Not Full STEAM Ahead

How do you feel about the STEAM acronym? Does the A belong or should we only refer to these concepts as STEM? Why?

The STEM/STEAM acronym makes me a little nervous. My impression of it is that it was devised because Americans were concerned about falling behind other countries in these areas, mostly because of wanting to capture more of the market of tech jobs. While I’m all for kids learning about science and technology (it sure beats not learning at all), I’m very skeptical of the results.

Don’t get me wrong. I love science, technology, engineering, and math. And I agree that the US is falling behind other countries in these areas. But will creating an acronym make a difference? If so, what difference will it make?

I’m worried about a number of possible outcomes:

• The kids who benefit most from this might end up being only affluent kids, not all kids
• The kids who don’t like/are not good at STEM will feel less valued and less interested in learning
• The kids who don’t like/are not good at STEM will not get nurturing opportunities that make them like it more or be better at it
• Girls will get left farther behind than they already are in these areas
• All other areas of learning or ways of thinking will be devalued
• Nothing will change

Additionally, I feel very uncomfortable with the Arts added to the acronym. I’m all for the arts. I majored I music in college, and the decimation of arts programs in schools is, in my opinion, the first sign of the apocalypse. But in STEAM, it just seems like an afterthought, a poor cousin of the rest of the acronym. It’s not fooling anybody. Everyone can tell that it was just stuck in there afterward, and it’s not really related to science. It’s insulting, really. Arts should have its own acronym! There should be a movement just for advocating arts in schools! I know, it’ll never happen.

I think Martinez and Stager make an interesting argument in Invent to Learn that adding the A to STEM might result in the further marginalization of Arts in schools, because it pushes arts into the domain of the science teachers (assuming that “STEM subjects are devoid of the creative disposition of artists”) (p.54).

At any rate, I think the use of the STEM/STEAM acronym is just going to be a passing fad. Mostly because it will soon be meaningless—digital natives are not going to need to be reminded of the importance of STEM subjects in our lives. (Then, in my low moments, I worry that it’s hard enough combating people who don’t even want evolution taught in schools, and that it’s all hopeless.) I think STEM is somewhat deifying these subjects, and inadvertently deifying Maker and Geek culture instead of just showing kids how fun and creative sciences can be. Science and math can be fun for everyone. I hope the adults don’t ruin it.