As I pondered Hal Breitenberg’s announcement that the theme of this issue of SciTech† will be education, I wondered where to start. What does education mean to us? Let’s begin with something simple: to students education is a right, to society it represents an investment. Society has a vested interest in well-educated constituents, capable of critical analysis and creative thinking, who can propel the community forward. While that may not be true for all types of societies — authoritarian, kleptocratic, and oligarchic societal leaders have an interest in limiting their subjects’ education — these aspects of education, right and investment, are symbiotic and reinforce each other, yet their roles are independent. Education as a right is not derived from its role as an investment, even though the latter benefits from the former.
Starting from this basis, what are the requirements for an educational system? It should be high quality, equally accessible (and thus affordable) to all, and attuned to its students and their needs. It should also prepare students for their place and role in society while encouraging critical thinking, creativity, and imagination. And it should reinforce moral values, in particular respect for others, their opinions, and their religious, political, and cultural identities.
In the United States, this all seemed to have worked reasonably well after World War II, when the dominant face of society was white and Protestant, although many were generally willing to compromise on the latter. However, a dark side of securing universal civil rights was the evaporation of certain specific rights. See, for instance, The 1619 Project. Free community swimming pools were often no longer free. And the right of equal and affordable access to education was severely restricted. When society became increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-cultural, some people proved less willing to share their rights. As a result, we got stuck with an educational system that is uneven and heavily slanted toward the wealthy. For primary and secondary education, it is usually the local tax base that determines the quality; for higher education it is family wealth — or willingness to take on the burden of a large debt. The result for society is that its investment in people and future leadership is limited to a smaller pool.
What does education mean to us?
How to fix this? Money and quality. Spreading money equitably for education across the country’s school districts is not socialism; those in wealthier districts also benefit from the educational investment in students in poorer districts. And quality education would benefit from national standards. It is disheartening to see the US Department of Education being dismantled before our very eyes. It is not a very powerful entity, as it could not set curriculum standards, but at least it was able to support specialized education resources for small districts.
When it comes to science and technology, there is yet another issue. As I have noted before, the population of the United States possesses a curiously strong anti-intellectual streak. And it is not getting any better. Evolution rejectors, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and the current state of incompetence at the top of many departments of the federal government show we really need to improve STEM education, especially at primary, middle, and high school levels. My sense is that the most important elements are standard curriculum and testing, continuing education for teachers, and increased financing for salaries and classroom resources. Those would go a long way toward leveling the playing field for students in different parts of the country and from various cultural backgrounds. In this context I note the Smithsonian’s Scientists Taking Astronomy to Rural Schools (STARS) initiative, spearheaded by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO), as described in an announcement by the SAO’s Director to its staff (for more information see https://smithsonianstars.si.edu/):
Launched April 23, STARS is a national initiative aimed at enhancing STEM education in rural and under-resourced schools by providing telescopes, solar lenses, engaging projects, and teacher training. Starting in the 2025-26 school year in Arizona, STARS will expand to rural and tribal nation schools across the United States. Striving to inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, and explorers, it is supported by $3 million in funding from donors such as John C. Ryan, Celestron, and the Change Happens Foundation.
STARS will offer students hands-on experiences with astronomy, aligning with state and national science standards. It also provides long-term educational opportunities, such as access to the Center for Astrophysics’s MicroObservatory and various post-high school programs. This initiative is part of the Smithsonian’s broader campaign for educational equity, ensuring that students across the country can engage in high-quality learning experiences. The program aims to spark curiosity and show students their futures are as limitless as the universe itself.
Earlier this week, as I am writing this, the Oklahoma case regarding charter school funding for religious schools was argued before the Supreme Court. It reminded me again of how the same principle (separation of church and state) can work out quite differently in different traditions. In the United States it led to the conclusion that public money should not be used for religion-based schools, which is entirely appropriate. In the Netherlands, since the 19th century, the conclusion was that the government should not tell parents which school their children should attend; in the days that I remember the choice was public, Protestant, or Catholic. And all schools were financed by the government, as long as they meet the academic standards set by the government, as well as teacher pay and certification standards. That helps level the playing field.
