Running head: PROGRESSIVISM AND SPUTNIK

Progressivism and the Sputnik Era: A Comparison

Patty Blake

A Comparison Paper submitted for
CI 701 Curriculum Development
at Marshall University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of



Doctorate of Education
in
Curriculum and Instruction



Dr. Amy Cottle, Professor
Graduate School of Education and Professional Development



South Charleston, West Virginia
2012






Copyright, 2012, Patty Blake
PROGRESSIVISM AND SPUTNIK 2


The circle of life applies to all organizations and institutions, including education.
Reform comes and goes. Wissehr, Concannon, and Barrow (2011) note an alternating pattern in
American education between the progressive approach and the back to basics content focus
approach with cycles lasting approximately twenty years.
October 4, 1957 ushered in a major reform in education. While American attention was
divided among competing issues such as the Civil Rights movement and the Korea War, the
Soviet Union surprised the world by being the first nation to launch a satellite into space.
Sputnik was both a blow to national pride and a wakeup call to America. The response was an
expedient reform of the educational system as the pendulum swung from the progressive stance
to a back to basics approach with a focus on math and science.
To better understand any educational approach requires placing that approach within the
context of the society in which it operates. A comparison of the progressive stance of education
to the sputnik era must take into account three major areas: the general traits and characteristics
of the approach, the reasons for the approach, and the purpose and scope of education based on
the approach.
Understanding begins with definition. The progressive approach was a child-centered
approach officially established with the Progressive Education Association in 1919. For almost
forty years, the progressive movement held a primary role in education and curriculum. The
dissolution of the association in 1955 marked the official end of the movement but the approach
and its contributions continue to have a lasting influence on American education (Schugurensky
and Aguirre, 2002). The traits of progressivism include a holistic student-centered approach,
emphasis on cooperation and collaboration, a focus on social justice, the evidence of intrinsic
motivation, a promotion of deep understanding, and an active learning utilizing inquiry-based
PROGRESSIVISM AND SPUTNIK 3

and problem-solving strategies (Kohn, 2008). Progressivism adds up to child-centered
instruction, discovery learning and learning how to learn. And in the current language of
American education schools there is a single label that captures this entire approach to education:
constructivism (Larabee, 2005, p.277).
Traits of the Sputnik era education include a focus on math and science including the
teaching of science though inquiry based methods established prior to Sputnik. However, the
definition of inquiry was refined as processing skills were separated from content related skills.
Sputnik era education increased laboratory time and relied heavily on kit based programs. The
era also included an emphasis on teacher professional development and research based
curriculum and instruction (Wissehr et al., 2011).
Understanding the general characteristics of each approach assists in the understanding of
the reasons for the approach. The progressive era developed in opposition to the social
efficiency model which emphasized classroom control, obedience to authority, and a highly
structured curriculum prominently relying on rote memorization skills. Making institutions,
including schools, more democratic, was a significant goal of progressivism which viewed
education as a route to social reconstruction and reform (Schugurensky and Aguirre, 2002).
The Sputnik era came about in part due to fear. The United States feared losing the
technological edge which guaranteed military supremacy and national security. The satellite
launch refocused the nation on education and pointed out that American schools were not
meeting the increasing needs of a growing technologically-based work force. Communism was
the common enemy.
In the absence of a federal department of education as yet to be established, the National
Science Foundation (NSF) played a major role in shaping science curriculum at all levels during
PROGRESSIVISM AND SPUTNIK 4

the Sputnik era. The foundation spearheaded two initiatives. One addressed the teacher shortage
and sought to recruit and provide professional development for science educators. The other
initiative focused on strengthening the school curriculum; especially in the areas of science and
math (Hewitt, 2006).
Finally, the two approaches must be compared in terms of purpose and scope of
education. For progressives, the purpose of education was to promote social justice through the
formation of active and conscientious citizens who could participate in a democratic society. In
terms of curriculum, the emphasis was placed on students interest (Schugurensky and Aguirre,
2002). Under progressivism, general science courses taught an understanding of the scientific
process as opposed to an understanding of the content discipline. The consensus was that such a
life-skills approach to science prepared students for the responsibilities of citizenship in a
democratic society and would be preferable since 80 percent of all student were estimated not to
pursue an area in science education (Wissehr et al., 2011).
Bybee (1997) explains that the life-adjustment approach to education popularized by the
progressive movement focused on the needs of students placed on the general track of education
characterized by a curriculum of functional experiences in subjects such as family living and
practical arts. Critics of the approach complained that vital aspects of the curriculum were
neglected. The life-adjustment concept suited progressivists who believed that education should
however address the whole child, not just the academic child. Progressivists claim that learning
should be tied to questions that arise in the learner based on the learners individual experience
of the world. This type of learning is active as students work to construct knowledge and the
scientific method is used to allow students a systematic hands-on experience with learning.
Books are merely tools and teachers are considered facilitators.
PROGRESSIVISM AND SPUTNIK 5

In the aftermath of the Sputnik launch, the government scrambled to create educational
reform. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA) provided funding for
scholarships, student loans, and scientific material and equipment for schools. NDEA gave the
federal government a voice in education which had previously been matter of state and local
control. Curriculum, especially in the areas of math and science was strengthened as funding for
budgets and programs demanded adherence to federal guidelines (Hewitt, 2006).
According to some experts, the urgency of education reform; especially science
education was due in part to the lack of qualified teachers and courses. It is estimated that
approximately 23 percent of all American high schools did not offer physics or chemistry. These
courses were added to many school curriculums but the push to require higher level courses
resulted with the progressives winning the argument to keep courses such as physics and
chemistry focused on the practical, rather than theoretical applications. In addition, the use of
math was minimized in both courses. In other areas, the progressives lost ground. Education
turned toward a more rigorous curriculum and reforms addressed professional development for
teachers. Due to significant differences in content areas, specialized training was provided to
science teachers while both teacher qualifications and certifications were established (Wissehr et
al., 2011). Numerous programs were introduced and funded through the NSF and other
agencies. Scope, sequence, and standardization of course content became a major focus in the
development of the new curriculum and teachers were given increasingly stronger voices in
curriculum development (Hewitt, 2006). Problem solving, a focus of progressive education
remained during the sputnik era as curriculum designs casts the new interdisciplinary
curriculum in the form of problems in an effort to help American students move toward a
depth of knowledge requiring application of skills (Henson, 2007, p. 187).
PROGRESSIVISM AND SPUTNIK 6

Most of the information regarding curriculum during the Sputnik era is based on science
education as it was the major focus. However, curriculum reform permeates all levels of
education and affects all stakeholders in education. Some believe that we are once again on the
brink of another major school reform. Starnes (2011) points to the current Race to the Top
initiative aimed at reforming local schools and implemented at the state level. Like Sputnik era
programs, funding is contingent on adopting federal guidelines and rules. For Race to the Top,
states must agree to adopt the common core standards. Starnes warns that we must be careful
when adopting such widespread government standards and calls instead for schools and
communities to avoid the McDonaldization of education by considering change that represents
individual needs.
Other educators point to a resurgence in the progressive movement as a reaction to the
high stakes testing and other mandates required through No Child Left Behind. According to a
Philadelphia based group of educators, there is a major socio-economic divide and those on the
lower end must suffer the assessment driven curriculum of NCLB while the wealthier sectors in
private schools do not (National Association of Independent Schools, 2011). One thing is for
certain, reform is an ongoing process. The call for reform is once again in the air and it will be
interesting to watch and see how it moves along the circle of educational life.










PROGRESSIVISM AND SPUTNIK 7

REFERENCES

Bybee, R. W. (1997). The Sputnik era: Why is this educational reform different from all other
reforms? National Academy of Sciences Center for Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering Education, National Research Council. Retrieved from
http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/bybee2.htm
Henson, K. T. (2007). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and
education reform (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Hewitt, T. W. (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: what we teach and why.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications
Kohn, A. (2008, Spring). Progressive education: Why it's hard to beat, but also hard to find.
Independent School. Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/progressive.htm
Larabee, D. F. (2005, February). Progressivism, schools, and schools of education: An American
romance. Paedogigica Historica, 41(1-2), 275-288. doi:10.1080/0030923042000335583
National Association of Independent Schools. (2011). Another Sputnik moment? Independent
School, 71(1), 72-78.
Schugurensky, D. and Aguirre, N. (2002). 1919: The Progressive Education Association is
founded. In Daniel Schugurensky (Ed.), History of Education: Selected Moments of the
20
th
Century [online]. Retrieved from
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schurgurensky/assignment1/1919pea.html.
Starnes, B. A. (2011, April). Change, Sputnik, and fast food. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(7), 72-73.
Wissehr, C., Concannon, J. and Barrow, L.H. (2011). Looking back at the Sputnik era and its
impact on science education. School Science and Mathematics, 111:368-375. doi:
10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00099x.