Our definition of STEM

Schools, policymakers, businesses are all taking STEM - what a 'buzz phrase'!  Who has a clear definition?  Do we all mean the same thing?
Some of the Maine Governor's Academy Fellows were recently meeting, and wanted to see if we could develop our own operational definition:  What do we mean by STEM?

So, who wants to start the conversation?  Please share your thoughts, definitions from some of your resources (eg. STEM Lesson Essentials, The Case for STEM Education) - and let's see what we come up with!

New Challenges

I'm coming up on a set of challenges we haven't covered in the work we've done so far. It wasn't addressed in our PD simulation, either. I'd be very interested in learning more than I've figured out on my own about school department budgeting and, especially about securing long-term funding for high quality PD, such as we are modeling at the Academy. I think that securing grant money will be especially important to those of us who are working toward implementation (some day) of NGSS. I don't think that local communities with the annual budget decision being made by referendum are going to be able to consistently fund these efforts over the time we need. Is anyone else interested in this topic? May we discuss? OR, can it be part of our Academy in April or June?

Difficult to Find Time

I too have found it difficult to find the time to meet collaboratively.  The time that we do have as a department seems to be taken up with mandatory items handed down from the administration.  This year I have found it particularly difficult due to these demands.  While we have met to discuss and revise curriculum maps to implement the common core, I wish we were able to meet more consistently.

Principles 2 and 3: Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Leadership

In my district the K-4 goal for the last few years has been to develop and implement a solid, consistent K-4 science curriculum. We have done the development piece but have struggled on the implementation- the "every teacher" indicators laid out so well in Principles 2 and 3.

Now, with the renewed focus, thanks to the NGSS, we have renewed possibilities. What are the steps we need to take so that every student K-4 is getting relevant, consistent, and meaningful STEM?   There are many barriers we face - I think the 2 major ones are familiar to all: time and scheduling. Right now what I am seeing is that Common Core Math and ELA initiatives are finding many teachers too busy and stressed to structure the time to consider NGSS. What is needed here is a vision and actions  for NGSS shared by leaders who have the power to implement them school-and district-wide: teacher leaders, administrators, curriculum directors. What's changed this year for me is that I have renewed my focus on building relationships at the teaching/teacher leader  level with anyone who might be interested or not: it began this summer with a per diem around the book K-8 Stem Lesson Essentials. This book gave us a shared focus as teacher leaders and showed us that STEM is a perfect match for elementary teachers who are natural integrators. We are now starting to develop a unit or two that includes STEM, social studies, and ELA. Right now it seems more organic than systemic: attending ELA meetings to highlight an engineering story and what CC strategies could be used with it, planning with the math coach about a math and engineering night for the community, adding a STEM lesson or two to an existing CORE (art, music, phys ed, computer, library) unit. I am having fun doing it and not so worried that science/STEM is not yet a priority here.

I continue to work with my leaders, stay involved, building relationships and asking "what is the vision at our school and district for STEM and the NGSS?" "How can I assist you in creating and implementing a vision?" But I am finding that enlisting others, collaborating, and empowering others towards change by doing it is powerful and fun. We have a long way to go...

My picked quote: "The leader engages teacher teams in discussions and actions that will eliminate the disparities and rigor inconsistencies among the intended curriculum, the implemented curriculum, and the attained curriculum, and ensures that all teachers focus on the disparities" (p. 42)  What is the best way to make this happen for the NGSS in our schools? Your thoughts?

Becoming a PRIME Leader

The premise of the PRIME Framework is that leaders can close the gap between knowing the theory and the commitment to actions we must take as a result of that knowledge.  Please take a moment to reflect upon the Principles and Indicators in the Framework. 

You will have an opportunity at our Fall Academy to discuss your plans for the upcoming year.  What is one Stage 2 or 3 goal you can set that would help others to become engaged and committed STEM educators?  How would this goal support your plan?

Jenny Jorgensen - Principle 2 & 3

What experiences have you had in engaging teacher teams in the collaborative development and implementation of instructional strategies needed to support every learner?  Have you been able to facilitate teacher growth in their content knowledge or implementation of best practices?  What works, and what’s challenging?  As you read this section, was there a particular Stage 2 or 3 Indicator strategy that resonated with you … why did that have meaning for you?
I have participated and facilitated a book group discussion as we were learning about Differentiation Strategies for the math classroom.  During the discussions we shared our thoughts about what we'd read and set goals to try a strategy in our classrooms and be ready to share our experiences at our next meeting.  We set the stage for our work by agreeing that we would all try something and look to each other for help and feedback about the work. 
This work can be linked in the Framework to Teaching and Learning Indicator 1 and 2. As teachers, we were learning about differentiation for the purpose of increasing our ability to differentiate our math instruction.  Teachers worked collaboratively to learn about differentiation through a book study and then worked together to implement some of the strategies we'd tried.
As the Math Lead Teacher in the building, I provided support to teachers and helped develop resources, based on our reading, for teachers to use in their math classes. 
It was challenging for teachers to take the first step and try a strategy from what we'd been reading.  This work seems to target, Teaching and Learning Indicator 2, Stage 2: "Engage teachers in collaborative dialogue about research-informed instructional practices and planning for effective student learning of mathematics."  The work that we've done as a staff during the book groups was the beginning. We are still trying new strategies with the goal of differentiating our instruction in order to meet the needs of our students in heterogeneous math classes.

     At my school we are in the process of trying to bridge the present edition (2007) of Everyday Math with the Common Core Standards. We met as a whole school for an afternoon with a woman from the company as she led us through the web site that tells what to still use and what lessons to download that will be more compatible. Now we are working together as grade level teams to focus on our own curriculum. This year I am not the PLT (Professional Learning Team) leader since I have been for the last few years and will be next year when we focus on NGSS. However, I bring my leadership skills in to the meetings to help keep a positive spin on the changes, focusing on what we already do well. I agree with Nancy's quote from page 26. We are engaged in joint work focused on explicit common learning goals. That's why Indicator 3 resonated with me. I feel lucky to be a part of a team of 7 fifth grade teachers, all pooling their amazing expertise. I'd like to hear more from teachers who may be the only one on their grade level having to do this.