Executive Summary

The New York State Education Department (NYSED) Bureau of Professional and Career Opportu annity Programs commissioned a year-long external evaluation by MC Squared of the statewide STEP (Science and Technology Entry Program) and CSTEP (Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program) initiatives from their beginning through 1995-96. MC Squared requested and examined all available statistical data describing the scope of funded local programs; numbers of students served by race, genderd educational level; funding levels; and indications of impacts on student academic achievement and entry, retention and completion of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs. 

The evaluators surveyed and interviewed nearly 40 administrators of current STEP and CSTEP programs, to gather qualitative data about how different program stakeholders (administrators, staff, faculty and students) define program "success", indicators they look for to determine if their efforts are succeeding, factors that enhance and impede program effectiveness, and recommendations for improving these statewide initiatives. 

The evaluators found compelling statistical evidence that the programs are succeeding in accomplishing the legislatively mandated objectives of: 

• • Targeting their services to under-represented and economically disadvantaged students. 
  • Using grant funds in authorized ways to deliver their services. 

• • Using grant funds very cost effectively – e.g., while the average STEP program cost per student was $920 in 1995-86 and $940 in 1995-96, this statewide program increased the numbers of students served from 1,597 in 1985-86 to 5,134 a decade later. 
  • Tapping substantial additional funding and in-kind resources through partnership, recruitment of mentors, and leveraging the resources of participating secondary and postsecondary institutions. 
  • Dramatically raising the academic performance of their students –e.g., in 1995-96, 65.1% of STEP students took Regents Mathematics compared with 37.8% of the general student population in the state. 
  • Continuously improving program effectiveness – e.g., the percentage of CSTEP students earning a grade point average of under 2.0 went from 26.3% in 1989-90 to 8.5% in 1995-96. During this same period, the percentage of CSTEP students with GPA’s from 3.0 to 4.0 increased from 19.4% to 36.1% These are grades for students in some of the most rigorous academic programs in existence (e.g., pre-medicine). 
  • Preparing under-represented and disadvantaged secondary students to enter and successfully complete postsecondary programs leading to careers in the targeted fields (scientific, technical and health related fields) – e.g., in 1995-96, 94.1% of STEP 12^th graders graduated and 84.3% of these went on to college. In this same year, 74.7% of CSTEP program graduates were placed in professional or graduate programs or in employment in the targeted fields. 

The evaluators also found evidence of other important impacts on the institutions participating in the programs and their faculty, administrators, staff and, in some cases, their overall institutional policies and cultures: 

• • The secondary and postsecondary educators who deliver instruction, academic enrichment and tutoring to STEP and CSTEP students have: 
  • Altered their instructional strategies, becoming more interdisciplinary, hands-on, and inquiry-based. 
  • Adopted or developed new curricular materials that are more engaging and transparently related to real-world issues and concerns. 
  • Critically examined their own biases, assumptions and expectations of minority and low-income students, as they witness such students excelling in programs that demand and expect excellence of them and provide them with the supports they need. 
  • The STEP and CSTEP programs have, by necessity, become effective in providing professional development to educators in how to strengthen their instructional practices and to use more demanding and engaging curricula. 
  • The program staff who provide mentoring, academic advisement, financial aid counseling, and related individualized support have developed methods that have had demonstrated success in encouraging students to: 
  • Aspire to college and studies and careers in the targeted fields. 
  • Seek financial aid. 
  • Stay in college (bucking the well-documented, low retention rate for minority students at many postsecondary institutions). 
  • Earn good to excellent grades. 

The success of STEP and CSTEP programs in influencing others across their respective institutions to work differently and provide more effective support for minority and economically disadvantaged students has met with mixed results. Virtually all of the programs have provided evidence that personnel they have recruited to provide services to students have changed their practices and attitudes in often dramatic ways. However, only in those institutions where the programs enjoy strong leadership commitment have there been wider impacts of the programs on the institution and its practices and culture. In these institutions, admissions officers have learned, for example, to look beyond low standardized test scores in determining whether a minority applicant is "good college material". In many other institutions, meanwhile, admissions policies continue to turn away competent and capable applicants, too many faculty continue to expect less from minority and low-income students, and the climate remains unintentionally less than welcoming for students from diverse ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds. 

The capacity of the programs to help their students succeed is also impeded by the practices, assumptions and policies of their secondary school partners. While program personnel were reluctant to emphasize these problems, it became clear that a number of problems are occurring with regard to secondary education: 

• • Guidance counselors often do not encourage their minority and low-income students to aspire to college, let alone to undergraduate and graduate study in the targeted and other highly rigorous fields. 
  • Secondary teachers too often do not: 
  • Provide their students with meaningful exposure to rich and challenging curricular contents 
  • Convey that they expect their minority and economically disadvantaged students to be capable of performing well and successfully entering and staying in college 
  • Use instructional strategies that engage learners with diverse learning styles and from diverse backgrounds 
  • Many high school administrators and school boards did not institute policies to promote STEP. CSTEP and similar programs, and to make sure that STEP personnel were notified promptly when their students were experiencing academic difficulty. 

These impediments to successful preparation of minority and low-income students for studies and careers in the targeted fields could be addressed through efforts by the NYSED Bureau of Career and Professional Opportunity Programs working with the program leaders across the state to hold forums and initiate collaboration with: 

• • High school guidance counselors, assisting them to encourage and enable under-represented students to pursue college-prep courses, access financial aid, and aspire to college and careers in the targeted fields. 
  • Secondary teachers, especially in mathematics and science, educating them about why and how to strengthen their instructional practices, use engaging curricula, and raise their expectations of minority and low-income students. 
  • Leaders of postsecondary institutions – e.g., presidents, provosts and deans – focusing on ways colleges and universities could adopt methods used by STEP, CSTEP and similar programs to better recruit, retain, engage, and support minority students. 
  • Postsecondary faculty, helping them to adopt more engaging instructional practices and curricula, and improve their expectations for under-represented students. 
  • Faculty in teacher and school administrator preparation programs, educating them about both the impediments to academic and career success for under-represented students as well as proven and promising strategies to address these impediments. 
  • School boards, encouraging them to adopt policies and strategies to more proactively promote STEP and CSTEP programs and support them in serving secondary students experiencing academic difficulties. 

While the recommendations above would improve the context in which STEP and CSTEP programs operate, one recommendation stands above the rest as of overriding importance: 

• • The New York State Legislature should do all within its power to provide longer-term and more stable funding for these programs. These are mature, sophisticated and comprehensive programs which have demonstrated success in fulfilling legislative intentions. They are fulfilling an important social mission, opening up opportunities for under-represented students to enter demanding and rewarding professions, and contributing significantly to minority representation in these careers in communities across New York State. 

The uncertainty over whether the programs would receive funding and the delays in appropriation have led to postponement or elimination of crucial aspects of these programs (especially summer sessions with intensive academic enrichment and advisement, tutoring, and internships); turnover in program staff and loss of their accumulated expertise because many cannot afford to wait months to know whether they will be employed and paid; and difficulty in effectively recruiting students because it is not clear very till late in the Spring (or even summer) what program services will be available, when they will be available, and for how many students. 

These programs are exemplary, in the evaluators’ judgment, demonstrating what dedicated and competent staff can accomplish when secondary and postsecondary institutions work together to give under-represented and economically disadvantaged students an opportunity to work hard and earn the right to pursue careers in these demanding professions.

Previous   Table of Contents   Next