Conclusion
“The Cold War dominated and in some ways distorted our whole national outlook throughout the 1950s and beyond . . . The most often heard argument for its passage [NDEA] was not the need to improve learning opportunities for the sake of our kids but the fear that Soviet technology was getting ahead of us and the Russian schools were doing a better job than ours in preparing their youth for the space age.”
Children's literature, which often flies under the cultural radar, is a fascinating rubric through which one can understand the ideological tenor of a society. Our collective values, for better or worse, are mirrored back to us in what we choose to teach our children. With the end of the Cold War in the 1980s, government funding for education plummeted. Without an enemy to beat, the drive to cultivate a new generation of scientists and technologists greatly diminished. The legacy of the Cold War lives on, however. In recent years Russia has entered into the national spotlight yet again with its interference into the 2016 election. Propaganda and nationalism are reverberating throughout the echo chambers of social media. Yet, similar to the period of the Cold War and McCarthyism, thinkers, students, and artists are finding ways to bring about positive change. A groundswell of youth-driven activism is spreading throughout the country to face the overwhelming challenges of the 21st century. How we support our children—and what we teach them—will be paramount to their success.