historical perspectives Jennifer L. Jolly, Ph.D.

The National Defense Education Act, Current STEM Initiative, and the Gifted

Oh little Sputnik, flying high current “quiet crisis” over America’s ability to With made-in-Moscow beep, compete globally (Friedman, 2005). This article You tell the world it’s a Commie sky examines the National Defense Education Act And Uncle Sam’s asleep. (NDEA) and present-day STEM initiatives in relation to gifted education. You say on fairway and on rough More than 50 years ago, on October 4, 1957, The Kremlin knows it all the Soviet Union propelled Sputnik, a 185- We hope our golfer knows enough pound sphere of aluminum, into space; it orbited To get us on the ball. the Earth for a brief 98 minutes. “As a technical achievement, Sputnik caught the world’s atten- —Gov. G. Mennen Williams (Michigan) tion and the American public off-guard,” and O also garnered swift action from the U.S. federal During the past several years, much discus- government (National Aeronautics and Space sion has focused on developing America’s future Administration [NASA], 2008, para. 4). The scientists, technologists, engineers, and math- United States’ reaction to the launch of Sputnik, ematicians (STEM) in order to remain viable coupled with an already ongoing criticism of the and competitive in a growing global economy American educational system, set the stage for (Friedman, 2005). In retrospect, America has had an unprecedented infusion of funding from the a long-standing involvement with STEM issues federal government to reform public education at that dates back to the establishment of West all levels. In 1958, the U.S. Congress passed the Point in 1802. West Point graduates designed National Defense Education Act (P.L. 85–864) many of the railroads, bridges, and roads so in order to counteract the seemingly superior important to this country’s early expansion. The Soviet school system that focused on training Morrill Act of 1862, originally intended to estab- lish colleges and universities to study agricul- young scientists and creating an “elite genera- ture and mechanical arts, also supported science tion” of our own pipeline of STEM workers and engineering programs. This indirectly led (Passow, 1957). to the establishment of the university research system (Butz et al., 2004). In more recent history, National Defense Education Act parallels can be drawn between STEM initia- tives involving the launch of the Soviet satellite NDEA was aimed at stimulating and strength- Sputnik in 1957, its legislative history, and the ening American education reform by providing

50 spring 2009 • vol 32, no 2 The National Defense Education Act, Current STEM Initiative, and the Gifted

$1 billion over 4 years to be infused agement of gifted students (Fleming, STEM areas and the greater implemen- into 40,000 loans, 40,000 scholar- 1960). A by-product of identification tation of programming for the gifted ships, and 1,500 graduate fellow- and counseling, academically able stu- and talented during the NDEA years ships (Fleming, 1960). The majority dents would provide a steady stream (Flattau et al., 2006; Passow, 1957; of NDEA funding was intended for for the STEM workforce. Wolfe, 1951). Special science programs those academically capable students for elementary schools focused on (particularly in STEM areas) who Implications for Gifted enrichment that encouraged indepen- did not have the financial means to Education dent projects and a focus on everyday pursue undergraduate or graduate experiences that represented a scien- degrees (Fleming, 1960). Matching tific phenomenon (Anderson, 1961; After World War II, gifted edu- funds also were available to states in Wiszowaty, 1961). Science programs at cation was an inert state. No state order to bolster additional initiatives the high school level incorporated dual identified to help improve America’s departments of education employed enrollment, specialized high schools, competitiveness in STEM areas; those personnel assigned to gifted educa- or acceleration (Havinghurst, Stivers, that impacted gifted education include tion and less than 4% of 3,203 cities & DeHaan, 1955). Title III, Financial Assistance for with populations over 2,500 reported The ramifications of Title V for Strengthening Science, Mathematics, special programming for the gifted the gifted had immediate and lasting and Modern Foreign Language (Tannenbaum, 1958). The launch of effects on the field of gifted education. Instruction, and Title V, Guidance Sputnik and the subsequent passage Since the inception of the field in the Counseling and Testing; Identification of the NDEA catapulted gifted edu- 1920s, the definition of giftedness and Encouragement of Able Students cation into relevancy and pushed the remained relatively constant, com- (Flattau et al., 2006). field into one of its most productive prising 2–10% of the student popula- Title III of NDEA provided states research periods through expanded tion based solely on measures of IQ matching funds to strengthen math- programming and a rejuvenated (Goldberg, 1958). Talent searches were ematics, science, and foreign language research agenda. employed as a strategy to identify those instruction, which included better Even prior to the launch of Sputnik, with gifts and talents. For example, equipment and materials, along with questions arose over what special aca- Project TALENT “intended to find professional development for teachers. demic accommodations should be out what talents young people of the The reorganization of science courses made for rapid learners in science. country, who are in the 9th to the impacted all students, including the Pure scientists were certainly a goal 12th grades in high schools . . . have to academically able (Anderson, 2007; but technicians, science teachers, and offer” (Flanagan, 1960, p. 51). A bat- Flattau et al., 2006; Fleming, 1960). engineers also were sought (Passow, tery of aptitude and achievement tests A distinguishing characteristic of this 1957). Terman’s longitudinal study were administered to 460,000 students reform movement focused on the col- of 1,500 gifted subjects illustrated in 1,000 high schools, as if to create laborative efforts between teachers and that none had gained eminence in an inventory of what America might researchers. Rather than being passive adulthood (Terman & Oden, 1959), expect from its youth if identified and recipients of content and strategies, but “for every genius there [were] encouraged to pursue the appropri- teachers were treated as fundamen- hundreds of less eminent but highly ate careers based on their abilities and tal contributors to the process (Dow, competent men and women who interests (Flanagan, 1960). As a result, 1997). also contribute[d] significantly to the by the mid-1960s systematic standard- Representative Carl Elliott, coau- nation’s intellectual progress” (Wolfe, ized aptitude testing included nearly all thor of NDEA, recognized gifted stu- 1951, p. 42). students in public schools compared dents as “an underdeveloped resource” Recommendations comprised the handful of students tested at the that would benefit American society exposing students to rigorous science time of the launch of Sputnik (Flattau and fulfill a critical need made that curricula early in their education and et al., 2006). much more imperative by the launch reexamining the organization of sub- During this same period, research of Sputnik (Elliott, 1958, p. 143). Title jects, materials, content, sequence, influences outside of the field began to V of NDEA specifically earmarked and methodologies (Passow, 1957). impact the unitary definition of intel- funds for the guidance, counseling, NDEA’s influence could be felt in both ligence so closely tied to the definition testing and identification, and encour- the changing strategies and curricula in of giftedness.continued Guilford’s on page work?? both

gifted child today 51 The National Defense Education Act, Current STEM Initiative, and the Gifted

in creativity and intelligence filtered factors influence an environment where mendations to federal agencies included into how giftedness was considered. “Forty percent of the general public and the following: (a) update inventory and Building off of the work of Guilford, 61% of opinion leaders [already] identi- goals to facilitate coordination between J. W. Getzel and Phillip Jackson and E. fied math, science, and technology skills programs on a regular basis (provided Paul Torrance illustrated how creativ- as the most important ingredients in the by ACC), (b) offer support to programs ity interacted with intelligence and the nation’s strategy to compete in a global that demonstrate effective research-based ramifications for how to both identify economy” (Zinth, 2007, para. 2). practices, (c) improve coordination of and serve gifted and talented students In contrast to the era of NDEA, K–12 STEM programs, (d) seek align- in schools (Getzel & Jackson, 1958; the current “quiet [STEM] crisis” as ment among goals and assessments, (e) Torrance, 1961). By 1972, the first fed- coined by Ann Jackson, President of institute rigorous outside evaluation of eral definition of giftedness included the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has current STEM programs as a require- factor of creativity (Marland, 1972). not experienced a galvanizing event ment for further funding, and (f) facili- Overall, NDEA impacted the educa- such as Sputnik to garner the atten- tate greater collaboration among federal tional landscape with “general upward tion and level of funding on the scale agencies in STEM initiatives (U.S. trends” with more rigorous science and that resulted from Sputnik and NDEA Department of Education, 2007). mathematics courses along with greater (Friedman, 2005). The latest Trends opportunity to explore STEM careers in International Mathematics and Implications for Gifted (Flattau et al., 2006, p. VII–1). NDEA Science Study, or TIMSS, reports stu- Education also established the federal govern- dents making gains in mathematics but countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan, ment’s larger role and stake in public The United States National education and this “[e]xperience with Russia, England, and Kazakhstan con- tinue to outperform American stu- Academies of Sciences’ Rising Above NDEA suggest[ed] that comprehensive the Gathering Storm recommend both educational legislation [could] have a dents in mathematics and dominate in science. Asia’s most able and high- increasing America’s talent pool by strong positive effect . . .” (Flattau et improving K–12 STEM education and al., 2006, p. VII–1). However, funding scoring students also continue to show rising percentages in both math and developing and retaining the best stu- and interest in gifted education dimin- dents (National Academy of Sciences, ished as the 1960s Civil Rights move- science (Dillon, 2008). Confounding this issue, gifted education has found National Academy of Engineering, & ment moved the focus to underserved it difficult to gain traction in the midst Institute of Medicine, 2007). Current populations, including those receiving of 2001’s No Child Left Behind Act, STEM initiatives provide an oppor- special education services and minori- which focuses public K–12 energies tunity for gifted education to inform ties (Delisle, 1999). and monies on seeking proficiency the practices and curricula required of in reading and math as a goal for all rigorous and high-level coursework, Current STEM Initiatives students and ignores the needs of the while gifted students also can benefit most able students who could ben- from access to such high-level course- Fast-forward 50 years and the United efit from high-level math and science work (National Association for Gifted States finds itself in an analogous situa- courses (Loveless, 2008). Children [NAGC], 2008). tion. Rather than competing with one The Academic Competitiveness Examples of federal programs that rival, such as the Soviet Union, the U.S. Council (ACC), charged with improv- target those students with advanced is operating in a global marketplace ing America’s competitiveness in STEM abilities in STEM subjects include the (Dow, 1997). Other factors influencing areas by the federal government, found Academic Competitiveness Grants, this series of STEM initiatives include that in 2006, 105 federal STEM educa- which provide university scholarships a globalized economy, fewer visas avail- tion programs operated with approxi- to economically disadvantaged stu- able to foreign-born students who want mately $3.12 billion in funding (with dents who complete advanced STEM to study in the United States, an increas- inflation this is half of what was avail- courses in high school. The Advanced ing lack of interest by U.S. students in able under NDEA). This includes 24 Placement Incentive Program pays the STEM careers, and that the very stu- elementary and secondary (K–12) pro- examination fees tied to the AP courses dents who sought STEM careers during grams; 70 undergraduate, graduate, and taken at the secondary level. And, Javits the time of NDEA are now reaching postgraduate programs; and 11 informal Grants are aimed at increasing advanced retirement age (Friedman, 2005). These and outreach programs. ACC recom- curricular exposure in STEM subjects

52 spring 2009 • vol 32, no 2 The National Defense Education Act, Current STEM Initiative, and the Gifted to minorities and females (Subotnik, from http://www.nationalacademies.org/ National Association for Gifted Children. Edminston, & Rayhack, 2007). sputnik/dow2.htm (2008). Science, technology, engineering, Elliott, C. (1958). America’s backlog of and mathematics: Our nation’s renewable Lessons Learned bright boys and girls: Her underdevel- resources. Retrieved March 13, 2008, oped resource. In J. Connant (Ed.) The from http://www.nagc.org/index. identification and education of the aca- aspx?id=1484 Gifted education’s relevance fluctu- demically talented student in the Ameri- National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- ates according to America’s perception can secondary school (pp. 141–148). tration. (2008). Sputnik and the dawn of critical need for the abilities and Washington, DC: National Education of the space age. Retrieved November talent of the nation’s most capable Association. 27, 2008, from http://history.nasa. students. The era of NDEA clearly Flanagan, J. C. (1960). The identifica- gov/sputnik exemplifies gifted education’s signifi- tion, development, and utilization of Passow, A. H. (1957). Developing a sci- human talents. Gifted Child Quarterly, cance gained due to a national cri- ence program for rapid learners. Science 4, 51–54, 58. Education, 41, 104–112. sis, resulting from the Soviet Union’s Flattau, P. E., Bracken, J., Van Atta, R., technological advancements. However, Subotnik, R. F., Edminston, A. M., & Bandeh-Ahmadi, A., de la Cruz, R., Rayhack, K. M. (2007). Developing this relevance can easily dissipate & Sullivan, K. (2006). The National national policies in STEM talent and when efforts, interests, and funding Defense Education Act of 1958: Selected development: Obstacles and opportu- are directed elsewhere and other criti- outcomes. Washington, DC: Science nities. In P. Csermely, L. Lederman, & cal need areas are identified. The full and Technology Policy Institute. T. Korcsmáros (Eds.), Science educa- impact of current-day STEM initia- Fleming, A. S. (1960). The philosophy tion: Models and networking of student tives on gifted education remained and objectives of the National Defense research and training under 21 (pp. Education Act. Annals of the American undetermined. Gifted students repre- 28–38). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academy of Political and Social Science, IOS Press. sent an immense untapped resource— 327, 132–138. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1958). History of one that should be relevant regardless Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: interest in the gifted. In N. B. Henry of the impulse of a critical need. GCT A brief history of the twenty-first century. (Ed.), The fifty-seventh yearbook of the New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. National Society for the Study of Educa- Getzel, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1958). The References tion (pp. 21–38). Chicago: University meaning of “giftedness”—An examina- of Chicago Press. tion of an expanding concept. Phi Delta Anderson, L. W. (2007). Congress and the Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Kappan, 40, 75–77. classroom: From the Cold War to No The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five Goldberg, M. L. (1958). Recent research Child Left Behind. University Park: on the talented. Teachers College Record, years’ follow-up of the superior child. The Pennsylvania State University Pres. 60, 150–163. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Anderson, R. H. (1961). Arousing and Havinghurst, R., Stivers, E., & DeHaan, Press. sustaining the interest of gifted children R. F. (1955). A survey of the education Torrance, E. P. (1961). Problems of highly in the study of science. Gifted Child of gifted children. Chicago: University creative children. Gifted Child Quar- Quarterly, 5, 35–41. of Chicago Press. terly, 5, 31–34. Butz, W. P., Kelly, T. K., Adamson, D. M., Loveless, T. (2008). High-achieving students U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Bloom, G. A., Fossum, D., & Gross, in the era of NCLB. Washington, DC: Report of the Academic Competitive- M. E. (2004). Will the scientific and Thomas B. Fordham Institute. ness Council. Retrieved from http:// technology workforce meet the require- Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the www.ed.gov/print/about/inits/ed/ ments of the federal government? Pitts- gifted and talented: Vol. 1. Report to the competitiveness/acc-mathscience/ burgh, PA: RAND. Congress of the United States by the U. S. index.html Delisle, J. R. (1999). A millennial hour- Commissioner of Education. Washington, Wiszowaty, K. W. (1961). A special science glass: Gifted child education’s sands of DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. program for gifted elementary school time. Gifted Child Today, 22(6), 26–32. National Academy of Sciences, National children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5, Dillon, S. (2008). Math gains reported for Academy of Engineering, and Institute 121–126. U.S. students. Retrieved from http:// of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the Wolfe, D. (1951). Intellectual resources. www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/ gathering storm: Energizing and employ- Scientific American, 185,42–46. education/10math.html?ref=us ing America for a brighter economic Zinth, K. (2007). Recent state STEM ini- Dow, P. (1997). The Sputnik-inspired reforms future. Washington, DC: The National tiative. Retrieved from http://www.ecs. of the 60’s. Retrieved November 28, 2008, Academies Press. org/clearinghouse/70/72/7072.pdfcontinued on page ??

gifted child today 53