STEM needs to become "STEMM"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

PP you were responding to. You make a lot of sense, but I still don't agree with you. I have a question for you:

If you were tasked with drastically increasing reading comprehension and arithmetic skills by the end of the primary years, how would you, as an experienced educator, go about doing it?
What preK to 5th grade plan would you put in place?

Thank you. I am genuinely interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

PP you were responding to. You make a lot of sense, but I still don't agree with you. I have a question for you:

If you were tasked with drastically increasing reading comprehension and arithmetic skills by the end of the primary years, how would you, as an experienced educator, go about doing it?
What preK to 5th grade plan would you put in place?

Thank you. I am genuinely interested.

We may have to agree to disagree.

Here's the thing--and again, it comes from a place of bias in favor of differentiation in education. I've been a part of studies that showed through qualitative and quantitative data, that reading comprehension and grasp of vocabulary improves through the use of arts integrated teaching. These studies were done over the course of four years in underserved schools in SE DC, in students ranging from 2nd-5th grade. In different schools, I either have the pre- and post-tests, implemented the lessons, or crunched the numbers. The attitude of the students towards their education changed drastically during this program, as did their literacy skills.

So, in a perfect world, how would I improve education? More funding to public schools, teachers trained on different ways to teach different learners, smaller class sizes to allow for differentiated learning. And yes, sometimes this means sitting students down for memorization of math skills, or quiet reading time. But sometimes it means actively engaging the students in their educational process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Nobody cares how they heat their buildings!

Touché

[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.)

Regarding quality books, my youngest D.C. came from school with a book suggested by the librarian: a comic book called Professor Underpants.

Captain Underpants.

You may now continue.

[Anonymous]

Science, Tech, Engineering, and Math are also known as the "useful arts" and are therefore already a subset of "the arts" in general. Therefore lumping "arts" into this makes zero sense, not to mention defeats the purpose of promoting the useful arts,

Anyone who thinks that STEAM is appropriate should perhaps take a class in the realm of STEM. I would suggest starting with Venn Diagrams for Dummies.

[Anonymous]

It is already STEAM everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is already STEAM everywhere

Nope, Going to a STEM fair this weekend in fact.

Also, some have embraced STEAM where the "A" makes it Applied Mathematics" Since theoretical Math is not what is generally applicable.