Space Science Education in the United States: 407 the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Space Science Education in the United States: 407 The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly CHAPTER 2 Space Science Education in the United States: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Andrew Fraknoi s an astronomer and astronomy educator, I do not have any original historical Aresearch to report for this volume. Nevertheless, my hope is that this brief summary of some issues in the uneasy relationship between space science and education in the United States may be of use in getting historians and general readers interested, concerned, and perhaps even upset. A much more detailed overview of the state of astronomy education can be found on the World Wide Web. The history and societal impact of space science education in the United States is difficult to sort out from the complexities of education in general. If it were an experiment, any scientist would throw up his hands in despair and say,“there are simply too many variables!” For example, what was more important in determining the attitudes of today’s U.S. adults about the space program: ü The various science education reform curricula in the 960s that grew partly in response to Sputnik, or the growth of television as a pervasive, pernicious, and pseudo-educational medium? ü The Shuttle accidents and subsequent revelations, or the disintegration of the U.S. family due to the rise of divorce rates and single-parent families? ü The success of the Mars Exploration Rovers, or the consistently low salaries we have paid science teachers when compared to other professions requiring similar training? These are very hard questions to answer. To prepare this essay, I wrote to about two dozen experts in the field of space science education to see if they could help me find the most important parts of the literature on the impact of spaceflight on education.With one exception, they all wrote back quickly and courteously—to inform me that they knew of no such literature but that they were looking forward to our conference starting one. See Andrew Fraknoi,“astronomy Education in the United States, 998; available online at http:// www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/useduc.html (accessed 20 October 2006). 408 SOCIETAL IMPACT OF SPACEFLIGHT Has the Space Age affected education in the United States? It is a romantic notion that it has. Everyone cites great anecdotes, memoirs, and TV shows such as How William Shatner Changed the World. But no one has been able to tease out the effect of the space program from the myriad other factors that affect our educational system. And, as educational researchers are fond of pointing out, “the plural of anecdote is not data!” A recent paper in Astronomy Education Review reported that no research could be found that looked at teacher knowledge of astronomy across grade levels and multiple astronomy concepts.2 In the absence of relevant data, what I would therefore like to do, in the brief space I have, is to get the reader thinking just a bit about a few issues in the relationship between space science and education. A Brief History of Space Science Education in the United States Astronomy was a subject taught in U.S. high schools toward the end of the nineteenth century because it fit with themental discipline model of curriculum.3 Like Latin and Greek, astronomy was supposed to be good training for student thinking, whether students needed it later in life or not.This approach soon began to unravel as the schools became less elite and more practical, and colleges demanded more practical knowledge from high school graduates. Also, school curriculum under the mental discipline approach was hard, repetitive, and boring. In 93, Helen Todd, whose job was to inspect factories, surveyed 500 children who labored there under difficult conditions. She asked if, economic circumstances permitting, they would not rather be back in school. Four hundred twelve out of 500 said no.They preferred sweatshops to what she called the “monotony, humiliation, and cruelty” of school.4 In 893, a Committee of Ten, set up by the National Education Association, was asked to report on a uniform curriculum for high schools that a variety of colleges could accept. (Before that, all colleges had set their own requirements and the situation was a mess, much like many of the local K–2 standards we have across the United States today.) The committee, chaired by Harvard President Charles Eliot, had many suggestions and many critics. But for us, one consequence was that they defined the main science topics as biology, chemistry, and physics—and 2. Eric Brunsell and Jason Marcks, “identifying a Baseline for Teachers’ Astronomy Contents Knowledge,” Astronomy Education Review 3, issue 2 (October 2004–april 2005): pp. 38–46, available online at http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=119 (accessed 27 March 2007). 3. Herbert Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 2nd ed. (New York:Routledge, 995). See chapter for a nice introduction to the curriculum in the nineteenth century. 4. Ibid., p. 6. Space Science Education in the United States: 409 The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly astronomy only as an elective. It soon began to slip into the noise of the demands on American curriculum, and today, few schools teach a separate astronomy class (and then only as an elective).5 It is true, as those who follow the politics of the space race know, that the National Defense Education Act of 958 (the reaction to Sputnik) increased the amount of science and math being taught and led to some interesting curriculum studies and reform, especially in elite schools.6 But it is not clear that things in science education got better in the long run. Other factors besides curriculum play an ever-increasing role in the education of our children. Teacher training or lack of it, latch-key kids, peer and media pressure against seeming smart (think of films such as Dumb and Dumber), mtV—all have combined to “beat us” far better than the Russians ever could have. What space science students do get in our schools today is mostly found in general science,Earth science,and physical science classes in middle school and high school.Numbers are hard to come by,but many factors are contributing to a decline in the amount of space science being taught. let’s consider just three of them. First is “the less is more” movement among science educators and those who train them. This movement, which says we should teach fewer topics in science but in greater depth and with more hands-on activities, is generally a positive development in getting students to learn what real science is about. But there are already very few hours devoted to science in the curriculum. Generally, when time is short, basic biology, chemistry, and physics take precedence. Next we have the lack of trained teachers to teach science. During the 999– 2000 school year, only 55 percent of high school students received physical science instruction (chemistry, Earth science, and physics) from a teacher with a major or minor in physical sciences. At the middle school level, only 8 percent of students received physical science instruction from a teacher with a major or minor in physical sciences. Nearly 50 percent of middle school students received physical science instruction from a teacher without a major or minor in any science or science education field.7 5. Kliebard, Struggle for the American Curriculum, discusses the Committee of Ten in his first chapter. For more on the effect of this group on astronomy teaching, see Jeanne Bishop, “U.S. Astronomy Education: Past, Present and Future,” Science Education 6, no. 3 (977): p. 295. 6. Arthur S. Flemming, “Government Science and the Universities:The Philosophy and Objectives of the National Defense Education Act,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 327 (January 960): pp. 32–38. 7. Statistics in this paper about the state of the U.S.science education system come for the most part from the National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2004 (Arlington,VA: National Science Foundation, 2004). Chapter contains information about K–2 education, Chapter 7 about public attitudes toward science. 40 SOCIETAL IMPACT OF SPACEFLIGHT Finally, consider the effects of the No Child Left Behind Act (and the general tendency in the United States toward simple-minded, multiple-choice testing as a measure of teaching and learning). Right now, schools are required to test all students in math and English, but by the 2007–2008 school year, states must test all students in science three times: in grades 3–5, 6–9, and 0–2. The good news is that districts that had shifted emphasis away from science in the last few years because the testing for English and math was first and science was still in the future, will now have to start putting more emphasis again on science, since science testing is going to be a reality! The bad news is that science exams will not be used to determine whether schools are making “adequate yearly progress,” so the pressure from those exams is not as great. Still, science test results will have to be publicly announced (to the parents), so they will be part of how parents and the public judge the schools. But the far greater issue will be that each state will be allowed to set its own standards and to decide just what kind of science tests to offer.And,make no mistake, once the tests are set up, science teachers will teach to the tests! Anything not being fully tested will be much less likely to be taught.