LM+Midterm+Exam


 * Explain how Annie Leonard argues that we "aren't broke," and should have plenty of money for public education in the United States. Building on her brief video, drawing on resources you've encountered in this class, how might you “go fix it?”**

In “the Story of Broke”, the sequel to “the Story of Stuff”, Annie Leonard questions whether American tax dollars are being used as productively as they could be. We pay taxes as a way to “invest in a better future, “ as she puts it (i.e. better schools, a healthy environment, job creation, clean energy, etc.), yet the government is constantly telling us that the country is “too broke” to put any money towards these projects. So where does the money go? Leonard explains how the majority of our tax dollars are used to fund the military, to pay for unnecessary weapons and seemingly endless wars. The second greatest cost, according to Leonard, is the effort to “prop up an outdated economy.” Hundreds of millions of dollars disappear every year, in an effort to preserve a system that only “drags us down.” Government subsidies make up a large part of this system, which Leonard argues is not necessarily bad. Problems arise, however, when those subsidies are given to the corporations with the most lobbying power (i.e. big oil and other polluting industries), instead of those who could do the most good with the money. If we can afford to subsidize big industrial polluters, and fund long-term warfare, Leonard argues, then clearly we are not actually “broke.” She likens the situation to that of a parent who can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a yacht, yet cannot afford school lunch for his/her child. The implication is that the parent, or in this case the government, is being irresponsible with taxpayers’ money. Leonard goes on to say that, fortunately, the taxpayers hold the power to change the current spending system. She argues that we, as taxpayers, need to start taking responsibility for where our tax dollars go, and that the way to do this is by voting for the changes we want to see. This is where we, as educators, come in. Yes, society needs to start voicing its concerns over where the government is allocating its funds, //but// in order to do so, individuals need to understand the issues at hand. This is no easy task, as issues like climate change and clean energy are complex, and it is easy to sit back and say, “let the ‘experts’ deal with it!” Thinking back to the 2006 American Environmental Values Survey, many Americans are paralyzed by the complexity of environmental issues. Americans feel like they do not understand enough about the problem to make an informed decision. As educators, we need to take these complex problems (climate change, clean energy, etc.) and make them more accessible. One way of doing this might be to incorporate more sustainability education into k-12 curricula. By introducing complex problems at a young age, instead of evading them at all costs, we can help students gain some familiarity with the issues at hand. By expanding on these issues as students progress through the school system, we can help them to not only gain a deeper understanding of concepts in sustainability, but also to grow more comfortable with the idea of addressing complex problems.


 * How could insights from Sir Ken Robinson's RSA inform ecological education? Based on the Environmental Values Survey (2006) what challenges do you think might arise from attempts toto incorporate Robinson's ideas into K-12 eco ed? What positive outcomes might result?**

Sir Ken Robinson calls for a shift in the educational paradigm. He suggests that the current system is outdated, with its roots in the educational values of the Enlightenment and the economic circumstances of the Industrial Revolution. The standardization of education classifies students as either academic or non-academic, and operates under the assumption that academic aptitude is synonymous with intelligence. There is one right answer, and if the student can find it, he or she is classified as “smart.” This eliminates the capacity for thinking outside of the box, or “divergent thinking”, as Robinson puts it. The concept of divergent thinking is of particular importance to ecological educators. The 2006 Environmental Values Survey shows that many Americans feel paralyzed by the complexity of environmental problems. This is, at least in part, likely due to the fact that they do not know //how// to think about complex problems. Americans in public schools are not taught to think about creative solutions to problems; instead they are taught that there is one right answer (and it is usually in the back of the book). Unfortunately, environmental problems are rarely this simple. The problem seems to lie within the very structure of the current education system. The standardization of curriculums, and the implementation of standards-based evaluations for schools, limits teachers in what and how they teach. Standardized tests measure a student’s academic intelligence (for example, their mastery of simple algebra), but neglect all other forms of intelligence (i.e. the ability to come up with creative solutions to complex problems). As a result, teachers are pressured to teach curricula that cater to this specific form of intelligence. Robinson points to a study that shows that as children grow older, their capacity for divergent thinking decreases. This seems to imply that the current system not only fails to prepare students to address complex problems, but it actually reduces whatever ability students already possess. What does this mean for ecological educators? It appears that as long as the current standards-based system is in place, educators will be limited in their ability to teach students how to approach an issue as complicated as humans and their environment. A restructuring of the system, a “shift in the paradigm”, as Sir Ken Robinson puts it, is the only way to better enable students to deal with ecological crises. Furthermore, this shift would create a society in which individuals feel less paralyzed in the face of complex problems.


 * Should chemical and other “science-based” corporations produce and share public school curricula? Is this a form of corporate social responsibility or an instance of conflicts of interests? Please include analyses of the American Chemistry Council's “Hands on Plastics” and “Chlorine Science Center” programs.**

The role of industry in education is a tricky subject. Ideally, chemical and other “science-based” corporations would want to contribute to the development of science curricula as a way of creating a new generation of well-educated and innovative scientists/engineers. At the end of the day, however, many of these corporations produce dangerous or unsustainable goods, and the curricula they develop often portray these goods as less harmful than they truly are. Take, for example, the American Chemistry Council’s “Hands on Plastics” and “Chlorine Chemistry” curricula. Plastics and chlorine both can pose serious risks to human health and the environment (plastics can contain toxic chemicals and do not biodegrade, while chlorine exposure can cause health problems, including skin/respiratory irritation, and can be damaging to organisms in soil and water), yet these lesson plans seem to focus more on the importance of these products to society. The lessons do offer some valuable scientific information; for example the “Plastics 101” section of the “Hands on Plastics” curriculum does a reasonably good job defining a polymer and its properties. However, there is little mention of the harmful health and environmental impacts. Moreover, the list of member companies that support the project is full of big-time polluters, including DuPont, Chevron, Dow Chemical, and Exxon Mobil. The lesson, as far as I can tell, does not even touch upon the problem of petroleum in plastics production. Instead, it highlights the many uses of plastics, and even goes so far as to suggest that plastics help conserve resources and reduce waste. The information provided to educators and students is misleading, as it shows how producers are creating less wasteful products (i.e. “The plastic film wrappers now used for large diaper packs create 50 percent less waste by volume than previous packages”). While it may be true that plastic products today are less wasteful than the were in the past, the fact of the matter is that plastics are still derived from fossil fuels, and are therefore unsustainable. The other issue left out of these lessons is the history of environmental devastation that is associated with the chemical industry. For example, Dow Chemical was responsible for the chemical spill that devastated Bhopal, India, in 1984. There is no mention of that in the lesson plan. These risks are a significant part of the chemical industry, and students deserve to be taught both the benefits and the risks. How can a student become an informed citizen when he/she only learns about one side of the issue? Curricula designed and funded by corporate interests often fail to educate students about the downsides of the products produced by the corporations. After all, why would ExxonMobil pay to help develop a curriculum that portrays oil and natural gas as a detriment to society? At the end of the day, these “science-based” corporations are still corporations, and their main goal is to make a profit. If that means misleading generations of schoolchildren, then that is what they do. For this reason, educational materials produced by these corporations should be kept out of schools. Students deserve an unbiased education, and this is simply impossible when corporate interests are involved. We so often hear about keeping religious interests out of public schools, but it is time we start talking about keeping corporate interests out as well. Unfortunately, this may have an economic impact of some schools, who rely on textbooks and curricula funded by these groups. However, thinking back to Annie Leonard’s “the Story of Broke”, the government should be able to find the funds to aid schools in the development of new curricula; in fact, why not take the money that goes to subsidizing the big corporations, and put it into the education system?


 * What attitudes and cultural constructs in the United States will environmental educators need to work against? Reference at least two assigned readings. Briefly describe at least one activity for k-12 students that would work against these attitudes and cultural constructs.**

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing environmental educators is the lack of clear, unbiased information sources. The media plays such a critical role in the education of many Americans, but it often provides a skewed view of events. Society is so divided over nearly every issue; every report or story has some political or industrial affiliation, and many Americans simply accept what they read or hear as fact. Obviously, a “die-hard republican” who only gets his information from Fox News is going to have a very different set of “facts” than a “die-hard democrat” who only watches MSNBC. This is evidenced by the 2006 American Environmental Values Survey, which found that Americans are concerned about the environment, but that their concerns are divergent and polarized. Every issue is so highly politicized these days, and educators certainly have their work cut out for them in trying to teach students to think critically about their information sources. As Galston points out in “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement and Civic Education,” long-lasting political ideals are formulated during the mid to late teen years. These formative years are when educators may be able to play the biggest role in undoing the politicization of the environment. Another important attitude that environmental educators are up against is this, “You’re on your own” attitude (SRI, 2006). Americans often fail to see the value in “the commons”, and the dominant mindset still seems to be “more is better.” We want more for ourselves and our families (i.e. bigger cars, bigger homes, etc), even when this comes at the expense of society as a whole. Environmental educators will have to show students that this mindset will eventually result in less for all. The third issue facing environmental educators is this belief that the problem is simply to complex, and grand in scale, for the individual to deal with. The SRI survey shows that many Americans feel paralyzed by the complexity of the issue, and often feel that the problem is best left to the “experts.” One way of combatting this may be to introduce students to environmental problems at a young age. Let them gain familiarity with it as they progress through the education system, learning a little more about the issue every year, instead of bombarding them with all the issues as adults. The education system needs to stop shying away from environmental issues. An example of an activity that could help tackle some of these problems is the “Step up to Solutions” model that our class has developed for first graders. In it, we ask students to complete several activities designed to show them the causes and effects of air pollution, then map out the different levels of cause and effect, as well as potential solutions. The activity asks them to think beyond, “what causes air pollution?” to, “what causes the causes of air pollution?” By introducing the subject, as well as some of the scientific concepts, at such a young age, we are helping student grow more comfortable with the idea of thinking about complex environmental issues. Obviously, no single learning activity is going to solve these problems. The “Step up to Solutions” module does not really address information sources or political bias, but it could serve as part of a curriculum designed to get students to start thinking about environmental problems.


 * Consider the place of public education in the values of Americans. If we were to run a study of “American Values and Public Education” along the lines of the survey we read last week on Americans’’ environmental values, what questions would we ask? Do you think American public education values have changed over the last few decades? Can we see connections or similarities in the way “Americans” value and care for “the environment,” public health, and public education?**

An “American Values and Public Education Survey” would provide insight into what Americans think about the current education system. It would be interesting to distribute the survey to two groups: one group of parents and one group of childless adults. The survey should be structured in a way that individuals can express their feelings on the current system, as well as compare today’s children’s educations with their own. I would format the survey to resemble SRI’s 2006 “American Environmental Values Survey”, where each participant selects either, “disagree”, “somewhat agree”, or “agree”, in response to each statement. Some of the statements I would include are:
 * I worry that the U.S. education system is falling behind other countries’.
 * A quality education will lead to success later in life
 * I do/would allow my child to attend public school
 * The current system is in need of reform
 * I am willing to pay more in taxes in order to improve public schools
 * The current education system treats all students equally
 * Standardized tests are an effective way of measuring a school’s performance
 * STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) is where we should allocate most of our education resources.
 * Public schools should teach students about controversial issues (i.e. global warming)
 * Today’s students receive a better education than students thirty years ago.
 * Today’s students are engaged in classroom material
 * Students do not need to be taught about political issues in school
 * Students who do poorly on standardized tests are less intelligent than those who do well.
 * I feel that the school day should be longer.
 * Teachers should all teach the same standardized curriculum.
 * I worry that public school is becoming too heavily influenced by politics.
 * I worry that public school is becoming too heavily influenced by corporate interests.
 * I worry that public schools do not teach enough social science.
 * I worry that public schools do not teach students to think creatively.

The survey would likely show that STEM education is more heavily valued than ever before, and as a consequence students learn less about social/cultural issues. A shift in the perception of success may also be noticeable. Americans seem to value standardized test scores more than in past generations, though it would be interesting to see whether or not the majority of Americans feel this is an effective means of measuring success. The survey may also show the increased role of politics in education. There appears to be more confusion than ever regarding what issues can be taught and how, because every issue has become so politicized and teachers risk offending parents and administrators. It may also be interesting to run the survey again among a group of teachers, to see if their values and perceptions differ from those of the general public. The educational values survey would likely show commonalities in the ways that Americans value and care for education, public health, and the environment. Each of these issues has become so politicized; this is evident in the lack of a clear consensus regarding the underlying cause of either one of these issues, nor in how do address the problem. Most Americans agree that the problems exist, but feel paralyzed by the complexity of the issues. Additionally, the lack of trust in the government in solving the problem would likely be shared among all three (the Environmental Values survey did not touch on this specifically, but I anticipate that these would be the results if it had). The three crises seem to go hand in hand, as each contributes to and is affected by, the other two. However, perhaps by addressing education first, we can better equip future generations to come up with solutions to environmental and public health issues.

References: “America’s Education System Isn’t Broken | FrontPage Magazine.” N. p., n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. “Bhopal Disaster | Greenpeace.” N. p., n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. “Chlorine | Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web Site | US EPA.” N. p., n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. “Chlorine Helps Improve Public Health.” N. p., n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. “Common Core Standards Aren’t Cheap.” //Education Reporter// Jan. 2012. Galston, William A. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education.” //Annual review of political science// 4.1 (2001): 217–234. Print. Matthew M. Chingos. //Standardized Testing and the Common Core Standards; You Get What You Pay For?// Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, 2013. “Plastics FAQs.” N. p., n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. “SRI Consulting 2006 AmericanEnvironmentalValuesSurvey.pdf.” Web. 9 Mar. 2014. Stan Karp. “The Problems with the Common Core.” //Rethinking Eduation// Winter 2013 : 10–17. Print. “‘The Lorax’ Environmental Stance Draws Criticism From Left & Right [VIDEO].” N. p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. “What Is the Goal of the American Education System? - Reimagining K-12 - Education Week.” N. p., n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.