Black high school STEM academy student engagement and their access to accelerated coursework

2.1 Black students’ access to accelerated coursework

Systemic racism in the United States has created a myriad of challenges for Black students (Danforth and Miller 2018) as the educational system functions as a larger microcosm of society. As a result, many Black students have negative high school experiences based on a variety of issues, including: participating in schools that lack needed educational resources; being victimized by disproportionate disciplinary actions; lacking access to highly qualified educators; and encountering negative interactions with staff at school (84 % of whom are white) who oftentimes fail to provide them with culturally responsive approaches (Brown et al. 2019; Wright 2019).

Black students oftentimes are not afforded access to accelerated learning opportunities (e.g., AP, dual enrollment, gifted, honors, IB) as well as advanced STEM courses and work-based learning activities (e.g., internships). Kuh (2008) coined the phrase of high-impact, work-based learning and described them as activities which students “invest substantial time and energy to educationally purposeful tasks, interact frequently with their teachers and peers, get feedback often, and apply what they are learning.” (p. xi). Many gifted and talented education researchers have argued against definitions and theories of giftedness and biased tests, checklists, policies, procedures, and practices that contribute to the persistent underrepresentation of Black students in accelerated learning. For example, current definitions of giftedness continue to place major emphasis on standardized intelligence tests reflective of white middle-class values and, therefore, discriminate against students of color who do not necessarily embrace such values; this results in untapped potential (Ford 2013; Wright et al. 2017). Identifying gifted and talented as well as placing barriers for accelerated learning options based on narrow standards that reflect, represent, and enforce the languages, literacies, and cultural practices of the status quo are bound to exacerbate the notion that what Black students learn in their homes and communities are irrelevant for school, substandard, and inferior. This practice of ranking and sorting students based on their skills to think, speak, and act in ways that represent white students undermines the cultural strengths, assets, and ethnic capital of ethnically and racially diverse students – what Yosso (2005) termed cultural community wealth. The education of Black students is often compromised, which gives little opportunity for their gifts and talents to be recognized and cultivated at school. Issues of institutional racism, white supremacy, and white privilege compound to prioritize white knowledge, skills, language, and dispositions within school contexts while discounting what is learned in non-dominant student home environments (Fruchter et al. 2019). These inequities have contributed vast opportunity gaps between Black and white students, and are perpetuated with colorblind mindsets of many school personnel (Joseph et al. 2019).

2.2 Ethnic matching and its impact on black students

Many schools have large percentages of Black student populations, but the ethnic and racial backgrounds of their students are not reflected in their school personnel; this often creates a cultural disconnect or mismatch (Achinstein and Aguirre 2008). Fenwick (2022) discussed the after effects of the historic and legendary Brown vs. Board of Education decision, explaining how inequities persist as the country has not fully integrated schools. This has resulted in replacing higher proportions of white teachers and school administrators in schools at the expense of Black school educators and school leaders. Within that context, white educators sometimes possess inherent biases and, consequently, provide preferential treatment to white students with whom they share cultural backgrounds, identities, languages, and norms (Danforth and Miller 2018; Johnson and Sondergeld 2020). Researchers have demonstrated that ethnic matching promotes positive school outcomes for Black students and other ethnically and racially diverse learners (Achinstein and Aguirre 2008; Dee 2004; Easton-Brooks 2014; Eddy and Easton-Brooks 2011). Ethnic matching is a term used to describe the practice of having school staff who offer learning opportunities that are more culturally congruent, compatible, responsive, or synchronized with students’ home cultures (Achinstein and Aguirre 2008). Researchers (Dee 2004; Easton-Brooks 2014; Eddy and Easton-Brooks 2011) noted that students “when matched with a teacher of the same ethnicity…ethnic minority students performed higher on academic achievement tests than those ethnic minority students who are not taught by ethnic minority teachers” (Easton-Brooks 2014, p. 101). The culturally matched school staff can then serve as positive role models for their students. According to Achinstein and Aguirre (2008):

Previous research reports that such a match may promote positive relationships and role models, support students in crossing cultural and linguistic boundaries in school, foster culturally relevant teaching for diverse students’ learning, and ease the professional’s transition to working in high-minority urban schools. (p. 1506)

Black youth positively benefit from the social support and encouragement they receive from their ethnically matched teachers and school staff members (Brooms 2019; Ladson-Billings 2005).

2.3 Black students’ experiences and engagement in STEM academies

Fletcher et al. (2023) examined the supports provided in a high school STEM academy targeted at Black boys. This school’s teachers were majority White while the student population was majority Black. Utilizing the frameworks of ethnic matching and culturally responsive instruction and leadership, they found that Black boys who participated in an academy of engineering had enhanced learning experiences because of the caring adults and role models. These school stakeholders taught them navigational life skills. Yet, the school stakeholders were not able to identify targeted supports specifically for Black boys in the academy of engineering that were culturally responsive to their needs. In addition, Fletcher et al. (2023) found barriers to promoting a sense of belonging because of the cultural mismatch between school educators and learners as well as mathematics being used as a gatekeeper for access to the academy by Black students (Fletcher et al. 2023).

2.4 Research on the impact of student participation in STEM academies

Past researchers have identified the career academy as one of the most promising models for enhancing student engagement and facilitating career pursuits (Fletcher et al. 2020; Malcom and Feder 2016; Means et al. 2016). Researchers found that participation in career academies resulted in increased student engagement, attendance, graduation rates, academic achievement, and long-term employment earnings (Hemelt et al. 2019; Kemple 2008). For example, Hemelt et al. (2019) used an experimental research design through a lottery system. They found that academy students were 8 % more likely than their non-academy counterparts to graduate high school and were significantly more likely to have better school attendance rates. Even further, Fletcher and Cox (2012) found that students who participated in a career academy had increased interpersonal relations and supports from their peers and teachers, enhanced engagement based on their interest in the career themed content, and an elevated sense of belonging in school given the smaller learning community element of the academy model.

2.5 Theoretical framework: student engagement

Researchers have defined the construct of student engagement as the psychological investment and effort that learners exert toward their schooling experience and desired school outcomes, their active and participatory involvement in the learning process and toward school activities, and students’ emotions and connectedness to their schools (Boekaerts 2016; Kuh 2001, 2003, 2009; Marks 2000; Newmann et al. 1992; Yazzie-Mintz 2007). Student engagement was constructed based on social cognitive theory: individual’s emotions that relate to their attachment to an organization and sense of belonging. Researchers have found that increased student engagement contributes to their persistence in school and disengagement can lead to students dropping out (Appleton et al. 2008; Archambault et al. 2009; Christenson et al. 2001; Finn 1989; Rumberger and Lamb 2003; Tinto 1975; Wehlage et al. 1989). Astin (1984) developed a “theory of involvement,” which emphasized students’ psychological and behavioral components of time on task and quality of effort as well as various attitudinal and developmental outcomes – persistence and student achievement (Astin 1993, 1977).

The commitment and goals that students develop in school relate to their academic and social experiences in school. Students who have negative experiences are more likely to dropout. Hence, the motivational and behavioral aspects of students’ experiences contribute to decisions to dropout of school (Archambault et al. 2009; Christenson et al. 2001; Finn 2006). Appleton et al. (2008) described, “if dropping out involves a gradual process of disengagement from school, school completion is presumably facilitated by continued, if not increasing, engagement over a student’s time in school” (p. 381).

In our research project, we operationalized the construct of student engagement, derived from Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation, Policy and Education Research, as encompassing three domains: behavioral engagement (students’ participation in co-curricular and extracurricular activities as well as their interactions with adults in and out of school), cognitive engagement (students’ motivation and investment in learning), and emotional engagement (students’ sense of belonging and safety) (Yazzie-Mintz 2007). Researchers have found significant differences in engagement based on various student demographics (Yazzie-Mintz 2007). Yazzie-Mintz (2007) found gender to be a significant contributor to student engagement with males and ethnically and racially diverse learners (excluding Asian students), those who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and learners who participate in special education programs being less likely to be engaged in school. Further, Yazzie-Mintz (2007) found that 75 % of students indicated that they were bored in class because of a lack of interesting curricular materials. The concept of student engagement has been of interest to researchers as it can be malleable when school personnel and educators are responsive to students by modifying their practices (Appleton et al. 2008).

3.1 Research design

For this study, we used a correlational research approach. Our data source was from the high school survey of student engagement instrument (Fletcher et al. 2020; Yazzie-Mintz 2007). We utilized exploratory factor analysis as our data reduction technique. We also presented descriptive statistics to represent the demographic characteristics of student respondents as well as multiple regression to respond to research questions two through four.

3.2 Data collection procedures

We were granted IRB approval to conduct our study. We utilized the services of the assistant principal at the research site (school) to assist with student participation in the survey. We obtained informed consent for students who were 18 years of age and older and assent for those who were younger than 18 years of age. We also secured a waiver from IRB to obtain parental permission. Students in the school who were in 9th through 12th grades were eligible to complete the survey. The survey was administered electronically through Qualtrics. Survey completion was approximately 10–15 min in duration. Students who finished the entire survey were sent $25 electronic gift cards for Amazon.

3.3 Selection criteria

We used purposive sampling as we selected Stanton Academy (pseudonym) because it housed a distinguished NAF (formerly known as the National Academy Foundation) academy of engineering. Its student demographics were: 99 % Black and 95 % of the student population came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. We selected Stanton Academy because the academy has high fidelity to the NAF academy model and because of the large percentage of Black students and school personnel.

3.4 Stanton academy

Demographics. Stanton Academy is located in the city of Stanton (population of approximately 124,000) which is 55 % white, 37 % African American/Black, 4 % Latinx, and 3 % Asian. The median income was approximately $42,000, and 19 % of the community members lived below the poverty line. The city of Stanton was home to a historically black college and university.

The Stanton Engineering Academy is a public, comprehensive high school with a distinguished NAF academy embedded within it. It is in an urban area within the Southeastern region of the United States. Stanton Academy was comprised of approximately 1,263 students and 71 teachers (who were majority Black). In terms of gender, 51 % of students were female and 49 % were male. Concerning ethnic and racial background, 99 % of students were Black and 1 % were Latinx. Ninety-five percent of students qualified for free and/or reduced lunch. The graduation rate was 81 %. Stanton Academy used an inclusive, open admissions application system for student participation in the academy.

3.5 NAF

Stanton Academy’s academy of engineering is affiliated with the NAF organization. NAF is a non-profit organization that assists schools with building academies, and provides professional development, technical assistance, and career-themed curricula. NAF was established in 1982 and currently has over 600 academies that serve over 100,000 students across the country. The NAF academy model emphasizes four elements. The first element of academy development and structure centers on schools creating smaller learning communities utilizing student cohorts. The second element focuses on integrated curriculum and instruction where the course content has career and core academic instruction undergirded in a career theme (e.g., engineering and IT). A third element is the focus on creating advisory boards made-up of business and industry and postsecondary representatives to ensure the curriculum is locally relevant and supported. A fourth element is the focus on adding work-based learning activities to promote career awareness and exploration activities in ninth (e.g., field trips) and tenth (e.g., job shadowing) grades, and experiential opportunities (e.g., industry certifications, paid internships) in 11th and 12th grades. NAF also implements quality review visits continually to assess and evaluate the level of implementation of its schools’ academies.

3.6 Survey dimensions

To measure engagement, we used a multi-dimensional construct. We focused on: (a) behavioral engagement, which measured students’ effort, continuation, and concentration on their studies as well as their levels of participation in school; (b) emotional engagement, which measured students’ affective reactions to their schooling environment, including the academy spaces, teachers, administrators, and peers; and (c) cognitive engagement, which measured their commitment, investment, and challenge in the learning process (Fredericks et al. 2004). Demographic questions were also included.

The survey for this study was based on the high school survey of student engagement and previous studies conducted by the researchers (Fletcher et al. 2020). From the previous study, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to develop the scales also used in the current study. Overall, fit indices, factor correlations, and individual item factor loadings provided sufficient construct validity evidence for the three scales (Fletcher et al. 2020). To reduce the survey burden and give the researchers the ability to add a new dimension (impact of COVID) and expand on others (bullying and career/college readiness activities), we removed a few items from the engagement dimensions based on fit within the scales (lowest factor loadings) and items that were repetitive (some questions were very similar). The reliabilities of these slightly changed scales are reported in the following sections.

Behavioral engagement. The behavioral engagement scale was comprised of nine items: four items on a 4-point rating scale (1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often); four items on a 4-point rating scale (1 = 0–1 h, 2 = 2–3 h, 3 = 4–7 h, 4 = 8 h or more); and one item on a 4-point rating scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strong agree). Behavioral engagement assessed the participation of students in extracurricular activities or work in and outside of school/class (e.g., working for pay; doing volunteer work; working on a paper or project that required you to interact with people outside of school (for interviews, observations, etc.) and frequency of interactions with adults (e.g., discussed ideas from readings or classes with teacher outside of class; talked to an adult in school about how to apply to college; talked to an adult in school about career goals), and how much they go to school to participate in athletics. The internal consistency was (α = 0.67).

Cognitive engagement. The cognitive engagement construct was comprised of 10 items: nine on a 4-point rating scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree) and one item on a 4-point scale (1 = None, 2 = Some, 3 = Most, 4 = All). Cognitive engagement assessed the academic effort of students in and outside of school (e.g., I put forth a great deal of effort when doing my school work; In how many classes do you give your maximum effort?), achievement motivation (e.g., I am motivated by the desire to get good grades; I am motivated by my desire to learn), and classroom behaviors (e.g., I go to school because of what I learn in class; I put forth a great deal of effort when doing my school work). The internal consistency for this scale was (α = 0.92).

Emotional engagement. The emotional engagement construct was comprised of 10 items on a 4-point rating scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree). Emotional engagement referred to a student’s sense of belonging within the school (e.g., Overall, I feel good about being in this school/academy; I am an important part of my school/academy community) relations with others, such as teachers, counselors, peers and other adults (e.g., I feel supported by my teachers; I feel supported by administrators (principal, assistant/vice principal)), and a sense of safety at school (i.e., I feel safe in this school/academy). The internal consistency was (α = 0.91).

3.7 Data analysis

To answer the first research question (What are the student characteristics, academic performance, dual enrollment, and internship participation of academy and non-academy students?), we compared group differences using t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-squared analyses (for categorical variables) on key student characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and grade level), academic performance (GPA), dual enrollment, and internship participation.

For research questions two through four, we first compared group differences using t-tests on the three areas of engagement (behavioral, cognitive, and emotional). In addition, we produced a series of three ordinary least squares regression models to determine if differences exist between academy students and their non-academy counterparts, within the three areas of engagement. The independent variables included five student demographic variables (gender, ethnic and racial backgrounds, free/reduced lunch, grade in school, and primary language spoken at home), academic performance (GPA), dual enrollment, and internship participation. All categorical independent variables were dummy-coded prior to entry in the model.

4.1 Student demographics

We provide a comparison of the demographic characteristics of academy and non-academy students in Table 2. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for the characteristics considered (gender, race/ethnicity, grade, and free/reduced lunch status). Females were the majority of respondents for both groups (58.3 % and 63.0 %, respectively). In addition, the vast majority of both academy (91.7 %) and non-academy students (88.0 %) were African American/Black. Thus, there is some discrepancy in the self-reported data from the participants and the overall demographics of Stanton Academy: 99 % Black and 1 % Latinx. Finally, over half of the respondents in both groups were in the 12th grade and were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch.

4.2 Academic performance and engagement

When compared to non-academy students, the academy students had higher GPAs (M = 3.38 and M = 3.06, respectively), participated in more acceleration coursework (AP (81 % and 60 %, respectively), dual enrollment (63 % and 42 % respectively), and IB (44 % and 28 %, respectively)), and were more likely to complete an internship (60 % and 39 %, respectively). With the exception of earning an industry credit, all of these differences were statistically significant. The effect sizes of the statistically significant differences also all suggest nontrivial differences and would be considered medium effect sizes by Cohen’s standards (Cohen 1988). For full details, see Table 2.

Academy students had higher levels of engagement on all three scales when compared to their non-academy peers: behavioral engagement (M = 2.62 and M = 2.31, respectively), cognitive engagement (M = 3.22 and M = 2.92, respectively), and emotional engagement (M = 3.05 and M = 2.08, respectively). These differences were all statistically significant and the effect sizes of these differences also all suggest nontrivial differences and would be considered medium (Cohen 1988). See Table 3 for more details. While these are substantial differences, caution must be taken because these results do not control for the differences in academic performance of those students who chose to participate in an academy and those who do not. The next analyses, linear regression models, will control for at least a part of this with student GPA.

The results from the regression models indicated that participation in an academy influences high school students’ engagement, even after controlling for student gender, ethnic and racial backgrounds, free/reduced lunch eligibility, grade in school, academic performance (GPA), acceleration coursework participation, and internship completion. Statistically significant differences were found in all three of the three engagement indicators (cognitive, behavioral, and emotional). Those students participating in an academy reported higher levels of cognitive engagement (β = 0.203; p < 0.01), behavioral engagement (β = 0.213; p < 0.01), and emotional engagement (β = 0.180; p < 0.05), than their non-academy counterparts.

Individual statistically significant beta weights for all variables in the three models are reported in Table 4. In addition, the variance explained for each model is listed. The predictor variables accounted for 17.4–27.2 % of the total variance on the engagement indicators. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values for each predictor variable in these regression models were all well below 5 (ranging from 1.0 to 3.8), suggesting that multicollinearity was not an issue in the models (Field 2009). Because the vast majority of students reported their race/ethnicity as Black or African American, there were few cases in the other seven categories, and thus, all seven were collapsed into one for the regression analyses.

Response to Research Question 1: What are the student characteristics, academic performance, accelerated coursework, and internship participation of academy and non-academy students?

There were no statistically significant differences between academy and non-academy students in our sample for the characteristics considered (gender, race/ethnicity, grade, and free/reduced lunch status). Academy students reported significantly higher levels of academic achievement (GPA) and participation in Advanced Placement (AP), dual enrollment, International Baccalaureate (IB), and internships than their non-academy peers.

Response to Research Question 2: Is there a statistically significant difference between academy and non-academy students in behavioral engagement, controlling for student demographics, academic performance, accelerated coursework, and internship participation?

For behavioral engagement, academy students reported significantly higher levels of behavioral engagement than their non-academy counterparts (β = 0.213; p < 0.01), even after controlling for student demographics, academic performance, acceleration coursework, and participation in an internship. In addition, academic performance was positively related to behavioral engagement (β = 0.176; p < 0.05) and students who earned an industry certification reported higher levels of behavioral engagement with the school/academy overall (β = 0.289; p < 0.01).

Response to Research Question 3: Is there a statistically significant difference between academy and non-academy students in cognitive engagement, controlling for student demographics, academic performance, accelerated coursework, and internship participation?

For cognitive engagement, academy students reported significantly higher levels of cognitive engagement than their non-academy counterparts (β = 0.203; p < 0.01), even after controlling for the other student characteristics and activities. In addition, gender nonconforming students (β = −0.233; p < 0.01) reported lower levels of cognitive engagement than their male peers. Finally, students’ academic performance was positively related to cognitive engagement (β = 0.208; p < 0.01).

Response to Research Question 4: Is there a statistically significant difference between academy and non-academy students in emotional engagement, controlling for student demographics, academic performance, accelerated coursework, and internship participation?

For emotional engagement, academy students reported higher levels of emotional engagement than their non-academy peers (β = 0.180; p < 0.05), even after controlling for student demographics, academic performance, acceleration coursework, and internship participation. Additionally, gender nonconforming (β = −0.264; p < 0.001) indicated lower emotional engagement than their male peers.

5.1 Recommendations for practice

Given the positive association of academy participation and higher levels of student engagement, we recommend that school administrators examine whether the academy model might contribute to the engagement and increased connection of students in their schools, as researchers have found in prior studies (Fletcher et al. 2020; Hemelt et al. 2019; Kemple 2008; Malcom and Feder 2016; Means et al. 2016). The academy model is built on the development of career-themed curricula, connections between the career themes and core academics (including accelerated coursework), advisory boards that link students to business and industry as well as postsecondary partners within the career context, smaller learning communities, and work-based learning opportunities (e.g., internships) for students. Like prior studies, our findings suggest that Black students benefit from the aforementioned academy elements (Fletcher and Cox 2012; Fletcher et al. 2020; Lynch et al. 2017). Higher levels of student engagement for Black students often contribute to higher academic achievement and graduation rates (Archambault et al. 2009; Christenson et al. 2001; Finn 2006). Researchers have also found that high school students’ participation in NAF academies and high-impact activities (e.g., NAF curricula, dual enrollment, internships) that are germane to the academy model was positively and significantly related to college matriculation (Fletcher et al. 2025).

We also believe that the findings of our study have implications for the preparation of teachers, school leaders, and other school personnel within colleges and schools of education. We recommend that teacher educators and education faculty help their students understand their roles and the importance of emphasizing Black students’ participation in accelerated coursework as well as their behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement. To that end, future educators and school personnel might learn to emphasize their future students’ understanding of the importance and opportunities that exist related to engaging with adults outside of school when working on class projects as well as volunteer and service-learning activities. As it relates to cognitive engagement, future educators and school personnel might learn ways to foster their students’ motivation and investment in learning. For emotional engagement, it is important for future educators and school personnel to help their students’ connectedness to school, build relationships with teachers, school counselors, and their peers, and increase their sense of safety.

5.2 Limitations

We caution readers in generalizing our results and extrapolating to other schools and settings with differing student demographics, particularly given that we only collected data from one school site and that the nature of our analysis was correlational. It is also possible that academy and non-academy students differed on other constructs not measured in this analysis. Thus, other confounding variables could help explain the differences in student engagement between the two types of students. In addition, it is important to point out that the measures in our analyses were based on self-reports from students in the school. The generalizability of our findings depends on the degree that other schools share similar characteristics (e.g., academies with open admissions as well as similar student and school personnel demographics).

In addition, further qualitative studies are warranted as this study does not capture the voices of students, teachers, and other school personnel and stakeholders. These data can add rich depth into the experiences and engagement of Black students within the context of this school.