STEM needs to become "STEMM"

[Anonymous]

Our private uses "STEAM" adding the A for arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist, I believe the focus should be shifted to better reading, writing and math. There is much too much emphasis at the elementary level on arts and science. They distract from the sheer amount of hours that are needed to master a much higher level of reading comprehension, vocabulary and mathematical fluency than is currently acquired at those ages.

Because we don't need dumb scientists, or dumb professionals in any category. I've known too many PhD students who couldn't interpret data correctly, which should never happen at that level.

Critical thinking skills must be built very early on, and they come with a rigorous study of reading, writing and math. I fully support arts and science at the middle school and high school level, when children are mature enough to understand them. But elementary school science and arts are mostly a means of entertaining children: I can't count the times I've walked in as a visiting scientist or art room parent volunteer, and most kids cannot grasp the deeper concepts that the teachers are trying to ram down their throats (apart from the ones who have scientist parents).

So the buzz word should be RWM: reading, writing an math.

(And don't get me started on the tripe they call books these days. Schools should expose children to much better quality books, with complex syntax and higher-order vocabulary.)

As a PK-5 arts integration specialist, I can attest to the fact that the arts (done right) absolutely do more than just entertain students. I've reached students across the curriculum using arts techniques, who were previously checked out or thought they were "dumb" (a direct quote from a student). When not integrated into the curriculum, the arts teach flexibility, teamwork, accepting other peoples' ideas, and--yes--creative thought, among other life skills.

In my preschool classroom this morning, for example, if you had peeked in, you might have seen what looked like kids entertaining themselves by playing with ice and paint. What was happening was a discussion of the water cycle and forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas): how ice melts and makes water, then the water evaporates...and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our private uses "STEAM" adding the A for arts.

I say let's skip these half measures and go straight to SSHTEAM (SOCIAL SCIENCES, SCIENCE, HUMANITIES, EAGLE-REARING, ARTS, MUDWRESTLING).

[Anonymous]

Hahahaha no

[Anonymous]

You can still STEM, but not too early. It's fine starting in high school, but not at the expense of reading and writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist, I believe the focus should be shifted to better reading, writing and math. There is much too much emphasis at the elementary level on arts and science. They distract from the sheer amount of hours that are needed to master a much higher level of reading comprehension, vocabulary and mathematical fluency than is currently acquired at those ages.

Because we don't need dumb scientists, or dumb professionals in any category. I've known too many PhD students who couldn't interpret data correctly, which should never happen at that level.

Critical thinking skills must be built very early on, and they come with a rigorous study of reading, writing and math. I fully support arts and science at the middle school and high school level, when children are mature enough to understand them. But elementary school science and arts are mostly a means of entertaining children: I can't count the times I've walked in as a visiting scientist or art room parent volunteer, and most kids cannot grasp the deeper concepts that the teachers are trying to ram down their throats (apart from the ones who have scientist parents).

So the buzz word should be RWM: reading, writing an math.

(And don't get me started on the tripe they call books these days. Schools should expose children to much better quality books, with complex syntax and higher-order vocabulary.)

As a PK-5 arts integration specialist, I can attest to the fact that the arts (done right) absolutely do more than just entertain students. I've reached students across the curriculum using arts techniques, who were previously checked out or thought they were "dumb" (a direct quote from a student). When not integrated into the curriculum, the arts teach flexibility, teamwork, accepting other peoples' ideas, and--yes--creative thought, among other life skills.

In my preschool classroom this morning, for example, if you had peeked in, you might have seen what looked like kids entertaining themselves by playing with ice and paint. What was happening was a discussion of the water cycle and forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas): how ice melts and makes water, then the water evaporates...and so on.

PP you responded to.
I understand your point of view.
My concern is that this is taking too much time at the elementary school level, and that it is ultimately a disservice to the children. As a scientist, to whom science literacy is critical, I will repeat: the water cycle does not take precedence over reading and arithmetic, plain and simple. An intelligently educated person will recognize false scientific claims and its corresponding political decisions, whereas someone with poor critical thinking skills will not be able to apply what he has learned and will therefore be vulnerable to vested interests. A very pressing issue these days.
Reading comprehension is perhaps the most accurate indicator of critical thinking skills. We need to work on increasing it. I understand you've reached challenging children through the arts, but this doesn't mean more arts integration will benefit the majority of students over many years.

[Anonymous]

STEMFP + finger painting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nonsense. STEM is a focus area we need.

That's not to imply the other things (Art, Music, PE, Language, etc) are not important to develop a well rounded person, but if you try to focus on everything, you focus on nothing.

Yes. I heard STEAM the other day and thought adding art was ridiculous. Defeats the purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist, I believe the focus should be shifted to better reading, writing and math. There is much too much emphasis at the elementary level on arts and science. They distract from the sheer amount of hours that are needed to master a much higher level of reading comprehension, vocabulary and mathematical fluency than is currently acquired at those ages.

Because we don't need dumb scientists, or dumb professionals in any category. I've known too many PhD students who couldn't interpret data correctly, which should never happen at that level.

Critical thinking skills must be built very early on, and they come with a rigorous study of reading, writing and math. I fully support arts and science at the middle school and high school level, when children are mature enough to understand them. But elementary school science and arts are mostly a means of entertaining children: I can't count the times I've walked in as a visiting scientist or art room parent volunteer, and most kids cannot grasp the deeper concepts that the teachers are trying to ram down their throats (apart from the ones who have scientist parents).

So the buzz word should be RWM: reading, writing an math.

(And don't get me started on the tripe they call books these days. Schools should expose children to much better quality books, with complex syntax and higher-order vocabulary.)

As a PK-5 arts integration specialist, I can attest to the fact that the arts (done right) absolutely do more than just entertain students. I've reached students across the curriculum using arts techniques, who were previously checked out or thought they were "dumb" (a direct quote from a student). When not integrated into the curriculum, the arts teach flexibility, teamwork, accepting other peoples' ideas, and--yes--creative thought, among other life skills.

In my preschool classroom this morning, for example, if you had peeked in, you might have seen what looked like kids entertaining themselves by playing with ice and paint. What was happening was a discussion of the water cycle and forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas): how ice melts and makes water, then the water evaporates...and so on.

PP you responded to.
I understand your point of view.
My concern is that this is taking too much time at the elementary school level, and that it is ultimately a disservice to the children. As a scientist, to whom science literacy is critical, I will repeat: the water cycle does not take precedence over reading and arithmetic, plain and simple. An intelligently educated person will recognize false scientific claims and its corresponding political decisions, whereas someone with poor critical thinking skills will not be able to apply what he has learned and will therefore be vulnerable to vested interests. A very pressing issue these days.
Reading comprehension is perhaps the most accurate indicator of critical thinking skills. We need to work on increasing it. I understand you've reached challenging children through the arts, but this doesn't mean more arts integration will benefit the majority of students over many years.

I can't agree more with the above

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist, I believe the focus should be shifted to better reading, writing and math. There is much too much emphasis at the elementary level on arts and science. They distract from the sheer amount of hours that are needed to master a much higher level of reading comprehension, vocabulary and mathematical fluency than is currently acquired at those ages.

Because we don't need dumb scientists, or dumb professionals in any category. I've known too many PhD students who couldn't interpret data correctly, which should never happen at that level.

Critical thinking skills must be built very early on, and they come with a rigorous study of reading, writing and math. I fully support arts and science at the middle school and high school level, when children are mature enough to understand them. But elementary school science and arts are mostly a means of entertaining children: I can't count the times I've walked in as a visiting scientist or art room parent volunteer, and most kids cannot grasp the deeper concepts that the teachers are trying to ram down their throats (apart from the ones who have scientist parents).

So the buzz word should be RWM: reading, writing an math.

(And don't get me started on the tripe they call books these days. Schools should expose children to much better quality books, with complex syntax and higher-order vocabulary.)

As an elementary school teacher, I'm not sure why you think elementary schools are spending an exorbiant amount of time on science and art. Science is 45 minutes a day, and at my school Art is a 1x a week resource class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist, I believe the focus should be shifted to better reading, writing and math. There is much too much emphasis at the elementary level on arts and science. They distract from the sheer amount of hours that are needed to master a much higher level of reading comprehension, vocabulary and mathematical fluency than is currently acquired at those ages.

Because we don't need dumb scientists, or dumb professionals in any category. I've known too many PhD students who couldn't interpret data correctly, which should never happen at that level.

Critical thinking skills must be built very early on, and they come with a rigorous study of reading, writing and math. I fully support arts and science at the middle school and high school level, when children are mature enough to understand them. But elementary school science and arts are mostly a means of entertaining children: I can't count the times I've walked in as a visiting scientist or art room parent volunteer, and most kids cannot grasp the deeper concepts that the teachers are trying to ram down their throats (apart from the ones who have scientist parents).

So the buzz word should be RWM: reading, writing an math.

(And don't get me started on the tripe they call books these days. Schools should expose children to much better quality books, with complex syntax and higher-order vocabulary.)

As a PK-5 arts integration specialist, I can attest to the fact that the arts (done right) absolutely do more than just entertain students. I've reached students across the curriculum using arts techniques, who were previously checked out or thought they were "dumb" (a direct quote from a student). When not integrated into the curriculum, the arts teach flexibility, teamwork, accepting other peoples' ideas, and--yes--creative thought, among other life skills.

In my preschool classroom this morning, for example, if you had peeked in, you might have seen what looked like kids entertaining themselves by playing with ice and paint. What was happening was a discussion of the water cycle and forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas): how ice melts and makes water, then the water evaporates...and so on.

PP you responded to.
I understand your point of view.
My concern is that this is taking too much time at the elementary school level, and that it is ultimately a disservice to the children. As a scientist, to whom science literacy is critical, I will repeat: the water cycle does not take precedence over reading and arithmetic, plain and simple. An intelligently educated person will recognize false scientific claims and its corresponding political decisions, whereas someone with poor critical thinking skills will not be able to apply what he has learned and will therefore be vulnerable to vested interests. A very pressing issue these days.
Reading comprehension is perhaps the most accurate indicator of critical thinking skills. We need to work on increasing it. I understand you've reached challenging children through the arts, but this doesn't mean more arts integration will benefit the majority of students over many years.

And I understand your point of view. But:

1) if a school day is seven hours long, are you recommending having children sit and do rote math and reading for that whole time? Our students are absolutely getting a high level of education in both of those topics; their varied education does not come at the expense of basic foundational skills. The science lesson does not take the place of math or literacy.

2) not every child learns in the same way. There absolutely are students--I was one of them--who can best be reached through lectures. Other students need to get up and be active participants in their learning. I've been doing word study with the kindergarteners in my school, who now have a richer knowledge of "OP" and "AT" word families (for example) than they might have just doing worksheets.

3) children have a natural curiosity about the world around them. Particularly at a young age, I think it does a real disservice to not explore that during a school day.

Please believe me: I agree with you 100% that foundational math and literacy are key to the educational process. But they don't have to be reached in traditional ways, and they're not the only things that need to be taught. (Of course, we're both biased towards our own outlook.)

[Anonymous]

Fairfax County has used STEAM for years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax County has used STEAM for years now.

Nobody cares how they heat their buildings!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist, I believe the focus should be shifted to better reading, writing and math. There is much too much emphasis at the elementary level on arts and science. They distract from the sheer amount of hours that are needed to master a much higher level of reading comprehension, vocabulary and mathematical fluency than is currently acquired at those ages.

Because we don't need dumb scientists, or dumb professionals in any category. I've known too many PhD students who couldn't interpret data correctly, which should never happen at that level.

Critical thinking skills must be built very early on, and they come with a rigorous study of reading, writing and math. I fully support arts and science at the middle school and high school level, when children are mature enough to understand them. But elementary school science and arts are mostly a means of entertaining children: I can't count the times I've walked in as a visiting scientist or art room parent volunteer, and most kids cannot grasp the deeper concepts that the teachers are trying to ram down their throats (apart from the ones who have scientist parents).

So the buzz word should be RWM: reading, writing an math.

(And don't get me started on the tripe they call books these days. Schools should expose children to much better quality books, with complex syntax and higher-order vocabulary.)

Except Art is everywhere. Read a biography, make a pop bottle doll. Read a book, make a puppet. Everything has a art component. I wish they would do art separately than these stupid crafts.



As an elementary school teacher, I'm not sure why you think elementary schools are spending an exorbiant amount of time on science and art. Science is 45 minutes a day, and at my school Art is a 1x a week resource class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a scientist, I believe the focus should be shifted to better reading, writing and math. There is much too much emphasis at the elementary level on arts and science. They distract from the sheer amount of hours that are needed to master a much higher level of reading comprehension, vocabulary and mathematical fluency than is currently acquired at those ages.

Because we don't need dumb scientists, or dumb professionals in any category. I've known too many PhD students who couldn't interpret data correctly, which should never happen at that level.

Critical thinking skills must be built very early on, and they come with a rigorous study of reading, writing and math. I fully support arts and science at the middle school and high school level, when children are mature enough to understand them. But elementary school science and arts are mostly a means of entertaining children: I can't count the times I've walked in as a visiting scientist or art room parent volunteer, and most kids cannot grasp the deeper concepts that the teachers are trying to ram down their throats (apart from the ones who have scientist parents).

So the buzz word should be RWM: reading, writing an math.

(And don't get me started on the tripe they call books these days. Schools should expose children to much better quality books, with complex syntax and higher-order vocabulary.)

As an elementary school teacher, I'm not sure why you think elementary schools are spending an exorbiant amount of time on science and art. Science is 45 minutes a day, and at my school Art is a 1x a week resource class.

Except Art is everywhere. Read a biography, make a pop bottle doll. Read a book, make a puppet. Everything has a art component. I wish they would do art separately than these stupid crafts.


Repost. Messed up quotes.