This post is written as a response to the article by Thomas Friedman (2010) entitled, What’s our Sputnik? As we all know, the launch of the Soviet satellite, Sputnik I, in 1957 generated a spark in American science and education. There was a genuine excitement about what the future holds for science and technology. Although this passion and excitement still exists today, it does not seem that America holds the key to the future endeavors of science. In fact, it is the Japanese and Chinese markets that seem to benefit from the launch of today’s Sputnik, the Internet. The Chinese have already continued their investment in space technology by starting the process of setting up their very own Space Station that is set for completion in 2020 (Luscombe, 2011). With the retirement of the US space shuttle fleet this summer and the continued lay-offs of NASA employees, does this signify a shift in the space race initiated by the Soviets in 1957? Has the United States lost the edge on the global market for innovation and creativity? How will our nation respond to the emergence of Asian countries in science and technology? Do we need a shift in focus from the war on terror to science and education? These are just a few questions that surfaced as I read the fore mentioned article.
How do we get our nation back on track to compete with other countries in the development of technology? First, there needs to be a shift in focus with our spending as a nation and as individual states. The fact of the matter is America’s economic landscape is not as fertile as it used to be. The national debt continues to grow each second of the day, and the dollar is not worth what it was in the past. In other words, the spending out weighs the income. The costs of printing, shipping, implementing, and grading state tests seem to be an area in which most educators feel money could be better spent. I know that state testing does very little to help students in the classroom. In fact, we spend more time and resources preparing and implementing this one test than any other single unit in the curriculum. These state test seem to be the focus in education today, and not the preparation and development of positive contributors to our society.
Second, we need to set aside time to implement science inquiry in today’s elementary classrooms. With the emphasis on high stakes testing results, teachers in our district are mandated to teach at least one and a half hours of Mathematics, two-and-half hours of English Language Arts, and a half hour of Physical Education. In a class day that allots for five hours of instructional time, science is forced to share half and hour a day with social studies, art, and music. Some teachers choose to skip science completely and leave the science unit until after state testing has passed. Others “fit in” science while teaching writing. That simply is not enough time to implement a lesson that develops students’ higher level thinking skills. These skills are vital for the future of American science and technology.
Unless our focus changes as a nation, we are unfortunately looking at the slow, but eventual decline in science and technology in America. We are already beginning to see the advancement in space technology by the Chinese, and their rapid advances are sure to be the forecast of a shift in the leader board of the space race. In the last 8 years they have successfully accomplished what initially took us over 20 years to set up our first space station, Skylab in 1973 (Luscombe, 2011). At the rate at which we are declining, and the rapid increase in scientific technology in Asia, it is only a matter of time until we are staring at their backs as they leave us in their wake of advancements.
References:
Friedman, T. (2010). What’s our Sputnik? [Op-Ed]. The New York Times [Late Edition
(East Coast)], p. WK.8. January 17, 2010.
Luscombe, R. (2011). Chinese space station signals shift in space race. The
Guardian. Retrieved May 13, 2012 from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/30/china-space-station
