Introduction.
Before Sputnik.
The Sputnik Era
What have we learned?
J. Myron Atkin
(Rodger W. Bybee)
George DeBoer
Peter Dow
Marye Anne Fox
John Goodlad
Jeremy Kilpatrick
Glenda T. Lappan
Thomas T. Liao
F. James Rutherford
Introduction.
Before Sputnik.
The Sputnik Era
What have we learned?
J. Myron Atkin
(Rodger W. Bybee)
George DeBoer
Peter Dow
Marye Anne Fox
John Goodlad
Jeremy Kilpatrick
Glenda T. Lappan
Thomas T. Liao
F. James Rutherford
|  | The Sputnik Era: Why is this Educational Reform Different from All
Other Reforms? (continued)
Rodger W. Bybee, Center for Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering Education, National Research Council What Was Education Like Before Sputnik?
After World War II, debate about the quality of American education
escalated. Individuals such as Admiral Hyman Rickover, and most
notably Arthur Bestor, became critics of John Dewey’s ideas and the
rhetoric of progressive education, especially the theme of
life-adjustment. The dominant theme of the critics was BACK--back
to fundamentals, back to basics, back to drill and memorization, and
back to facts. Bestor called for a return to past practices and argued
for a restoration of learning as the theme for reform (Cremin, 1961;
Ravitch, 1983). Several observations are worth noting about the
criticism of progressive ideas and emergence of Sputnik-spurred
programs. First, such educational criticism was not new, for example,
in the late 1800s critics said that students were being “spoon-fed,”
the curriculum was too easy, and music and art took too much time
from fundamentals. Second, some of what critics such as Bestor
wrote included a serious distortion of facts. Further, the critics
seldom appealed to evidence in support of their arguments; they
relied on personal opinion and powerful rhetoric. Third, educators
did not respond to the critics. There is no clear explanation for the
educators’ silence. Recall, however, that this was the Cold War and
the period of McCarthyism, so they may have been fearful to say
anything. It is also the case that Progressive Education was on the
decline and in its final throes. In 1955 the Progressive Education
Association closed its doors, and two years later the journal
Progressive Education folded. So those disposed to counter the
critics may have thought it would make no difference. Regardless,
educators remained silent. Fourth, life-adjustment education did not
convey a message that students would learn basic concepts of
mathematics, science and other disciplines. Progressive educators
introduced the term “life adjustment” to describe programs for
secondary schools that built on the “important needs of youth”
expressed in the Educational Policy Commission’s report, Education
for All American Children (1951). Life-adjustment education
focused on the needs of students in “general tracks” and proposed a
curriculum of functional experiences in areas such as the practical
arts, family living, and civic participation. Such rhetoric about the
curriculum seemed to neglect aspects of the disciplines that critics
thought vital. Finally, progressive educators lacked (probably never
developed) public support for their ideas while the critics opinions
had a natural appeal to the public’s perception of what constitutes a
good education. This is probably explained by the critics’ appeal to
basic themes such as “restoration of learning,” which implied students
were not learning anything. The critics’ ideas and recommendations
were aligned with the educational experiences the public had when
they were in school and represented activities parents knew and
could do with their children.
In the fall of 1957, the debate about American education reached a
turning point. Sputnik resolved the debate in favor of those who
recommended greater emphasis on higher academic standards,
especially in science and mathematics. Sputnik made clear to the
American public that it was in the national interest to change
education, in particular the curriculum in mathematics and science.
Although they had previously opposed federal aid to schools¾on the
grounds that federal aid would lead to federal control¾the public
required a change in American education. After Sputnik the public
demand for a federal response was unusually high and Congress
passed the National Defense Education Act in 1958.
Another important point: Curriculum reformers of the Sputnik era
shared a common vision. Across disciplines and within the
educational community, reformers generated enthusiasm for their
initiatives. They would replace the current content of topics and
information with a curriculum based on the conceptually fundamental
ideas and the modes of scientific inquiry and mathematical problem
solving. The reform would replace textbooks with instructional
materials that included films, activities, and readings. No longer
would schools’ science and mathematics programs emphasize
information, terms, and applied aspects of content. Rather, students
would learn the structures and procedures of science and
mathematics disciplines.
The reformers’ vision of replacing the curriculum, combined with
united political and economic support for educational improvement,
stimulated the reform. The Eisenhower administration (1953-1961)
provided initial economic support and the enthusiasm of the Kennedy
administration (1961-1963) moved the nation forward on reform
initiatives. While the Soviet Union had provided Sputnik as a symbol
for the problem, President Kennedy provided manned flight to the
moon as America’s solution to the problem.
Reformers enjoyed financial support from both public and private
sources for their curriculum projects. Federal agencies, particularly
the National Science Foundation (NSF), and major philanthropic
foundations, particularly Carnegie Corporation of New York and the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, provided ample support for the
development of new programs.
The reformers themselves represented senior scholars from
prestigious institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and American
Mathematical Society (AMS). They had affiliations with Harvard,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, University of
Illinois, University of Maryland, and University of California. In the
public’s and funders’ views, the scientists, mathematicians, and
engineers who led projects during this era gave credibility and
confidence that we could really achieve a revolution in American
education. In 1963 Frances Keppel, then U.S. Commissioner of
Education commented that “more time, talent, and money than ever
before in history have been invested in pushing outward the frontiers
of educational knowledge, and in the next decade or two we may
expect even more significant developments” (p. 1). Keppel may have
been correct about the investment and the frontiers of educational
knowledge; but, in the next decade, education witnessed significant
developments that changed his optimistic projection of the
Sputnik-based revolution in American education.
Americans developed a new awareness as a result of the events in
the 1950s. A social awareness of civil rights developed and the
origins of this included the Supreme Court decision Brown vs.
School Board and Governor Faubus and his refusal to allow Black
students to enter Little Rock High School. In the early 1960s society
increased its attention to civil rights, poverty, and an escalating war in
Vietnam. Socially, we entered an era of protest that education did
not escape. The titles of books from this period clearly express the
educational protest--Compulsory Mis-Education (Goodman, 1964),
Death at an Early Age (Kozol, 1967), Our Children are Dying
(Hentoff, 1966), and How Children Fail (Holt, 1964). The criticisms
of this period were many, deep, and wide. At the same time,
constructive solutions were few, shallow, and narrow. Interestingly,
there was a call for relevance of school programs—a call that
echoed progressive ideas—although most critics did not identify
them as such. Programs from the Sputnik era were included in the
critics’ view of what was going on in American schools. Indeed, as
the new PSSC, CHEM Study, BSCS, SCIS, ESS, and other
programs were reaching students, criticisms of their elitism and lack
of accommodation for disadvantaged students mounted.
Just as social and political factors had initiated and supported the
Sputnik era of educational reform, in the 1960s social and political
factors also arose and acted as countervailing forces to the pursuit of
excellence, high academic standards, and learning the conceptual and
methodological basis of science and mathematics disciplines. I should
also note that in the Sputnik era political, social, and economic
support combined with the enthusiasm of scholars and a single focus
on replacing curriculum programs omitted what I consider a
necessary aspect of educational reform--establishing policies at the
state and local levels that would sustain the innovative programs in
the school system.
Was Curriculum Reform in the Sputnik Era a Failure? 
|
