Anna Quindlen and Elizabeth Austin

¶ … Anna Quindlen and Elizabeth Austin I admit, when I first read the titles of your respective essays I was skeptical about their merits related to education in my local school district.

Anna Quindlen writes about "a deep schism in this country, a schism between those many Americans who support comprehensive sex education in the schools and an equal number who believe that only abstinence should be taught." I agree with that statement completely, but before I read the entire essay, I imagined Quindlen was going to be one of the prudes who advocates against teaching children frankly about their bodies, about masturbation, and about homosexuality. I was wrong, and I commend you, Ms.

Quindlen, for arguing rationally as well as passionately about a subject that is important to all of us and central to the lives of many teenagers. Sex education should be taught in an open minded, thorough and creative way. Homosexuality should -- must -- be addressed if for no other reason than to prevent suicides related to teens grappling with the unnecessary stigma of being gay or lesbian.

In "Saving The Home From Martha Stewart - importance of learning home economics," Elizabeth Austin argues against all odds for the revival of home economics. While I agree with the fundamental tenets of teaching life skills in the classroom, I do not believe that home economics classes can be revived without raising the scepter of sexism. The practical tools of managing private lives, which Austin explains well in the essay, are best learned over the course of time and through a large-scale reconstruction of social values and norms.

Now, I do admit it would be possible to use the school as a forum for which to create the social changes needed to make universal home economics classes both relevant and possible. I believe there are two stipulations for making home economics work in the public school system: If all students, boys and girls, were required to take home economics and if home economics were offered throughout the child's entire education, then and only then would home economics be useful.

As Austin suggests, "We need to do a better job of teaching our children how to live, and we need to start right now. First of all, that means that we've got to make home ec education a priority on the college level," (p. 5). I could not disagree. What Austin is arguing for is a deep societal change, one that erases from our lives the horror of fast food and suburban living and replaces genuine caring, whole food, and healthy lifestyle.

If our school board can become a beacon of change for America, then I am all for incorporating home economics as part of our academic program. For the time being, I do not know if our budget can accommodate a program as ambitious as Austin's. We can only hope that the push for home economics becomes organic, as an extension of the current obsession with home improvement and cooking channels on Cable TV -- not to mention the continuation of the Martha Stewart empire.

To add to Quindlen's and Austin's astute observations about the current weaknesses in our school system, I would like to suggest a bolstering of the physical.