Tuesday, November 8, 2011

What will it take to rejuvenate science education?

Timothy Friedman brings up many interesting statements in his article, What’s Our Sputnik?  He believes that the United States should focus more money and time on science education then on the “war on terrorists”.  I agree with Friedman’s perspective on this situation.  There is so much the government could do with the money they have invested into this so-called war.  This war has cost the American taxpayer over 1 trillion dollars, so far and is estimated to total 2.4 trillion by 2017 (Politics Daily, 2010).  This is $21,500 per American household (CNN Money, 2007).  If I am just giving away $21,500, I rather it go to science education or finding an alternative source of energy. 
I do believe the U.S is in a crisis and the governments must step in to create positive change in science education.  This happen, on October 4, 1957, when the Soviets’ launched Sputnik.  Sputnik was the first man-made artificial satellite to be launch into space.  This event caught the U.S by surprise.  Americans’ feared that the Soviets’ now had the capabilities to use the satellites to spy on government agencies or carry nuclear weapons.  The U.S government answered this panic by creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (Garber, 2007).
The government also supported new science curriculum by passing a billion dollar budget called the National Defense Education Act in 1958.  Science classroom started to change, programs were created, and technologies were supplied.  The combination of paranoia and reform sparked the much-needed revolution (Abramson, 2007).
To spark the fire in science education today, I believe it must start at the top.  The government must work with scientists, state agencies, and teachers to make significant change.  The government will need to provide money to schools to make science a “cool” subject again with a purpose.  Teachers need to use more hands-on, problem-based inquiry lessons to excited and motivate students to be long term science students.   Science instruction must be a priority in elementary schools.  Teachers need training, time, and materials to effectively teach students to embrace, understand, and see a future in science.  Most of my students do not even know what a career in science entails.  We need to glorify STEM related professions like we idolize actors and athletics. 
References:  

Abramson, L. (2007). Sputnik left legacy for U.S. science education. NPR Author. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14829195

CNN Money. (2007). “War on terror” may cost $2.4 trillion. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/24/news/economy/cbo_testimony/index.htm
Garber, S. (2007). Sputnik and the dawn of the space age. NASA Author. Retrieved November 8, 2011, from http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/
Politics Daily. (2010). “War on terrorism” has cost U.S. over $1 trillion so far.  Retrieved November 7, 2011, from http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/war-on-terrorism-has-cost-u-s-over-1-trillion-so-far-report/

3 comments:

  1. Hollie,
    I agree that the support for science education has to start at the top. The top is what got us into the current state with No child Left Behind. All emphasis was placed on math and language ares and science was placed on the back burner. Priorities cannot be shifted at the local level until the higher levels reconize the need for emphasis in all core content areas.
    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hollie,

    It is weird to me to see the cycle of our NASA program. Space exploration had such a big push when Sputnik was launched. We were racing to beat other countries. While we have made tremendous gains, I am a little saddend that so much of the space program is no longer being funded. I think there is so much still to learn. Even though we have landed on the moon, there are so many things to still learn.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hollie,
    I absolutely agree that we spending our money in the wrong places. Can you imagine the advances we could make in STEM education with that much money? The equipment we could buy which would allow us to really teach students technology? Just thinking about the technological advancements that could be funded is astounding.
    ~Charity

    ReplyDelete