Earlier this year PRESS was asked to participate in an environmental consortium sponsored by the Wisconsin Environmental Education Board and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). As a PRESS officer and a small business owner, I was interested in attending to learn the state of affairs on environmental education in Wisconsin.
The meeting took place March 5, 1997 at UW-Stevens Point. The attendees included primarily environmental education teachers, DNR representatives, and university representatives involved with environmental education in some way or another. I was the only representative of either the business community or any parent group.
For the most part, the attendees were what I would call "environmentalists." I clearly sensed a definite desire by many in attendance to advance environmental education as a curricular strand that should be on par with basic academic areas such as math or science.
The beginning part of the meeting was used to review a taxpayer funded survey that was conducted in our public schools in 1994. Teachers, administrators and students were asked a variety of questions pertaining to environmental knowledge, sensitivity and values, and responsible behaviors including: economic action, persuasion, political action and legal action. While some of the questions were harmless, others were clearly biased.
Example:
If wild animal species need a place to live for the next 300 years it would be best to:The majority of students and administrators answered "d." This was the "right" answer according to the Wisconsin Environmental Education Board. Never were the students or administrators asked to consider costs or benefits to society.
a) put them in a zoo
b) put them in parks
c) let them live on land people don't want to use
d) save large areas of the animals' natural habitat
The summary section of the survey concluded that, "students' personal behaviors related to environmental concerns were inconsistent and seemingly without strong commitment." Implications and strategies to remediate these "deficiencies" predictably included more integration of environmental education. They concluded, "If the expectation is that environmentally sound behaviors [whatever those are!] become a part of this state's norms, then the schools will have to develop educational programs that more readily help students understand and incorporate pro-environmental actions into their lifestyles." They go on to conclude, "School districts must be encouraged to provide equitable (relative to other disciplines) resources..." Does this mean to elevate environmental education to the stature of core areas such as math, science or English? Clearly, this is their intention.
The following are questions and concerns that I believe all educators of environmental issues must ask themselves:
1. Why aren't parents asked their opinion about environmental education? Do parents want more time taken away from core course areas?
2. Are you asking the business community for their input? (While it was never stated, I sensed an "us versus them" atmosphere at the conference.)
3. Do you want to create education policy around students, teachers and administrators' views or around what parents and business owners, and ostensibly all taxpayers, think is important? In other words, is a hard core group with a one-sided view shaping state policy?
4. Environmental education should teach students to balance the economic trade-offs and the debatable science of a particular environmental issue. Students shouldn't be taught what to think -- instead they should be taught how to think.
Three recent publications: Facts Not Fear, by Sanera and Shaw; Are We Building Environmental Literacy?, by The Independent Commission of Environmental Education, 1-800-992-0671; and New Strategies for Environmental Problems in Wisconsin, by The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, are all excellent at offering a truly rational view of environmental education. I encourage you to read these publications.
The following insight is from Are We Building Environmental Literacy? "Eight-year-olds should not be asked to become warriors or worriers. Children have much more important work to do. Watch ants. Grow flowers. Dance between raindrops. This is sacred work, and childhood needs to be preserved just as much as rain forests and wetlands."
Return to PRESS Home Page