FWIW

You know where in heck did I say that? That “NASA STEM education efforts aren’t worth it”? Where? You are still missing the point. Big time.

“if you want to learn STEM education from NASA materials that are developed for STEM education, it’s essential to have a computer.”

I am not arguing NASA STEM material!!!! For crying out loud. I am telling you that STEM education, even though it might benefit from NASA material, does not require NASA material. Make an effort.

“Stop making stuff up. “Reaching out” is different than “educating”. That you think they are the same is indeed an “interesting concept”. Go ask a teacher. “Is your job “reaching out”? Sheesh.”

I am making stuff up? Funny because who talked about this program? I did? Now if you think that education does not encompass outreach then you are sorely mistaken. I don’t need to “ask a teacher “. I have been a teacher. And no I did not rely on NASA material to teach. And I taught Math. So no what? All those poor kids that were not using NASA material, what is going to happen to them? Children going to school and eventually to College don’t give a hoot about NASA. What they want is a job!!! Is that difficult to understand? A job.

“Hannah Gey et al. – scientists
Donald Yeaomans – scientist
Chris Fabian, Erica Kochi – scientists
Kim Blackwell – scientist
Peter Theisinger, Richard Cook – engineers

and you could add Elon Musk, Jonathan Ive, and Kai Fu Lee as very astute technologists as well.

That wasn’t that hard.”

Oh wow. So many scientists and engineers in such a list of influential people… Anyway, ask them about NASA and if NASA STEM material is what inspired them. Head, sand…

Perhaps I did miss your point. “… after all we are doing” ?? We aren’t doing a whole lot. NASA STEM education is well intentioned, but it’s a drop in the bucket on the national STEM education scene. If you’re saying that NASA STEM education efforts aren’t worth it because our national STEM education posture is still poor, that’s a crazy idea.

“You really think you need a computer to get proper STEM education?”

The point was made, and is entirely defensible, that if you want to learn STEM education from NASA materials that are developed for STEM education, it’s essential to have a computer. Teachers and schools have those computers and bandwidth. Individual students may not.

“So basically we are not going to reach out to the public by reaching out to them.”

Stop making stuff up. “Reaching out” is different than “educating”. That you think they are the same is indeed an “interesting concept”. Go ask a teacher. “Is your job “reaching out”? Sheesh.

“Yes please pick out the scientists and engineers.”

Hannah Gey et al. – scientists
Donald Yeaomans – scientist
Chris Fabian, Erica Kochi – scientists
Kim Blackwell – scientist
Peter Theisinger, Richard Cook – engineers

and you could add Elon Musk, Jonathan Ive, and Kai Fu Lee as very astute technologists as well.

That wasn’t that hard.

“I think that’s exactly where RickP begs to differ. That’s kind of an astounding statement. NASA makes a significant investment in educational materials. There is only one way to look at the success of those educational materials, which is the value that it offers the teachers that we entrust to teach our kids STEM.”

So then what is the problem with STEM education? After all “NASA makes a significant investment in educational materials.” So all is good. And without NASA investment STEM will crumble and disappear. Oddly enough all those countries in front of us in STEM do not have NASA. Even though they may also use some of the available material do you really think it would matter all that much to them if NASA stopped investing in STEM education?

“Are you saying that this NASA content should be “educating” kids who happen upon it themselves?”

Did I say that???

“Holy moley. You ARE saying that. What an idea. Let’s tell kids to all go to libraries and STEM-educate themselves. And for those of you with their heads firmly in the sand, NASA content in educational outreach is primarily available on the web. That’s what it has to do with computers. That’s actually smart, because it is a widely accessible and inexpensive distribution mechanism, at least to schools and teachers. Yes, we’d like to believe that it is widely available to students outside of school as well, but some of the communities in most desperate need of this content for education often don’t have high bandwidth links in the homes.”

Well you completely missed the point. And as far as I am concerned all I see is people saying after all we are doing all of this yet we are still pretty bad in STEM education. So what should we do? Well. More of the same. Of course! What we do does not work so let’s do more of the same. Not sure who has their heads in the sand. And no it has nothing to do with computer access. This is ridiculous. You really think you need a computer to get proper STEM education? That you must have a computer? If so I wonder how people did it in the 50s, 60s, you know those kids who got educated and came up with say Apollo or the nukes. Not sure. Do you know how they did it? Surprisingly those major efforts were made in the US. Then again since then we have computers so the US should be at the top of major scientific/engineering education right? Or could it be that STEM jobs are taken by immigrants? Could it?

“That’s the different between E and PO in EPO materials. The E stuff is for organized classes, and teachers are the leaders there. The PO stuff is for casual interest. We’re not going to teach STEM by putting NASA billboards on buses (as one mission outreach program was innovatively doing), but we are going to develop some sense of public engagement by doing that. Public engagement is nice, but it sure isn’t STEM education.”

I see. So basically we are not going to reach out to the public by reaching out to them. Interesting concept.

“True statement. No one says that NASA content is essential to teaching STEM. In fact, untrained teachers use NASA content to drop jaws and create bug eyes, but don’t actually teach much STEM. But to properly trained teachers (and the training can be done both directly by NASA-funded workshops and in the material content they provide) that content can be educationally potent.”

All right so now we agree?

“Oh c’mon. Not that hard.
http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/all/
Would you like me to pick out the scientists and engineers for you? There are indeed a number of them.”

Oh c’mon. Are you serious? Yes please pick out the scientists and engineers.

You put a kid in a sandbox with a bag of computer chips and they get motivated for a career in IT, right? You put a kid in a sandbox with mean other kids and they get motivated for a legal career, no? You put a kid in a sandbox with sand that had been sitting under a car, and they get motivated for a career in petroleum engineering? Yep, sure.

It’s a wonder that more professional vitae for science and technology don’t refer to early-year sandboxes. You could toddle away with your MS degree (master of sandboxery) and wave that in front of prospective employers.

“Big government is completely unnecessary. At least it worked for me.”

Yes, I don’t think big government was needed to help you post on spacepolitics.com.

Don’t give in to the fear mongers! Trying to provide solutions to climate change will not bankrupt out economy. Quite the contrary. I believe in American ingenuity and pragmatism and if we let/help our innovators do their job we will come out leaders of a “green” economy. It might be initially difficult but we can do it. Call me daydreamer but think SpaceX and Tesla.

It is possible to lead even more if we accept the changes, inevitable changes.

I don’t want our children to even glance at an over heated Earth. Look at Venus or Mars….

I think that’s exactly where RickP begs to differ. That’s kind of an astounding statement. NASA makes a significant investment in educational materials. There is only one way to look at the success of those educational materials, which is the value that it offers the teachers that we entrust to teach our kids STEM.

Are you saying that this NASA content should be “educating” kids who happen upon it themselves?

“Otherwise go to a library and educate yourself. Any one can do that, why do we need teachers? What does NASA content have to do with accessing computers?”

Holy moley. You ARE saying that. What an idea. Let’s tell kids to all go to libraries and STEM-educate themselves. And for those of you with their heads firmly in the sand, NASA content in educational outreach is primarily available on the web. That’s what it has to do with computers. That’s actually smart, because it is a widely accessible and inexpensive distribution mechanism, at least to schools and teachers. Yes, we’d like to believe that it is widely available to students outside of school as well, but some of the communities in most desperate need of this content for education often don’t have high bandwidth links in the homes.

That’s the different between E and PO in EPO materials. The E stuff is for organized classes, and teachers are the leaders there. The PO stuff is for casual interest. We’re not going to teach STEM by putting NASA billboards on buses (as one mission outreach program was innovatively doing), but we are going to develop some sense of public engagement by doing that. Public engagement is nice, but it sure isn’t STEM education.

“I have had all kinds of science teachers but some of the best I can remember never ever used a content based on space to motivate me nor one specifically coming from NASA”

True statement. No one says that NASA content is essential to teaching STEM. In fact, untrained teachers use NASA content to drop jaws and create bug eyes, but don’t actually teach much STEM. But to properly trained teachers (and the training can be done both directly by NASA-funded workshops and in the material content they provide) that content can be educationally potent.

“Please as a good science teacher I am sure you have a link to reference to this assertion. I would love to see that.”

Oh c’mon. Not that hard.
http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/all/
Would you like me to pick out the scientists and engineers for you? There are indeed a number of them.

I do not know for certain either, but I do think that if we rush to bankrupt our economy over something that falls within the error bars of known cyclical variation, we’re letting ourselves be stampeded by a “fear of what might happen”.

Much like the justification for a total wiretap society like we’re seeing unfold this week.

I don’t need to be be that safe. Neither do my children.

In what way do you differ from what I am saying?

“If I am supposed to teach space science or technology and have no content that is readily available to me or to them, then I may introduce them to very little or I may introduce them to things you might not think are important. About half the population has and uses computers. I wish all my students had direct access to them but they don’t. They don’t have them in school and many don’t have access to them at home.”

Well you’re mixing up a lot of stuff here and I hope your teaching of science in better organized. Content is one aspect of education. Otherwise go to a library and educate yourself. Any one can do that, why do we need teachers? What does NASA content have to do with accessing computers? If you teach the findings of Keppler you get a NASA computer? You have access to NASA classrooms? Odd.

“And yes, a number of scientists and engineers, including space engineers and scientists, made it onto the list of the most influential people in the world according to Time.”

Please as a good science teacher I am sure you have a link to reference to this assertion. I would love to see that.

“And if we do not introduce the potential to the students, then they certainly will develop no interest-and it sounds like you, in your warped sense of perspective would just assume not introduce them-sounds pretty defeatist to me.”

Now you are getting delirious. Where did I say we should not introduce student to science? Please point me to that statement.

I have had all kinds of science teachers but some of the best I can remember never ever used a content based on space to motivate me nor one specifically coming from NASA. So?

Whatever.