STEM focus?

[Beth in SW WA]

I would love to read how you are incorporating STEM ideas. What are your goals for your dc? Are there subjects that receive less attention based on your STEM focus? How does problem-based-learning fit into your plan?

 

For those who after-school, what STEM activities do your dc do at school? What do you do at home?

 

Thanks in advance!!! :bigear:

[Iucounu]

:bigear: too. So far we've just been playing with science kits, doing ad hoc reading, and other stuff as I prepare our homeschooling plan and resources. DS likes programming and building with his Mindstorms set too. We've been afterschooling math and beginning social studies.

[8filltheheart]

Academically, we don't do anything different prior to high school than I would do anyway: progress at their pace, solid well-rounded education.

 

Once they are performing at a high school level, they have huge amts of influence over what they study and when. They still have to meet all the general ed requirements, but they decide what science, help research texts/options, #, etc. For example, ds has taken 2 sciences/yr the last several yrs and plans on at least 2/yr through graduation. (Toddler must have deleted part of my post, so I'm editing to add it back in--Ds also opted to take AoPS cal vs. a standard AP cal BC (and that is actually a very significant choice b/c AoPS does not prep for the exam at all.)) At this pt, we see it as their future, so they take over large portions of the reins (not completely, but mostly w/guidance/feedback from their dad and me.)

 

As far as activities, they spend their lives playing Legos, building contraptions, etc. As a family, hrs upon hrs weekly are spent playing strategy games and/or cards. There are a lot of problem-solving/mental manipulations required to be a competitive game player. ;)

 

But "formal STEM activity-planning," well, I guess it won't surprise you that that is not me. :) I do find opportunities for them, like NASA's INSPIRE or local egg drop competitions.

Edited February 11, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[regentrude]

My kids are both interested in STEM careers, but their education is geared towards providing a comprehensive general basis and meeting the prerequisites to choose ANY major. Meaning: just because they are interested in STEM, they still have to do four years of English, history, and foreign language. In high school, they can choose electives to reflect their special interests.

We prepare them by providing a rigorous math instruction (which we would even for a non-STEM interested kid). We try to keep curiosity alive, visit museums, science centers, etc. Despite their interest in a science career, they have no desire to participate in formal "activities" (robotics team, science olympiad, etc.)

Btw, both DH and I are scientists; we teach physics at a university.

[quark]

I would love to read how you are incorporating STEM ideas. What are your goals for your dc? Are there subjects that receive less attention based on your STEM focus? How does problem-based-learning fit into your plan?

 

For those who after-school, what STEM activities do your dc do at school? What do you do at home?

 

Thanks in advance!!! :bigear:

 

Great one Beth!

 

What are your goals for your dc?

My boy is still young, working partially at high school level. My goals at this stage are to help him learn to become responsible for his learning without losing his child-like spark. To work hard and to stay as goofy as he can. My long term goal has always been for him to follow his heart and be happy with his choices (with sufficient "training" in survival skills like cooking, good health and fitness, nature awareness etc). Strangely, my goals were never academic in nature and I suppose this is because we are just naturally academic in personality and interests.

 

Are there subjects that receive less attention based on your STEM focus? We don't teach grammar, spelling or writing at the moment. We haven't done any formal language arts for the last few years. We read one living language arts book (Grammar Land) when he was 5 or 6, and worked with at most two funny workbooks mainly because they made him laugh. Our language arts is very, very "applied" and "hands on" in that we integrate it with everything else. He consistently scores highest marks in language arts in yearly compulsory standardized tests (higher than math even) despite no "prep" whatsoever.

 

Our history studies are about 90% audiovisual and 10% via articles in print or on the web. Last month, he expressed strong interest in reading Herodotus' Histories and is currently working his way through the thick tome.

 

How does problem-based-learning fit into your plan?

This year, he is pursuing three online courses at high school level so we haven't had a lot of time for child led PBL. Previously, we would have at least 6 PBL topics in a school year, arising from questions he asks. He will research and prepare notes in a Word doc (usually copied and pasted from various articles with sources cited) and later, I help him to summarize the notes into keywords. We use the keywords to prepare Powerpoint presentations together. He presents these to our homeschool group.

So far, we haven't pursued hands-on heavy PBLs. I'm just not good at creating projects that require lots of supplies and things. :tongue_smilie:

 

In addition to all of these, we subscribe to several magazines, he has his own Popular Science and HHMI Bulletin subscriptions that he loves and we have many science kits and a number of math-y and science-y bookmarked links he's always reading online or playing with if it's a game.

 

I do have one reading and writing goal that I forgot to add. I plan for him to start reading math and science research papers in a few years so that he can familiarize himself with style, clarity etc and it will be easier for him if he wants to make his many math ideas public.

 

:bigear: for other responses!

[boscopup]

I plan to provide a well-rounded education regardless of where my kids are heading. DH and I are both engineers, but that doesn't mean the kids will choose that. Or even if they seem to want that, they might change their mind later. I want them to have the ability to do whatever they choose to do.

 

Case in point... My siblings and I were all raised with a well rounded (but public school) education. We all did AP classes in various subjects (English, Government/History/Economics, science, math). We all chose our own paths in high school. My sister and brother both did calc3/diff.eq. at the local university their senior years. I did AP calc my senior year. My sister was planning to do physics and ended up getting a degree in applied math, but then she decided to work as an editor for a university press. She's still doing that job and loves it. My brother became interested in history and German, and he's now a history professor, with his PhD focusing on German Jewish history. I was planning to go into music education and focused my high school years on band, but I'm glad I had a well rounded education, because literally weeks before going to college, I decided to major in electrical engineering - and I had no problem with doing that, since my education had been well rounded.

 

So I'm providing the education my kids need to go into any career they choose, be it STEM or non-STEM. I could totally see my oldest going into meteorology, but who knows... he may end up wanting to be a history professor like his uncle! :tongue_smilie:

[Embassy]

My goal is for them to be fully prepared to go into a STEM field if they so choose. I choose math curriculum that is supposed to build a strong conceptual understanding. We spend more than the typical amount of time on science. It has been my oldest child's great love since he was a toddler. My second child loves computers so some of his science time is spent on things like Scratch. We probably spend less time on history than some here, but more than the public school system. Problem-based learning just happens in real life. I either try to facilitate my child finding the answers to questions or stay out of his way.

[higginszoo]

My children's aptitudes are all strongest in the STEM areas, so this is an area that we accelerate in to allow them to get the basic knowledge that thye'll need later to start working on career goals.

Oldest ds want to be a food scientist/chemist, possibly a chef. He's not sure exactly in what capacity he wants to use this, maybe for a large food manufacturer or maybe for the military (as a civilian, Civil Air Patrol encampment has convinced him that military life isn't for him) or the space program. He's about a year or two away from starting college courses toward his Chemistry degree.

Older dd wants to be a vet or animal behaviorist or wildlife specialist -- something with animals. She'll start out with a Biology degree.

Younger ds was born an mechanical engineer. His fascination is still with trains ... he may pursue that or he may find another passion, but it's likely still to be in the mechanical engineering field.

Youngest dd wants to be a nurse. This is a great combination, we think, for her obvious math/science aptitude, coupled with her very outgoing personality and her need to be of help.

 

Right now, my 12 and 13 year olds are both taking high school Geometry and Honors Biology right now. They'll take the credit by exam for those and Algebra 1 over the summer at the ps. Ds1 may also take Physical Science, Earth Science and/or Algebra II tests. Ds1 took an MIT freshman seminar in Chemistry through Open Courseware last semester. (This semester we're working on English, which is needed, but he's not as thrilled about.) They'll both take Landry Academy's Biology Lab intensive when it comes through town next month.

My 11 year old is taking Algebra 1. I need to get a better early high school Physical Science book for him, but he'll be starting that when I get it.

For the 'baby', I have a lot of science-topic books around from the older dc ... I allow her to peruse those at will without really putting any kind of expectations or assignments on her just yet. I let her advance through her math curricula at whatever rate she finds comfortable (I think that she's 3/4 of the way through what is generally considered third grade material at the moment.) If she doesn't go to ps next year (as a third grader), then I might start adding more structure to her learning, or I might give it another year or two. Her brother did fine with no expectations, just materials provided up until he was almost 10.

[Beth in SW WA]

On CNN's opinion page today....re STEM ed...

[quark]

On CNN's opinion page today....re STEM ed...

 

Thanks for the link Beth.

 

III. Do not segregate math and science classes from the rest of the school building or coursework. Turn away from the notion of specialized elementary and secondary schools whose focus is on math and science. These areas of study should be in all schools and deemed a critical part of each and every school's broad curriculum. Students who excel in these areas should not be seen as "different" or libeled as "special" or worse.

 

I cannot understand why any school would do otherwise.

[Beth in SW WA]

Thank you for responding, gang. :lurk5:

 

[/b]We don't teach grammar, spelling or writing at the moment. We haven't done any formal language arts for the last few years.

Fascinating!

 

Our history studies are about 90% audiovisual and 10% via articles in print or on the web.

That is my approach to history. SOTW on our iPod combined with travel & books has worked wonders. History is part of our daily life w/o any effort on my part. :)

 

How does problem-based-learning fit into your plan?

This year, he is pursuing three online courses at high school level so we haven't had a lot of time for child led PBL. Previously, we would have at least 6 PBL topics in a school year, arising from questions he asks. He will research and prepare notes in a Word doc (usually copied and pasted from various articles with sources cited) and later, I help him to summarize the notes into keywords. We use the keywords to prepare Powerpoint presentations together. He presents these to our homeschool group.

Great ideas!

So far, we haven't pursued hands-on heavy PBLs. I'm just not good at creating projects that require lots of supplies and things. :tongue_smilie:

 

In addition to all of these, we subscribe to several magazines, he has his own Popular Science and HHMI Bulletin subscriptions that he loves and we have many science kits and a number of math-y and science-y bookmarked links he's always reading online or playing with if it's a game.

 

I do have one reading and writing goal that I forgot to add. I plan for him to start reading math and science research papers in a few years so that he can familiarize himself with style, clarity etc and it will be easier for him if he wants to make his many math ideas public.

 

:bigear: for other responses!

 

Sounds fabulous!

[regentrude]

On CNN's opinion page today....re STEM ed...

 

I read the article, and while I agree with many things, I stumbled about this:

It is simply this: Ask any adult not employed in a STEM area of work: "Don't you wish you studied and appreciated math and science courses earlier in school?" The answer almost always is going to be: "yes."

This I highly doubt.

[EKS]

 

This I highly doubt.

 

Me too.

[mamajag]

III. Do not segregate math and science classes from the rest of the school building or coursework. Turn away from the notion of specialized elementary and secondary schools whose focus is on math and science. These areas of study should be in all schools and deemed a critical part of each and every school's broad curriculum. Students who excel in these areas should not be seen as "different" or libeled as "special" or worse.

 

The bolded parts are outrageous to me. Students who excel in STEM fields need to be recognized and provided as many opportunities as possible to challenge them and help them grow. If that means special sections and magnet schools, so be it. Yes, it labels them, but it's no different than being recognized for being very talented at sports or music. It's not as though even in normal classes the other students won't realize they have a 100 average in Chemistry. I've BTDT. The label is there with or without the really cool classes that help them reach the potential.

 

TBH, the opinion confuses me. Yes, we need more STEM emphasis in every school, but cutting the academic throats of students talented in STEM fields is a huge step backwards.

[8filltheheart]

My reaction to the article is that it is not about student excellence in math and science academics. It sounds more like typical eduspeak about broad brushing more general science/math ed vs. assisting those that excel in those areas actually excel.

 

It reminds me of a 2009 lecture that Richard Ruscyzk, the founder of Art of Problem Solving, gave where he discussed having sought funding from the Dept of Ed. The Dept of Ed's response was:

 

"While challenging and improving the mathematical problemsolving

skills of high-performing students are surely every-day

objectives of those who teach such students, it is not a problem,

relatively speaking, of major import in American education.”

-Department of Education Grant Reviewer

 

And therein lies the reason for lower scores and poor American performance. The problem is not that science/math is not being taught in preschools. It's that America's educational system is focused on knowledge-based outcomes at the expense of critical thinking. While the article briefly addresses where possible and relevant, should adopt forms of mathematical and scientific methods in its pedagogy, engage in practices of "building models, arguing from evidence and communicating findings" so as to "increase the likelihood that students will learns the ideas of science or engineering and mathematics at a deeper, more enduring level," , mostly for me, the article rang like a hollow pep-rally Most good teachers want additional training. And most adults cheer when students light up in these areas after they are inspired by a great teacher.

 

But according to our own Dept of Ed improving problem-solving skills amg top students is not a problem, relatively speaking, of major import in American education.

 

IMHO, it is precisely what should be of import (and not just amg top students, but all students).

ETA: and focusing on critical thinking vs. bubble sheet education is one of my main motivations for homeschooling.

 

(For those that want to see the quote for themselves, it can be found here in the slide presentation: http://mathprize.atfoundation.org/archive/2009/index

 

ETA2: If you want to really understand the article, I suggest reading the link to the actual gov't pdf. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-executive-report-final_feb.pdf

Edited February 12, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart
deleting my comments on the pdf

[mamaraby]

I read the article, and while I agree with many things, I stumbled about this:

 

This I highly doubt.

 

I find it less doubtful, but that could be because both dh and I wished we had appreciated or had a greater focus on science and math earlier in school and to a far greater depth in high school and post-secondary education.

 

I'll be following along with this thread pretty closely as while my son is still quite young, giving him a firm foundation for STEM now and beyond is important.

[go_go_gadget]

This I highly doubt.

 

I actually hear this all the time.

 

In regard to the article, I do agree with the author's assertion that math and science should not be segregated and should be emphasized to the same degree with all students until at least the high school level. However, all students should work at the level at which they are challenged, and if that means letting some kids work ahead, that's fine. But then, I'm of the mindset that all of education should be structured a bit like college, where students are classified not by age but by skill level.

 

Regarding the OP's question: I agree with regentrude's prioritizing a strong generalized foundation over specialization below the high school level. The brightest STEM major, if lacking a good writing background, will be sunk when it comes to writing their thesis, etc. IMO, the kind of skills that can be tested for on standardized tests in the liberal arts are not the ones that can be assessed by that method, so I wouldn't feel comfortable trusting test scores to be representative of my children's abilities in those areas. So for my children, I prefer to cover all areas to the same extent, always working at a level they find challenging.

[Temperance]

My reaction to the article is that it is not about student excellence in math and science academics. It sounds more like typical eduspeak about broad brushing more general science/math ed vs. assisting those that excel in those areas actually excel.

 

It reminds me of a 2009 lecture that Richard Ruscyzk, the founder of Art of Problem Solving, gave where he discussed having sought funding from the Dept of Ed. The Dept of Ed's response was:

 

And therein lies the reason for lower scores and poor American performance. The problem is not that science/math is not being taught in preschools. It's that America's educational system is focused on knowledge-based outcomes at the expense of critical thinking. While the article briefly addresses where possible and relevant, should adopt forms of mathematical and scientific methods in its pedagogy, engage in practices of "building models, arguing from evidence and communicating findings" so as to "increase the likelihood that students will learns the ideas of science or engineering and mathematics at a deeper, more enduring level," , mostly for me, the article rang like a hollow pep-rally Most good teachers want additional training. And most adults cheer when students light up in these areas after they are inspired by a great teacher.

 

But according to our own Dept of Ed improving problem-solving skills amg top students is not a problem, relatively speaking, of major import in American education.

 

IMHO, it is precisely what should be of import (and not just amg top students, but all students).

ETA: and focusing on critical thinking vs. bubble sheet education is one of my main motivations for homeschooling.

 

:iagree:

 

If the Department of Education really wanted to improve STEM education, they would focus on creating an environment that would attract teachers who are talented in STEM. Some of these potential teachers could handle the low pay, but cannot handle working in an environment where they are micromanaged by people who have little knowledge of STEM. STEM types typically have little patience for nonsense and inefficiency, which are dominant themes in modern education. Giving teachers more latitude over their own classrooms, rather than more one-size fits nobody regimines, would go a long way toward improving the state of education.

 

Does anyone know if homeschooled students are accounted for in these rankings? I have heard estimates that ~1/2 of gifted students in this country are home schooled, and if they are not accounted for it would probably drop our standing considerably.

[jenbrdsly]

Me too.

 

For once it seems Kai, I disagree with you! :tongue_smilie:

I wish I had had a lot better teaching in STEM subjects when I was in school. My elementary and middles school teachers were much more focused on a Classical Education. I had basically had all 7 of the Liberal Arts hounded into me except for Logic. (I have a blog post about that experience here.) That's great, but I wish there had been an equally exceptional focus on math and science.

I feel very lucky to be married to an engineer, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Being married to somebody in the STEM field makes affording to be a SAHM a lot easier. That's sad, but true.

 

I don't want my children to love money, but I want them to have every earning opportunity afforded to them in the future as well.

[wapiti]

It sounds more like typical eduspeak about broad brushing more general science/math ed vs. assisting those that excel in those areas actually excel.

 

 

 

But according to our own Dept of Ed improving problem-solving skills amg top students is not a problem, relatively speaking, of major import in American education.

 

IMHO, it is precisely what should be of import (and not just amg top students, but all students).

 

:iagree:

 

If the Department of Education really wanted to improve STEM education, they would focus on creating an environment that would attract teachers who are talented in STEM. Some of these potential teachers could handle the low pay, but cannot handle working in an environment where they are micromanaged by people who have little knowledge of STEM. STEM types typically have little patience for nonsense and inefficiency, which are dominant themes in modern education.

:iagree:

 

I can't shake the feeling that the edu-powers-that-be are making decisions on subjects they know nothing about.

[Nan in Mass]

Regentrude says:

 

Quote:

It is simply this: Ask any adult not employed in a STEM area of work: "Don't you wish you studied and appreciated math and science courses earlier in school?" The answer almost always is going to be: "yes."

 

This I highly doubt.

 

I say:

 

I agree. Almost every non-stem adult I have spoken to says, "Thank goodness I didn't have to do that."

 

Nan

[regentrude]

I agree. Almost every non-stem adult I have spoken to says, "Thank goodness I didn't have to do that."

 

Nan

 

I get comments like this all the time when people find out I am a physicist. Very very rarely somebody will say "That's cool! I wish I knew more about it." Almost everybody says things like "Oh my gosh, you must be smart, I could never understand this, I hate math, Physics was horrible in high school" or something along those lines - they are not expressing regret, but relief that it's me, not them.

[regentrude]

If the Department of Education really wanted to improve STEM education, they would focus on creating an environment that would attract teachers who are talented in STEM. Some of these potential teachers could handle the low pay, but cannot handle working in an environment where they are micromanaged by people who have little knowledge of STEM..

 

 

That is one problem.

Other problems are:

- curricula are designed by educators who may know something about teaching, but are not experts in the actual field. All those ridiculous "new math" curricula have been dreamed up by people who have no idea what it is to actually use math every single day - they have very theoretical ideas what should work, but no knowledge of the actual math skills required to perform.

- the students who go into teaching are, as has often been discussed here, often the lower performing students.

- the teacher education is more focused on pedagogy and classroom management than subject content mastery. In order to be a math teacher, you have to know math, be goo at it, LIKE it. And you have to know a lot more math than you are teaching. (Which is much different in my home country; the amount of content classes required for a teacher is much larger)

 

And yes, I agree: schools are an environment where few STEM experts would like to work. I would absolutely hate it to be between a rock and a hard place by having parents and principal pressure me to deliver gold starts for trying, to allow test re-dos and extra credit and to inflate grades. (Grading math is actually very easy: either you know it or you don't, there is not room for personal interpretation.) Add the discipline problems, and no, I could not possibly be paid enough to teach at a high school. (Those discipline problems could very easily be alleviated by tracking: have the kids who actually want to learn and are academically inclined in a separate school; shorten mandatory schooling to 10th grade for everybody else and transfer them into vocational training or apprenticeship.)

[snowbeltmom]

ETA: and focusing on critical thinking vs. bubble sheet education is one of my main motivations for homeschooling.

 

I love that statement!

[Jane in NC]

On CNN's opinion page today....re STEM ed...

 

First thanks to "8" who alerted me to this thread. I do not usually read the Accelerated Board.

 

Then I would like to give a loud shout out in agreement to Mr. Bennett's second point:

Recognize that teachers, especially in the early grades, need training in math so they can integrate it as much as possible into children's school life and curriculum.

 

The unfortunate reality is that many elementary education majors are abysmal in mathematics. When I taught a two semester math course for future elementary teachers, I found a group that not only lacked understanding of basic math, many had fear and dread when confronting the material. How in the world are they supposed to present math in an exciting and interdisciplinary manner to their students?

 

We see parents on the WTM boards who express their distaste for math and then seem surprised that their children also despise the subject.

 

Each and every class taught, where possible and relevant, should adopt forms of mathematical and scientific methods in its pedagogy, engage in practices of "building models, arguing from evidence and communicating findings" so as to "increase the likelihood that students will learns the ideas of science or engineering and mathematics at a deeper, more enduring level," as two STEM scholars recently suggested.

 

I would include with this the need to learn proper nomenclature. Every elementary school kid makes "goo" or "goop" at some point. But are they told that they are constructing a polymer? Young minds can grasp the basics of this as process and learn the correct vocabulary.

 

Much of what is suggested in the previous quote would take kids away from their science text books and away from those measurable results that politicians seem to adore.

 

Science is often presented in elementary school as a series of fun tricks. My own son found his at home middle school chemistry class to be less than enjoyable. He wanted to play with chemicals. Willy-nilly. I said that we are going to "play" with chemicals but we would measure, we would annotate our observations and results. This is not as much fun as tossing Mentos in a Coke bottle and letting her rip.

 

That to me sums up the problem for American kids. They want the fun of Mentos in a Coke bottle but are not necessarily willing to do the practice that allows them an understanding of what is happening. This "practice" may take on the form of solving fifty quadratic equations or repeating an experiment in order to measure small deviations in results--and then figuring out why those deviations may have occurred.

 

But I do not think that the lack of discipline or drive or whatever you want to call it is missing in just math and science. Take a look at foreign language in this country. Few Americans are bi- or trilingual. How many Americans read philosophy? It is one thing to say we are missing the STEM content in our classrooms. I may go as far as to say we are missing content. Period.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Jane in NC

[regentrude]

It is one thing to say we are missing the STEM content in our classrooms. I may go as far as to say we are missing content. Period.

 

Very succinctly put, Jane.

[8filltheheart]

:iagree: with so many of your thoughts.

 

I have typed out other thoughts several times and have repeatedly deleted them. :tongue_smilie: I think our educational system's approach to teacher prep and teaching is flawed at its foundation. Simply generating more excitement/projects does not fix the core problem.

 

For example, spinning off the pdf, ds's chemical engineering program was actually touted as being visionary b/c it was so hands-on. And it was. The lab equipment/experiments/projects were phenomenal. Dh, also a chemE, was astounded by ds's completely different experience compared to his. That said, it didn't change the graduation outcome. There were still only something like 10 kids that graduated. Why? B/c all the hands-on/discovery methods didn't alter the reality that fundamentally the classes still required students to buckle down and master incredibly hard material. Students that don't have the skills required to do the latter won't make to graduation simply based on the former.

 

I obviously have really strong opinions on this topic, so maybe I need to stop posting now. :tongue_smilie:

[Beth in SW WA]

Being married to somebody in the STEM field makes affording to be a SAHM a lot easier. That's sad, but true. [/font]

 

:iagree: And being married to someone who is STEM-savvy is a blessing also (since I am NOT stem-savvy:tongue_smilie:). They spent 4 hours yesterday programming their robot and making minor adjustments. Dh is taking them to OMSI on Tuesdays for robotics classes where they are given a new 'challenge' to work on over the week. All afternoon dh has been doing Scratch w/ dds -- which requires algebra in the case of dd8's latest program. How wonderful for dd to see that the math she is learning can be applied to the real world...to something she enjoys doing in her spare time.

 

So much is determined by family culture.

 

I love this discussion. You folks are amazing. :)

Edited February 13, 2012 by Beth in SW WA
typo

[Beth in SW WA]

 

I obviously have really strong opinions on this topic, so maybe I need to stop posting now. :tongue_smilie:

 

Don't stop. I really appreciate you all taking the time to respond. I have much to learn. :)

[GoVanGogh]

I feel very lucky to be married to an engineer, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Being married to somebody in the STEM field makes affording to be a SAHM a lot easier. That's sad, but true.

My DH went into software engineering back when computers were the size of a building. ;) I feel very lucky to be a homeschool mom married to an engineer. Yes, the salary allows me to be a SAHM. But more importantly, DH has a wonderful network of friends and co-workers that have gone out of their way to bless our son.

The "older" generation of engineers are seriously worried about the state of education, especially in the STEM fields. It is so nice to have an 'in' - both for mentors and for exposure to different aspects of STEM careers.

Just last week, DS went to work 1/2 day with his dad and one of DH's co-workers noticed DS was reading an electrical engineering manual and went back to his office and pulled out several books he no longer needed and gave them to DS. :D

I think it is so positive that professionals have encouraged our son and I would urge others to seek out STEM mentors.

 

My kids are both interested in STEM careers, but their education is geared towards providing a comprehensive general basis and meeting the prerequisites to choose ANY major. Meaning: just because they are interested in STEM, they still have to do four years of English, history, and foreign language. In high school, they can choose electives to reflect their special interests.

We prepare them by providing a rigorous math instruction (which we would even for a non-STEM interested kid).

I just have one child, otherwise :iagree:

Our DS has wanted to be a scientist and/or an engineer since birth, but we still include art appreciation, music, history, language arts, etc. We may focus on scientific writing instead of creative writing. We may study Latin roots for science instead of translating an ancient text. We may study the history of science. Our 'slant' may end up a bit different, but DS will still be expected to have a well-rounded base.

 

We try to keep curiosity alive, visit museums, science centers, etc.

At home - chemistry sets, lego robots, HO trains, models, automotive & small engine troubleshooting etc over the years, programming w/gamemaker, visiting museums

 

Both of the above.

Also, we have always encouraged DS to take things apart and study them. We save broken appliances and search out 2nd hand stores for older appliances - ex: Polaroid cameras, cassette recorders, etc.

Other things we have done:

Dissections

Lots of nature studies, hikes, camping, bird watching, gardening

Educational travel (DS has gone to 28 different zoos and aquariums across the nation)

Hobby clubs

 

Also, we really enjoyed the book "Encouraging Your Child's Science Talent: The Involved Parents' Guide" by Matthews.

[lewelma]

I would love to read how you are incorporating STEM ideas. What are your goals for your dc? Are there subjects that receive less attention based on your STEM focus? How does problem-based-learning fit into your plan?

 

We really just live a science-type life, I think. Lots of discussion around the dinner table about current events in science, about scientific concepts, and about research questions. We don't actually spend that much time doing science each week (about 3 hours reading and 3 hours documentaries/lectures) until the ***science fair****. Then, oh my, then our sole focus in life for 2 months is about collecting and analyzing data, and lots and lots of problem solving and research. I have written about 20 posts about this big project on the logic board http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263107

 

As for what we give up to do this, well, I try to squish all their Language Arts into 8 months to give us 2 months to focus on science. This means that during the 8 months we seem to do a lot of literature, writing, vocab, spelling etc compared to science. I want my children to have a well rounded education up to and including 10th grade, then they can specialize if they wish. We also don't do nearly as much history as others do. My husband reads about 4 hours of read alouds per week, and my ds(11) reads classics from or about the time period. We only dabble in time lines and the other stuff the WTM suggests.

 

HTH

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited February 13, 2012 by lewelma

[LittleIzumi]

First thanks to "8" who alerted me to this thread. I do not usually read the Accelerated Board.

 

Then I would like to give a loud shout out in agreement to Mr. Bennett's second point:

 

 

The unfortunate reality is that many elementary education majors are abysmal in mathematics. When I taught a two semester math course for future elementary teachers, I found a group that not only lacked understanding of basic math, many had fear and dread when confronting the material. How in the world are they supposed to present math in an exciting and interdisciplinary manner to their students?

 

We see parents on the WTM boards who express their distaste for math and then seem surprised that their children also despise the subject.

 

 

 

I would include with this the need to learn proper nomenclature. Every elementary school kid makes "goo" or "goop" at some point. But are they told that they are constructing a polymer? Young minds can grasp the basics of this as process and learn the correct vocabulary.

 

Much of what is suggested in the previous quote would take kids away from their science text books and away from those measurable results that politicians seem to adore.

 

Science is often presented in elementary school as a series of fun tricks. My own son found his at home middle school chemistry class to be less than enjoyable. He wanted to play with chemicals. Willy-nilly. I said that we are going to "play" with chemicals but we would measure, we would annotate our observations and results. This is not as much fun as tossing Mentos in a Coke bottle and letting her rip.

 

That to me sums up the problem for American kids. They want the fun of Mentos in a Coke bottle but are not necessarily willing to do the practice that allows them an understanding of what is happening. This "practice" may take on the form of solving fifty quadratic equations or repeating an experiment in order to measure small deviations in results--and then figuring out why those deviations may have occurred.

 

But I do not think that the lack of discipline or drive or whatever you want to call it is missing in just math and science. Take a look at foreign language in this country. Few Americans are bi- or trilingual. How many Americans read philosophy? It is one thing to say we are missing the STEM content in our classrooms. I may go as far as to say we are missing content. Period.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I hit the smiley limit and had to stop. I actually don't like running random science experiments like in many of the elementary science courses because it seems like a magic show, not science. Science is so much more than that.

[lewelma]

I actually don't like running random science experiments like in many of the elementary science courses because it seems like a magic show, not science.

 

:iagree: I have discussed this extensively before, and I completely agree. Here is a x-post from the thread I referenced in my previous post:

 

 

 

The weekly “experiments” that are a part of many science curricula try to serve 2 functions simultaneously. They try

 

1. To help students understand the body of knowledge. If you simply cannot believe that 2 balls fall at the same rate, go try it and you will see.
   
2. To help students become acquainted with the methodology for how to answer scientific questions.
   

 

Abstract thinkers do not typically require #1. They are the kids who say “do we have to do this?” “I already know what will happen.” In contrast, concrete thinkers often find that the hands-on activities really solidifies their understanding of scientific concepts. Each parent/teacher needs to identify what the child's learning style is, and do what is appropriate for the child.

 

Where I struggle with weekly “experiments,” is how they attack #2 – becoming acquainted with the scientific method. The way it typically goes is that the book gives you an activity to do with your children which has expected outcomes that you are trying to achieve. The methods are given to you in a “cook book” style and the student is supposed to write up the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Here are my concerns:

 

1. Because the question is already posed, the student never learns that science is about asking questions and looking for answers. It is someone else's question they are answering. They are never taught to ask a question of their own. They are never taught that their questions are valid, interesting, and answerable in an objective manner.
   
2. Because the methods are already designed, the student never has to puzzle over HOW to answer his/her question. This activity requires logical thinking and problem solving. These weekly demonstrations/activities give the misconception that answering a scientific question is as simple as following the directions, and scientific inquiry is NEVER so simple.
   
3. Because the student is looking for a certain result, when the result is not produced, students are taught that they did not get the right answer. This is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Data is data. It is not Wrong. Your hypothesis has just been disproved. These activities teach students that what you expect should happen, should happen, and if it doesn't, you need to do the experiment again and again until you get what you expect. What?!?!? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
   

Ruth in NZ

Edited February 13, 2012 by lewelma

[8filltheheart]

 

 

 

Where I struggle with weekly “experiments,†is how they attack #2 – becoming acquainted with the scientific method. The way it typically goes is that the book gives you an activity to do with your children which has expected outcomes that you are trying to achieve. The methods are given to you in a “cook book†style and the student is supposed to write up the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Here are my concerns:

 

1. Because the question is already posed, the student never learns that science is about asking questions and looking for answers. It is someone else's question they are answering. They are never taught to ask a question of their own. They are never taught that their questions are valid, interesting, and answerable in an objective manner.
   
2. Because the methods are already designed, the student never has to puzzle over HOW to answer his/her question. This activity requires logical thinking and problem solving. These weekly demonstrations/activities give the misconception that answering a scientific question is as simple as following the directions, and scientific inquiry is NEVER so simple.
   
3. Because the student is looking for a certain result, when the result is not produced, students are taught that they did not get the right answer. This is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Data is data. It is not Wrong. Your hypothesis has just been disproved. These activities teach students that what you expect should happen, should happen, and if it doesn't, you need to do the experiment again and again until you get what you expect. What?!?!? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
   

Ruth in NZ

 

Ruth,

 

Are you acquainted w/Uncle Paul? He is a favorite guest in our house.

[beaners]

Where I struggle with weekly “experiments,†is how they attack #2 – becoming acquainted with the scientific method. The way it typically goes is that the book gives you an activity to do with your children which has expected outcomes that you are trying to achieve. The methods are given to you in a “cook book†style and the student is supposed to write up the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Here are my concerns:

 

1. Because the question is already posed, the student never learns that science is about asking questions and looking for answers. It is someone else's question they are answering. They are never taught to ask a question of their own. They are never taught that their questions are valid, interesting, and answerable in an objective manner.
   
2. Because the methods are already designed, the student never has to puzzle over HOW to answer his/her question. This activity requires logical thinking and problem solving. These weekly demonstrations/activities give the misconception that answering a scientific question is as simple as following the directions, and scientific inquiry is NEVER so simple.
   
3. Because the student is looking for a certain result, when the result is not produced, students are taught that they did not get the right answer. This is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Data is data. It is not Wrong. Your hypothesis has just been disproved. These activities teach students that what you expect should happen, should happen, and if it doesn't, you need to do the experiment again and again until you get what you expect. What?!?!? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
   

Ruth in NZ

 

I can't even express how much I agree with this.

[lewelma]

Are you acquainted w/Uncle Paul? He is a favorite guest in our house.

 

 

No, I'm not. I just googled him, but I am not sure that I am finding who you are talking about.:confused: Please direct me.

[Temperance]

:iagree: I have discussed this extensively before, and I completely agree. Here is a x-post from the thread I referenced in my previous post:

 

 

 

The weekly “experiments†that are a part of many science curricula try to serve 2 functions simultaneously. They try

 

 

1. To help students understand the body of knowledge. If you simply cannot believe that 2 balls fall at the same rate, go try it and you will see.

2. To help students become acquainted with the methodology for how to answer scientific questions.

 

 

Abstract thinkers do not typically require #1. They are the kids who say “do we have to do this?†“I already know what will happen.†In contrast, concrete thinkers often find that the hands-on activities really solidifies their understanding of scientific concepts. Each parent/teacher needs to identify what the child's learning style is, and do what is appropriate for the child.

 

Where I struggle with weekly “experiments,†is how they attack #2 – becoming acquainted with the scientific method. The way it typically goes is that the book gives you an activity to do with your children which has expected outcomes that you are trying to achieve. The methods are given to you in a “cook book†style and the student is supposed to write up the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Here are my concerns:

 

 

1. Because the question is already posed, the student never learns that science is about asking questions and looking for answers. It is someone else's question they are answering. They are never taught to ask a question of their own. They are never taught that their questions are valid, interesting, and answerable in an objective manner.

2. Because the methods are already designed, the student never has to puzzle over HOW to answer his/her question. This activity requires logical thinking and problem solving. These weekly demonstrations/activities give the misconception that answering a scientific question is as simple as following the directions, and scientific inquiry is NEVER so simple.

3. Because the student is looking for a certain result, when the result is not produced, students are taught that they did not get the right answer. This is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Data is data. It is not Wrong. Your hypothesis has just been disproved. These activities teach students that what you expect should happen, should happen, and if it doesn't, you need to do the experiment again and again until you get what you expect. What?!?!? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

These experiments are important for many other reasons.

1. They aid in moving concepts into long-term memory. The child who reads about electrical circuits may remeber the details for a few weeks. The child who builds his own electrical circuit will likely remember it into adulthood.

2. They encourage a child to extend the experiment with his own investigations and engage in scientific play. (What happens if I drop these other items instead? Why does the feather fall more slowly? What if it is windy?)

3. They teach technique and attention to detail, as well as physical intuition. Most branches of science are very hands-on. I am pretty much as abstract as they come, and coasted through high school with the read and understand method. Then I hit a wall in college. Science and math texts need to be read with pencil in hand to work through the problems. Preferably experiments in the book should be replicated. Just because you can read and understand a recipe for cake does not mean you know how to bake. If you are thrown into the situation where you suddenly have to bake a huge wedding cake for hundreds of people and you have never actually made a simple cake before, you are going to have a tough time.

4. Much of science is looking where others have gone before and replicating what they have done and extending it. When a new discovery is made, fellow scientists are called on to replicate the experiment for validation.

 

I don't understand your last point at all. The whole basis of scientific experimentation is that the results be repeatable. There is a lot of value in getting data that does not support your hypothesis and deciding whether your hypothesis is wrong OR your experiment was flawed in conception or execution. A child SHOULD repeat the experiment until they get data that supports a hypothesis that is already accepted as scientific knowledge. The time he takes to determine his error will teach him valuable lessons in personal accuracy and evaluating variables.

 

Certainly these experiments are not a complete science education and students should design and run their own experiments, but they are a valuable foundation. You can make them more valuable by doing the experiment before reading about related concepts and allowing the child to think about what is happening, quantizing as much as possible, doing error analysis, changing different variables, etc.

[lewelma]

I agree with you, but am talking about something slightly different. I was referring to cook-book (wizz bang) labs.

 

These experiments are important for many other reasons.

1. They aid in moving concepts into long-term memory. The child who reads about electrical circuits may remeber the details for a few weeks. The child who builds his own electrical circuit will likely remember it into adulthood.

 

This is what I was referring to for concrete thinkers. Hands on experiments fulfil function #1 from my above post: helping students understand the concepts of science.

 

2. They encourage a child to extend the experiment with his own investigations and engage in scientific play. (What happens if I drop these other items instead? Why does the feather fall more slowly? What if it is windy?)

This is what you SHOULD do, but most cook book labs do not encourage this. You do the lab, you see what you should see, and that is all. And then the problem is instead of saying that the activity is a demo, they have you write it up with hypothesis, methods, results, discussion. Doing this is very misleading IMHO because there was no scientific inquiry done, so the write up is contrived.

 

3. They teach technique and attention to detail,

Yes, they do serve the function of teaching technique and the use of lab equipment. I am fine with that as long as you tell the student that that is the purpose of the lab.

 

as well as physical intuition.

Not sure that cook-book labs do this. Inquiry based science would.

 

4. Much of science is looking where others have gone before and replicating what they have done and extending it. When a new discovery is made, fellow scientists are called on to replicate the experiment for validation.

Yes, of course. But these cook-book labs are never explained as serving this function. They mimic scientific methodology without having the students do any of the thinking. The 'extending it" part is where the real science is done by the student, and most of the "wizz bang" science demos do NOT suggest extending it.

 

I don't understand your last point at all. The whole basis of scientific experimentation is that the results be repeatable. There is a lot of value in getting data that does not support your hypothesis and deciding whether your hypothesis is wrong OR your experiment was flawed in conception or execution. A child SHOULD repeat the experiment until they get data that supports a hypothesis that is already accepted as scientific knowledge. The time he takes to determine his error will teach him valuable lessons in personal accuracy and evaluating variables.

If the purpose of a lab is to replicate work done by scientists in the past, than that is fine. Tell the student this, and have the do it. But this is NOT scientific inquiry, and is only a very small part of science as an endeavor of expanding human knowledge.

 

Certainly these experiments are not a complete science education and students should design and run their own experiments, but they are a valuable foundation. You can make them more valuable by doing the experiment before reading about related concepts and allowing the child to think about what is happening, quantizing as much as possible, doing error analysis, changing different variables, etc.

You and I agree. But most students do NOT design and run their own experiments. And I still stand by my previous 3 points that most non-STEM students leave their science education with a misunderstanding of what science is all about. And I blame most of this on students inferring that cook-book labs represent what scientists do.

 

I would recommend that you clearly identify 4 categories of lab when doing them with your student:

1) replication of previous work done to help the student understand the concept

2) technique labs used to gain experience with equipment and to develop accuracy and record keeping

3) True scientific inquiry, where the students have to choose a question and design an experiment. This is the type of lab where you write up the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Not the other ones.

 

Hope this helps to clarify my thoughts,

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited February 13, 2012 by lewelma

[8filltheheart]

Uncle Paul is how Jean Henri Fabre teaches in his science books. He is teaching his nephews and poses all sorts of questions and asks them how to go about finding the answers.

 

The books are outdated and they are translations, so they are not books I hand to my kids. But, the "how" he teaches is priceless. He doesn't give them answers. He guides them into figuring it out on their own. The children often reach wrong conclusions and then he gives them the opportunity to discover the truth for themselves. I have learned a lot about how to approach discussing things with my kids by learning from Uncle Paul.

 

Here are 2 examples:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?seq=19&id=wu.89102110533&page=root&view=image&size=100&orient=0

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015062312080;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=25;num=3

[Sahamamama]

:bigear: Listening in. Good question!

[brownie]

1) Like many others we emphasize science in our extra activities. We did FLL this year which taught programming, design and research in addition to many other life skills. When our project fair comes along, we too spend MANY hours completing a science project.

 

2) You can't possibly do it all. We are huge reading-science-math people. We are also piano players, boy scouts and athletes (well very involved in athletics if not athletes). We value church, family time and friends. Something has to go. My kids love history, but aside from having some of our reading connect historically, we just listen to SOTW, answer the questions and do the map work. That is less than many people here but more than the schools. We don't do much art of music outside of piano lessons and a couple of decent sized art projects with an art teacher. We don't do foreign language (yet).

 

Even so, day to day science often suffers here. I find a science curriculum the hardest to teach even though I'm an engineer. The options out there aren't that strong, are not open and go and require setting up experiments. Teaching to multiple ages at once is difficult. I do believe in doing experiments even when we know the answer to cement the memory in my kids' brains. However, as a scientist I feel like I know what to prioritize...the fundamentals! My 6 year old understands that matter and energy are conserved. He knows what "work" is in the science world. etc...

 

Brownie

[JeanM]

:iagree: I have discussed this extensively before, and I completely agree. Here is a x-post from the thread I referenced in my previous post:

 

 

 

The weekly “experiments†that are a part of many science curricula try to serve 2 functions simultaneously. They try

 

 

1. To help students understand the body of knowledge. If you simply cannot believe that 2 balls fall at the same rate, go try it and you will see.

2. To help students become acquainted with the methodology for how to answer scientific questions.

 

 

Abstract thinkers do not typically require #1. They are the kids who say “do we have to do this?†“I already know what will happen.†In contrast, concrete thinkers often find that the hands-on activities really solidifies their understanding of scientific concepts. Each parent/teacher needs to identify what the child's learning style is, and do what is appropriate for the child.

 

Where I struggle with weekly “experiments,†is how they attack #2 – becoming acquainted with the scientific method. The way it typically goes is that the book gives you an activity to do with your children which has expected outcomes that you are trying to achieve. The methods are given to you in a “cook book†style and the student is supposed to write up the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Here are my concerns:

 

 

1. Because the question is already posed, the student never learns that science is about asking questions and looking for answers. It is someone else's question they are answering. They are never taught to ask a question of their own. They are never taught that their questions are valid, interesting, and answerable in an objective manner.

2. Because the methods are already designed, the student never has to puzzle over HOW to answer his/her question. This activity requires logical thinking and problem solving. These weekly demonstrations/activities give the misconception that answering a scientific question is as simple as following the directions, and scientific inquiry is NEVER so simple.

3. Because the student is looking for a certain result, when the result is not produced, students are taught that they did not get the right answer. This is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Data is data. It is not Wrong. Your hypothesis has just been disproved. These activities teach students that what you expect should happen, should happen, and if it doesn't, you need to do the experiment again and again until you get what you expect. What?!?!? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I really hated science labs in school myself, but when I started actually working in a lab and doing experiments, I loved it. One of my ds falls into the first category and regards most "cookbook" experiments as a waste of time. The other ds loves experiments and definitely remembers more if he participates in an experiment.

 

8FillTheHeart, I'm off to look at your links. Thanks!

[JeanM]

I would love to read how you are incorporating STEM ideas. What are your goals for your dc? Are there subjects that receive less attention based on your STEM focus? How does problem-based-learning fit into your plan?

 

For those who after-school, what STEM activities do your dc do at school? What do you do at home?

 

Thanks in advance!!! :bigear:

 

We are pretty much a STEM family. I'm a scientist, DH is an engineer and at least right now both dc think they want STEM careers. However, at least for now, we're working on a well-rounded education for dc. My goal is to give them a solid math/science background, but they also need to be able to read critically and write cohesively. The subject that probably gets the least attention is art, but both dc are pretty heavily involved in music.

 

I haven't really thought about problem-based learning. I think a lot of that just happens, but it isn't necessarily a deliberate educational choice.

[MBM]

I would love to read how you are incorporating STEM ideas. What are your goals for your dc? To have a solid foundation in all core subjects and allow him to pursue his own interests as well. Are there subjects that receive less attention based on your STEM focus? No! Considering how powerful technology can be, it's just as -- possibly more -- important that a future scientist understands ethical problems that can stem from technology. How does problem-based-learning fit into your plan?

 

For those who after-school, what STEM activities do your dc do at school? What do you do at home?

 

My son's high school science classes provide enough challenge at this point. He does participate in his school's math club because he likes working on challenging problems with like-minded people. My job is to buy him books or pay for outside classes that interest him: AoPS and other math and science books; AoPS, Awesome Math Year-round, and eIMACS classes; summer math camps.

[8filltheheart]

summer math camps

 

I think summer camps are great for these kids. It allows them to be around other kids that are just as "into" (I'd use the word geeky, but my kids really don't fit the geeky mold ;) ) their subjects.

 

There is not a single teenager ds can talk to IRL about what he loves. He is light yrs beyond them in understanding. NASA's INSPIRE program has been a nice "online" way to interact with other STEM kids, but summer camps are invaluable in their simply being surrounded by other kids like them.

 

Earlier my ds was interested in math camps, but he has shifted to science camps. (and crazily, Latin as well. :confused: I still don't comprehend it, but he loves Latin.)

Edited February 14, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[JeanM]

I think summer camps are great for these kids. It allows them to be around other kids that are just as "into" (I'd use the word geeky, but my kids really don't fit the geeky mold ;) ) their subjects.

 

There is not a single teenager ds can talk to IRL about what he loves. He is light yrs beyond them in understanding. NASA's INSPIRE program has been a nice "online" way to interact with other STEM kids, but summer camps are invaluable in their simply being surrounded by other kids like them.

 

Earlier my ds was interested in math camps, but he has shifted to science camps. (and crazily, Latin as well. :confused: I still don't comprehend it, but he loves Latin.)

 

I forgot to add that my kids are going to try a summer STEM camp for the first time this year. I'm really hoping that it is a good experience!

[mamajag]

I think summer camps are great for these kids. It allows them to be around other kids that are just as "into" (I'd use the word geeky, but my kids really don't fit the geeky mold ;) ) their subjects.

 

There is not a single teenager ds can talk to IRL about what he loves. He is light yrs beyond them in understanding. NASA's INSPIRE program has been a nice "online" way to interact with other STEM kids, but summer camps are invaluable in their simply being surrounded by other kids like them.

 

Earlier my ds was interested in math camps, but he has shifted to science camps. (and crazily, Latin as well. :confused: I still don't comprehend it, but he loves Latin.)

 

Latin requires disciplined analytical thinking, and it is a fantastic way to get a kid that's super STEM focused to learn grammar because it is such a fantastic problem-solving exercise. I love Latin. :D I am an "underachieving" STEM kid, and to this day I love my high school Latin teacher for talking me into signing up for her class.

[Temperance]

I agree with you, but am talking about something slightly different... Hope this helps to clarify my thoughts, Ruth in NZ

Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your point better now.

[Beth in SW WA]

Just a quick update...

 

I have firmly decided that we will make STEM front & center here. My dds are thriving in this new paradigm! We took a break from history and formal grammar this semester so we have ample time to pursue science. They love it. I love it! Dh loves it!

 

We haven't used workbooks for ANYTHING in weeks. I'm aiming for Bloom's top levels in all subjects.

 

My dds spend most of their time on stem activities. No complaints. High energy learning. We still read and write a lot -- just mainly about science topics currently.

 

Thanks to those who replied to this thread... :)

[FairProspects]

:bigear: This is where we are headed as well as least for older ds. I just found a robotics class for ds so at least he has something for now.

 

Where would I find information about summer science and math camps?