Root Cause Analysis

Our collaborative process to understand why pre-college STEM programs working alone had not significantly broadened participation in STEM.

Back to Our Learning Engine

Our to Our Theory of Improvement

The Process

STEM PUSH Network’s root cause analysis engaged a range of partners and stakeholders in a disciplined, collaborative exploration of the system causing the problem the network is seeking to address, stated as:

While many precollege STEM programs are successful in attracting and supporting racially/ethnically minoritized (REM) high school students, these programs have not been systematically leveraged to increase the number of REM students admitted to undergraduate STEM programs. Why?

Through this process, we reflected on the various ways in which oppression functions to exclude racially minoritized students from STEM, and then considered how that manifests in the context of PCSPs and admissions. This included looking at data, research, practitioner voices, and student experiences.

A fishbone diagram is an improvement science tool we use to help us visualize the results of our “root cause analysis” process.

STEM PUSH Network Fishbone Diagram

Measures

Problem: While many pre-college STEM programs are successful in attracting and supporting racially/ethnically minoritized (REM) high school students, these programs have not been systematically leveraged to increase the number of REM students admitted to undergraduate STEM programs. Why?

1.1 Lack of awareness of the range of conceptions across stakeholder groups of what it means to be a "successful" STEM student

➢ 1.1.1. Parents, students, PCSPs, admissions, and employers conceive of
STEM success based on their position and purpose

➢ 1.1.2. Parents, students, PCSPs, admissions, and employers generally
operate in siloed ways with little direct communication about what makes
for a successful STEM student

1.2 Valued measures are not grounded in robust predictive evidence

➢ 1.2.1. Inadequate bridging between research and practice

➢ 1.2.2. Fragmentation in measuring similar competencies limits
comparability across contexts

➢ 1.2.3. Normative nature of standardized college entrance exams have
narrowed the range of knowledge, skills, dispositions studied for
predictive value

1.3 Difference in measurement needs and uses between PCSPs and college admissions

➢ 1.3.1. College admission cycle and scale favors quantitative metrics to
varying degrees

➢ 1.3.2. PCSP scale, purpose, and staff capacity favors qualitative and non-
standardized metrics

➢ 1.3.3. Lack of mechanisms to reconcile the differences in measurement
needs and uses

1.4 Failure to routinely track long-term PCSP impact

➢ 1.4.1. No guiding framework for measurement of long-term impact

➢ 1.4.2. Limited resources and capacity

➢ 1.4.3. Limited access to existing measurement tools

➢ 1.4.4. Lack of appropriate measurement tools for PCSP context

➢ 1.4.5. Dosage/duration of PCSPs constrains ability to measure impact

People

2.1 Stretched admissions officer capacity limits ability to consider PCSP contribution to student college readiness

➢2.1.1. Too many PCSPs for college admissions to assess individual quality

➢2.1.2. Customized PCSP data difficult to fit into admission review protocols

2.2 Stretched PCSP staff capacity limits the scope and range of what programs can attend to

➢2.2.1. Competing workload demands

➢2.2.2. Unaware of resources available through other providers and partnerships

2.3 People whose roles are to provide college-going supports for students are often not aware of how to best leverage students' PCSP experiences

➢2.3.1. Lack of knowledge about the potential value-add of PCSPs for college readiness

➢2.3.2. Lack of awareness in how PCSP experiences can be used to strengthen a college application

2.4 PCSP staff turnover makes it difficult to sustain program competencies built

➢2.4.1. Unstable/unpredictable funding

➢2.4.2. Mobile populations such as undergraduate and graduate students who serve as staff

2.5 Training of PCSP staff beyond STEM topics is often limited

➢ 2.5.1. Often a lack of recognition of need for culturally sustaining practice; Belief that caring alone results in culturally sustaining practice

➢ 2.5.2. Lack of human and financial resources to invest in professional
development; Comfort with status quo

➢ 2.5.3. Lack of availability of training opportunities on needed topics

Methods

3.1 Not all PCSPs systematically use culturally sustaining practices (CSP) throughout all levels of program design and implementation

➢ 3.1.1. Lack awareness of need and possibility; Complacency and comfort with status quo

➢ 3.1.2. Lack of knowledge of CSP

➢ 3.1.3. Lack of routines and tools to support quality implementation of CSP

➢ 3.1.4. Lack of a formulated strategy for infusing CSP at all programmatic levels

➢ 3.1.5. PCSPs not always adequately/successfully communicating relevance of STEM to REM students’ identities and community(ies) of concern

3.2 PCSPs inconsistently leveraged for the college-going pathway

➢ 3.2.1. PCSP student contact points (time of year/grade bands) often misaligned with college application timeline

➢ 3.2.2. PCSPs often lack capacity (bandwidth and expertise) to support college-going behaviors directly

➢ 3.2.3. PCSP staff may not have capacity (bandwidth and knowledge) to
connect students with other resources for college-going support

➢ 3.2.4. PCSPs often lack relationships with families and caregivers that can be
leveraged for students’ benefit during the admissions process

➢ 3.2.5. PCSPs often do not have a strategy for focusing on college-going efforts
which would maximize impact in college admissions process

➢ 3.2.6 PCSP relationships with K-12 counseling/college going supports often
underdeveloped

➢ 3.2.7. PCSP support for college-going not always designed based on realities of racial bias in many STEM undergraduate programs

3.3 Program design determined by external constraints rather than best practices for supporting racially/ethnically minoritized students

➢ 3.3.1. Budgets are often the primary driver of program design

➢ 3.3.2. Legacy structures may limit design modifications

➢ 3.3.3. Availability of human resources given other commitments shape program design

3.4 An explicit equity focus is not a given for all PCSPs

➢ 3.4.1. Program funders and leaders do not all have formalized equity goals

➢ 3.4.2. Some PCSP programs have purposes and goals that do not center equity goals (e.g.
college marketing)

➢ 3.4.3. Some “equity orientations” gloss over reality of white-centric STEM culture;
complacency with status quo”

3.5 Inconsistent relationships with minoritized communities and families

➢ 3.5.1. External pressures often push program prioritization off partnerships

➢ 3.5.2. Lack of staff bandwidth to devote time to outreach efforts

➢ 3.5.3. Lack of connection with families and understanding of their needs,
barriers, and assets

➢ 3.5.4. PCSP leaders often lack entrees to build relationships with REM
communities and families

Infrastructure

4.1 Lack of mechanisms to connect PCSPs and minoritized communities

➢ 4.1.1. Existing links sometimes static rather than dynamic

➢ 4.1.2. Often are one-way communications rather than interactive

➢ 4.1.3. Existing links sometimes person-dependent rather than
institutional

➢ 4.1.4. Lack of best practices for making/sustaining connections

➢ 4.1.6. Relationships with K-12 partners often underdeveloped or person-specific so vulnerable to turnover

4.2 Inconsistent levels of coherence and connectedness of STEM opportunities in a region

➢ 4.2.1. Fragmented pathways through STEM opportunities

➢ 4.2.2. Unclear whose mission and responsibility it is to maintain this

➢ 4.2.3. Lack of shared goals/understanding of needs for STEM among families,
K-12, PCSPs, colleges, and employers

4.3 PCSPs have never been organized as a collective body

➢ 4.3.1. No collective organization

➢ 4.3.2. PCSPs exist in siloed environments

➢ 4.3.3. Collaborative spaces only embedded in other networks not
focused on PCSPs specifically

➢ 4.3.4. Peer networks formed within PCSPs not consistently
leveraged through undergraduate experiences

4.4 No scaled communication structures between PCSP and college admissions

➢ 4.4.1. No way to contextualize PCSP experiences for admissions

➢ 4.4.2. No agreement on what and how information should be communicated

➢ 4.4.3. No clarity in who is responsible for, and capable of, managing
communication and relationship-building between PCSPs and admissions

➢ 4.4.4. No clarity on which colleges would serve REM students well in STEM

Environment

5.1 STEM as enacted does not create positive STEM identity/sense of belonging for minoritized students

➢ 5.1.1. Representations of STEM that project and reinforce racial/ethnic stereotypes and white supremacy

➢ 5.1.2. Lack of visible role models of minoritized STEM professionals in academia and employment sectors

➢ 5.1.3. Peer/mentor role models often don’t “move with students” (e.g., high school teacher not connected with student in college)

5.2 College admissions market drivers may work against equitable admission outcomes

➢ 5.2.1. Higher education funding market makes college more expensive
and creates more/less “desirable” students that may disadvantage racial/ethnically minoritized students

➢ 5.2.2. College rankings create admission factors not tethered to equity
and to other important measures of student competence and success

➢ 5.2.3. Students’ college choices influenced by college marketing that
results in decisions not always in their best interest

➢ 5.2.4. Students not always supported in learning how to evaluate college options based on where they will be best supported (i.e., institutional investment in equity, supportive STEM environment).

5.3 Racist policies and practices that reinforce inequity throughout STEM pathway

➢ 5.3.1. Disparities in PK-12 public education STEM (quality of instruction, college counseling, support for college-going requirements)

➢ 5.3.2. Bias in college admission exams, processes, and financing

➢ 5.3.3. Cultural bias across STEM disciplines and K-20/workforce

5.4 COVID-19 pandemic revealing and magnifying racial/ethnic inequalities in STEM pathways

➢ 5.4.1. Fragmented nature of many efforts to eliminate disparities

➢ 5.4.2. Disparities in access to technology required for virtual learning

➢ 5.4.3. Availability of opportunities to demonstrate qualifications in admissions process (standardized tests, grades, extra-curricular activities)

Resources

6.1 PCSPs funding often inadequate

➢ 6.1.1. Cannot serve all students who want to participate

➢ 6.1.2. Cannot always hire desired staff in terms of number and level of experience

➢ 6.1.3. Lack of resources for professional development, networking, program enrichment/expansion

➢ 6.1.4. Cannot always provide the needed supports for racially/ethnically minoritize students to fully participate (e.g. transportation, sibling care, need for income)

6.2 PCSPS funding often unstable

➢ 6.2.1. Difficult to retain staffing which impacts capacity and ability to
build relationships with students, partners, communities over time

➢ 6.2.2. Rapid adjustments necessitated by fluctuating budgets

➢ 6.2.3. Unpredictability makes it difficult to build measurement infrastructure

6.3 PCSPs not available to all minoritized students who would benefit from participation

➢ 6.3.1. Many STEM opportunities have costs associated – not accessible
to minoritized students who are also low income

➢ 6.3.2. Organizations/STEM expertise to host PCSPs not robustly available in all communities

➢ 6.3.3. PCSPs service areas bound by geographical and transportation constraints

➢ 6.3.4. PCSPs have varied purposes/targets, not all of which focus on expanding interest in STEM among REM students

➢ 6.3.5. Actual power of PCSPs in helping more REM students enroll and persist in undergraduate is unknown

➢ 6.3.6. Some PCSPs may replicate biased STEM gatekeeping practices

6.4 STEM "citizenry" not valued as broadening participation of REM students

➢ 6.4.1. Career trajectories shift for “natural” reasons but STEM literacies and experiences still important

The Root Cause Analysis Process

Learn more about using a root cause analysis as a tool for forging a shared vision and partnerships.