Font size: 
Sputnik intensified the space race between the two superpowers of the world. Leaders panicked on how to catch up with the advanced technology of Russia. More importantly, Sputnik triggered an education revolution in the United States and elsewhere.
Policymakers blamed the U.S. education system for causing the United States to lose to Russia in the bid to conquer space during the 1950s. No less a statesman than former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote then: "Educators, parents and students must be continuously stirred up by the defects in our educational system. They must be induced to abandon the educational path that, rather blindly, they have been following as a result of John Dewey's teachings."
Dewey was the foremost American educator and philosopher during the first half of the 20th century. He criticized the methods of teaching in schools and successfully required the inclusion of play, vocational studies, work and leisure in the curriculum. His works became a bible for educators disillusioned with the ravages of industrial ideology over education. Experiments in pedagogies concerned with encouraging the experience of the learner as a first step in learning became widespread.
Of course Eisenhower was wrong to blame Dewey. But the president and military strategists found a convenient scapegoat for America's failure to send the fist satellite into orbit. The U.S. government used Sputnik to justify widespread reforms in the education sector. Sputnik suddenly created a high demand for scientists, engineers and technology experts. The United States started producing thousands of PhD academicians in weeks.
The obsession to beat the Russians forced U.S. schools to abandon the educational reforms proposed by Dewey and other radical philosophers. A decade later, students from major U.S. universities criticized the undemocratic character of American schools. On the other hand, many insist that the focus given by the government and academe on science, technology and math after the launching of Sputnik has allowed the public to own and enjoy their laptops, cell phones and the Internet today.
The Sputnik-provoked education reforms in the United States also inspired Philippine educators and policymakers. Philippine schools have traditionally looked up to the American education system as the most superior in the world. New subjects were introduced in Philippine schools with course names like new math, new English and new science.
To put it mildly, these education reforms didn't work for the Philippines. Aptitude in math and science among Filipinos never improved. English language proficiency deteriorated. Sputnik revived the United States' leading role in the fields of science and technology but it failed to galvanize Philippine education. What went wrong?
Philippine leaders failed to prioritize funding for science and technology. The public school system suffered from dwindling education subsidies. The Philippine government wanted a country which could produce a Sputnik but didn't want to invest in science and education.
Philippine educators were correct to use Sputnik to inspire students and young scholars. But they may have exaggerated the effectiveness of adopting the education reforms implemented in the United States. During that time, the Philippines could have addressed the basic problems besetting the education system such as the lack of school facilities, textbooks and the low quality of teaching. What was the significance of new math, new English and new science when basic literacy and elementary competencies were more crucial?
The Sputnik-inspired education reforms during the 1950s and early 1960s can teach the Philippine government today to be more prudent as it embarks on an ambitious education initiative called the "cyber education project." This venture will provide a satellite-based distance learning program across the country. According to education officials, it will solve education imbalances between rural and urban schools.
These are noble goals, but will this very expensive project really spur high learning outcomes? Is this what the Philippines really needs today? Or should money be allocated first to finance school building construction, procurement of learning materials and training of educators?
The cyber education project will not make computers accessible to all students. It is mainly a TV broadcast of lectures given by "master" scholars. This is already being done in some provinces. Many groups warn that, aside from being a potential source of corruption, this project will not solve the fundamental deficiencies of Philippine schools.
The fiftieth anniversary of Sputnik highlights the backwardness of Philippine education. The majority of science teachers are not specialists in the subjects they are teaching. Many public schools have neither modern science laboratories nor clean toilets. A few years ago, a science textbook was approved by the government which described the planet Earth as coconut-shaped.
In the United States, there are scientists who are hoping for another "Sputnik" to spark more interest in science and space exploration. The Philippines needs another "Sputnik" too. But hopefully, educators will not be distracted in their primary mission of eradicating illiteracy and the lack of basic skills among students.
--
(Mong Palatino is a Filipino youth activist, correspondent for Global Voices and news editor of Yehey!, a Philippine-based Web portal. He can be reached at mongpalatino@gmail.com. His website is www.mongpalatino.motime.com. ©Copyright Mong Palatino.)
