team, with the two chemistry teachers going so far as to rewrite the chemistry
curriculum in an effort to improve students understanding of the content (J. Dink, personal
communication, February 23, 2016). The department meets at least monthly for professional
development and problem solving, and all six science teachers express positive feelings about
their cooperation as professionals as well as their interpersonal relationships (C. Allman,
personal communication, March 8, 2016; J. Dink, personal communication, February 23, 2016;
M. Williams, personal communication, February 22, 2016).
Although this department is made up of six competent teachers with good working
relationships, each of whom goes above and beyond the call of duty according to the
department chair (C. Allman, personal communication, March 8, 2016), it still scored poorly on
the STEM Report Card. I believe these low scores derive primarily from three challenges facing
the school, challenges that urban public schools across the country are also struggling to
overcome: a mandate to improve scores on standardized tests that drives broad and shallow
content coverage, lack of adequate resources in the school, and entrenched beliefs and practices
about how best to teach science. These challenges produced particularly low scores for Pomona
in the areas of Equity and Access and Planning and Curriculum, which are the two areas that will
be the focus of this report.
My assertion that Pomona is struggling with the three challenges mentioned above arises
from data collected from a series of interviews and my own field notes taken in the school. I
conducted interviews with two biology teachers, one of whom is also the chair of the science
department, one chemistry teacher, and the school principal. I asked the interviewees both
general questions about thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the science department as
well as the specific questions indicated by the STEM Report Card. Comparing and contrasting
the responses of the four interviewees, noting areas where they corroborated each other and
where they did not, provided the primary sources of information for the report card. This data
was supplemented with notes taken in the field, which were again compared and contrasted with
interview data. Data from these five sources (four interviews and field notes) provided a rich
pool of information from which to evaluate the science department at Pomona.
The data collected provided little evidence that Pomona is adequately addressing issues
related to equity and access in STEM. A schools ranking in this category is determined by its
ability to expand the numbers of students pursuing advanced degrees and careers in STEM
fields, broaden participation of women and minorities, and promote STEM literacy, and

Pomonas lack of resources and emphasis on coverage hamper the school in all of these areas.
The school does offer Advanced Placement classes in all three major sciences, and women and
minority students are well represented in these classes (C. Allman, personal communication,
March 8, 2016; J. Braxton, field notes, February 24, 2016). As many authors have noted,
however, broadening participation of groups that have been traditionally excluded from STEM
fields requires more than enrolling a diverse group of students in science classes; there must be
an explicit focus on making STEM content accessible to students from underrepresented groups
(Perna, 2009). Pomona lacks this explicit focus, allowing what Rodriguez (1998, as cited in
Atwater, 2010) calls the discourse of invisibility in which the ethnic, socioeconomic, gender,
and theoretical issues which influence the teaching and learning of science are rarely, if ever,
discussed in class (J. Braxton, field notes, February 24, 2016). This leaves the norm of science
as primarily the domain of white men to remain unchallenged, inhibiting female students and
students of color from identifying themselves with science classes (Noguerra, 2003).
Unfortunately, Pomonas emphasis on content coverage leaves little class time to interrupt the
discourse of invisibility, preventing many students from accessing that content in meaningful
ways. The schools lack of resources to provide students with internships, mentorships, or clubs
that would encourage them to pursue STEM fields in higher education or as a career exacerbates
this problem.
Planning and Curriculum at Pomona also suffers primarily from the drive towards content
coverage. Both biology teachers and the chemistry teachers interviewed felt pressure to cover a
topic quickly and move on to new content, preventing students from having enough time with
any given subject matter to develop a deep understanding of the material. Hands on learning
opportunities, inquiry based learning, integration of current research in science and technology,
and real world applications of content all suffered due to the emphasis on students learning
discrete scientific facts (C. Allman, personal communication, March 8, 2016; J. Dink, personal
communication, February 23, 2016; M. Williams, personal communication, February 22, 2016).
There is also little support for students to consider STEM in college or as a career, with one
biology teacher (who is also the department head) noting that the schools lack of funding
prevents them from offering programs to encourage students into STEM fields or even
connecting students with STEM professionals.
While the teachers and the principal that were interviewed consistently praised the
science department for its effective teaching, there is clearly much room for growth. The largest
obstacles to a more effective science department appear to be the mandate to cover content and
the lack of adequate resources for providing meaningful learning experiences and extra curricular
programs in STEM. The lack of adequate resources for urban public schools is a problem that
has deep roots in society that are beyond the scope of this report. The emphasis on coverage,
however, does merit further examination. Both biology teachers interviewed shared their
frustrations with the need to cover an extensive breadth content. Both would prefer to spend
more time on each topic with hands on and inquiry based learning opportunities, particularly
activities that encourage students to develop a deep understanding of content through group work
and discussion. The need to prepare students for the Keystone exams, however, trumped their
pedagogical preferences. Thus the imperative to cover content seems to be directly tied to
standardized testing.
Chemistry, on the other hand, is not subjected to high stakes testing, yet the drive towards
coverage is still present in chemistry classes. This may be due to a general emphasis on broad,
shallow content coverage that has a long history in science education (Osbourne, 2007) that

predates the use of high stakes testing. Whatever its source, the chemistry teachers at Pomona
reveal their values through their pedagogical choices, perhaps unaware of the negative impact
broad, shallow coverage has on students ability to access scienceparticularly for students
belonging to groups that are underrepresented in STEM fields. It may be that access, equity, and
scientific literacy receive little attention because, as Johnson (2011) states, The majority of
practicing science teachers today have not been prepared to address diversity within their
classrooms and how to incorporate literacy into science (p.172). Simply put, the adherence to
the fallacy of coverage and the lack of discussion of issues related to equity and access persist
within Pomonas chemistry classes at least in part because the teachers dont recognize these as
significant problems, and would likely not be prepared to solve these problems even if they did.
The challenges facing Pomonas science department do not have easy solutions. The
school is not likely to receive significantly more funding in the near future, nor are high stakes
tests likely to disappear. Underfunded urban schools are constantly searching for ways to do
more with less, and Pomona already finds itself doing that in order to provide the STEM
education that students are currently receiving. While it is important to constantly seek more
resource efficient ways of providing students with high quality STEM opportunities, the school
will be hard pressed to stretch the dollars it receives even farther. Similarly, state requirements to
cover a wide variety of content in both algebra and biology will continue to incentivize teaching
curriculum that is broad and shallow to ensure that necessary topics receive some attention in
class.
The chemistry and physics classes, however, do not have to prepare students for
standardized tests and do have some ability to modify both curriculum and pedagogy. That
flexibility could be used to place a higher priority on depth of coverage and student centered
teaching practices, emphasizing inquiry based and culturally relevant pedagogies, for example.
For this shift to take place, the impediments that must be overcome are teachers own beliefs
about what good teaching entails, their lack of models of how to teach effectively using inquiry
or CRP, and, to some extent, their deficit based approach to many students (two of the three
teachers I interviewed said that their students lack the skills to engage in inquiry). Strong
leadership within the school must prioritize teachers development in these areas, providing them
with opportunities to learn new teaching methods that can expand their practice in ways that will
likely be uncomfortable at first. If the teachers who have flexibility within their curriculum can
begin to make these changes, it could be the beginning of a cultural shift in the department as a
whole.

References
Atwater, M. (2010). Introduction: Multicultural science education and curriculum materials.
Science Activities, 47, 103-108.
Johnson, C. (2011). The road to culturally relevant science: Exploring how teachers navigate
change in pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 170-198.
Noguera, P. (2003). The trouble with black boys: The role and influence of environmental and
cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban
Education, 38(4), 431-459.
Osbourne, J. (2007). Science Education for the Twenty First Century. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184.
Perna, L., Lundy-Wagner, V., Drezner, N., Gasman, M., Yoon, S., Bose, E. & Gary, S. (2009).
The contribution of HBCUs to the preparation of African American women for STEM
careers: A case study. Research in Higher Education, 50(1), 1-23.