Believe it or not, The Rooster heads to preschool in the fall. While we’re still a few years away from him heading to Kindergarten, the need for us to think about his schooling is ramping up. The other day we were going past Valley Middle School which now has a huge banner hanging out front that it is a STEM school. The Wife asked which schools are STEM in the district, something I didn’t know at the time. But while there is much focus on the curriculum of STEM schools driving our nation forward and there are plenty of people on this site who believe in it, I see absolutely no value in having kids younger than high school learning from a curriculum focused on STEM. While The Wife didn’t go quite that far, she did note that she probably would have been miserable in school if the focus of all of her classes were STEM related as she would have been unable to escape a subject matter she hated.
Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the need for a skilled workforce and the importance of science and math in our education system. However, a recent MinnPost article on the topic gives several examples of why STEM is important to our nation provides almost laughable reasoning:
According to the National Science Foundation, there are now 2 million unfilled STEM positions at a time when unemployment hovers around 8 percent. These types of future jobs will more and more require an understanding of STEM.
Consider video gaming. Today video games form the basis for a $25 billion industry, which employs more than 80,000 people. And yet, 25 years ago, it did not exist as an industry. To be in this industry requires an understanding of technological design and a strong foundation in mathematics.
Today we face a national-security threat, not only from terrorists and growing Third World economies, but also from weather extremes. The Department of Defense and the CIA have released reports on the economic and political costs of disrupted weather and climate patterns. Insurance companies are concerned about more powerful and frequent storms that could cause billions of dollars of damage. Energy companies are using advanced technologies to search for and create additional sources of energy.
This seems to tell me that because video games are popular and the misguided direction of the US Government to sink money into ghost enemies, I should take my soon to be Kindergartener and place him in a school which concentrates more on science and math curricula than a more liberal arts education? This liberal arts education of mine has done me just fine (even through grad school), especially considering I work in a field which would be considered STEM anyway.
So parents of STEM students and maybe even others, explain to me why you chose to send your kids to a STEM school before they were old enough to decide whether they actually wanted to have concentrations in science and math? Did you do it because the learning and teachers were better quality over other schools in the district or did you do it for the curriculum of the school? Do you think you’re limiting your child’s choices by pigeonholing them into STEM? Are you concerned they may not be enjoying it as much as a more liberal arts education? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
August 31st, 2012 at 8:28 am
I couldn’t agree more. I find it amazing when parents obsess over their Kindergarten – Elementary school choices. Send your kids to the neighborhood school. Enrich their education by exposing them to adventures in our community. Regulate screen time. Play with them outside. It’s not that hard. When they get a little older – maybe something more specialized is in order.
August 31st, 2012 at 8:35 am
We live in 196 and our neighbor moved her son to the STEM school in Apple Valley as she didn’t feel he was challenged enough by the regular curriculum at our neighborhood school. Our son is special needs and has an IEP. The school district has moved us from our neighborhood to another school within the district. While we liked our neighborhood school we LOVE the school we go moved to. It is a better fit for us. My point is that while STEM may be important for the future of our workforce, I’m not sure that it matters so much during the elementary school years. I think this would be more important in middle school and high school.
August 31st, 2012 at 9:16 am
I think you’re missing some important aspects of this Bill (and Jason). To begin with, I’ve mentioned on here before, we have three kids in the STEM magnet program (Cedar Park and an incoming 6th grader at Valley Middle).
Part of what you’re missing is the background on STEM in your district (196) as well as the other elementary-level magnet programs. Several years ago, as part of an effort to address racial, socio-economic, and achievement gaps between schools across the district, magnet schools (including STEM, but also other emphasis such as foreign language emphasis, arts, etc.) were created to draw students with different learning styles into schools beyond their neighborhoods.
Your commentary above focuses on STEM being developed as some sort of “entry point” to get kids on a track towards filling jobs in an industry starved for talent. This is off base (and this is where our family comes in).
STEM was just one of several options that helps redistribute students across the district, but — more importantly — gives parents and kids an opportunity to learn in a manner that is more suited to their aptitude.
Rather than a one-size-fits-all curriculum, it gives the ability for students with a natural interest and aptitude in a particular area to learn ALL subject matter under an emphasis in that area. For someone with a scientific/mathematical mind, they will understand all concepts better when taught using science/mathematic subject matter. For someone that is less predisposed to logic and mathematics, they will learn better under a curriculum that uses the abstract. The kids are learning the same things, but are able to do so in a manner more suitable for their natural abilities, interests, learning styles, and so on.
When our oldest was pre-school age, it was already evident that his thought processes were more logical, curious, and exacting. When we were evaluating pre-schools, we looked at a few and decided that a Montessori pre-school would be the best use of his time and be a good foundation for capturing his abilities and allow him to exercise his talents.
When moving him to kindergarten, we did the same thing. We looked at the options available and the STEM curriculum was the best match for his interests, his learning style, his curiosity and his abilities.
This has been a complete and utter success. He is flourishing academically and socially. The transition to STEM is addressing his abilities and needs and offering him a well-rounded education.
Our second-oldest son is more abstract and is a “typical” learner although he is in gifted and talented programs. We opted for a more “traditional” pre-school (focused on play, getting the energy out, learning to get along with others, etc.) rather than the Montessori track, but he continued on to the Cedar Park STEM. This choice was less about the STEM aspect, but more about our overwhelmingly postive impression of Cedar Park’s staff and the quality of the education there.
Our daughter followed suit (“standard” pre-school and onto Cedar Park STEM).
STEM isn’t “concentrating” kids in science and math PER SE, rather, it is just an option and an emphasis. They are still getting the “liberal arts” education as you put it Bill. Just when it comes to examples, field trips, school guests and so on, you get a STEM emphasis to support the curriculum.
The bottom line is that STEM in the early years has nothing to do with “building a workforce” or whatever. Its origins were a “win win” solution to address gaps between schools and give parents/kids options to learn under a system more well-suited to their child’s style. It’s one option among several for parents.
We know so much more about learning, intelligence, and so on than we did even 10 years ago. Instead of plopping 30 kids of the same age into a single curriculum and assuming they will all learn the same things the same way, we should be finding MORE ways to get kids into the environment where they will learn best.
Bill, if you can see things that pique the Rooster’s curiosity more than other things, consider placing him in a school that will let those characteristics flourish. Super fine motor skills. Fascinating grasp of learning. Crazy curiosity about books/reading. Building intricate Lego creations or detailed drawings. If you pay attention to your kid — even at 2, 3, 4 years-old — you can pick up personality and intelligence cues. If not, well, then choose the school that feels right, has the friendliest staff, has the neatest facilities.
The point is, you have a multitude of options…and that’s a GREAT THING!
STEM, in my opinion, as well as the other magnet programs in 196 is an unquestionable success.
August 31st, 2012 at 9:20 am
I don’t have time to fully detail all of the reasons we have loved our experience at the District 196 STEM school, but I’ll share a few.
First to dispel a couple of myths: it’s not a “science and math” school as you say a few times. The focus is well balanced across science, tech, engineering and math while teaching all of the other subjects (music and art included) that kids get at all 196 schools. It is a “liberal arts” school in the sense that kids get a well-rounded education and students are held to the same standards as other students in MN across all subjects.
So what’s the difference? Greatly enhanced opportunities in the STEM areas including: individual labs dedicated to tech, science and engineering; teachers specially trained in these areas who have incredibly imaginative methods of delivering this curriculum; enhanced technology equipment; and an inventive approach to helping students understand how STEM subjects are really interwoven in everything they do as kids and eventually as adults. Instead of pigeonholing them I feel like they’ve had their view of the world broadened by their experience that has demonstrated how much overlap there is among the STEM subjects and all other areas of life.
There was a different reason for each of our kids that STEM was a good choice. Our oldest loves math and that was obvious as soon as he started playing and talking as a toddler. The enhanced opportunity in math was a draw for him in our eyes. Our middle son is in constant motion. The fact that the students move throughout the day to the different labs, focus on a very hands on approach and have engineering curriculum which includes lots of problem solving and “construction” has helped him stay engaged and, frankly, out of mischief. Our youngest is a girl. Unfortunately girls in general still lag in the STEM subject areas and some research suggests that it’s due in part to a lack of confidence and exposure to these subjects. We believe a strong start in these areas is great for her.
I never hear any teachers, students or other parents at the STEM school talking about what they want to do in college or talking about the elementary school being somehow college preparatory. In my experience during our 7 years at STEM it’s simply not the purpose or focus of the curriculum.
I have no concerns that we are somehow limiting our kids or that they are enjoying school less because of the enhanced opportunity at Cedar Park. I actually see it as broadening their horizons. In my opinion, STEM topics with the exception of math are too often treated as bonus, “if-we-have-time” subjects in schools and glossed over. Our kids have all of the traditional topics covered PLUS a really strong, in depth experience with tech, engineering and science–quite the opposite of limiting them. They all love school, cried on the last day and can’t wait to go back next week.
August 31st, 2012 at 9:34 am
Interests change over time from exposure, especially in K-8, thus my “pigeonholing” comment. In fact, I excelled at science (but not math) in grade school and hated history. If I hadn’t been exposed to the particular history class in 9th grade that I was I certainly would never have excelled and ended up majoring in History as I did. Actually, I began as a CS major in college and switched to History after finding out that it really didn’t fit my style–IN MY SOPHOMORE YEAR OF COLLEGE–and I am definitely not unique in this regard, in fact, as someone who worked in higher ed for most of my adult life, I suggest to everyone I know not to pick a major until their sophomore year so they can avoid the same pigeonholing experienced now at K-12.
2. As we briefly discussed offline, the lottery system required of STEM schools sucks and contrary to your point that it’s just what we have to deal with, it’s not. ALL students should have an opportunity to best achieve success in ALL schools. This shouldn’t be limited to some schools in a district which may not be accessible to ALL students. The fact that it is is not only a failure of our educational system but also a testament to the fact that we have all been fooled into thinking this sort of educational style is acceptable.
I disagree entirely with the idea of STEM in our early-age education system K-8 especially) and what you have said above doesn’t change that at all, in fact, it cements my belief that STEM is a waste of time, energy and public money.
August 31st, 2012 at 9:43 am
I feel very personally about this as a Gifted and Talented Specialist in the St Paul Public Schools. You would be amazed at what kids at the elementary level can go in math and the sciences!!!! Kids need to start thinking in a different way than past generations and STEM really helps with that. The focus on engineering is HUGE these days and is part of the MN state standards in science. Most schools are severely lacking in science instruction by teachers who really know how to teach kids to “do” science”…… who wouldn’t want their kids to learn this important stuff???
Are STEM programs the best fit for every child? Definitely not, but the skills that are taught are crucial for our future and all kids could benefit from it. You really don’t think these skills need to be fostered until kids are a minimum of 12 years old? That is nonsense.
You are all entitled to your opinions but unless you’re an expert on the topic, they are baseless opinions.
August 31st, 2012 at 9:47 am
Kristi,
Until decades have passed with a high N of participants from across the board of educational styles have shown marked improvement in a variety of metrics following their post-secondary schooling, the opinions of experts are just as baseless.
August 31st, 2012 at 9:49 am
And I am not sure why what you said means we need STEM schools to be made available only to a random portion of the overall student population.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:02 am
For disclosure to the masses, “Sarah G” is my wife.
Regarding the “pigeonhole” comment, I disagree totally. STEM isn’t pigeonholing anything. Sarah G said it best:
There is a HUGE difference between “pigeonholing” a kid in a certain subject matter and using our better understanding of learning styles and positioning kids to learn EVERYTHING in a manner that capitalizes on their gifts, interests, and style. This is where I think you still don’t get it.
Regarding the lottery system, I agree with you that it stinks and I agree with the fact that ALL kids should be able to go to whatever school best suits their needs.
Unfortunately, we still live in a world where schools/classes are of a certain size, kids are in grades based almost solely on their age, and the “neighborhood school” concept is still valued by families.
There is only so much room at Cedar Park STEM, Diamond Path (International Studies magnet), and Glacier Hills (Arts and Science). Because society demands neighborhood schools, they have to accept all kids who live within those school boundaries. The building can only hold so many out-of-boundary kids that want to go there.
I agree that ALL kids should have access to the best possible situation. The magnet school concept IS a step in that direction. We’re breaking out of the antiquated mindset and while the transition happens, we need to deal with stupid things like public school lotteries.
In the end, you will be hard-pressed to convince me that establishing public educational options that address multiple learning styles, interests, and aptitudes, and giving more options to families is a bad thing.
Maybe it isn’t right for you or you don’t believe you can identify predispositions or learning style at an early age. In which case I would ask, why do you care then? Just roll the dice and send your kid to whatever school if you don’t think it makes a difference.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:06 am
This would be all well and good if I wasn’t paying tax dollars for others to have this choice while my child may not.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:10 am
Why do we need to wait to look at how these students do post-secondary? I have noticed a difference in how well my students perform in math and sciences NOW. Our current school data shows improved results after teaching these content areas. Everything we do these days is driven by data…..
What happens in schools these days is very different than how it was for us growing up. Much more focused and intentional
August 31st, 2012 at 10:12 am
Our school district is doing the STEM thing too except that they are putting all 4th and 5th graders in the district through that curriculum. It seems to me a bit early in life for 4th and 5th graders to see the importance of those areas but I know myself that by the time I reached middle school (at least by my second year there) I was very interested in what was considered “industrial arts” and all things hands-on. The technology part is hugely important and my daughter’s preschool class with the school district is introducing the kids by the first of next year to iPads as learning tools. If it gives kids a more well-rounded schooling experience I don’t see a problem with it but a full-on STEM school at the kindergarten level seems a bit extreme as I wonder what areas will be less of a focus with the intense focus on STEM areas.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:14 am
I don’t know a lot about STEM programs, admittedly, but I would move before I would send my kid to Valley Middle. Hands down the worst school I ever subbed at in my tenure as a sub. You can learn a lot about the culture of a school from how the staff treats subs.
FWIW Parkview elementary was my favortie school in 196 to sub at.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:16 am
To which, I refer you back to my point about this being a part of a transition.
The fix is to — instead of questioning the need for these types of public school modernizations — press districts and local government to accelerate the modernization of schools and innovation.
The faster we can give all students more appropriate/fitting options, the faster we can get rid of the chance that you may not “win” a stupid lottery to have your kid attend a particular magnet school.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:27 am
1. GREAT! This is exactly what I want to hear. I just don’t see why it needs to be done at a specific group of schools instead of district-wide.
2. Data are wonderful. I work with it myself and have in an educational setting (at the post-secondary level) for years. The problem with these data and metrics are generally that they are leveraged in a way, sometimes intentionally but usually unintentionally, which shows advancement when in reality nothing much has been gained.
Because STEM is meant to increase America’s workforce successes, not whether they are doing better in school, we have to wait decades for the outcomes to be seen because that should be the true measure, not whether students are successful in a mostly meaningless and artificial environment show gains.
Tests at the K-8 and secondary levels have been proven to show little and supposedly this is why we have such a large problem in our education system. If this is true, we need new measures. Data showing gains in the same broken metrics are just as useless as the tests used to track them and finding ways to increase the numbers in broken metrics are broken by definition.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:38 am
“GREAT! This is exactly what I want to hear. I just don’t see why it needs to be done at a specific group of schools instead of district-wide.”
You’re right about that….. in an ideal world STEM should be offered at every school to give all students the same opportunity. It should not be an exclusive program
August 31st, 2012 at 10:47 am
I don’t have time to read everyone’s comments, but I will tell you that my kids go to an environmental magnet for elementary, and ESTEM for middle.
We couldn’t be happier. The elementary uses nature as a lens through which to teach all the subjects … they learn science by tracking birds or testing water in a pond. They learn math the usual way, but enrich those lessons with measuring snowfall and other nature-based math equations that I’m too busy to come up with right now.
The point is, they are learning through doing. And the lessons stick better because of it. I wouldn’t care what kind of magnet it was, as long as they were actively learning, because most of us learn better that way.
If you have any other questions, you know where to find me.
Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it, dude.
August 31st, 2012 at 10:56 am
And, on that note, if I try it and I don’t like it, I have to uproot my child from his environment/friends and put him in a new school? That’s ridiculous.
August 31st, 2012 at 11:07 am
We did switch when we didn’t like our son’s first school. He wanted to switch though, so that made things easy.
Most Minnesota elementaries, magnets or otherwise, are good schools. Do what you want, but research shows magnet schools can be a great way to learn. Kids get all the things you’re worried they won’t, and half the time they don’t even know they’re learning! Bonus!
August 31st, 2012 at 11:19 am
You’re grasping at straws now Bill.
For a million years, that’s been the case for any number of reasons. It’s quite possible that your kid might go to a school and it won’t work out and you’ll want to change schools. Any parent with more than two friends knows someone who has moved their kid from one school to another. It could be social, it could be financial, it could be academic, it could be value-driven, it could be sports/activities opportunities, it could be that you realize you hate the staff.
August 31st, 2012 at 11:34 am
Quite honestly I think you’ve been grasping at straws throughout this discussion. Just send your kid to the school of your choice (sounds like you would prefer the most traditional option available-which I can assure you won’t look much like the school experience you had as a child–things have changed a bit), you won’t have to worry about “pigeon-holing” or as I like to call it broadening their horizons by giving them a more in depth opportunity in traditionally overlooked subjects, and there is no lottery for those schools. Win-win-win for you. As for me and Mr. Sarah G we’ll continue to be open-minded about the numerous awesome options available for our kids and choose the one that best fits our desire for their education. Thankfully besides here on this blog I don’t hear much criticism of school choice, so I’m not worried about it going away.
August 31st, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Of course you don’t hear criticisms, you’re in the school and the extra funding the STEM school receives benefits you and your children.
August 31st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Of course I’ve heard the criticisms–I do stay educated on the topics you bring up, constantly evaluating if the school is the best fit for my kids. I hear them- they just don’t make sense. You’ve complained about the zoned in curriculum, then said everyone should have it and additionally implied that it was good enough for you the way it was taught when you were a child as if that means it should just stay the same. And then throw in a complaint about the lottery for good measure. Honestly I’ve lost track of your complaints and they contradict each other. And by the way it’s my money funding the STEM school too.
August 31st, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Kristi there are so many things in your responses that make me uneasy. There was recently an opinion article on CNN that summed up my view nicely. Basically, schools are pushing the standards for what children need to know to younger and younger grades. What we were learning in 1st through 3rd grades are being taught in kindergarten and pre-K which means what is being taught in 1st through 4th is similarly altered. That’s not necessarily a good thing and I’m not interested in sending my child to a school that would exacerbate a problem that is already seen in regular schools much less a STEM school. As Bill said in his post the thought of having STEM topics permeate all other subject matter would have been miserable for me.
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/29/my-view-obama-romney-need-to-know-one-thing-about-early-childhood-education-start-over/?iref=allsearch
August 31st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Sarah,
My points aren’t contradictory. My opinion of STEM still stands, I’m just responding to the points as they come.
You say the education style is so much better and while I disagree, if it were true, it should be rolled out to ALL schools for ALL students and it’s not. Thus we’re eliminating what you and others believe is a superior education method and funneling funding into a handful of schools into a district (something which almost always raises the education level) not available to all. Thus STEM is performing well, not because the system is better, but likely because the funding is there and offers those schools better opportunities through available dollars.
August 31st, 2012 at 1:58 pm
EXACTLY! That’s the point. Not one learning style is appropriate/appealing/a good fit for all kids. We understand learning and capabilities so much better than when you were a kid and have the capability of maximizing potential by matching that knowledge to curriculum.
That’s why magnet schools are GOOD. If the STEM doesn’t fit, don’t send your child there.
(And, yes, I know it’s not a pure choice because of the ‘lottery’ stuff above).
Tailored curricula are effective and District 196 should continue to EXPAND them and fix the access limitations (as they are doing at Valley Middle).
p.s. – I wish magnet schools were an option when I was a kid. I am an example of tragic missed potential when it comes to my school experience.
August 31st, 2012 at 2:30 pm
My views on STEM are based on my current role as a teacher on special assignment, in charge of professional development and the implementation of our district initiatives, including STEM, personalized learning and cultural competence in a southwest metro school district.
STEM can have a different approach at different grade levels, different districts and different school sites. It is important to differentiate this and that STEM is an approach to deliver curriculum, it is not a one size fits all curriculum. It is not a stand-alone component to education and it is not the only delivery of math and science curriculum. In my opinion, STEM is not “the next new thing” that often occurs in education.
While brainstorming this post, I wrote the following to describe what STEM is: engaging, student centered, process based, inquiry based, “imagining-creating-improving”, small-groups, hands-on, and fun. When I reflected on those words, not only did I describe STEM, I really described what good teaching should be. In my experience, the STEM focus allows teachers, and in some cases, forces teachers to think outside of the box and deliver instructional content in a very different way than the traditional “read chapter 3, answer the chapter review questions.”
STEM is an inquiry based approach that often begins with a “big question”. From this question, the unit begins with some background content, often with a reading component and a social studies component. Instead of reading the chapter in a science book on insects, our first grade team has created a library of fiction and non-fiction readings that deal with insects. Our specialists (Art, music, PE) work with the grade level team to incorporate their content area, cultural content and the STEM content. Math and science areas are done in a way that provides the standard instruction, but also provides process based, hands on learning. Students then reflect on their STEM work in various ways, including fictional and non-fictional writing, videos, etc. The sky is the limit on this.
I have seen significant gains in our at risk students. For many kids who struggle with reading, writing, and/or math skills, STEM lessons become “fun”. Their shortcomings don’t get in the way of their learning and often times this approach provides the hook that is necessary to motivate them to build on the skills that are lacking. In our district, our summer school programming at the elementary level was done almost entirely in the STEM model. It was fascinating to see these kids, who struggled day in and day out in the traditional model really shine and enjoy school again. A huge positive in this front, is that discipline and behaviors dramatically dropped, simply because learning was fun.
STEM pushes all students- the average, the low and the gifted student, to do more. Instead of simply working on the formula for area and doing 20 problems in a work book, students may be asked to show the area of their bedroom. Some students may simply go home, ask mom or dad for a tape measure, measure the length of two walls and come back to school with an answer. Some will use a ruler, some will pace it off, but others will measure it using their body length, or the length of their pillow. Others will not only measure the area of their room, but that of their siblings and parents to see who has the larger room. When students return to school, they will share this, and then work with a small group to come up with the dimensions necessary to create a taped area that is 46 square inches.
Our district opted to have STEM occur in all of our elementary schools instead of one or two and traveled to Cedar Park a few times to see how it was done as a charter school. Additionally, we worked with the Science Museum of Minnesota and the Engineering is Elementary program from the Museum of Science in Boston (http://www.mos.org/eie).
As I stated at the beginning of this now lengthy post, STEM is not a one size fits all model and there are certainly some of our students who are not in love with it. However, what I have seen in our building and others is that for the majority of our students, STEM lessons and units have generated a spark in their learning and has allowed teachers the freedom to create real world projects and assignments that meaningful and practical learning takes place.
August 31st, 2012 at 2:30 pm
But MSPD, you just mentioned that you are shoe-horning your two younger kids into a STEM program where they don’t fit, simply because it is the best program for their older sibling.
That’s the kicker, families don’t want to break their kids into different schools based on each independent learning need. They’ll go for the easiest option, or go for the “best” option for one of their children and hope the others get by.
Ok, I have four kids. One of them is going to need special services, maybe an IEP. Her and her twin go to the community school in Hi-5. The Catholic school my older two go to doesn’t offer Hi-5. It is only because the bus schedules line up between home, our work schedule, daycare, and the two schools (both schools within busing for both home and daycare!) that we can afford to split them up. But if we had to drive them to school? If the two different schools had radically different start/end times? We’d end up picking the best program for the kid that needs it the most, and hope my other kids “do fine”.
I agree that STEM sounds pointless at the K-3 level. As does International Baccalaureate. Maybe Fine Arts, too? The only program that sounds realistic is language immersion, and in those cases only if the parents are continuing the immersion at home (something I could never do).
I am thankfully confidant the day will come very, very soon that the ability to speak in a foreign language will be an obsolete skill, like knowing how to do long division.
August 31st, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Complete misinterpretation of what I said (and outright false).
“Sarah G” (my wife) summed a small part of our thought process beautifully in post #4 — copied below — what I probably could have said more clearly in my first post. If I wasn’t clear, it’s because it’s hard to summarize years worth of decision-making, thought processess, etc. into a few paragraphs in blog comments but rest assured, nothing about our choice of Cedar Park STEM for our other two kids is “shoe-horning”. They “fit” perfectly there and are all thriving academically, socially, behaviorally, and athletically. Cedar Park is/has been nothing short of phenomenal for each of our kids.
August 31st, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Forgot to add….we discussed each of the school options for each of the kids. This may be the case, but it wasn’t for us.
If Cedar Park wasn’t “right” for any of the three or things weren’t working out (and going forward), we wouldn’t hesitate to change. Thankfully, there’s no need for that.
August 31st, 2012 at 5:55 pm
I don’t have specific experience with STEM as my son is still in preschool, but we are examining our school choices with regard to open enrollment. STEM is on our list of choices to examine further.
But my comment has more to do with the assertion that kids at the younger ages don’t need/benefit from the extra attention to higher-level concepts. Quite the contrary. We are examining a charter school option that offers the Core Knowledge curriculum based on the research of E. D. Hirsch, who believed that there was no need, and in fact, a detriment in limiting the concepts taught and exposure of children to core knowledge concepts and challenging material.
My preschool aged son has one more year before Kindergarten and we wholeheartedly believe that any exposure he can receive at any age to math and science will benefit him in the future. We’ve actually felt that the “traditional” system of teaching is slow and redundant and doesn’t allow for a full exploration of a child’s talents and interests.
Our son reads at about a first/early second grade level at almost 5. He’s doing some basic math. All fine and good, but critical thinking, learning to learn, examining the world around him….I think those are all very important benefits to a STEM education. Our study of Core Knowledge, by the way, has also given us some tools for exposing him to history, art, biology etc all in ways that are introductory at his age level, but an exposure nonetheless. The “traditional” schools (non-charter, non-STEM) seem hesitant to break the mold that hasn’t really been working for most kids for quite some time.
For those who think that exposure to some of these subjects/concepts at an early age is unnecessary, check out the Core Knowledge concept at http://www.coreknowledge.org.
Bill, you especially might like this quote from E.D. Hirsch as you mentioned the unfairness of STEM at some schools and not others. He said,
“Our society cannot afford a two-tiered system in which the affluent have access to a superior education, while everyone else is subjected to a dull and incoherent classroom experience. Academic excellence, educational equity and fairness demand a strong foundation of knowledge for all learners.” E.D. Hirsch