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 Have We Learned?
Examination of the Sputnik era reveals that it had both similarities and
differences from other educational reforms. Some observations are
worth noting for reform minded individuals and groups. Following are
several lessons that we can draw from the experience.
- First, replacement of school science and mathematics
programs is difficult at best, and probably impossible.
Although leaders in the Sputnik era used terms like “revision”
and “reform” the intention was to replace school science and
mathematics programs. Their zeal and confidence was great.
In some sense they approached the reform as a “field of
dreams.” That is, if they built good curriculum materials then
science teachers would adopt them, thus replacing traditional
programs. Such an approach, however, confronts pervasive
institutional resistance, raises the personal concerns of
teachers, and alarms the public. The need to understand what
happened in the Sputnik era contributed to research on
curriculum implementation, concerns of teachers, and
educational change.
The lesson here is the importance of using our knowledge
about educational change. Not only are new programs
important, other components of the educational system must
themselves change and provide support for the implementation
of educational innovations. Those components include peer
teachers, administration, school boards, the community, and a
variety of local, state, and national policies.
- Second, reluctance of teachers increases as the innovations
vary from current programs and practices and they lack
political, social, and educational support. Teachers had
difficulty with the content and pedagogy of new programs such
as PSSC, BSCS, CHEM Study, SCIS, and ESS. Lacking
educational support within their system and experiencing
political criticism from outside of education, they sought
security by staying with or returning to the traditional
programs.
The educational lesson here centers on the importance of both
initial and ongoing professional development and support for
the new programs and practices. In addition, educational
reformers have to recognize that changes in social and political
forces has an affect on school programs.
- Third, exclusion of those in the larger science and mathematics
education community, e.g., teacher educators, science
education researchers, and the public contributed to the slow
acceptance and implementation of the programs, reduced
understanding by those entering the profession, and afforded
less than adequate professional development for teachers in
the classroom.
Here we learned to involve more than teachers. Education is a
system consisting of many different components. One
important component consists of those who have some
responsibility for teacher preparation, workshops and
professional development, and the implementation of school
science and mathematics programs. It is best to work from a
perspective that attempts to unify and coordinate efforts
among teachers, educators, and scientists all of whom have
strengths and weaknesses in their respective contribution to
reform efforts.
- Fourth, realities of state and local school districts went
unrecognized. Support from federal agencies and national
foundations freed developers from the political and
educational constraints of state and local agencies and the
power and influence of commercial publishers.
This lesson directs attention to a broader, more systemic, view
of education, one that includes a variety of policies. One view
of education suggests it involves polices, programs, and
practices. Usually, individuals, organizations, and agencies
contribute in various ways in the formulation of policy,
development of programs, or the implementation of practices,
however, there must be coordination and consistency among
the various efforts. Designing and developing new programs,
such as we did in the Sputnik era, without attending to a larger
educational context to support those programs and changing
classroom practices to align with the innovative program surely
marginalizes the success of the initiative.
- Fifth, restricting initiatives to curriculum for specific groups of
students, i.e., science and mathematically prone and
college-bound students, resulted in criticism of Sputnik-era
reforms as inappropriate for other students such as the
average and the disadvantaged. To the degree school systems
implemented the new programs teachers found that the
materials were inappropriate for some populations of students
and too difficult for others. Restricting policies or targeting
programs opens the door to criticism on the grounds of equity.
Proposing initiatives for ALL students also often results in
criticism from both those who maintain there is a need for a
specific program for those inclined toward science and
mathematics and those who argue that programs for all
discriminate against the disadvantaged.
Examining the nature and lessons of Sputnik era reforms, as
well as those that came before and after, clearly demonstrates
that educational reforms differ. Although this may seem
obvious, we have not always paid attention to some of the
common themes and general lessons that may benefit the
steady work of improving science, mathematics, and
technology education. Stated succinctly, those lessons are: use
what we know about educational change; include all the key
players in the educational community; align policies, programs,
and practices with the stated purposes of education; work on
improving education for all students; and, attend to the support
and continuous professional development of classroom
teachers, since they are the most essential resource in the
system of science and mathematics education.
REFERENCES
Cremin, L. 1961. The Genius of American Education. New York:
Vintage.
Dow, P. 1991. Schoolhouse Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gardner, J. 1984. Excellence. New York: W.W. Norton
Goodlad, J.I. 1964. School Curriculum Reform in the United States.
New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education
Goodlad, J.I. 1997. In Praise of Education. New York: Teachers
College Press
Helgeson, S. L., P. E. Blosser, and R. W. Howe. 1977. The Status
of Pre-College Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education:
1955-1975. Volume 1. Columbus, OH: Center on Science and
Mathematics Education, Ohio State University.
Hurd, P.D. 1969. New Directions in Teaching Secondary School
Science. Chicago Rand McNally
Ravitch, D. 1983. The Troubled Crusade: American Education
1945-1980. New York: Basic.
Shymansky, J. A., W. C. Kyle and J. M. Alport. 1983. The Effects
of New Science Curricula on Student Performance. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 20(5): 387-404.
Tanner, D. and L. Tanner. 1990. History of the School Curriculum.
New York MacMillan Publishing Company
Tyack, D. and L. Cuban. 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A
Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press
Weiss, I. 1978. Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science,
Mathematics, and Social Studies Education. Washington, DC: U. S.
Government Printing Office.
|
