Midterm+Essay+Exam+KJ

Environmental sustainability is a great solution to global warming yet it is somehow controversial. In the three articles by Orr, Lakoff and Ridley/Low the authors explain how it remains difficult to persuade the population as a whole that environmental sustainability is necessary and right due to cognitive and oratorical framing. Lakoff begins by explaining how the existing political discourse makes it difficult to convince the country to take on environmental sustainability. Conservatives have already used framing to emphasize the things they believe in such as the world is ours to use as we see fit, the free market is the ultimate force of deciding what is right and cost benefit analysis can also be a guiding factor in making decisions. Once framing has helped the leaders to communicate these messages, it does not take much explaining to reemphasize them. On the other hand, liberals believe in empathy which translates to taking care of each other especially through taking care of nature and the air we all breathe etc. Liberals have not taken advantage of framing to help communicate their goals which makes it even more difficult to convince conservatives of their views. The views are completely at odds with each other and the benefits of environmental sustainability are not well communicated by liberals. But in a world that is threatened by global warming, liberals must learn to frame environmental sustainability in a moral and imperative way. I found this compelling because as a liberal I found it hard to understand how not everyone can see the dangers of global warming but the argument here explains it is a product of proper cognitive framing that gets in the way of seeing the truth. Orr's piece explains that history is repeating itself in that the evasion of some political leaders to adopt environmental sustainability is much like the founding fathers' evasion of slavery that had to be taken on by Lincoln. Orr explains Lincoln's use of framing to make slavery a moral and national problem. He used a clear message and avoided unnecessary complication. Orr proposes that we must take on a similar approach when talking about environmental sustainability because it is not a question of technology or economics but a question of fairness and rights. If people can come up with a clear statement with little complication and doesn't overly use references to religion and history, then the need for environmental sustainability can catch on. This was particularly compelling because I would not necessarily equate slavery and global warming but both are ethical issues that need effective communication in order for us to confront them. In their article, Ridley and Low question how common pool problems can arise in some populations and not in others and look to evolutionary biology to do so. They say that even in nature the interests of an individual and the population are at odds but even some organisms find the balance and have a tit for tat relationship with others. They somehow understand that the free ride mentality is not beneficial. People occasionally realize this but there is a substantial free rider problem in many aspects of the commons, but shame can be an effective deterrent. They finish by explaining how taxes and incentives must be used to help the individual see the power in helping the population. Seeing problems that were thought to be merely human put in a context of the animal world could help to think of ways to solve the problem of global warming. A classroom activity could be the prisoner's dilemma, or a simulation of the tragedy of the commons, both explained in the Ridley and Low article.
 * Describe the arguments made in the articles by Orr, Lakoff, and Ridley/Low about ways environmental sustainability should be framed (and justified)? Explain which arguments you find compelling, and why, then describe one activity for k-12 students would effectively frame environmental sustainability in a way suggested by one of these authors.

Three key points about place-based education are: learning about the place you are in is osmotically connected with the rest of what you have to learn in school as opposed to isolated which transforms people to become life long learners and protect the place they are in for the rest of their lives place-based education is relevant and authentic and can show students that resources are everywhere it could even be good in the context of standardized testing. First, in place-based learning the environment and community are osmotically connected with school as opposed to isolated from it. The environment and community are not just an egg in the basket but they are the basket. They don't only connect reading and math but they connect them to each other. In place based learning the teacher would start with project based learning and then take it out of the classroom. It wouldn't only engage and transform the student, but it would also transform the community and citizens, and teachers. Place-based learning would be effective because it would bring relevance to the classroom and interest students. Teachers would have to use authenticity and topics that really affect students in the place they are in. It would show them that parents are resources, and that “the river is the textbook and the community is the classroom” as said in the video. The third point is that the curriculum and standardized testing would remain up to date with the government. The teachers would use place-based prompts, and since they know what the standards are they can plan accordingly and look at opportunities. It is debatable whether it is appropriate for failing schools, but since failing schools have to focus on restructuring focusing on place is could be better. They found this was true at a school in Maryland. Place-based education differs because the environment and community isn't treated as a separate topic or one day learning event but it permeates through all aspects. It also isn't like learning about only tragedies when it comes to environmental education or only far away places. Place-based education provides all context including math and language arts. It could be an alternative school improvement approach more effective than No Child Left Behind. John Dewey's argument about what it should accomplish is that schools are labs for democracy and the opportunity for environment protection. Place-based education realizes this because it helps students get involved in the community from early on. Students would become lifelong learners and engaged citizens, and they would learn from an early age to protect what is dear to them in the environment, but also prepare them for today, as opposed to tomorrow.
 * Watch (Michigan State University's) [|Principles of Place-Based Education](20 minutes) list three key points then explain how place-based education is said to differ from environmental education, and how it realizes John Dewey's arguments about what education should accomplish.

Annie Leonard argues that just like in our own personal finance, we need to be responsible and stay in control of our national finances. While taxes are how we invest in a better future for everyone, the way we spend taxes is not helping us as much as we need, especially if we want to help the education system. First we need to cut spending on military and then we need to limit the dinosaur economy. But what is the dinosaur economy? It starts with giving subsidies to companies and processes that really hurt us in the long run. Agriculture, chemical, oil and gas companies not only take subsidies from the government but create waste that the government is then responsible for cleaning in some cases and then get tax breaks on the revenue they make. Many of these subsidies are from decade and century old laws that need to be reexamined. There are also externalized costs like air pollution from these companies leading to higher asthma and cancer rates that lead to higher medical costs across the country. These problems are perpetuated by lobbyists and lawmakers receiving large campaign donations from these companies. Leonard argues that getting rid of the dinosaur economy and investing in renewable energy, retrofittting homes, safer materials (which would limit the need clean superfund sites), zero waste practices and biobased materials would save money and create jobs. If I were in charge of everything first I would eliminate the factory farming system in America. As a result people would have to eat much less meat, and when they did it would have to be locally and likely sustainably raised. This would eliminate money lost during the subsidizing of the factory farming system and it would make it so farmers that had been growing corn specifically for animal feed would have to choose different crops so they could stay competitive, which would be beneficial to the soil and the economy. It would limit ammonia pollution in the Mississipi river which would lead to a repopulation of the dead zone that exists in the gulf right now which could lead to a boost in fishing in that area which could contribute to more money in the national economy. It would also limit the air pollution and cancer rates (processed meat most likely leads to cancer) which would relieve a burden on the medical system. Second, I would invest more in renewable energy, and eliminate subsidies going to oil and gas companies. Third, I would take a risk here and put many more nuclear power plants back into play until the renewable technologies were good enough to replace them. The risk could be damage causing to the environment in the case of an accident, but right now it is less damaging to the environment than gas, oil and coal, and the lack of attention and money that is going into nuclear right now is going to cause more problems if we do decide to go nuclear in the coming years. Finally, I would invest more in electric cars that could limit the highest amount of CO2 air pollution that currently exists. I would also eliminate free parking across the country to encourage people to walk, ride bikes and use public transportation which would also limit the amount of CO2 air pollution. The article starts by explaining a few programs that have an alternative way of teaching math. The Russian school supports students coming up with creative solutions to problems and even has students come up with different stories to describe a math problem. That may not seem like it would be helpful but while teaching the order of operations a problem like 49-(3+65) is a different story than (49-3)+65 and kids are able to better understand that through the activity and remember it better later on. There are other programs that focus on problem solving first and foremost, and it might not even seem like the problem includes any math. But the whole idea of inquisitive thinking and analyzing the situation before conjecturing at the answer is a skill that not only helps students with math but gets them much more engaged and excited to do it. One problem is the ratio of rich students who are good at math to poor students that are good at math is very high in the United States compared to other countries. This means that it is not enough to have alternative math programs but there has to be someway to include students who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it. Then there is the approach that we must take in public schools. No Child Left Behind made it so teachers had to mostly focus on the children that weren't performing well instead of the ones that were ahead. This made it so the ahead students became bored and found they weren't as rewarded for doing well and would stop being motivated in math classes. But now the law is replaced with the Every Child Succeeds act which puts the emphasis back on those that are performing well and even gives money to teachers to experiment how to teach and motivate these students even better. My math education was more like the cram method discussed in the article. We were given a text book and had to read it and go through the problems at the end of each chapter. Occasionally we were given an extra assignment that had a word problem or was slightly more difficult and we could work on it in groups. I was motivated more by social aspects of doing well than actually enjoying math, since my friends were in the higher level math classes who had the friendlier teachers as well. I wasn't necessarily motivated by the joy of doing math or doing well. And if I did participate in math olympiad-like extracurricular activities it was because my friends were participating in them too. I didn't even feel a joy of math when I was taking calculus in college, instead I felt like I was an impostor in these classes because it seemed like everyone was better at it or at least motivated by the actual study while I was just filling a requirement. It wasn't until I needed advanced math for my field of study that I began to love it but sometimes I feel like that was even too late. I am happy to use handwavy explanations to show how thermodynamics work and I am not very intrigued by them even though I plan on being in academia where I am supposed to be motivated by my curiosity. I can't help but wonder if I could have developed a curiosity for math back in my K-12 education just like the successful children in the article.
 * Explain how [|Annie Leonard argues that we "aren't broke,"] (8 minutes) and should have plenty of money for public education in the United States, then list four ways you would increase funding for public education in the United States (if you were in charge of everything).
 * Describe the approach to math education applauded in [|this article], then explain how your own math education compare

The purpose of the Druk White Lotus school is to provide students with knowledge of the modern world while also allowing them to appreciate their own culture. The motive is to give everyone a chance to get a western education that would prepare them for later in life while also giving them a chance to preserve where they come from. The foundation of where the students come from is highly emphasized. Not only are they educated in the western world but they are made to feel like they are part of something bigger. They are given a moral Buddhist education as well. A lot of intention was put behind the design of the Druk White Lotus School. First, the location was chosen so there would be fewer natural distractions for students. The city had many natural distractions but it was important for it to not be too far. Luckily they were donated land in which they could build their school. Then they chose their architecture firm, Arup, which values consulting the best technology, design and sustainability. They worked with local artisans and workers to not only find local materials but use local technologies and designs. This approach towards sustainability is evident in many parts of the school such as the heating which is built around the greenhouse effect powered by the sun and the latrine system that helps them conserve water which is very scarce. They also looked to the local design to help inform how to build in an area that sees a lot of earthquakes. Another limit was transporting materials which put a large burden on the environment because things had to travel through the Himalayas. Instead the local sourcing helped to limit this but also spread a message to the locals that the architecture firm wasn't imposing their design on them but that the local community was part of the design of the school. The local technologies helped them use fewer tools and less power. They are able to achieve more sustainability in these ways. In order to install built features and adopt a different daily life in a "culturally inflected" green school building in the United States first they would have to commit to sustainability and the purpose behind it. Everyone would have to agree to living sustainability and have a similar reason behind it. For example, if the community decides to live more sustainably to allow for the future generations to have enough resources to be happy and prosperous they would then have to start looking into daily activities that could be different. Food and materials could be locally sourced whenever possible. Children could be involved in making sure everyone is recycling and composting. They could also control which activities they play that could use the least energy. Then the architecture of the building could be addressed. Using the greenhouse effect to heat the building could be good for some places in the country but in other places in the country other heating methods might be needed (e.g. upstate NY, Washington and Alaska don't get as many sunny days as the rest of the country). In these cases locals could be consulted about the best materials and methods could be used to have better insulation so less energy is used. The latrine system used in the Druk White Lotus school could be considered, although westerners are a little more squeamish about human waste, if it is explained to children early on the benefits of discarding waste properly and even using it for fertilizer, they could grow up with the notion that using this kind of latrine system is ok and the right thing to do.
 * Describe the design and purpose behind the design of the The Druk White Lotus School (Ladakh, India) (25 minute film) then describe what the built features and daily life within a "culturally inflected" green school building in the United States would be like (drawing inspiration from the Druk White Lotus School).