Pompea and Russo reply: We agree with Steven Corneliussen that the term “rocket science” is a poor overall descriptor of the scope of aerospace engineering. However, the term resonates with the public in describing endeavors that it views as difficult and complex or where failure would be highly visible (for example, the efforts to bring back Apollo 13).
When the astronaut, scientist, and educator George “Pinky” Nelson observes that education is harder than “rocket science,” he accurately describes the complexities and difficulties in advancing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. Just getting a rocket off the launchpad is much easier than getting the payload into the specific orbit desired. STEM education undertakings also benefit greatly from well-designed, intentional efforts from teams that use a systems-based approach.1
We also agree that effective classroom science education, especially at the elementary school level, is difficult for the reasons outlined by Peter Foukal. Science teachers are challenged by curriculum changes, poor textbooks, a paucity of computers and other equipment, and inadequate training in pedagogical content knowledge for the subjects they teach. From our experience, teaching is one of the most challenging professions; its difficulty is significantly underappreciated by other professionals. It is no wonder that there is currently a critical shortage of science teachers in the US (see Physics Today, March 2022, page 25).
Most concerning to us is that public education in the US has been under attack for decades, a topic well explored by Diane Ravitch, a former US assistant secretary of education. Public funding for education is increasingly being diverted to private and religious schools, which weakens the public school system. STEM professionals and their organizations need to take a more active role as stewards of local public STEM education in order to preserve the rapidly deteriorating educational ecosystem.2
