Congress, NASA

House Science Committee to take up education reorganization

The full House Science Committee will host a hearing today at 2 pm EDT to examine the Obama Administration’s proposed restructuring of federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs, consolidating programs at NASA and other agencies. Among those slated to testify at the hearing is Leland Melvin, NASA’s associate administrator for education.

When NASA rolled out its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, it said there would still be a strong emphasis on education at NASA as other agencies would seek to make use of NASA’s unique capabilities under the restructured STEM education effort. However, the drop in NASA education funds—from $136 million in fiscal year 2012 to $94 million in the FY14 proposal—concerned many, as well as potential disruptions to ongoing successful STEM education efforts within NASA.

A recent statement by the American Astronomical Society opposed the potential elimination of education and public outreach (EPO) programs within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) in the restructuring. “The proposed budget reorganization would dismantle some of the nation’s most inspiring and successful STEM education assets,” the statement read, adding the the society recommends that those EPO programs “that have demonstrated success with implementing evidence-based educational methods and have robust assessment outcomes” be exempted from the overall federal STEM education restructuring.

45 comments to House Science Committee to take up education reorganization

  • Dark Blue Nine

    Debates about consolidation and funding levels totally miss the point. The focus should be on the output — do the STEM programs in question improve the performance of students in STEM and result in more students pursuing STEM careers later in life?

    NASA’s STEM programs are just plain ineffective. It doesn’t matter how much is spent or how they’re packaged, there’s no evidence that they improve student performance or drive students into STEM careers.

    Per the studies/surveys below, we know what good, effective STEM programs look like:

    http://www.stemreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NRC_STEM_2.pdf‎

    http://www.bayerus.com/msms/web_docs/compendium.pdf‎

    NASA programs either don’t appear in these studies/surveys or make only minor contributions in a couple supporting areas. That should tell us something.

  • Hiram

    The SMD EPO programs are pretty good, with regard to STEM education, but those done in the name of human space flight don’t cut the mustard. Those latter programs are based on “inspiring” kids with space suits, helmets, and bad hair, rather than science, technology, engineering, or math. Yes, it takes high technology and superb engineering to offer that bad hair, but … . So let’s not confuse EPO with STEM education, especially when it comes to human space flight.

    I think it is of some interest that to the extent that human space flight won’t appear as conspicuously in primary and secondary classrooms, a new generation will be less reverent about it.

    That being said, I’m not sure I trust NSF to generate the best technology and engineering curriculum aids, nor the Department of Education to do the best job in engaging the STEM community on behalf of education.

  • amightywind

    I was inspired to get into science and technology by the Apollo and shuttle programs, as well as the Voyager planetary missions. Today’s kids are no different, or wouldn’t be if not for the soul deadening curriculum of our unionized public school system, or NASA’s moribund and atrophied programs. NASA has an important role to play for America’s youth. It needs to inspire by the example of launching ambitious space missions (with large rockets!), not by the wasteful artifice of outreach programs. Honestly, ask your self if you’d be inspired by NASA in its current state.

    • Coastal Ron

      amightywind said:

      NASA has an important role to play for America’s youth.

      No doubt there is a need to inspire “dreamers”, since with less than 0.5% of the federal budget, NASA ain’t doin much these days.

      But if I were to compare NASA’s engineering employment with that of Boeing (~11,000 vs 19,000), then Boeing has a much larger influence on what kids choose to do than NASA. And Boeing is just one company that employs large numbers of people in fields related to STEM.

      I do think that NASA has a role to play in education, but I think not as a lead, more to support and provide an example. What really needs to happen is a better private/public coordination of effort, since industry is where most of the jobs are at, but government (at all levels) is so instrumental in supporting educational programs.

    • Hiram

      Heh. Inspiration “with large rockets!” We ought to send students out at night on the 4th of July and let them get STEM-inspired. Cheaper than funding schools. For the cost of an SLS, you could buy every kid their own Atomic Meltdown every year, creating HUGE “inspiration”.

      A lot of students are “inspired” by what they see coming out of NASA these days. Telescopes that see to the limits of the universe in light that our eyes can’t see, probes that visit the planets, and even landers that allow us to scope out their surfaces in detail. This is what exploration should look like to them. This is how we put our consciousness and awareness at new places. We don’t talk about it. We do it. This exemplifies to students the way we can reach, and fully exercise our curiosity. It’s reach and curiosity that we’re trying to inspire and cultivate.

      I have to agree that there is little human space flight coming out of NASA that can be considered truly inspirational. It’s not a matter of going round and round, but a matter of not really understanding what we’re trying to do that has value and importance. The reach and curiosity aren’t really self evident here. They sit. They launch. They float, smile, and wave. They reenter (fwoosh) and they land (bump). Big fizz.

      The outreach programs that you call wasteful are the ones that have real content. The inspiration you seem to be wanting is dropped jaws and bug eyes. Dropped jaws and bug eyes don’t get you anywhere without content. I’ve seen students who are “inspired” in this way, but who are STEM-incompetent. It ain’t pretty. Dropped jaws, bug-eyes, and building rockets with gunpowder and plumbing.

  • Miles

    “That being said, I’m not sure I trust NSF to generate the best technology and engineering curriculum”

    Actually the NSF last year produced a report calling for space ( and earth) science to be in every school, at every grade level, and considered equivalent with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, life and physical sciences. They put together a framework for these and promptly forgot to include such things as the life cycles of stars and numerous other topics.

    Last I hear dthey are still trying to get the outline of topics correct.

    • Hiram

      I agree completely. NSF would do a marvelous job taking some leadership in space and earth science in schools. I’m not sure about the equivalency you refer to. Space science isn’t any more than physics, chemistry, and biology … in space. It’s the same physics, chemistry, and biology. Might as well make undersea science an equivalent, if you were going to go that route. Trying to set space science apart from those basic sciences would be nonsense. My point was that NSF doesn’t necessarily represent national smarts in applied technology and engineering.

      • Guest

        Our approach has always traditionally been that mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology are the tools and domains of science, and that the natural sciences, life science, earth sciences and space sciences represent the phenomena under study. This has always worked very well for us, four tools to study four domains of science.

        It’s simplistic, I know, but it works for us. YMMV.

  • Ralph Hall just went off on another senile rant. Thinks NASA and EPA are sibling agencies whose primary purpose is job creation. Bizarre.

  • Today’s hearing is now on my YouTube channel at:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-CS-9mU_TU

    I excised the 35-minute recess.

  • James

    Holden; blah blah blah, Obama is the best President and knows how to cut overlapping duplicative programs, like STEM. Lets not pay attention however to the exploding entitlement programs that are killing our country

    NSF. We are smart people who know how to do STEM programs, and we appreciate the budget up tic and added authority from the Presidents Fy 14 STEM consolidation. this proves how smart we are

    NASA Political Appointees and 9 th floor. : We like to follow and so we totally agree with the what ever the president suggests, even though the result is an uninspiring Agency that can’t control costs, has no compelling vision, has used STEM more as political support than actually STEm contributions to the nation , and loves to be flogged by Congress even though we are much smarter than that bunch

    Zzzzz….more of the same….twiddle with a few million while NASA’s systemic problems and dysfunctions go in addressed despite yearly GAO reports and quadrennial Augustine Committee
    Pronouncements of insufficient budget to meet present schedules

    Egad

  • guest

    Dark Blue Nine wrote that per the studies/surveys below, we know what good, effective STEM programs look like:

    http://www.stemreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NRC_STEM_2.pdf‎

    http://www.bayerus.com/msms/web_docs/compendium.pdf‎

    and that NASA programs don’t appear…

    First, the BAYERUS page does feature a NASA human space flight related program, right now, right on its cover ‘page’. Second the NRC report does not identify any government programs at all, NASA or others neither in the body of the report nor in the appendix references. The report is only about a umber of schools around the US noted for STEM success and their characteristics.

    Maybe you ought to read the reports before you start describing them erroneously.

    There is research that shows that despite its shortcomings, such as lack of organization, NASA educational efforts which includes programs for teachers, programs for students, publications and internet resources, are cited by STEM teachers by a factor of more than ten to one as more significant than any other federal government or university program in influencing their students.

    • Coastal Ron

      guest said:

      There is research that shows that despite its shortcomings…

      Do you have a link for the research?

    • Hiram

      Here’s the study we should be looking at.

      http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12081.html

      This 2008 NRC review of NASA elementary and secondary education programs came to some interesting conclusions. They found that, in principle, NASA could offer a productive role in STEM education, but the committee was seriously hampered in its valuation of existing programs “because of instability in the program and lack of rigorous evaluation”. The second reason is a standard failing for outreach efforts. That’s where dreamy-eyed, would-be teacher helpers come up with what seems to them to be compelling curriculum (exciting! inspirational! factual!), and use it on students, but never actually take he trouble to find out if it was successful in teaching them anything. Department of Education would never have done that. Now, the study finds “NASA has participated in federally coordinated activities, but NASA does not systematically coordinate with other federal agencies involved in STEM education nor interact with other federal agencies to draw on expertise related to the design of STEM education projects.” So while others know how to do it, NASA doesn’t seem to want to know. Finally “the Elementary and Secondary Program is not realizing NASA’s potential as a resource for education as effectively as could be hoped.” Now, this is all fixable, and there has been some effort to fix it in the last few years on the basis of this study.

      “The projects are somewhat effective at raising awareness of the science and engineering of NASA missions and generating students’ and teachers’ interest in STEM. As presently configured, they cannot be shown to be effective at enhancing learning of STEM content and providing in-depth experiences with the science and engineering of the missions.”

      As I said about SMD science education activities …

      “The Science Mission Directorate programs are to be commended for their close integration with the science missions of NASA and for their use of partnerships to bring educational expertise into their work.”

      Again, if it’s about dropped jaws and bug eyes, that’s one thing. But solid education is something else.

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “Dark Blue Nine wrote that per the studies/surveys below, we know what good, effective STEM programs look like [links deleted] and that NASA programs don’t appear…”

      No, I wrote that:

      “NASA programs either don’t appear in these studies/surveys or make only minor contributions in a couple supporting areas.”

      Please don’t misquote me.

      “First, the BAYERUS page does feature a NASA human space flight related program, right now, right on its cover ‘page’.”

      I didn’t link to a U.S. Bayer homepage. Website images for the purposes of public relations hardly qualify as hard-nosed assessments of STEM program effectiveness.

      I linked to a report titled “A Compendium of Best Practice K-12 STEM Education Programs”. NASA does not appear on the cover of that document, and makes only a couple, minor appearances as a partner in the more than 40 programs featured in that report.

      NASA education spends tens of millions of taxpayer dollars annually on various K-12 programs. For that kind of money, NASA education programs should be making this list, and in more than a couple, small supporting roles.

      “Second the NRC report does not identify any government programs at all, NASA or others”

      This is simply incorrect. Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, and NSF all appear in the document.

      “Maybe you ought to read the reports before you start describing them erroneously.”

      A rather hypocritical statement given that you referred to a Bayer homepage, not the report I linked to, and made a false statement about the NRC report.

      “There is research that shows…”

      Where?

      When I google “NASA cited by STEM teachers by a factor of more than ten to one”, there is no link supporting your statement.

      If true, such a finding should be highlighted on one of the NASA Education homepages, especially the Performance Assessment homepage. It’s not.

      Instead, the top independent assessment from the NASA Education homepage draws negative conclusions like:

      “NASA does not have a coherent overall plan for evaluation and for how results of evaluation should inform program and project design and implementation. Few of NASA’s projects have been formally evaluated, and none has been evaluated rigorously. Consequently, there are little data across projects on which to base conclusions about effectiveness.”

      “Currently, data collection efforts common to all projects chiefly consist of counts of sessions offered, numbers of participants, and immediate feedback from them. Such data are insufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of projects or of the program as a whole.”

      “NASA does not appear to have budgeted sufficient funds for a thorough evaluation of projects”

      “NASA does not systematically coordinate with other federal agencies involved in STEM education nor interact with other federal agencies to draw on expertise related to the design of STEM education projects”

      http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/550499main_Elem-Sec-EdProg-Review-Critique.pdf

  • common sense

    The STEM motivation debate is somehow pretty flawed.

    Whatever inspired me to get into science is probably different from what inspired someone else. Trying to generalize it only is going to fail.

    Education, successful education, is far more than inspiration.

    For example. Why would any one become an engineer in our society? To work at NASA? Why? To be at the mercy of the political winds? No matter how much effort you put in inspiration you will only motivate a fraction of the students. We, the society, say we need STEM educated people but do not provide them with jobs commensurate with the sacrifices required to become an engineer or a scientist, let alone a STEM educator – supreme irony.

    Inspiration???? Yeah sure. But we need much more than inspiration.

    • James

      Not sure its ‘the truth’, or just anecdotal here-say, but the Apollo program created a surge in students entering Aerospace etc. engineering.

      If young people can see , can see, where their engineering or scientific talents can be applied, their more likely to move in that direction.

      STEM initiatives, that also don’t stimulate STEM job, but just emphasis the need for STEM students/teachers, seems empty and meaningless.

      • Coastal Ron

        James said:

        Not sure its ‘the truth’, or just anecdotal here-say, but the Apollo program created a surge in students entering Aerospace etc. engineering.

        Let’s say that’s true. How is that any different than the iPhone inspiring lots (and I mean LOTS) of people to learn how to create iPhone apps?

        Sure, we’re all space advocates here, but STEM is a pretty broad category. And even the space-related part of it is more than sending humans into space.

        And let’s remember that the government agency called the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has “Aeronautics” listed before “Space”. I know for me, I was more excited about what NASA was doing with the X-48B Blended Wing Body test program back in 2010 than I was for the Ares I and Orion. Unfortunately our Congress doesn’t think that pushing the technical frontier of our largest export category (i.e. aircraft) is a good idea.

        I know our local high schools have competitive robotic teams, but I know of no rocketry teams or clubs associated with them. Is that connected to the success of the various Mars rovers? I’m sure the attention the press has given them hasn’t hurt, and the press coverage of the MSL landing sure highlighted the positive aspects of STEM.

        Apollo has not been the only source of STEM inspiration…

        • common sense

          “How is that any different than the iPhone inspiring lots (and I mean LOTS) of people to learn how to create iPhone apps?”

          ABSOLUTELY. People easily forget that Apollo was the impossible dream yeas BUT that was 40/50 years ago!!!! People in their 30s were not born then! These people live with their times. And nowadays you have far more chance to impact the way we live by working on the iPhone than on a stupid SLS rocket.

          By the way. The people “inspired” by SpaceX are similar in may ways by those inspired by Apple. Young, ambitious, willing to make a difference AND to make money all the while.

          NASA’s antiquated way to “inspire” is to ask the youth to get into STEM with little chance to have a well paying job (as compared with those you get at Apple or in biotech. The inspiration to get into a system where it is very unlikely you will be used at the maximum of your capacity???

          Anyway. STEM does not start in College, not even in K1-12, it start in pre-school. Then again who wants our children to go to pre-school???

          Reforming our way of thinking is the only way out of this mess. In the meantime we can always try to “inspire”. After all inspiration works, right? How many graduates in the STEM fields that are born in this country come out of College? Why do we need to import so many of them?

          Let’s do the same thing over and over again. I am sure it will eventually work.

    • common sense wrote:

      The STEM motivation debate is somehow pretty flawed.

      Watching the hearing, I got the impression that the main concern the members had was what was going to happen to grants coming to their districts. It’s always about pork with these people.

  • James wrote:

    Not sure its ‘the truth’, or just anecdotal here-say, but the Apollo program created a surge in students entering Aerospace etc. engineering.

    Can’t cite any statistics myself, but based on what I’ve read of the era, the Apollo program created an artificial demand for engineers. Once the program ended, all those engineers got laid off — just as what happened after the Shuttle ended.

    We as a nation need to stop relying upon artificial demand created by temporary government programs. Nor should the government run NASA as a workfare program for engineers whose skills don’t have a place in the private sector, any more than the government should have provided jobs one hundred years ago for all the buggywhip makers when the horseless carriage came along.

    Skills have to evolve as the economy evolves. Today’s NASA prevents that from happening because Congress mandated that SLS be built out of Shuttle technology. The real innovation is in the private sector. The sooner Congress gets out of the way, the better for the future of the U.S. economy.

  • Aberwys

    STEM Education leading to STEM jobs is all windowdressing until places like NASA look critically at how they do succession planning.

  • guest

    Succession planning in human space is done early. Managers decide who will be promoted so early that whether the individuals have ever succeeded in any functions relative to the positions they are due to be promoted into is irrelevant. It is also why the positions need not be competed. My experience is that the person selected is planned before the job announcement in virtually every case. And it explains the reason the programs are in such sorry shape today, with an entire management hierarchy that has so little meaningful experience. Is it any wonder NASA does not work effectively?

    • Coastal Ron

      guest blurted unexpectedly:

      Succession planning in human space is done early. Managers decide who will be promoted so early…

      It’s amazing what bubbles up to the top with you. Is this a form of free association?

  • Rick P

    I think Mr. or Ms. guest was simply responding to Aberwys’ comment on succession planning. I see their point. If you have people who have no background, knowledge or interest in any particular function-in this case education, and they are in charge of that same function, then they are likely to be making all kinds of guesses at what the right approach is. We used to call that ‘off the cuff’, or ‘shoot from the hip’ thinking and decision making in stead of relying on known, tested, proven, demonstrated methods or processes. NASA does a lot in education. Speaking as a teacher, I can say that teachers teaching any of the space related subjects do rely on NASA content. I also think that if people feel that kids are not inspired by space, then you have been away from the real world for too long. However, NASA and space education content could be so much better and easier for students and teachers if the education content were organized for the teachers or others in the outside of NASA community, which is a lot of what Hiram and others cite as the problems with NASA education. But if you have no training in teaching and education or how to organize the content because you are unfamiliar with how it should be used, and you are in charge of it, because succession planning (or the lack thereof) has placed untrained people in charge of the function, then you wind up with an inefficient, ineffective organization.

    • Coastal Ron

      Rick P said:

      Speaking as a teacher, I can say that teachers teaching any of the space related subjects do rely on NASA content.

      I think the real question though is whether that content is the right content to encourage students to pursue STEM related education?

      I think Chris Hatfield’s recent videos from the ISS have been much more inspiring for students interested in STEM than someone coming in and talking about what NASA did generations ago. The content has to be relevant, and it has to allow students to see how they could contribute in the future.

      Is NASA doing that today? Are they the right organization to lead on this, or should they just be a contributor?

    • common sense

      It is not about whether the NASA content helps you as a teacher. The problem is how many children get into STEM? How many of those who do because of NASA? If a child comes to you and asks what they are going to do with a STEM education, what do you answer? That they will build rockets? At NASA?

      If our society put more value on STEM you would not have this debate.

      Why is our society not so interested in STEM?

      If you are the parent and say your child has to chose between a STEM degree or a law degree, between a life that may be just average and one that can bring tons of money. Why might you ask? Because our country is based on litigation of all sorts. Who make the news? Who are the most influential people? Engineers?

      Anyway. Re-evauating the role of education, of which STEM only is a part, is a tall order obviously. But it is not about content. Not even getting into evolution, intelligent design and all the associated nonsense. Climate change deniers who have no competency to tell either way. And so on and so forth.

      You may want to read this for inspiration for example http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/society/c_education.html

      “On the other hand, by the end of his career a teacher should see himself in the highest ranks of state officials, having been placed under the protection of the Emperor himself.”

      And that http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html

      • Bennett In Vermont

        Climate change deniers who have no competency to tell either way.

        What the heck does THAT mean? I generally enjoy your comments and respect your point of view, but if you’ve gone over to the anti-science crowd that believes that “consensus” is science, I need to rethink my long standing opinion of your competency.

        No one I know denies that the climate of our planet has and is and always will be changing, it’s the nature of nature. But as I watch the CAGW meme fall apart I wonder, can I get in early on the cash cow that the new global cooling meme represents?

        • common sense

          “What the heck does THAT mean?”

          It means that people who do not have the proper education to decide one way or the other are basing their decisions on those who are more or less vocal. Just as we see in the space business arena.

          “I generally enjoy your comments and respect your point of view, but if you’ve gone over to the anti-science crowd that believes that “consensus” is science, I need to rethink my long standing opinion of your competency.”

          No consensus is not science since once upon a time the Earth was flat. But it will take a lot to tell me I am anti-science since I worked as a scientist for many years even though I cannot prove it to you. And I won’t. Now, you may ask yourself why it ticked you so bad. I for one am not properly equipped to make a decision, I am not a climatologist nor do I claim I am. On the other hand I am a scientist, I worked as such for many years and I know how the peer review process works. So if a large, the largest, group of specialists is telling me something then I believe them. I am not in politicizing science even though politics play a subtle role that if you never worked as a scientist you’d be surprised or interested to learn but it does not make every one single scientist move in one direction. On the other hand I enjoy dissent. That is the only way we progress. So…

          “No one I know denies that the climate of our planet has and is and always will be changing, it’s the nature of nature. But as I watch the CAGW meme fall apart I wonder, can I get in early on the cash cow that the new global cooling meme represents?”

          Bennett you may want to get better informed in terms of the effects of warming vs. cooling. Some are pretty much the same. The end result is different. The thermodynamics is not a perfect science nor is it deterministic. I am not a climatologist but I worked thermodynamics for many years. Your remark here is not good enough. I am sorry. It’s awfully simplistic.

          So I am not answering the question of global warming since I don’t know the answer and it is not a place to debate it. I am questioning people’s ability to judge one way or the other. And it happens that in science education the US is lagging far behind some countries that say such a phenomenon exists. Coincidence? I don’t know. You tell me.

          • Bennett In Vermont

            You have stepped up to the plate in the only way that a mature and honest man could. I truly respect that and wish that there was more rational thought like yours displayed in the debate surrounding an issue where the proposed solutions seem more damaging that the problem (and pointless given China’s embrace of coal fired power plants).

            I do not know for certain either, but I do think that if we rush to bankrupt our economy over something that falls within the error bars of known cyclical variation, we’re letting ourselves be stampeded by a “fear of what might happen”.

            Much like the justification for a total wiretap society like we’re seeing unfold this week.

            I don’t need to be be that safe. Neither do my children.

            • common sense

              Benett

              Don’t give in to the fear mongers! Trying to provide solutions to climate change will not bankrupt out economy. Quite the contrary. I believe in American ingenuity and pragmatism and if we let/help our innovators do their job we will come out leaders of a “green” economy. It might be initially difficult but we can do it. Call me daydreamer but think SpaceX and Tesla.

              It is possible to lead even more if we accept the changes, inevitable changes.

              I don’t want our children to even glance at an over heated Earth. Look at Venus or Mars….

  • RickP

    Coastal Ron said:
    “I think Chris Hatfield’s recent videos from the ISS have been much more inspiring for students interested in STEM”

    It was entertaining, yes. It offered a little insight into the ISS and life on the ISS, yes. Inspirational or educational for many….there are 80 million students in US public schools. A couple million people total around the world have seen at least a portion of the Youtube video. Do you know that half the US students don’t have access to computers? The video was five minutes long. I teach most of my students science for nearly an hour everyday, five days a week, nine months a year. Was there a lesson plan and worksheets distributed with that video? Educational? For how many? How long did that five minute influence last?

    “I think the real question though is whether that content is the right content to encourage students to pursue STEM…The content has to be relevant…Is NASA doing that…Are they the right organization to lead?”

    The NSF has said that space science content ought to be at all grade levels in all schools; for education and to develop interest…I think that answers a good part of your questions. Who produces space science content? Does NASA have something to do with that? Who else have teachers relied upon? Not many others, I can assure you.

    Common Sense said:
    It is not about whether the NASA content helps you as a teacher…how many get into STEM?..Why is society not so interested in STEM?..Who are the most influential people? Engineers?….

    Well, I beg to differ but a lot of what students are aware of and interested in is at least in part what I and 5 million other teachers introduce them to. If I am supposed to teach space science or technology and have no content that is readily available to me or to them, then I may introduce them to very little or I may introduce them to things you might not think are important. About half the population has and uses computers. I wish all my students had direct access to them but they don’t. They don’t have them in school and many don’t have access to them at home.

    And yes, a number of scientists and engineers, including space engineers and scientists, made it onto the list of the most influential people in the world according to Time. And if we do not introduce the potential to the students, then they certainly will develop no interest-and it sounds like you, in your warped sense of perspective would just assume not introduce them-sounds pretty defeatist to me.

    • Coastal Ron

      RickP said:

      Was there a lesson plan and worksheets distributed with that video?

      Being Canadian, he may have been targeting Canadian school kids, or maybe just doing it on his own. The great thing about YouTube is that you don’t have to plan to make something popular, it just becomes so if it’s compelling enough. Maybe some enterprising teacher somewhere will take his videos and cut them into teachable segments… who knows, maybe that would be you? ;-)

      But you do bring up a good point, in that some amount of educational content could be done on the ISS, but is it? That doesn’t seem like a very expensive thing to do, certainly not one taking $Millions per year. Even if they only did one hour of video per week, and that was edited down to a relevant 10 minute segment, I would think that would fit your needs. Wouldn’t it?

      Also, I do know that NASA TV already produces content for school age kids – have you seen any of it? I’ve seen it on NASA TV, which is one of the basic channels from my cable provider. You can also get it online I think.

    • common sense

      “Well, I beg to differ but a lot of what students are aware of and interested in is at least in part what I and 5 million other teachers introduce them to.”

      In what way do you differ from what I am saying?

      “If I am supposed to teach space science or technology and have no content that is readily available to me or to them, then I may introduce them to very little or I may introduce them to things you might not think are important. About half the population has and uses computers. I wish all my students had direct access to them but they don’t. They don’t have them in school and many don’t have access to them at home.”

      Well you’re mixing up a lot of stuff here and I hope your teaching of science in better organized. Content is one aspect of education. Otherwise go to a library and educate yourself. Any one can do that, why do we need teachers? What does NASA content have to do with accessing computers? If you teach the findings of Keppler you get a NASA computer? You have access to NASA classrooms? Odd.

      “And yes, a number of scientists and engineers, including space engineers and scientists, made it onto the list of the most influential people in the world according to Time.”

      Please as a good science teacher I am sure you have a link to reference to this assertion. I would love to see that.

      “And if we do not introduce the potential to the students, then they certainly will develop no interest-and it sounds like you, in your warped sense of perspective would just assume not introduce them-sounds pretty defeatist to me.”

      Now you are getting delirious. Where did I say we should not introduce student to science? Please point me to that statement.

      I have had all kinds of science teachers but some of the best I can remember never ever used a content based on space to motivate me nor one specifically coming from NASA. So?

      Whatever.

      • Hiram

        “It is not about whether the NASA content helps you as a teacher.”

        I think that’s exactly where RickP begs to differ. That’s kind of an astounding statement. NASA makes a significant investment in educational materials. There is only one way to look at the success of those educational materials, which is the value that it offers the teachers that we entrust to teach our kids STEM.

        Are you saying that this NASA content should be “educating” kids who happen upon it themselves?

        “Otherwise go to a library and educate yourself. Any one can do that, why do we need teachers? What does NASA content have to do with accessing computers?”

        Holy moley. You ARE saying that. What an idea. Let’s tell kids to all go to libraries and STEM-educate themselves. And for those of you with their heads firmly in the sand, NASA content in educational outreach is primarily available on the web. That’s what it has to do with computers. That’s actually smart, because it is a widely accessible and inexpensive distribution mechanism, at least to schools and teachers. Yes, we’d like to believe that it is widely available to students outside of school as well, but some of the communities in most desperate need of this content for education often don’t have high bandwidth links in the homes.

        That’s the different between E and PO in EPO materials. The E stuff is for organized classes, and teachers are the leaders there. The PO stuff is for casual interest. We’re not going to teach STEM by putting NASA billboards on buses (as one mission outreach program was innovatively doing), but we are going to develop some sense of public engagement by doing that. Public engagement is nice, but it sure isn’t STEM education.

        “I have had all kinds of science teachers but some of the best I can remember never ever used a content based on space to motivate me nor one specifically coming from NASA”

        True statement. No one says that NASA content is essential to teaching STEM. In fact, untrained teachers use NASA content to drop jaws and create bug eyes, but don’t actually teach much STEM. But to properly trained teachers (and the training can be done both directly by NASA-funded workshops and in the material content they provide) that content can be educationally potent.

        “Please as a good science teacher I am sure you have a link to reference to this assertion. I would love to see that.”

        Oh c’mon. Not that hard.
        http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/all/
        Would you like me to pick out the scientists and engineers for you? There are indeed a number of them.

        • common sense

          Wow. I am not sure what to tell you.

          “I think that’s exactly where RickP begs to differ. That’s kind of an astounding statement. NASA makes a significant investment in educational materials. There is only one way to look at the success of those educational materials, which is the value that it offers the teachers that we entrust to teach our kids STEM.”

          So then what is the problem with STEM education? After all “NASA makes a significant investment in educational materials.” So all is good. And without NASA investment STEM will crumble and disappear. Oddly enough all those countries in front of us in STEM do not have NASA. Even though they may also use some of the available material do you really think it would matter all that much to them if NASA stopped investing in STEM education?

          “Are you saying that this NASA content should be “educating” kids who happen upon it themselves?”

          Did I say that???

          “Holy moley. You ARE saying that. What an idea. Let’s tell kids to all go to libraries and STEM-educate themselves. And for those of you with their heads firmly in the sand, NASA content in educational outreach is primarily available on the web. That’s what it has to do with computers. That’s actually smart, because it is a widely accessible and inexpensive distribution mechanism, at least to schools and teachers. Yes, we’d like to believe that it is widely available to students outside of school as well, but some of the communities in most desperate need of this content for education often don’t have high bandwidth links in the homes.”

          Well you completely missed the point. And as far as I am concerned all I see is people saying after all we are doing all of this yet we are still pretty bad in STEM education. So what should we do? Well. More of the same. Of course! What we do does not work so let’s do more of the same. Not sure who has their heads in the sand. And no it has nothing to do with computer access. This is ridiculous. You really think you need a computer to get proper STEM education? That you must have a computer? If so I wonder how people did it in the 50s, 60s, you know those kids who got educated and came up with say Apollo or the nukes. Not sure. Do you know how they did it? Surprisingly those major efforts were made in the US. Then again since then we have computers so the US should be at the top of major scientific/engineering education right? Or could it be that STEM jobs are taken by immigrants? Could it?

          “That’s the different between E and PO in EPO materials. The E stuff is for organized classes, and teachers are the leaders there. The PO stuff is for casual interest. We’re not going to teach STEM by putting NASA billboards on buses (as one mission outreach program was innovatively doing), but we are going to develop some sense of public engagement by doing that. Public engagement is nice, but it sure isn’t STEM education.”

          I see. So basically we are not going to reach out to the public by reaching out to them. Interesting concept.

          “True statement. No one says that NASA content is essential to teaching STEM. In fact, untrained teachers use NASA content to drop jaws and create bug eyes, but don’t actually teach much STEM. But to properly trained teachers (and the training can be done both directly by NASA-funded workshops and in the material content they provide) that content can be educationally potent.”

          All right so now we agree?

          “Oh c’mon. Not that hard.
          http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/all/
          Would you like me to pick out the scientists and engineers for you? There are indeed a number of them.”

          Oh c’mon. Are you serious? Yes please pick out the scientists and engineers.

          • Hiram

            “Well you completely missed the point. And as far as I am concerned all I see is people saying after all we are doing all of this yet we are still pretty bad in STEM education.”

            Perhaps I did miss your point. “… after all we are doing” ?? We aren’t doing a whole lot. NASA STEM education is well intentioned, but it’s a drop in the bucket on the national STEM education scene. If you’re saying that NASA STEM education efforts aren’t worth it because our national STEM education posture is still poor, that’s a crazy idea.

            “You really think you need a computer to get proper STEM education?”

            The point was made, and is entirely defensible, that if you want to learn STEM education from NASA materials that are developed for STEM education, it’s essential to have a computer. Teachers and schools have those computers and bandwidth. Individual students may not.

            “So basically we are not going to reach out to the public by reaching out to them.”

            Stop making stuff up. “Reaching out” is different than “educating”. That you think they are the same is indeed an “interesting concept”. Go ask a teacher. “Is your job “reaching out”? Sheesh.

            “Yes please pick out the scientists and engineers.”

            Hannah Gey et al. – scientists
            Donald Yeaomans – scientist
            Chris Fabian, Erica Kochi – scientists
            Kim Blackwell – scientist
            Peter Theisinger, Richard Cook – engineers

            and you could add Elon Musk, Jonathan Ive, and Kai Fu Lee as very astute technologists as well.

            That wasn’t that hard.

            • common sense

              ” If you’re saying that NASA STEM education efforts aren’t worth it because our national STEM education posture is still poor, that’s a crazy idea.”

              You know where in heck did I say that? That “NASA STEM education efforts aren’t worth it”? Where? You are still missing the point. Big time.

              “if you want to learn STEM education from NASA materials that are developed for STEM education, it’s essential to have a computer.”

              I am not arguing NASA STEM material!!!! For crying out loud. I am telling you that STEM education, even though it might benefit from NASA material, does not require NASA material. Make an effort.

              “Stop making stuff up. “Reaching out” is different than “educating”. That you think they are the same is indeed an “interesting concept”. Go ask a teacher. “Is your job “reaching out”? Sheesh.”

              I am making stuff up? Funny because who talked about this program? I did? Now if you think that education does not encompass outreach then you are sorely mistaken. I don’t need to “ask a teacher “. I have been a teacher. And no I did not rely on NASA material to teach. And I taught Math. So no what? All those poor kids that were not using NASA material, what is going to happen to them? Children going to school and eventually to College don’t give a hoot about NASA. What they want is a job!!! Is that difficult to understand? A job.

              “Hannah Gey et al. – scientists
              Donald Yeaomans – scientist
              Chris Fabian, Erica Kochi – scientists
              Kim Blackwell – scientist
              Peter Theisinger, Richard Cook – engineers

              and you could add Elon Musk, Jonathan Ive, and Kai Fu Lee as very astute technologists as well.

              That wasn’t that hard.”

              Oh wow. So many scientists and engineers in such a list of influential people… Anyway, ask them about NASA and if NASA STEM material is what inspired them. Head, sand…

  • Hiram

    “The video was five minutes long. I teach most of my students science for nearly an hour everyday, five days a week, nine months a year. Was there a lesson plan and worksheets distributed with that video? Educational? For how many? How long did that five minute influence last?”

    Many thanks, RickP, for your insightful, and experienced-based remarks. We tend to confuse cool video clips (as well as colorful and mind boggling pictures and sophisticated technology) with STEM education. While those cool video clips can indeed be a part of teaching STEM, they are by no means standalone instruction. Again, just creating dropped jaws and bug eyes ISN’T EDUCATION. It’s up to the teacher to develop the material, put it in proper context, make the students question what they see, and recognize the relevance to their way of life. Most teachers (especially elementary teachers, who try to teach science with no, as in zero, STEM background or interest) are simply incapable of doing that. So proper content goes way, way beyond cool pictures and video. You don’t teach by showing a video and saying “Isn’t that cool, kids!!” What you get is dropped jaws and bug eyes. Period.

    I’m especially dismayed by NASA, using astronauts in suits and helmets to “teach” STEM. That’s sort of like firemen teaching STEM. Or maybe scuba divers teaching STEM. Hey, maybe lawyers in fancy suits and ties teaching STEM. OK, call it “inspiration” instead of education, but as education, it’s next to worthless.

  • RickP

    NASA produces no shortage of educational ‘stuff’. It includes videos, images, books, posters, webcasts, pod casts…..and sometimes it includes a lesson plan and supporting classroom activities, and its all over the place.

    NASA is not the only one; though on a smaller scale USGS and National Meteorology Service and NOAA and a few others also produce some ‘stuff’. It includes robotic spaceflight and human spaceflight and every planet and the sun and deep space astronomy and the earth and environment and oceanography and aviation…There seems to be no organization to it. The most current stuff comes out usually in some ‘raw form’. Yes, I produce some materials for use in my classes, whether on video or power point, but I have less than one hour prep period everyday in order to get ready for 3 different subjects I teach. Anything else I do has to be done on my own time at the expense of time I owe to my family. And I am assuming that there are hundreds of thousands of teachers around the US who are teaching similar subjects in similar fashion.

    Wouldn’t it be great if NASA organized their output so it is findable and usable? For use in class I need reading material, worksheets, discussion questions, interactive inquiry activities and an assessment. A five minute video is great but if I have to put in a couple days of effort to prepare to use it then it is of little immediate value.

    Assuming there are a million of us teaching these science subjects, we are reaching fifty million students everyday. Seems like an easy STEM campaign that reaches the people who will be taxpayers within a few years if they would simply organize their output in a meaningful manner and it seems to me it would be a lot easier for a few experts to develop the needed classroom content instead of hundreds of thousands of people all over the nation trying to go their separate ways and repeating others’ efforts. I doubt there are that many who make the effort in the first place.

    • Coastal Ron

      RickP said:

      Seems like an easy STEM campaign that reaches the people who will be taxpayers within a few years if they would simply organize their output in a meaningful manner and it seems to me it would be a lot easier for a few experts to develop the needed classroom content instead of hundreds of thousands of people all over the nation trying to go their separate ways and repeating others’ efforts. I doubt there are that many who make the effort in the first place.

      Very well said. You should have been one of the people testifying in front of Congress.

  • Hiram

    “Seems like an easy STEM campaign that reaches the people who will be taxpayers within a few years …”

    This is a long overlooked matter of “sustainability” as applied to space exploration. “Sustainability” isn’t just about ISRU, or about multi-year congressional budgeting for NASA. It’s also about cultivating, shall we say, a spirit of inquiry and curiosity in the voters and taxpayers of the future, as opposed to relying on the spirit emplaced in those who lived through the Apollo era. Telling kids that we ought to do it because we used to do it is, to them at least, hilarious.

    As to making materials “findable and usable”, SMD has done a pretty good job of the latter. Educational materials are done up by consulting teachers, who have a clear picture of requirements and assessment. As to “findable”, however, SMD education materials are mission-specific, and not science specific. Each mission has a website that has a rich selection of mission-specific science education material. Missions have budgets for their EPO folks to go visit NSTA meetings where they can advertise science done by “our mission”. But teachers don’t look for science materials on the basis of missions, and material about one science concept on a mission website rarely refers to that from any other mission, which could be highly complementary. No states require teachers to teach about HST, Opportunity, or MESSENGER for example. So organizing educational materials by mission isn’t that helpful.

    Someone should correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen a NASA resource where required science concept understanding (say, from national standards) is mapped to mission EPO materials.

  • amightywind

    I don’t know what the point of this STEM outreach is anyway. You put a kid in a sandbox with a bag of plastic army men, matches, and fireworks, and they get motivated for a career in science and technology. Big government is completely unnecessary. At least it worked for me.

  • Hiram

    “You put a kid in a sandbox with a bag of plastic army men, matches, and fireworks, and they get motivated for a career in science and technology.”

    You put a kid in a sandbox with a bag of computer chips and they get motivated for a career in IT, right? You put a kid in a sandbox with mean other kids and they get motivated for a legal career, no? You put a kid in a sandbox with sand that had been sitting under a car, and they get motivated for a career in petroleum engineering? Yep, sure.

    It’s a wonder that more professional vitae for science and technology don’t refer to early-year sandboxes. You could toddle away with your MS degree (master of sandboxery) and wave that in front of prospective employers.

    “Big government is completely unnecessary. At least it worked for me.”

    Yes, I don’t think big government was needed to help you post on spacepolitics.com.

Leave a Reply to common sense Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>