One of the listserv mailing lists I read frequently is populated by planetarium folk. As you can imagine, with planetariums being spread across the world and a variety of projector and institution types, the conversations could be pretty widespread in their outreach.
Well, maybe. Lately the discussion has turned to several topics that keep getting revisited:
- Pluto is/is not a planet (and why that’s good, bad, ugly, or otherwise)
- Global warming (why it exists/what to do about it)
- How No Child Left Behind affects planetarium facilities
This last one is downright scary, although the other two topics are good for generating lots of sound and fury. No Child Left Behind is a confusing maze of legislation that is supposed to generate (as far as I can tell) a better education in U.S. schools. I don’t know how much good it has done because all we seem to read (and talk) about is how it has left many schools with unfunded mandates and generally fuzzy expectations about what it means to test students for what they’ve learned. In many cases, the law seems to get cited when schools want to reduce unnecessary funding and focus on “the basics.”
Okay, you say, that sounds fair, right? Well, maybe. Some listserv participants say that schools are reducing school field trips to the planetarium. This is likely a cost-cutting move to save on fuel prices and cost of bus trips, etc. It is unfortunate, but easily understandable if the district is really strapped for cash. And fuel prices are high all over. But, I suspect that the “focus on basics” argument is thrown in to satisfy some political or otherwise non-educational need.
A planetarium visit is actually quite an educational activity. The students get to learn about astronomy in an environment conducive to it. Since the early 1960s, students have been going to planetariums to learn about astronomy and it seems to have worked. And, astronomy is a science that is a gateway to other sciences; it encompasses people in such varied disciplines as physics, math, computing, biology, chemistry, geology/geophysics, and life sciences. In addition, it has spurred many people to go into careers in science writing, policy, and education.
So, if there’s some educational reason why suddenly the planetarium is NOT working as an educational venue, I’d like to see it (and the documented evidence). Because otherwise, what we’re really doing by cutting back on trips to the planetarium, zoo, etc. is cutting back on kids’ educations in the name of something other than education.
Yes, saving fuel is important. But, there are alternative fuels and methods of transportation. And alternative planetariums that actually travel TO the schools (or reside therein). Several companies make and sell them (you can see lists of planetarium system suppliers here and here) for more details).
Why so adamant about planetariums? After more than 20 years working with and in them, creating more than two dozen shows for such facilities, I’ve seen first-hand evidence that they work quite well as a learning experience. And, anecdotally, when I talk to scientists at meetings, if I ask them how they got interested in astronomy, a visit to the planetarium is often mentioned as something that spurred them on to study the subject.
I suspect that if planetariums continue to get cut out of the curriculum (whether or not “No Child Left Behind” is cited as a reason, we’ll be cutting off our educational noses to spite our faces. And at least in the U.S., we can’t really afford to continue dumbing down our kids for political reasons. Particularly in science, where we need more expertise than ever before, not less.
