Tag Archives: teaching

Flowerless STEM


STEM is such an oft-used acronym that people outside of the education industry no longer think of flowers and plants when hearing it. The origin of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math emphasis is a response to the United States’ position in the international market. In 2006 President G.W. Bush initiated policies to increase federal funding to support STEM education and output as a response to concerns that the U.S. was falling behind. That same year the Unites Sates National Academies (comprised of; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council) issued a plan to federal policy makers to address their concerns regarding the declining state of U.S. STEM education. When the President and national academies directly involved with very lucrative industry call for action, attention is usually paid.

Not many people would argue with improved education and higher standards in any subject. But when an initiative seems reactionary and the response narrow in focus, there is concern. Determining that there is an industry, in which the U.S. is not leading the way let alone keeping up, is relatively unprecedented. It is no wonder that we’ve reacted so strongly and rapidly. It’s a little disconcerting to start to lose one’s superpowers. But to focus on one area of study is tantamount to remodeling K-12 public education into vocational training. To do this while ignoring what other factors make many other nations superior in their industry and education is shortsighted. There are so many cultural, political and traditional differences in the ways countries conduct their business and education.

There are places in which children attend school six days a week and are in lengthy after school classes well into the evening. (There are countries in which one’s work life is as intense and prescribed as well.) There are countries in which K-12 educators are highly trained and paid and are given professional latitude and respect. But we don’t seem to be selecting much from the international buffet table beyond STEM emphasis; and that is what leads to thoughts of shortsightedness. When the money and policies are focused on one area it is inevitable that other areas will suffer. It is often those areas that are less quantifiable but no less necessary in the modern world. Most often and most likely it is Language Arts, History and the Fine Arts that are left behind. Science, math, engineering and technology are fabulous tools to help to understand how our world works and how to work within it. But being well educated is more than being well trained in one area. Understanding the world around us and knowing how to communicate to that world in which we live, knowing how to write, speak, and process the written word are crucial skills; without them there is no sharing of STEM or any other discoveries.

Without a sense of national and international history we are destined to stumble through the world half-seeing. Without exposure and access to the performing and fine arts what (to paraphrase President Franklin D. Roosevelt) are we even fighting for? The arts reflect the times in which they were created and are vibrant and pulsing history lessons. They also stretch the intellect and help us to see the entire world in more vibrant hues. Education (unlike job training) is meant to open and fill our minds. We need to be taught subjects but also how to critically think for ourselves. Education should be broad, deep and challenging. We should bolster STEM studies, and we should also ramp up all liberal arts studies. There will never be a national consortium of arts organizations with serious economic juice. But it is certainly well within the power of federal policy makers to invest in well-rounded education for all.

We have never been a country striving to make everything the same. We celebrate our diversities. We get a kick out of our different dialects, names for foods, and local customs. We are a 31 flavors kinda people. Do we really want the primary focus of our K-12 system to be in one subject area? Where will the political scientists, playwrights and lawyers come from? How will we get well-rounded novelists, historians and Supreme Court justices? There’s no doubt that our education system is not what it once was. Schools are asked to do way too many things besides educate, teachers are not treated well, and funding is elusive. The answer is not to be found by sticking our fingers in our ears and muttering “la la la STEM.’ We’re better than that, we’re bigger than that and we’re certainly more interesting than that.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 3, 2013 in Education


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

He Works Hard For The Money

It would appear that men are doing “women’s work.”  More men are cropping up in ‘pink collar’ jobs.  At first glance one could presume that traditionally ‘pink’ jobs (i.e., health care, home care, etc.) are a growing field and that is where the jobs are.  But a little more digging indicates that there is something larger afoot.

There was a time that the crassness of the business world or the filth of the industrial world was just too horrible for a women to endure.  If she were to work, it should be in jobs that weren’t too taxing to her delicate sensibilities (you know, like caring for people in the throws of debilitating disease.)  She should not have to dirty her hands in factories or investment banking, but instead stay unsullied wiping both ends of children.  Women had little choice but to flock to the pink ghetto, as that was often the only place hiring.  Monolithic institutions had distinct gender rules within.  In a high school, the principal would be a man, the nurse a woman, the lunch aide was female, the janitor male.  A few teachers would be male, after all someone needed to teach science and coach sport.  Hospitals were filled with men and women; in very specific roles: messy and personal was for women, highly technical or requiring heavy lifting went to men.

The bifurcation of our work world has had everything to do with sectors of work not being worthy of the special gifts and talents of men.  Is it that surprising that in the 21st century, men and women do not see their skills as tied to their gender?

For those bypassing higher education, the workplace landscape has changed.  Manufacturing jobs have slipped away and the service industry has grown.  This could explains the rise in male nursing and dental assistants.  But educated men are flocking to teaching.  They say they are more attracted to a satisfying profession (and clearly they define “satisfying” differently than their fathers and grandfathers did.)

How interesting these developments are.  Everything is cyclical, surely it is.  Every generation is convinced they are discovering the world anew or in touch with truths that eluded their parents.  No doubt there will be another swing in society soon.  However the reason that this particular development warrants notice is what it could mean for the work world.  For better or (and who are we kidding) WORSE, when men get involved voices are heard.  When a man does a job, it’s seen as being serious.  Consider funeral homes for a moment.  Is caring for and grooming of the dead somehow less delicate than caring for the small or infirmed?  Is arranging flowers and music, providing tissues and cooing over the bereaved a distinctly masculine trait?  Not in my experience.  Yet, the (traditionally male) profession is seen as not just respectable but admirable.

Male special skills and talents may not differ from those of women, but their power certainly does.  It’s absurd to pretend otherwise.  Having men in professions previously relegated to the pink ghetto will have a powerful ripple effect.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 21, 2012 in Cultural Critique


Tags: , , , , , , , ,