Saturday, March 12, 2011

Keeping Up with Global Competition


Global competition is puzzling and complex. Once a leader of nations, the United States has become fragmented in its vision for the future and in doing so has lost its competitive edge. “Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation’s Sputnik moment” (Obama, 2011).

The global competition which exists today reaches far and beyond those of the Sputnik era. The Cold War era put fear into Americans and ignited a flame which burned with intensity for decades. Today’s Sputnik encompasses more than Russia; it involves the savvy of nations once never considered a threat: educationally, technologically, nor economically, and have become major leaders in the global marketplace.

I believe Friedman was correct in stating we are “building bridges to nowhere” (2011). The battles we are fighting worldwide, albeit important to national security, leave little time to initiate innovation for our needs of the future here at home. We, too, should be politically charged. A paradigm shift must be initiated to regain our edge competitively.

Science teachers are innovators. We need to dream BIG. We need to provide opportunities for our students to dream BIG. We must nurture inquiry and allow our students to self-discover so they can see the interconnectedness of the world around them. A "sacred bond" exists that we as educators, parents, and a community have with past generations and future generations through science -- and that we are charged with the responsibility of nurturing, and not squashing, a child's curiosity and joy for exploration” (Goldstein, 2011). Science education, he says, is just a method for organizing our curiosity. As innovators, science educators must continually scaffold our students in cognitive complexity and inquiry.

Making a difference at the local level begins with teachers purposefully collaborating via Professional Learning Communities, Focus groups or Lesson Study; sharing pedagogical knowledge to teach science. Units of study should be designed collectively incorporating STEM and strategies for implementation to address student diversity via learning styles, readiness levels and interests. Action research would be an incredible means to instill the necessity of STEM locally. Equally important is supervising incoming teachers (interns or as mentors) to innovate and encourage them in science, math, technology, and engineering; infusing reading into each discipline. The greater influx of teachers in STEM, the greater the opportunities for future generations to change the world.

On the state level, it is imperative for STEM to be afforded first consideration in all grade levels. Many initiatives focus on the needs in secondary education. STEM-minded curricula initiatives must begin in kindergarten and spiral through grade twelve receiving equitable funding. In order to have success with such initiatives, funding must be a top priority. Budget cuts are occurring daily; our voices need to be heard. Staying abreast of current legislation is vital to our continued success globally.

Nationally the time is now to end the disparities. “As the fate of individuals and nations are in creating interdependence, the quest for access to an equitable, empowering education for all people has become a critical issue for the American nation as a whole” (Darling-Hammond, 2011). Countries around the world remain competitive because their focus is on what works. Finland, Singapore and South Korea are just three nations who have gained such success in “expanding access while investing purposefully in ambitious educational goals using strategic approaches to build teaching capacity” (Darling-Hammond, 2011). Developing common core standards, revising curriculum, assessments, and instructional methods have enabled these nations to soar to heights once only imagined.

To be considered a major competitor globally, the priority of education must come to the forefront. Our fragmented system necessitates being whole once again. The United States puts tremendous time and energy into the achievement gap. It is time to change such focus and consider the opportunity gap. This is our Sputnik.

References:

Darling-Hammond, L. 2011). "Soaring systems: High flyers all have equitable funding, shared curriculum, and quality teaching.” American Educator, 34(4), 20-23.

Friedman, T. L. (2010, January 17). “What’s our Sputnik?” [Op-Ed]. The New York Times [Late Edition (East Coast)], p. WK.8.

Goldstein, J. (2011, March 10). Reigniting our enthusiasm for science. [Discussion group comment]. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/NSTA-science-education

Obama, B. (2011, January 25). State of the union address. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2011

2 comments:

  1. Yes, the "Opportunity Gap" must indeed be addressed. At the school in which I teach, we have begun to "plant seeds" in our students, encouraging them to think about what they can do to help improve their situations. The comments in you post pertaining to mentoring, action research, and professional collaboration in order to develop and create advocacy for STEM leaders are means by which we, as educators, can improve ourselves. Thank you for your insightful and inspiring post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder if it is not now more costly to create the boost than it was the first time. I know that space efforts were not less costly then, but is it that people had more discipline then? I just don't understand how it can be that the amount of times that America has exploded in innovations in the past can end with a sizzle now. To be fair, we still make a number of the innovations of technology. Apple is indeed an American company as are others and yet, even the ideas that were started in America are now made real in other countries. Perhaps that is part of the problem. As those other counties build our innovation, they gain understanding to enhance it in ways that our own people do not. I don't know the answer, but I sure wish I did.

    ReplyDelete