Two out of three fourth graders cannot read proficiently and seven out of ten inner-city and rural fourth graders cannot read at the most basic level (Paige, 2002). Data such as these create considerable pressure on K-8 teachers to elevate reading proficiency. As well, one of the further challenges of tests such as the MontCas (Science and Math) and NAEP (Science and Math) is that the assessment questions often require strong reading comprehension skill levels as well as sufficient science and math conceptual understanding.
Added to this now is the growing pressure to incorporate STEM into the K-12 classroom. How do you envision a math/science education curriculum that aligns with the expectations of NCLB while still providing a STEM-rich environment for science inquiry and problem-based math learning?
To explore this question, it will be helpful to examine some of the government policies behind these education agendas. Education Week just published an excellent summary of current STEM policy that integrates our discussion of NAEP and STEM. Check out the main article and click on the online reports of each state to see how Montana is doing.
1.Education Week: The push to improve STEM education.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/03/27/30intro.h27.html
After reading the article, let's start with the basics. What exactly is STEM? What does NAEP have to do with STEM? What do NAEP and STEM have to do with K-8 elementary teachers? How is Montana doing in STEM? How does Montana compare to other states. How do you put all this together for your science and math curriculum program? Finally, where do you stand in all of this? Do you agree with the policies being put forth by the federal government regarding work force development? Does it fit with your personal understanding of the purpose of schooling? Can you see benefits? What parts of this discussion worry you most?
13 comments:
STEM is the education of science, technology, engineering, and mathmatics. It has become more important as our society is so technology dependent. Recently several states were only reqired to take 1 year of math and science to graduate. Today most states require 3 years of both. Unfortunately, it is hard to implement this policies when resources are scarce, teachers are not qualified to teach it, much less keep up with the changes year after year. This means teachers in K-8 often times don't have credentials to teach at the levels required in math and science. They feel it is in their hands to educate the students in our competitive economy and make sure they are proficient with the futures technolgy. With these requirements it really limits teachers subject matters. Having these requirements outs a ton of pressure on teachers who are trying to maintain a very strict and limited curriculum, while also trying to meet standards.
Unfortunately states like Montana do not have the resources to be successful. According to the Montana report, they scored a D+ for the use of technology and an F for the capacity in which they can use it. Both of these scores being way lower than the national average. This seems highly unfair to poorer states, they are not even given a chance to compete when they do not even have the technology. I agree that it is important to make STEM an important part of education, even a mandatory part. However, it just seems to limit the already narrow curriculum teachers have to chose from these days. I think it also just puts more pressure on teachers and students. According to the article, it seems by the time the students are in highschool they are burned out by it. Reading is also takign a back burner which, i highly disagree with since reading goes hand in hand with every subject. I don't agree that the effort is being made either target or shield specific students. It just seems like another way to lable students unnecessarily.
My biggest fear is the limitation it puts on teachers and although, I don't know too much about STEM, I feel like it takes away form some of the beauty and freedom of teaching. As a student I think it sounds very redundant and intimidating. What happened to letting kids just be kids?
STEM is a curriculum that focuses on improving science, math, engineering, and technology. The NAEP go hand in hand because the NAEP is what lets us know how our students are doing in these subjects across the nation. Montana’s ranking is below in every category compared to the average state score. Montana scores a "B" with access to technology but we score very low when it comes to our use of technology and our capacity to use technology. Which is not that surprising. Montana is not the richest state and we don't have the technology or the means to train teachers to teach with it.
For the most part this goes with my personal understanding of the purpose of schooling. I think the most important thing to do is have options open for every kid. We don’t necessarily have to force it upon them, but if they are interested in a specific area we should be capable of teaching them. I wish there was some engineering curriculum when I was in elementary and middle school. I think if I see many benefits to the curriculum, we need to help foster kids goals and aspirations and not turn them away from it because we don't have the curriculum or the teachers to teach it.
The only worry I have is the government becoming too involved with education, I would like to have some freedoms when it comes to teaching.
STEM is the educational focus of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Today technology has become the main component of all advancements and is now a focus that education is drawn to do more about. NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) is the exam that is given across the United States to measure these skills. School personnel use the results of the test to see how their students compare to other students. When students fall behind the achievement level teachers K-8 can then find the main focus of the curriculum that will help bring up academics. NAEP provides teachers with support to teach the STEM components. STEM is helping teachers raise the bar for their students in science, technology, engineering, and math by getting them involved in activities and projects that they are interested in. NAEP is an important exam that holds schools responsible for their students’ performance.
Montana is doing well with STEM. Montana’s STEM results for 2007 in mathematics was a 44.4% of fourth graders. This isn’t extremely high but it beats out the nations average of 38.6%. Montana is ranked 13th in math across the United States. In science, Montana’s state average is 36.8%, which is above the national average of 27%. In technology Montana is falling behind compared to other states. The access to technology is above the average with a grade B but we fall behind with the capacity and use of technology F. We can continue building a strong math and science curriculum and start to incorporate technology more into the class lessons.
I think the STEM program seems like a great start. I feel I need more information on the policies before I can understand them completely. I think it’s great that the government wants to help strengthen the learning concepts of what works but my concern is that it seems we are narrowing down the curriculum and placing more pressure on teachers. It’s getting to the point that teachers are becoming less needed in the sense that they aren’t teaching what or how they want anymore. We already see so many fields being neglected in the classroom such as art, music, and social studies and I believe these areas are just important to children’s growth of becoming a well rounded person as all other subjects. The STEM program seems to have many advantages as well and seems to be a positive approach to education and meeting the achievements goals.
Stem is set up to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and NAEP is the exam that students take to measure these skills. Teachers and administrators can use the results of this test to see how their school or state compares to the nation.
Montana's students are doing pretty well in STEM. For example according to the 2007 NAPE, 44.4 percent of Montana’s 4th grade students scored proficient, which is above but the national average of 38.6 percent. I’m not exactly sure how I would use these in my science and math curriculum. I guess I would just use it as a guideline as to what needs improvement. One of the policies I found a little unsettling was the incentive of offering money to those who take additional math and science classes. This policy goes against everything we’ve learned about schooling. Bribery is not a good motivational tool for students. I guess it more students probably would take these classes, but they would not be doing it because it was something they were interested in.
Engineering a lesson that aligns with NCLB but sill provides a STEM-rich environment for science and math will be incredibly tricky and challenging. Having students learn using the STEM system alone would be difficult in itself because technology is a foreign learning tool to many of the students. Many of the children may have already used the technology but not in an educational setting, so it would take some time getting used to. And as we all know that designing a lesson that covers the bases for NCLB is also very challenging because the fact you want all of your students to be accountable for the information that is being presented.
STEM stands for the educational teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. As technology grows throughout the world it is important for us, as teachers, to realize that it is our responsibility to educate student’s about technology and the Proper way to use it. NAEP and STEM have a great deal to do with K-8 educators. These are just two up and coming ideas that are being pushed towards teachers and it symbolizes the transition that education is moving. These two systems show
that the old school teaching approaches aren’t going to be acceptable in the future.
According to the website Montana didn’t score very high. Even worse the report card states that we had the ability to score better. Personally, I feel the worse thing that this report card shows us is that Montana is not taking advantage of our potential and the students are the ones whom are suffering (Access to technology-B, Use of technology D+). In comparison to the other states, Montana has some catching up to do. Almost in every category Montana falls well below the average. Our overall grade is a C- and at the University of Montana that is considered a failing grade.
In conclusion, I agree with the push of trying to incorporate technology into the classroom. It’s obvious that in today’s society technology is becoming more and more essential and with that schools have to adjust to what society is. All the policies and restrictions are an obvious pain for any teacher but it is the only way to ensure that a change is occurring. Lastly, the benefits of this technological push can be huge. Hopefully, the kids that are being taught this technological information will be able to change the world for the better.
STEM is the acronym for the subject areas of science, technology, engineering, and math. There is an increase in pressure to improve these areas in our schools. Through testing such as NAEP, we are able to monitor each school's achievement in regards to STEM. In the K-8 curriculum, it is important to stay up-to-date on your school's proficiency in all subject areas. With the current push for STEM, it is essential that teachers are aware of their own students' achievement in those areas, and are aware of what their students need to improve on these areas while maintaining high achievement levels in reading, literacy, and social studies, etc. It will often be necessary for teachers to integrate their lessons to cover the subject areas in a more well-rounded manner. If a state requires three years of math and science in high school, the K-8 teachers must be able to prepare their students for those classes, meaning that they may have to study the high school curriculum to know what the students should know when they get there.
In technology, MT scored a D+ for the use of technology. I think that a lot of that has to do with economic status of the schools and of the state. The classroom that I am in now doesn't have the technology for all students to use a computer at once. The only projection they can do is with an overhead. These factors helped to put Montana's technology scores well below the national average.
Overall, I think that the push for excellence in all areas of education is positive. However, there are many cases in which the improvements are sought in inappropriate ways. I think that the curriculum should be more specific to individual areas and schools. Especially in the case of testing, many situations and information is unfamiliar to the students of that region and is therefore difficult to comprehend. For example, a test question regarding the life of a cactus may be suitable for a child living in that environment, but not for a child living in the upper Midwest. I do think that a push for workforce development is appropriate. The purpose of school is to make informed and responsible citizens who can function in and contribute to society. Helping prepare students for that life is a logical thing to do. The things that worry me about this movement deal with the possibility that these areas will be taught in an overkill manner, leaving out other areas of intelligence like social studies, art, music, physical education, and even reading and writing. I also worry that the material taught will emphasize procedural understandings and neglect the holistic conceptual knowledge that is needed for real-life application. As future teachers, it is important that we are aware of how we are teaching these content areas and how well the students actually understand what they are learning.
STEM stands for science, technology, engineering and math and it is a program and it calls for young people in America to improve their mastery of these subject matters. NAEP is the exam that the students take to test their skills in these areas. This allows educators to know where students are advancing and where they are struggling. In this age when the push for this material to be taught, NAEP helps K-8 teachers understand the areas that their students are weak, especially compared to the rest of the nation. Montana scored a B for its access to technology which isn’t too bad, but unfortunately we scored a D+ for our use of it. Only a handful of other states were graded as low as we were. I would imagine that because our state is somewhat of a rural state this definitely impacts this grade. There just isn’t a lot of money in some schools to invest in technology for every classroom. However, New York has an even worse score and there are lots of big cities there. I would imagine that may have to do with poor inner-city school systems. It feels like a big task to put all of this together into my classroom’s science and math curriculum but I think that investing in programs like those engineering packets are important. However, I think that they would be more effective if you paired them with solid math lessons and expanded the curriculum across all of the content areas so the kids can have a solid foundation of engagement. I can definitely see the benefits of this type of curriculum. I do think that we as teachers need to balance this work force development with other methods of teaching science, I think that for many Americans this will be essential to their future. I believe that the purpose of education is to educate kids so that more opportunities will be opened up to them in the future. STEM goes right along with that because if students develop an understanding of how engineering is done and what forces make it work there are many opportunities with jobs that will be available to them. It does worry me that the student who is interested in other areas of science (like biology, chemistry..etc) could potentially get left behind in STEM. That is why I think teachers need to be aware of student needs as well. I think that teachers will need to be creative in adding to this content so that science class doesn’t lose its inquiry part and math class continue to be problem-based. This will require more creativity from teachers but I believe it is worth it for the outcomes that could come forth through it.
STEM is the education of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The article mentioned the U.S. scoring in the middle with science and math, when compared internationally. However, NAEP suggests that by the 12th grade, a significant proportion of students are hitting a lower proficiency in both math and science. This a definitely a cause for concern and directly relates to STEM. k-8 teachers have to deal with both NAEP and STEM. NAEP is a concern because teachers are pressed to get the numbers up. Students are still lagging behind and teachers are struggling to try and reach proficiency. STEM is a big deal and most teachers teaching one of those subjects, lacks a degree in it. STEM is being focused on more and more, to get highly qualified teachers teaching the material. Montana is not doing well in STEM or compared to other states. In fact, the state seems to be suffering quite badly. Obviously, STEM is something that needs focus very badly. To include in curriculum, I think trying to include at least math and science/engineering every day or every other day would be beneficial.
I think it is important for teachers to be educated in the elements they are going to be teaching. However, a lack of people willing to do the job makes it more difficult to train people in STEM. I also think that people being paid to do it is not such a good idea b/c then there could be people in it for the money, instead of for the teaching.
My personal understanding of the purpose of schooling is to open doors and expand minds. The way schools are now are not the way I think schooling should be done. Worrying about the NAEP so much has made school boring and repetitive. So, no it does not fit with my personal understanding.
I can see benefits to an extent, but if our scores have yet to improve (after how long?) we still have a long way to go. The part of the discussion that worries me the most is the lack of fun in school. I think the way we are "teaching" our kids now, as a result of standardized testing, is complete slap in the face. School is already so structured and completely by the book, that there is no room for the fun educational stuff. It just seems like it's going to keep getting worse.
STEM is basically education in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The NAEP, or National Assessment of Educational Progress, shows that students in the US are not performing as well as hoped on Math and Science tests. Taking a closer look at Montana’s STEM scores, Montana gets a C- on its technology report card. Montana gets an F in capacity to use technology, as there are no tech standards for teachers or administrators, and there are no licensure requirements regarding technology. But when looking closely at STEM subjects, Montana’s achievement levels are slightly higher than the national averages. But achievement gains have been slim to none, which is lower than national averages. After looking at the data and reading about STEM objectives, I feel it’s important to improve my own “technology awareness” so that I can better serve my students. It seems the use of technology is a great way to get students engaged and excited about curriculum, because the fact is that kids are surrounded by gadgets and technology at home and elsewhere.
After discussing government policy ideas about work force development, I’m pretty skeptical. Hearing that in some cases students are asked to choose a career path in 8th grade was surprising, and I tend to think it’s unrealistic. If I were asked to choose what I wanted to be in the 8th grade I would be studying physical therapy- and in reality I started college thinking I wanted to be an occupational therapist, only switching to teaching when I realized I was more passionate about teaching kids. Would I have been unhappy as a physical therapist? Probably not, but I tend to think that as we “grow up” we get a better idea of who we are and what we want to do. I feel asking kids to choose a specific path at a young age is unrealistic. I do, however, think it can only help to surround students with ideas of possible careers, and education and training in several of these areas. Maybe nearer to the end of their secondary school careers they can be asked to specialize in an area that interests them. I worry if we ask them to specialize too soon we’ll fail to give students an effective, well-rounded education.
STEM is the education of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. These fields have become increasingly more important in the eyes of most because of the way our society seems to be leaning. With that being said it seems only reasonable that it would be a main focus of education. Montana got a D+ for Use of Technology, which is sad because of the B it got for access to it. To get these grades our students take the NAEP exams. I find Montana's scores tragic because of how it shows our lack of ability to take advantage of our potential that we clearly have. While I don't believe that having students take NAEP is the final answer to our problems, maybe not the answer at all, it is a start maybe. In a world that is technologically advancing everyday it is important to make sure that our students are at least being given the chance to keep up with that. If nothing else it seems STEM is showing where tech. needs be given access to.
STEM stands for the education of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. STEM has developed due to our country's dependency on these content areas and how they integrate into each other. Because of this dependency, students are required to complete more math and science courses than in the past. Also, K-8 teachers are expected to keep up to date and be able to instruct in each of the grade levels. This has proven a great struggle in many states, including Montana. Our state lacks many resources necessary to maintain a strict curriculum as well as implement the STEM approach. We lack in the number of fresh, newly educated, and available educators, as well as lack funds to provide teachers the new knowledge they need to effectively implement these four areas of study into their curriculums. According to the article, Montana scored low on both technology and the capacity in which technology is used, a D in one and an F in the other. These low scores have put even more pressure on Montana's teachers who are trying to effectively educate tomorrow's economists, engineers, scientists, and future leaders.
I think it is important to incorporate these content areas into the school curriculum but fear it will restrict the alright tight courses of study available. Both teachers and students already feel the crunch to impress and improve within the limits of standards, testing, and curriculum. As a future educator I hope to have some leniency in what I teach while still following the criteria.
STEM is a program which is dedicated to making students more proficient in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math. Students take the NAEP exam which assesses them in these areas. This gives educators the ability to compare themselves with other states. K-8 teachers receive tremendous pressure to ensure their students test well, mainly to bring the numbers up. Montana’s math results in 2007 were 44% in comparison with the nation’s average of 38.6%. Montana ranked 13th in the United States. In science, Montana’s average is 36.8% in comparison with the national average of 27%. In the area of technology, Montana scored a B for its access to technology, but a D+ when it comes to actually employing it. So, overall we’re not doing badly in science or math, but we should start to use the technology we do have available.
I agree with preparing students for the workforce. Like Lindsey said, it’s important to have options available for every student. If they show promise or interest in a specific area, I would like to think we should be capable of teaching them, or at least directing them to a program that can. I know we can’t know everything, but I’d never deny extra knowledge or training to help my students become more successful. I’m sure many others wouldn’t as well, especially if the government was willing to pay for the extra schooling. We live in a world which revolves around technology. It makes the world a more accessible place, and really simplifies our lives. Why not teach them to be proficient at a young age/ Students will be better prepared to be successful with additional training in the areas STEM is focused on.
STEM is education in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. This is directly linked to NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) because they analyze the knowledge of our students in the STEM subject areas through testing. This is beneficial to K-8 teachers as it informs them how well the students are performing and allows them to measure themselves against other states to compare and contrast. Teachers are able to see what areas they've scored low in and are able to focus on ways to improve on them. Montana as a state scores pretty poor on the 2008 State Technology Report Card. An F in 'capacity to use technology' and a D+ in 'use of technology' looks very, very bad considering our grade B (which is above average) in 'access to technology'. Montana's overall grade is nearly a whole letter grade below the average due to our apparent lack of taking advantage of our access to technology. I believe all of the alarm concerning STEM and NAEP scores is warranted. I believe the U.S. should be near the top for student scores among industrialized nations, not in "the middle of the pack". Perhaps a greater emphasis on the STEM subject areas is needed in elementary schools in order to spark the interest of and influence more students to study Math, Science, etc. which may get the U.S. scores closer to the top in comparison to other countries. With all of the important global (and national) issues such as gasoline prices, clean water, and pollution (just to name a few) it would be very beneficial to prepare our students with a strong base knowledge to prepare them to possibly be the scientists and engineers who will one day create answers to these problems. The main thing that worries me about too much emphasis on the STEM subject areas is a loss of Physical Education, Music, Art, and Social Studies. These must not be cast aside just to focus on scoring well on NAEP testing. P.S. Im really tired so I hope my rambling makes sense...
Post a Comment