STEM Education in New Zealand

I am really happy to see the amount of STEM promotion in the NZ Education Gazette recently. New Zealand has been lagging behind a number of other countries in its push to increase STEM education in schools, and especially with a focus on STEM education for girls.

Today came out an article which explores the importance of STEM for girls. This article discusses the role of A Nation of Curious Minds – He Whenua Hihiri i te Mahara, A National Strategic Plan for Science in Society.

A Nation of Curious Minds

Yet I believe this document could have done a lot more both for promoting the inclusion of girls in STEM and STEM education as a whole.

In the United States the call comes from the top...

 “One of the things that I really strongly believe in is that we need to have more girls interested in math, science, and engineering. We’ve got half the population that is way underrepresented in those fields and that means that we’ve got a whole bunch of talent…not being encouraged the way they need to.”
-- President Barack Obama, February 2013

UK STEM Programme Report

In the United Kingdom, the STEM Programme report leaves no doubt by its front cover that increasing the participation of girls is a priority.

The New Zealand plan encourages science and technology initiatives for harder-to-reach audiences by the establishment of a contestable fund for outreach and education. "This could fund initiatives using innovative approaches for reaching groups such as youth, Māori and Pasifika, and rural New Zealanders." What about girls? Well they are mentioned once with the specific action... "We will identify effective actions to influence girls’ subject choices and increase their participation in science and ICT areas of study, especially from year 12, and encourage them to pursue science and technology careers." I have two comments to make on this. Firstly, effective actions have been identified - there is a wealth of research worldwide regarding strategies to engage girls in STEM education and careers and secondly, why from year 12. To effectively engage girls in STEM, even though late is better than never, there needs to be interventions and actions before girls get to their middle school years as it is through the middle school years that the interest of girls markedly declines. Year 12 is way too late; the interventions need to happen during the primary and middle school years. And effective interventions are not rocket science. Five ways that are supported by research are:

• Engage girls in STEM education and STEM activities before they become teenagers;
• Expose girls to STEM, STEM careers and STEM mentors - teach girls about the diversity of STEM careers;
• Teach girls about stereotypes and stereotype threat - and also the stereotypes around STEM careers - they will be more able to counteract these stereotypes if they are informed about them;
• Develop girls' only STEM initiatives and include in these a wide range of activities - not just ones that are stereotypically girly; and
• Ensure that STEM subject classrooms are not stereotypically male - encourage diversity by actively avoiding objects that are linked to gender stereotypes.

And while I praise the document for its focus on Science in Society, thereby fostering the development of increased Science capital for all New Zealanders, I wonder, while other countries are explicit in their use of STEM, why New Zealand steers away from this term across much of the plan. In the majority of the plan the phrase Science and Technology is referred to rather than the internationally recognised term STEM. In the definitions section of the plan, it is discussed how there is a purposeful differentiation between the terms STEM and STM - with the latter being used to refer to the compulsory level subjects "because engineering is taught only at tertiary level". Yet, STEM education, as internationally recognised, is more than the sum of the parts. Rather, STEM education uses an integrated approach to education, using the STEM subjects but embedded in 'real-world' problems and situations. And that can be taught at any level - from preschool onwards.

It doesn't have to be either or ....

I had a bit of a down moment this afternoon when I realised that Kinder Surprise - chocolate/toys that I always used to purchase for my children at Easter and Christmas had become gender orientated. OK I realise I am a bit slow in finding this out but that is maybe because my children are now grown up so I haven't purchased these for a while. Anyway, with my daughter home for Christmas I thought I might get her some for the Christmas stocking - well! No way! Barbie Kinder Surprise for the girls and Hot Wheels Kinder Surprise for the boys - apart from the new gender split where is the surprise in that. The coolest thing about Kinder Surprise was the surprise toy - usually with moving parts and containing some sort of simple machine.

According to the Independent news in UK Kinder said the toys weren't meant to "reinforce gender stereotypes, and, "We do not promote our products as gender specific." Say what!! Barbie and Hot Wheels, Pink and Blue - I bet if you put one of each egg in a room with a preschool boy and a preschool girl they would certainly know which one they were meant to choose.

Interestingly enough, when they first came out the packaging contained the text "New Toys for Girls" but that was removed after they received petitions from people complaining about the limiting nature of the text. Boys should be able to buy a Barbie Kinder Surprise if they want. And fair enough. But I don't really think the text makes that much difference. 

In my quick search round the Internet about this issue I came across some other things I didn't know about. There is a Pink Monopoly Edition which has (yep, wait for it) malls and boutiques, fashion shops, nail salons and spas and best of all it comes in a pretty pink box with mirrored insert (I presume just incase you need to do your hair or makeup while you are playing.)

Now, I have nothing against pink, and if girls want to wear head to toe pink all the time that is fine - they should be allowed to. What I do have a problem with though is that wearing pink means you are only interested in the surface features of life, such as clothes and makeup and nail colours.

Movements such as pinkstinks.org.uk; while totally valid and absolutely necessary, also cause a problem I believe. What about the girls who like pink, and stereotypical girls' stuff, but still want to follow not-stereotypical interests and maybe even be an Engineer, Physicist or Computer Scientist.

They need to know they can be all of these things and still like pink. It is not either/or - either girls like pink and makeup and clothes and they are vapid and artificial and have such goals in life to be a Future Hooters Girl or a Future WAG (both those slogans come from t-shirts for young girls by the way) or they don't like pink and they are serious, intelligent and independent.

Girls can be both. There is no scientific evidence that liking pink and pretty hairstyles reduces intelligence so can we please let girls be both - geeky doesn't mean unattractive or unpopular, intelligence and appearance are not linked so please .... let our girls just be young people, exploring the world and finding their own passions and interests without being constantly bombarded by stereotypes either one way or another. They second part of Pink Stinks slogan I much prefer .... There's more than one way to be a girl ... and let us celebrate all of those ways.

Funny what you come across ....

It's funny what you come across when you are looking (or just cruising the Internet) for something totally different.

I cam across this infographic - aren't they so much better than a traditional graph - here. The actual site - http://www.transportationyou.org/ - has lots of good STEM material for girls (and I love the pink and lime green colour scheme!) The US seems to recognise the issue with girls and STEM (not sure NZ does yet!)

Anyway, a couple of things struck me when reading this .... first STEM girls have had both strong exposure to STEM fields and have had a greater parental role in their education then non-STEM girls. The immediate question is then (and this is relevant to many low decile areas), how do we develop greater exposure and greater parent involvement? 

Another thing, even though 74% are interested in STEM - only 13% would make it a first career choice! Maybe because of gender barriers they believe are present - 57% believe they would have to work harder to be taken seriously in STEM than the boys! A challenge here for STEM companies to change their image.