A History of Federal Funding of Pre-College Curriculum Projects
Larry L. Kraus
The University of Texas at Tyler
In the summer of 1941, Lt. Col. Dwight Eisenhower, the new Chief-of-Staff to the Third Army, was chagrined to find that the U.S. military was woefully under-equipped and falling behind technologically. During maneuvers in Louisiana that year, Eisenhower complained of "papier-mâché tanks or the ordinary civilian trucks carrying labels on their sides that read 'Tank.'" After taking control of the European Theatre of Operations later in World War II, Eisenhower also found reason for concern when faced with German technological superiority. (Ambrose, 1983)
The peacetime draft, which had been approved by Congress in 1940, became the main venue for insuring readiness after World War II. (Shubert, 2000) Further, the military realized the need to give attention to modernization and development of military technology. Germany had demonstrated the superiority of jet aircraft in battle, although Hitler had not taken advantage of this. Also, the military became aware that our relationship with our former ally, the Soviet Union, was deteriorating. (Cold War) Because of this, the U.S. Selective Service added aptitude testing as part of the military conscription process. The idea was to find those with technical aptitude and use their talents in the new high-tech areas of the military.
The aptitude tests, however, yielded some unexpected results. According to Goodladd the
. . .recruitment of young men for the armed services had revealed shocking inadequacies in the science and mathematics programs of high school graduates. The problem was partly the limited quantity of work in these areas, partly the quality of what had been taught. The secondary school curriculum too often reflected knowledge of another era, instead of the scientific advances of the twentieth century. Recognizing their responsibility for this unhappy state of affairs, scholars in a few fields began to participate actively in what has now become a major curriculum reform movement (Goodladd, 1964, p.9).
The response to this discovery marked the beginning of a curriculum reform movement in the United States that reached its zenith in the years between 1956 and 1975. Most of this movement was centered around activities of the National Science Foundation, although they had actually started prior to NSF involvement. The first documented activity in the movement was in 1951, with the University of Illinois Committee on School Mathematics (UICSM), which was supported with funding from the University of Illinois, the United States Office of Education, and the Carnegie Corporation (Goodladd, 1964, p. 13) This project, under the direction of Max Beberman, created a curriculum movement in mathematics which became known as "New Math."
The major player in the curriculum reform movement, though, was the National Science Foundation. The need for scientific research and education had been recognized as a national need as early as 1944, when President Franklin Roosevelt became especially interested and concerned with the development of scientific education. In a letter to Vannevar Bush, the Director of U. S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, Roosevelt exhibited his interest:
Can an effective program be proposed for discovering and developing scientific talent in American youth so that the continuing future of scientific research in this country can be assured on a level comparable to what has been done during the war (Subcommittee on Science, 1975)?
Many in the nation's scientific community shared Roosevelt's concern. After Roosevelt's death, steps were taken to create a national foundation, charged with fostering scientific research. This foundation, known as the National Science Foundation, was established by Congress in 1947, but was vetoed by President Harry Truman (NSF Bill Vetoed, 1947), who feared too little political control over the foundation. The scientific community, on the other hand, feared government control and refused to endorse any agency not given a pledge of independence. After almost three years of debate, President Truman finally withdrew his objections and signed the legislation creating the National Science Foundation in 1950 (Subcommittee on Science, 1975).
Not until 1956 was the lack of scientific manpower generally considered to be a threat to the U.S. by the public. While there had been reports that the U.S.S.R. was making great scientific strides, especially in Nicholas De Witt's (1955) book, Soviet Professional Manpower, there was a general hesitance by the general public, the scientific community, and by some members of Congress to believe these reports. With the growing realization that U.S. technology was being bypassed, an urgent movement to correct the situation became visible. Dr. Detlev Bront, an early opponent of over-reacting to Soviet claims of scientific superiority, reversed his stand in 1956 when he introduced the subject of education of teachers to the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations:
I am one of those who has said that I think we should not say we are going to do this or we are going to do that, because the Russians are doing it. I think we are a country that can stand on our own feet and make our own decisions.
But, nevertheless, having been one of five representatives to Geneva at the Peace Conference last year, I feel I have an obligation to say that I was shocked by the necessity for reversing my previous opinion. (Goodladd, 1964, p52).
The tipping point, of course, was the launching of the Soviet Sputnik, on October 4, 1957. (http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/) This event, more than any other, raised public awareness and concern to a level where the Congress felt pressure to act.
The first move in this direction was the funding of the work of the Physical Sciences Study Committee (PSSC). The grant, in the amount of $303,000 (a relatively large sum for NSF grants at the time), was intended to cover the "study phase" of the program (Goodladd, 1964, p. 59). From this initial grant, in 1956, the NSF expanded in the curriculum field rapidly, funding programs such as the Chemical Bond Approach (CBA) in 1957; the Biological Sciences Curriculum Project (BSCS) and the Elementary School Science Project, both in 1959; and, the University of Illinois Elementary School Science Project in 1960 (Goodladd, 1964, p. 13-41).
According to Spring, NSF involvement in curriculum development received vital support from President Dwight Eisenhower in a special message to Congress in January, 1958. Eisenhower, concerned about the effect of the Russian Sputnik on national defense, tended to view education as one way of meeting the Soviet challenge. In the message Eisenhower called for a five-fold increase in appropriations for science programs; increased spending for summer institutes to train high school science and mathematics teachers; increased funding for improving content in science programs; and, expanding programs encouraging students to consider careers in scientific fields (Spring, 1976, p. 7-36). All of these programs were under the control of the National Science Foundation. Another section of the message called for an educational package to be under the jurisdiction of the Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. These recommendations resulted in the passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in November, 1958 (Spring, 1976, p. 100).
The total NSF budget in 1952 was $1.5 million. By 1959, this had increased by over $62 million to a total appropriation of almost $64 million. With this increase in funding, a drastic increase in curriculum development occurred. In 1975, the Foundation listed 54 curriculum projects receiving funding, at a cost of approximately $106.8 million, with an additional $79.8 million paid for implementation costs. In the twenty years between 1956, when PSSC was first funded, and 1975 over $186 million was spent on developing and implementing pre-college curricula (Science Curriculum Review Team, 1975).
Considering the expense, a reasonable question seems to be: How successful were they? Sweeping generalizations are impossible, of course. Some were more successful than others. Ausubel, discussing Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) (named by Goodladd (1964, p.52) as perhaps the most successful of the federally funded programs), described two of the three divisions of the program as being ". . .admirably thorough, accurate, and up-to-date, but so ineffectively presented and organized, and so impossibly sophisticated for their intended audience, as to be intrinsically unlearnable on a long term basis (Ausubel, 1966, p. 176)." BSCS, along with many of the other projects, is also frequently criticized for ignoring social problems insofar as those problems related to the subject matter (Ausubel, 1966, p. 176). Other problems encountered by the federally funded curricula included teacher variability; the argument of purity versus application; a softening of emphasis placed what are generally termed "subject-centered" curricula; and, the difficulty of keeping subject matter current in the midst of a technological and knowledge explosion (Ausubel, 1966, p. 176).
While the preceding discussions of the quality of the NSF programs were primarily held within the scientific and educational communities, a seemingly minor decision by the U.S. Congress, in 1963, was to lay the groundwork for a much broader discussion in the general public in later years: The NSF would expand its work into the social sciences. In November of that year, the NSF approved a proposal for a six-year elementary social studies program entitled The Human Past. The prototype for the project, a fifth-grade program called Man: A Course of Study, would cost $4.6 million and, more importantly, set the stage for a heated and wide-ranging controversy, which would change the way the National Science Foundation participated in pre-college curriculum development.
Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) asserted a five-fold purpose:
- To give our pupils respect for and confidence in the powers of their own minds.
- To extend that respect and confidence to their power to think about the human condition, man's plight, and his social life.
- To provide a set of workable models that make it simpler to analyze the nature of the social world in which we live and the conditions in which man finds himself.
- To impart a sense of respect for the capacities and humanity of a species.
- To leave the students with a sense of the unfinished business of man's evolution (Bruner, 1966, p.101).
To accomplish these purposes, the students were exposed to three basic organizing questions throughout the materials of the MACOS program:
What is human about human beings?
How did they get that way?
How can they be made more so? (Bruner, 1966, p.101)
Five topics were used to consider these questions and to provide comparisons and contrasts between different organisms and social structures. These subjects include tool making, language, social organization, the management of man's prolonged childhood, and man's urge to explain his world (P.B Dow, personal communication, May 14, 1976).
The first half of Man: A Course of Study was devoted to a study of non-human species, including salmon, herring gulls, and baboons. Students compared and contrasted the behavior of these species with human behavior to determine some basic characteristics about the nature of what it means to be human. For example, while studying salmon, students were exposed to a species that does not have an over-lap in generations. By examining and comparing the life-cycle of the salmon with the life-cycle of humans, students made generalizations about the nature of man and are able to understand human-kind's humanness more fully.
The second half of the program was devoted to the study of a less-developed human culture, the Netsilik Eskimo. Students were asked to compare the life and culture of the Netsilik with their own lives and cultures. Through this comparison, the students were exposed to the interaction of values and culture. Whereas the first part of the course, comparing humans to other animals, might have logically been considered the more controversial aspects of MACOS, due to the materials dealing with evolution and comparing humans to lower animals, the materials about the Netsilik Eskimo evoked the most strident, and the greatest amount of, protest.
The developers of MACOS were aware that certain parts of the program might be controversial. They were not aware, however, of just how controversial the program would be (P.B Dow, personal communication, May 14, 1976). They believed a course was needed which would give pupils another way of looking at the study of behavior. MACOS was their attempt at creating such a course. In the years immediately following publication of the program, MACOS became the center of a maelstrom of controversy that both put a damper on future curriculum development and also fundamentally changed the involvement of the federal government in curriculum funding.
Of course, not all of the attention to MACOS was negative. In fact, much of the early discussion was highly favorable. Time magazine (January 9, 1970) called the program "intriguing" and devoted its entire "Education" section to a positive report on MACOS. Time also reported in that same issue that ". . .few parents have objected to the course, even though it contains rather fundamental information on mating habits and some of the bloodiest film imaginable on the slaughtering of seals (“Teaching Man,” 1970)." More positive publicity came from the May, 1970, issue of American Education," which called MACOS ". . .the successful realization of one aim of Jerome Bruner (Ferber, 1970)." The article also reports enthusiastic teacher response to the program and very favorable response from students.
Ironically, the first attacks on MACOS also occurred in 1970, in the town of Lake City, Florida. In that year, Lake City was in the process of desegregating its schools and had chosen to use a "grade-center" concept (students at each grade level attending one school). In preparation for this change, three social studies teachers in the district, who had heard about the MACOS program, went to the Tallahassee, Florida, MACOS training center. These teachers, one white, one black, and one American Indian, hoped that the program could help them provide a non-racial social studies program. The teachers liked MACOS and, with the approval of their principal and superintendent (but without the approval of the local school board), purchased the program and brought it back to the Lake City sixth-grade center (P.B Dow, personal communication, May 14, 1976).
The program was implemented at the beginning of the school year, with no immediate reaction from parents or the community. At Christmas, however, the quiet was disrupted. Peter Dow related that:
One day a local Baptist minister name Glenn took airtime on the local radio station, sponsored by the hardware store, I believe. Glenn had just been in the community about six months; he'd just come in as a new Baptist minister. How he'd gotten a hold of the Man: A Course of Study materials, I don't quite know; perhaps a parent had shown him the materials. In any case, he went up to the school building and got the teacher's manual and went on the air reading selected passages from the background readings for teachers. Well, you can imagine what happened in that community that was looking for a reason why it should have a controversy over schooling, anyway (P.B Dow, personal communication, May 14, 1976).
The result was a loud school board meeting, with each side defending its view of MACOS. MACOS, which had been the only social studies curriculum in use at the sixth-grade center, was kept at the school, but became one of several programs available. The program was eventually dropped on the premise that it was too expensive. However, some teachers felt the controversy was more responsible for removing the program than the cost (P.B Dow, personal communication, May 14, 1976).
Other protests erupted in Arizona, Maryland, Texas, Washington, and New York. In each of the situations, the complaints surrounding the content of MACOS fell into one or more of the ten categories listed by Rep. Conlan in his April, 1975, speech on the floor of the House: Cruel murder of old people or senilicide; female infanticide; gore and excessive blood being shown in scenes of killing and butchering of animals in vivid detail on film; teaching sex education; murder and cannibalism; divorce, trial marriage, polygamy, and polyandry, and wife-swapping; religion treated as a myth; evolution taught as fact; murder and revenge; and bestiality (Conlan, 1975). (For a more complete discussion of each of these controversies, see Kraus, 1977). While many different charges were leveled against MACOS, several of the main ones will be discussed below. Note should be made that, in addition to the student materials included with MACOS, teachers also had materials. The MACOS developers realized that the information included in the program was, in all likelihood, beyond the scope of the training most teachers received. Therefore, a nine volume teacher's guide was included with the program, along with a requirement that teachers using the program must receive training from a MACOS Training Center. This is important, as many of the controversies, although certainly not all, arose from materials contained solely in the Teacher's Guides.
To summarize the content controversies, MACOS was the target of many strident attacks. Most of these attacks were based on materials located in the segment of the program dealing with the Netsilik Eskimo, and in the Teacher Materials, rather than in the Student Materials. Opponents of the program often misstated the context, or quoted passages out of context. The content of MACOS was not typical of that generally found in schools in the late 1960's in social studies classrooms. For this reason, among others, MACOS was especially vulnerable to attack.
Had Man: A Course of Study simply been the target of those concerned with exposing children to content they deemed inappropriate, the program would have been little more than a footnote in curriculum history books. While the content was somewhat controversial for the late 1960's, the culture at that time was in a state of open conflict between the counter-culture and the so-called "Silent Majority." Flag burnings and physical confrontations between radicals at the political nominating conventions easily trumped issues curriculum content in the political discourse of the day.
However, those who were protesting the program in the beginning apparently were not aware that funding for MACOS came from the National Science Foundation, an entity of the federal government. In the final analysis, MACOS will likely not be judged on its success or failure in the classroom, or the educational results obtained. Rather, MACOS will be discussed for the impact it had on federal curriculum development policy. The issues in this debate centered around questions of the role of the federal government in the development of curriculum and the preservation of local prerogatives in educational decisions, dissemination practices of the NSF, and questions of oversight and review of programs developed with federal funds.
Prior to 1950, federal involvement in curricular matters was advisory in nature. Some programs, such as the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, provided federal funds to vocational programs, but did not attempt to control the content or development of the programs. Instead, the act provided for supporting salaries of teachers and supervisors, who then designed the curricula for their own school or class. Other federal involvement came through the support of policy commissions, such as the Commission on Life-Adjustment Education (1951), supported by the Office of Education. These commissions, while exerting influence, had no power to determine the direction or content of a program.
Beginning with the funding of the Physical Sciences Study Committee (PSSC) in 1956, federal involvement in curriculum development increased steadily, both in influence and the amount of money spent. Spring (1976) states that the first direct involvement of the federal government was based on national defense. Beginning with the Truman Administration, the nation's scientists perceived a need for increasing the number of competent scientists and were very influential in the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950. During the Eisenhower Administration, this need was stimulated by both the Cold War, and the launching of the Soviet satellite Sputnik. Sputnik led almost directly to the passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 (Spring 1976). As time passed, further justification for federal involvement in education was found in the civil rights movement of the late 1950's and 1960's, as well as in the Johnson Administration's War on Poverty (Spring 1976). The Civil Rights Act of 1964, while not directly related to curriculum, did lay the groundwork for increasing federal involvement in all areas of education. The War on Poverty not only extended federal involvement, but created programs which would exert, either directly or indirectly, great influence over the curricula of the schools. Programs such as Project Head Start, Upward Bound, and the Job Corps were federal programs, developed and funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity (Spring 1976). While not curricular projects, they did influence curriculum development.
Throughout this period of increasing federal involvement in educational matters, the National Science Foundation supported the development of a wide variety of curriculum projects. NSF also actively supported the dissemination of these projects following their completion. Although some concerns about federal involvement in both development and dissemination were voiced from the beginning, these were seen as minor and had little impact on the growing federal expenditures for education and curriculum (Subcommittee on Science, 1975).
These concerns could not be submerged altogether, however, and became prominent at least as early as 1970. Beginning in that year, the first serious questions related to what was being done, and why, were given serious consideration. Some members of Congress, along with several members of the scientific community, questioned the expense of the pre-college science programs being developed by NSF, believing that the money could have been better spent on research for applied science (US Congress, House 1975).
These debates became more and more common over the next several years, evolving from a discussion of the amount of money diverted from applied research, to a discussion of the role of the federal government in curriculum development. The evolution of this discussion was, to some extent, given impetus from other debates concerning the role of government in education. These discussions, revolving around forced busing, increasing federal requirements concerning civil rights, and other governmental actions, added to suspicions that the federal government was trying to take control of the schools (Spring 1976).
The MACOS controversies emerged from these roots. Obviously controversial in content and supported by grants from a federal agency, Man: A Course of Study provided the perfect opportunity for opponents of federal involvement in curriculum to bring their concerns to the attention of the nation.
A major reason for the questions regarding the role of the federal government in curriculum development can be traced to a clear lack of objectives for American education. The 1918 report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, was the first major attempt at defining national purposes for public schools (Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, 1918). This report, however influential, was written as an advisory statement by the Commission. Although printed and distributed by the U.S. Bureau of Education, it had no force of law behind it. The Cardinal Principles was followed by other advisory statements through the years, including "Purposes of Education in American Democracy (1938), Ten Imperative Needs of American Youth (1944), The Central Purpose of American Education (1961), and Imperatives in Education (1966). All of these reports, like the Cardinal Principles, were advisory statements, and as such, carried no power in determining the objectives for the nation's education (Educational Policies Commission, 1938, 1944, 1961, 1966).
As the debate over national involvement increased, Paul R. Hanna noted a lack of national policy, a situation that was responsible for some degree of confusion. Hanna pointed out that two groups were dominant at that time in determining policy, but that these groups were diametrically opposed concerning what this policy should be. The first group, according to Hanna, viewed education as a consumer-oriented product. This consumer demand (parents and students) would dictate curriculum. The second group saw education as an investment. Individuals in this group believed that education was the answer to national survival. In the latter view, goals would be set using national priorities, rather than the desires of parents or students (1962).
Richard Hofstedter (1963) saw another source for controversy in determining national policy. He believed that American society was basically anti-intellectual and that this characteristic greatly influenced national policy. Hofstedter drew a distinction between the terms "intellect" and "intelligent." Intellect, according to Hofstedter, is the " . . .critical, creative, and contemplative side of the mind." Intelligence, on the other hand, is the ". . .excellence of mind that is employed within a fairly narrow, immediate, and predictable range”. Hofstadter stated that the American people looked upon the intellectual with suspicion or resentment, while intelligence was consistently praised and, therefore, was to be cultivated.
This preference for intelligence, as opposed to intellect, was considered by Hofstadter to be a major force behind the movement toward "practical," i.e., vocational and professional, education. Because of the emphasis on vocational training and individual freedom in the classroom, along with a "soft" curriculum designed to "adjust to life," Hofstadter cites the progressive education movement as being strongly anti-intellectual in practice. Hofstadter (1963) asserted that life adjustment education, as he termed progressive education, ignored intellectual development, while devoting all energies to social development.
Citing Hofstadter's work as documentation of an anti-intellectual bias, Spring asserted that the establishment of the National Science Foundation and the passage of the National Defense Education Act was a reaction to progressivism and consumer-oriented education. These two events, according to Spring, were the first major attempts at moving the nations schools in a direction that would serve national interests. During the cold war and the space race, some discussion of educational policy occurred, but it was minimal. Fear of Soviet superiority in science and technology not only suppressed opposition to federal aid in education, it also alarmed the nation to the point that long denied federal aid was granted (Spring 1975).
As the cold war thawed and joint Soviet-American space exploration occurred, questions arose, both in Congress and in several public sectors, of the need for continued federal involvement in education. Spurred by the controversy surrounding forced busing, all areas of federal involvement were faced with questions. A special task force of the National Institute of Education (NIE) questioned the role of the federal government in curriculum specifically. In its 1976 report, the broad range of feelings among those interviewed was evident:
Briefly, interviewees' positions on federal involvement in curriculum development ranged from the belief that increased government support and leadership had benefited the nation and should be maintained or further increased, to the belief that the government's efforts in the past two decades have been highly successful, but that the need for such direct involvement has decreased because so many new curricula are now available, to the view that the government should alter the nature of its role (e.g., by moving toward the provision of guidelines and technical assistance to local and private developers or toward the development of only exemplary curricular "modules" or toward the provision of only "thin market" programs for special needs and populations), to the belief that all federal involvement in curriculum is an infringement on local and private rights, that all government "interference" thus far has harmed the practice of education, and that the government should immediately terminate its role in this area (Schaffarzick, 1976).
Former Rep. Robert Krueger saw a role for the federal government, but expressed some reservations:
I think the federal government can assist in certain kinds of curricular programs. [The science programs developed after Sputnik], according to scientists I've spoken to, were helpful at the university level. They were helpful in getting people farther along faster. . .I thought those were legitimate undertakings.
The political problem, and the real problem of having educational programs that accord with the community's interest, is that science is considered to be neither immoral or moral, but amoral. Since science does not run in conflict with the local values structure, you are less likely to run aground on specific cultural values when you are dealing with scientific programs. Once you get into the humanities, you are not in an area where there is, perhaps, a broader feeling that this is fluff and something of no great value, but you also can run afoul of the local and cultural traditions and values (Personal Communication, May 11, 1976).
A statement issued from the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) in 1975, authored by Brian Larkin, pointed out that the only entity with sufficient funds to truly underwrite the development of innovative curriculum was the federal government. According to Larkin, individual local schools and state educational agencies did not have the funds or, in some cases, the professional expertise, to bring about needed curriculum change. Larkin (1975) also pointed to the high cost of research and the high financial risk as deterrents to the involvement of the commercial publishing sector in creating innovative programs.
Opponents of federal funding generally were of the view that education had always been a locally controlled enterprise and that federal funding eventually led to federal control. They were fearful of losing control of their schools. As Onalee McGraw stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate Special Subcommittee on the National Science Foundation in 1975:
… in recent years parents have virtually lost control of what is taught and done in their elementary and secondary schools. Their inherent right to decide how schools can best serve the educational needs of their children has been usurped by a highly powerful organization of educators and the National Education Association. This well-organized, heavily financed educationist complex is now virtually dictating education policy throughout America (1975).
McGraw stated that federally funded curricula were imposed on local school districts in five ways: NSF'S funding of promotional conferences to market materials; NSF's lobbying of federal, state, and local officials; using federal funds to finance university-based promotion and marketing networks in at least 85 regions in the country; training teachers to use these programs and offering graduate credit to those taking the training; and, reducing the costs of federally funded materials to give them an advantage in the market place (McGraw 1975).
McGraw's conclusion that parents had lost control of what their children were taught may have been true, but she seemed to have overlooked an important historical context. Shortly after the launching of Sputnik, the scientific community, professional organizations, and large numbers of citizens were concerned about our national future. In effect, the nation seemed to be willing to turn over its schools to the federal government, because the government appeared to, at least, be trying to make improvements. The federal government had resources not available to the states and local districts, and it was willing to use them.
Many factors combine to make a controversy significant, including timeliness, events, context, personalities involved, and the issues being debated. A consideration of these factors could easily lead to the conclusion that the debate surrounding Man: A Course of Study was the proverbial "tempest in a teapot." Federal involvement in curriculum had been a fact of life since the mid-1950's. In that respect, the MACOS funding controversies occurred some twenty years after the fact. Events in the MACOS controversies were by no means unique. Other programs, as well as novels and scientific theories, had caused heated discussion before MACOS. No schools were bombed; nor were any shots fired at school buses, as had happened in Kanawha County, West Virginia, in 1974. The protests lodged against the MACOS program raised few, if any, issues that had not previously been confronted in some fashion in other controversies. What, then, made the MACOS controversies significant?
To provide an answer to the question, the controversies must be examined from two perspectives: The content issues and the funding issues. Both were significant, but for different reasons. The content issues were important because they served as a reminder that previous battles concerning values and curriculum content were not finished. The accusations that Man: A Course of Study undermined the value structure and political system were, to some extent, very similar to those waged in the 1920's and 1930's against Harold Rugg's Man and His Changing Society and Paul R. Hanna's Building America, two highly controversial curricula of that time.
The most significant factor in the MACOS debates was arguably the fact that MACOS had received federal funding for both its development and implementation. Although federal funding had been occurring for several years before MACOS, two factors combined to make this important. First, when the National Science Foundation made it's first grant to PSSC, in 1956, there was a feeling of urgency in the country. Not only had we just emerged from a World War, but the Soviet Union was taking the lead in science and technology. This urgency led to a national demand that education be improved. At the time, the best, and quickest, method of doing so seemed to be by using the best qualified people in the various fields to develop improved courses for pre-college students. It would be expensive, perhaps beyond the means of most states or commercial publishers, so the federal government was expected to help. National goals were developed and national resources were provided to meet these goals.
In spite of this, as stated earlier, due to the MACOS controversies all pre-college curriculum funding came to a halt in 1976. Tensions were too high, and the protests were too loud, for politicians to try to justify their earlier efforts. However, the 1983 publication of "A Nation at Risk" by the National Commission on Excellence in Education once again brought education to the forefront of American politics and, once again, brought the National Science Foundation back into the discussion. According to Bob Tinker (2006):
The NSF Education Directorate was eliminated in 1980 and then, as a result of a storm of critical reports culminating in “A Nation at Risk,” was created anew in 1983 with a mission to address K-12 education through curriculum and TPD. By starting fresh, the NSF education effort did not have multiple demands on its funding and it was able to concentrate its limited resources on a few large initiatives, such as the Investigations project, which eventually received $12M and became self-sufficient from royalties and fees. Investigations was one of three NSF projects that now dominate elementary mathematics education. A parallel effort was made in elementary science education, with similar results—a few projects that were funded in excess of $10M created exemplary materials that are the best available now. This initial NSF effort in elementary mathematics has been a huge success and we are currently enjoying the results of a successful investment from two decades ago.
In the end, most questions about the efficacy of federal funding and its impact on local control, dissemination and implementation policies, as well as issues related to oversight and review, lost their edge when the MACOS controversies ended the NSF's curriculum activities in 1976. And, as frequently happens in Congress, once the specific problem was "solved," the sticky policy issues were left to die of neglect. Although times seem a bit different today, the potential for controversy still exists. The questions of appropriateness still have not been resolved and agreements on federal policy goals still have not been reached.
Notes
Ambrose, S. E. (1983). Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect, 1890-1952. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ausubel, D. P., (1966, March) An Evaluation of the BSCS Approach to High School Biology. American Biology Teacher, p. 176.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward A Theory of Instruction. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. p. 74, 101.
Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. (1918). U.S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 35.
Cold War retrieved January 23, 2007 from http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569374/Cold_War.html
DeWitt, N. (1955). Soviet Professional Manpower--Its Education, Training, and Supply.
Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
Dow, P. B. Mimeographed paper answering charges against Man: A Course of Study. p. 1. (Copy in the files of the author.)
Education Policies Commission. (1938). Purpose of Education in American Democracy. Washington D.C.
Education Policies Commission. (1944). Education for All American Youth: A Further Look. Washington D.C.
Education Policies Commission. (1961). The Central Purpose of American Education. Washington D.C.
Education Policies Commission. (1966) Imperatives in Education. Arlington, Virginia: The Association.
Ferber, E., (1970, May). What Makes Humans Human? American Education, May, 1970.
Goodladd, J. I. (1964). School Curriculum Reform. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education. p. 9, 13-41, 52, 59
Hanna, P. R. (1962) Education: An Instrument of National Purpose and Policy. in Paul R. Hanna, ed.,
Education: An Instrument of National Goals. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. pp. 1-3.
Hofstadter, R. (1963). Anti-Intellectualism n American Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 24-25, 299-390.
Kraus, L. L. (1977). Curriculum, Public Policy, and Criticism: An Analysis of the Controversies Surrounding Man:
A Course of Study. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Larkin, Brian J., (1975, November-December). The MACOS Question: A Statement by the National Council for the
Social Studies. Social Education. pp. 448-449.
McGraw, O. (1975, April 21). Statement before the Senate Special Subcommittee on the National Science Foundation.
pp. 1, 7-8. (Prepared statement in the files of the author.)
National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSF Bill Vetoed (1947, September 15). Higher Education.
Schubert, Frank N. (2000). Mobilization. Army Center for Military History. Retrieved January 23rd, 2007 from http://www.army.mil/cmhpg/brochures/Mobilization/mobpam.htm
Science Curriculum Review Team. (1975, May). Pre-College Science Curriculum Activities of the National Science Foundation.
Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. 2, pp. 24, 171-176.
Schaffarzick, J. (1976) Current Issues, Problems, and Concerns in Curriculum Development. Washington, D.C.:
The National Institute of Education. p. 38.
Spring, J. (1976). The Sorting Machine: National Educational Policy Since 1945. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
pp. 1-92, 93-185, 100, 140.
Sputnik (2007) retrieved January 23, 2007 from http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/
"Teaching Man to Children," (1970, January 19). Time, p. 50.
Tinker, Bob, (2006, August 4). NSF and K12 Reform. Retrieved from
http://blog.concord.org/archives/14-NSF-and-K12-Reform.html on November 27, 2006.
U.S., Congress, House, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Committee on Science and
Technology. (1975). The National Science Foundation: 1950-1975., by Dr. Landon T. Crane, Committee Print,
Serial T. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. pp. 13-126.
U.S., General Accounting Office. (1973, October 14). Administration of the Science Education Project Man:
A Course of Study (MACOS). Report of the Comptroller General of the United States to the House Committee
on Science and Technology. p. 21. |
