In October of 1957 the Soviet Union launched what would become one of the most famous spacecraft ever to orbit the Earth – Sputnik. About three months later the U.S. launched its first orbiting spacecraft in response to the “Space Race” mentality, which presumably refers to the need to build better rockets to launch into space between the U.S. and Russia. The demand for better rockets also meant the demand for better rocket builders, and fueled the fire of American education to push students toward science in order to encourage them to pursue engineering careers. For the next twenty years there were multiple rockets, satellites, probes, and spacecraft of all shapes and sizes launched by both countries. The most famous of which is probably Apollo 11 in 1969 when two U.S. astronauts touched the surface of the moon for the first time. By the way, Russia had already remotely landed a spacecraft on the moon three years earlier.
Do you see a pattern here? Russia took a step in a direction, and the U.S. wanted to take a bigger step or leap just to prove we could outdo our planetary rival. Thank goodness we did. For probably the first time in U.S. history, science was placed at the forefront of education to grow and develop better engineers to “get there first.”
That was over forty years ago, and the educational landscape has changed greatly over that time. Rockets launches and excitement have been replaced with test scores and scrutiny. The Bush administration passed No Child Left Behind in 2001 to motivate schools to focus on math and reading test scores by holding each school accountable for attaining proficiency of a certain predetermined percentage of students. This has put an unimaginable amount of pressure on educators to get students to perform well on a set of standardized tests administered at the end of each school year. Unfortunately, with No Child Left Behind, our science programs are getting left behind. With increasing pressure to perform in reading and math, many schools are cutting science time in favor of supplemental reading and math programs (Griffith & Scharmann, 2008). With the U.S. trailing in test scores behind countries such as China and Japan, we need another Sputnik-type scenario to push us beyond test scores and into something tangible we can be proud to be a part of and work toward (Munson, 2011).
An article published in the New York Times in January 2010 by Thomas L. Friedman titled “What’s Our Sputnik?” he points to the fact that the U.S. is too concerned with fighting terrorism, and it is depleting our financial resources (Friedman, 2010). He also states the “greater China region always leaves me envious of the leaders of Hong Kong, Taiwan and China, who surely get to spend more of their time focusing on how to build their nations…” (2010). Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum, regarding the drive Sputnik created, said "our investments in science and education spread throughout American society, producing the Internet, more students studying math and people genuinely wanting to build the nation." We need to get back to building our nation from the inside, and the implementation of STEM curricula nationwide is a step in the right direction.
The next “Sputnik” may not be a space race aimed at getting people back to the moon, or even Mars. I think the next “Sputnik” is going to be based around efficiently and effectively using alternative fuel and energy sources mass produced to serve millions worldwide inexpensively. Americans need something tangible they can cling to and show off to prove their accomplishments.
Sputnik? Who needs a rocket when you can have a nuclear powered car, plane, train? Heated seats are still optional.
References:
Friedman, T. L. (2010, January 17). What’s our sputnik? [Op-Ed]. The New York Times [Late Edition (East Coast)], p. WK.8.
Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education. 20(3), 35-48.
Munson, L. (2011, March). “What students really need to learn.” Educational Leadership 68(6), 10-14.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are right about the energy being our next "Sputnik." If we run into a huge energy crisis, that will certainly give us that kick in the pants to get back to creating and problem solving! It does all seem like a bunch of school kids fighting to see who is really big and bad...countries want to "be the best," which can be a good thing if the energy is focused in a productive area.
ReplyDeleteYour comments on No Child Left Behind were interesting as well. I actually went to a conference last year about how to close the achievement gap between our different ethnic groups. Would you believe that the keynote speaker, a well renowned speaker and researcher in education, advocated teaching to the African Americans and kind of ignore the "white kids" because they are going to learn regardless. Then their scores will be a little lower on the testing than they would be if we taught to them on their level and the African American scores will be higher, thus closing the achievement gap!?! Can you believe that was his solution???
Are you kidding me!!! That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I thought we were in the business of promoting meaningful instruction to all students to close achievement gaps from the bottom up, not denying quality instruction from the top down. I'm sure you were not the only one questioning the ethics of that statement. Sometimes I wonder how people can get into positions like that having that kind of viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing Andrea!