A Middle Schooler Reviews Our STEM Program

At Booker T. Washington Learning Center, STEM stopped feeling like a worksheet topic and became something I could test, build and explain. I joined the after-school program as a quiet Grade 8 student—roughly Year 8 in Australia—unsure whether coding and engineering were for me.

My verdict is strongly positive, with a few reservations. The program taught me technical skills, but its greater strength was building confidence: asking a question, trying again and listening when someone saw a project differently.

From worksheet sceptic to project builder

When I first arrived, I kept my notebook closed whenever an adult asked for an idea. Science sounded like memorising facts, while coding looked like typing long strings of numbers. I was comfortable on my own but hesitant to join a group.

That changed after we started working with real objects and practical problems. Instead of copying the answer, I had to choose materials, make a decision and observe what happened. My early attempts were messy, but the adults treated mistakes as information rather than failure.

By the end of the term, I could explain my design choices without reading directly from my notes. I still get nervous before presenting, but I no longer avoid the microphone. That change matters because confidence helped me keep learning outside the session.

Questions were more useful than formulas

Our strongest science sessions began with questions rather than instructions. We had to identify what we wanted to test, decide which measurements mattered and predict the result. That made each experiment feel connected to something beyond the classroom.

In one design challenge, our group had to build a structure and strengthen it after seeing where it failed. The first version collapsed, but nobody treated that as the end of the work. We changed the shape, added support and tested again until it could hold a greater load.

The most useful part was learning that a fair test requires more than doing an activity once. We had to keep conditions steady, record observations and be honest about results. Science became a process I practised rather than a formula I memorised.

Coding and robotics taught persistence

Robotics gave coding a physical purpose. A line of commands might work on the screen, then fail when the robot met an obstacle on the floor. Debugging showed me why exact instructions matter and why one small error can change everything.

I also learned to break a large problem into smaller functions. Instead of trying to solve the whole task at once, we checked each command and tested individual movements. The program uses “math” in its American materials, while Australian schools generally say “maths”, but the practical reasoning was familiar.

Adults offered hints without taking the controls away. When I became stuck, they asked me to describe the last thing the robot did. That question often helped me find the error myself, which made each solution feel earned.

Teamwork was part of the technology

Our devices were useful, but the people around them mattered more. Group members divided roles such as builder, programmer, recorder and presenter. Those roles changed depending on the task, so nobody could simply stop contributing.

We had to listen to ideas that did not match our first plan. Sometimes another student spotted a weakness, or noticed that a component was difficult to use. Agreeing to test that feedback became as important as solving the technical problem.

Presenting to families also helped. We had to explain not only whether the project worked, but why it behaved that way. Learning to communicate our process made the work feel more professional and gave me stronger reasons to improve it.

Families saw the value after pickup

STEM did not remain inside the workshop. Staff shared ideas for experiments, conversations about school projects and ways families could encourage persistence. The wider program mix, including summer camps, Girls on the Run and the Aspen Youth Experience, showed that learning continued through different stages of youth.

Australian readers may recognise the January school-holiday reshuffle, the council library as a free workshop venue and the practical “no worries” tone of a busy community hub. East Harlem has its own rhythm, but families there also need safe spaces, affordable activities and trusted adults after the school day ends.

For summer planning, the centre’s summer screen-time guide offers a useful way to balance games, social time and offline activity. Like many Australian community organisations, the centre depends on donations, grants and institutional partnerships, making consistent family support essential.

What worked and what needs more room

The program’s strongest feature was the connection between hands-on work and reflection. My review found several clear benefits, along with areas where the experience could become even more useful.

What worked for me

What could be stronger

I would still recommend the program to another middle school student. It does not make everyone an engineer overnight, and that is not the point. Its real value is the patience to explore, the encouragement to recover from mistakes and the confidence to share an unfinished idea.

Backing the next young problem solver

Booker T. Washington Learning Center gives young people in East Harlem a place where curiosity can become practical skill. Its community-based approach also supports families, creating the kind of steady environment that makes sustained learning possible.

In Australia, small not-for-profits often depend on donations, workplace giving and institutional partnerships, while families choose programs by trust, accessibility and local relationships. The centre operates in a different city, but its needs and mission will feel familiar to many supporters.

Please donate to Booker T. Washington Learning Center or contact its team through the website, and share the opportunity with families who believe every young person deserves room to build, test and learn.