"No dates. For me it was IBM mainframe 360/370 with assembly language emulator, lotsa languages (PL/1, APL, FORTRAN, SNOBOL...) starting mid 1970s, with HP65 coding before that, in high school in Manila."
I knew all of that. Thus my answer. You started in college. I started in high school. I guess you are a few years older, so maybe that puts us around the same time.
"I don't see where it gives advice about K-12 from start to finish. If you've talked with Gary about that it's still off the record. I've only talked with Maria."
I showed you the catalog at Phillips and the courses required before you take the Litvins' course.
"My point is at that level, does it matter what we call it? STEM is STEM."
No one has an issue with terminology. This is an invention of yours. None of us are walking around saying to ourselves "Is it math or is it CS?" It was a dead idea when you thought it, just let it die, and focus on CS.
"Lets do courses that mix science, coding and math much much more. No one is stopping us. Then add anthropology. Full STEAM ahead."
What is stopping you is that you can't produce examples of this where the students are successful, compared to those who are successful in traditional sequences. I am not saying that all students taught traditionally are successful, only that the successful students were taught traditionally. Even the reformists. That is what is stopping you.
And riddle me this, if you are so sure of this method, why didn't you use it with your daughter? I have been 100% using what I preach with my son.