[ draft version comments appreciated] Catherine Kavassalis Return to Contents Return to BioMuncie
last revision: 01/25/2004
There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings...Then a strange blight crept over the area and everything began to change...There was a strange stillness...The few birds seen anywhere were moribund; they trembled violently and could not fly. It was a spring without voices. On the mornings that had once throbbed with the dawn chorus of scores of bird voices there was now no sound; only silence lay over the fields and woods and marsh. (Carson, 1962, pp. 2-3)
Rachel Carson's words stirred a nation into action. After reading Silent Spring, which described the decimation of wildlife due to pesticides, President Kennedy called for an investigation. A year later, in 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act and DDT was banned by most states. Called "a fanatic defender of the cult of the balance of nature" by her opponents (McLaughlin, 1998, ¶ 3), Rachel Carson is considered the catalyst of the modern American environmental movement (Chen, 2001). Along with other prominent international activists like Jacques Cousteau and members of Greenpeace, Carson brought environmental issues to the public eye. There was a growing awareness that more than changes in policy were necessary to protect the environment; changes in understanding, attitudes and behaviour were also necessary. Echoing Kuhn, Leo Elsholf commented, “Often it is only when major social unrest or protest occurs that we can even reflect or reevaluate the nature of our worldview," (2001, p. 37). Activists like Carson were the catalysts for such reflection and reevaluation. Responding to the mood of the nation in 1970, Congress passed the National Environmental Education Act to increase environmental literacy and spur change in behaviour. But there were varied opinions about what environmental education should look like.
Over the past decades, numerous efforts to define environmental education and establish programs and standards have been made. These various efforts on the federal, state and local levels have shown some success in getting EE into curricula and a variety of quality programs have evolved around the country. However, development has been sporadic. Environmental education has only been successful where the culture and intellectual climate supported its growth. Several factors have inhibited implementation of programs and prevented widespread institutionalization of environmental education: conflicting environmental philosophies, a decentralized education system, poor quality programs, lack of sustained public support, lack of funding, and disunity within the environmental education community and the science education community. Nonetheless, there is a wealth of ideas and initiatives from grassroots organizations, industry, academic institutions and government agencies, just waiting to be utilized. Environmental education is on the edge of cultural adoption. Educating the public, community leaders and teachers about the importance of environmental education and providing access to information and programs is an essential first step in creating cultures and climates where programs can grow.
Just what is environmental education? After all, education about the environment has existed for a long time. Nature studies and life sciences have a long history within K-12 science curricula and outdoor education programs across the United States. At least to environmentalists in the 70s, this education had proven insufficient in producing citizens that knew how to protect and care for the environment. A new kind of environmental education was needed to replace the more traditional natural sciences (Environment Canada, 2000).
The term 'environmental education' is often attributed to Prof. William Stapp of University of Michigan, who defined it in the first issue of the Journal of Environmental Education in 1969. "Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution,” (pp. 30-31). The idea that environmental education should teach people to identify environmental problems and to solve environmental problems was a distinct change from simply teaching about life cycles or ecosystems. From its inception, social action was considered a necessary outcome of environmental education, and this component turns out to be controversial.
Stapp's influence on efforts to define the goals of environmental education was profound (Wals, 2001). As the first Director of UNESCO's International Environmental Education Program [IEEP], Stapp was instrumental in the drafting of the 1976 Belgrade Charter (UNESCO, 1976) and the later Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO, 1978). The following five objectives for environmental education were established:
These objectives are foundational to most environmental education programs in the United States. The idea of participation in environmental improvement and protection was novel, yet was a critical component of most constructions of environmental education. Arthur Lucas described environmental education as having three parts: education about the environment, education in the environment, and education for the environment (1979). General knowledge and awareness about the environment had been traditionally provided for in formal curricula and education in the environment had been the typical domain of nonformal programs, but education for the environment was the new inclusion (Stevenson, 1997). Education, for the environment, emphasized active engagement in environmental issues. The idea of participation in environmental improvement and protection included in both the Tbilisi framework and Lucas’s framework were critical to the developing definition of environmental education. Historically, “schools were not intended to develop critical thinkers, social inquirers and problem-solvers or active participants in environmental and political (or even educational) decision making,” (Stevenson, 1987).This was a big step. Education for the environment emphasized active engagement in environmental issues.
In the 1970s, active engagement in environmental issues became a call for social justice and economic/political development (Lin, 2000). This international call gained strength during the 80s. Both the UNESCO-UNEP Congress on Environmental Education and Training (1987) and the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) focused on the need for worldwide “responsible development.” In 1992, UNESCO-UNEP hosted an Earth Summit in Rio. The document produced, Agenda 21 (1992), outlines a strategy for responsible development and includes a chapter on environmental education. Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 states, ”to be effective, environment and development education should deal with the dynamics of both the physical/biological and socio-economic environment and human (which may include spiritual) development,”(1992, 36.3). The influence of eco-socialism and the demand for social justice is evident in both WCED's Brundtland Report, (Our Common Future, 1989) and UNESCO’s Agenda 21. This influence had a negative impact on the general acceptance of environmental education in the United States, in particular, on the inclusion of social action in the environmental education agenda.
Early on, Harold Hungerford, along with Ben Peyton and Richard Wilke, recognized that schools were not adopting environmental education platforms due in part to conflicting ideologies - capitalism / socialism; anthropocentrism / eco-centrism. They believed that education should take note of the conflict between desires to use resources and desires to protect the natural environment. They redrafted the goal of environmental education and suggested its ultimate aim was: "...to aid citizens in becoming environmentally knowledgeable and, above all, skilled and dedicated citizens who are willing to work, individually and collectively, toward achieving and/or maintaining a dynamic equilibrium between quality of life and quality of the environment,” (Hungerford, Peyton & Wilke, 1980, p.44).
One of the most outspoken opponents of environmental education initiatives has been Michael Sanera, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Environmental Education Research. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a libertarian organization that supports a kind of free-market environmentalism - conservation and use of natural resources based on property rights, reliance on market processes (“An Interview with Fred Smith,” 1998). Sanera believes that although environmental education should emphasize the importance of understanding environmental issues, the goal should include an understanding of economic issues and stress 'good science' without emphasizing social action (Sanera, 1998). “Given the ultimate aim of environmental education is the acquisition by students of responsible environmental behavior,” (Robottom, 1992, 34), it is difficult to imagine the effectiveness of an environmental education program that did not emphasize social action. Essentially, Sanera wants a continuation of the status quo.
In 1999 the National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education, a project of the North American Association of Environmental Educators and the Environmental Protection Agency, completed: Excellence in Environmental Education: Guidelines for Learning (K-12). They adapted the objectives to make explicit the need to understand economic as well as socio-political issues in relation to environmental issues:
This adaptation, along with the correlation to standards to be discussed later, may make environmental education more palatable to mainstream America, but implementing environmental initiatives without national consensus and without consistent funding is difficult. Although there has been some federal support for environmental education, the growth of the educational efforts has been sporadic.
(Unfortunately international efforts to redefine environmental education following the UNESCO Conference on Education and the Environment in Thessaloniki, may muddy the waters. Since Agenda 21, international moves have been afoot to re-orient environmental education toward sustainability. Education for sustainability (EfS), education for sustainable development (EfSD), education for a sustainable future (EfSF), sustainable development education (SDE), development education (DE), and education for biodiversity (EfB) have all been suggested as replacements for environmental education (Filho, 1998). This kind of disunity among environmental educators does not improve efforts to gain public confidence and acceptance of environmental education.)
Under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, education was made the responsibility of state governments. Curriculum is a state or local school district decision and as opinion on environmental education varies from state to state, region to region, so does funding and programming. The federal government can and has influenced programming by providing additional funding incentives but levels of support have fluctuated over the years, reflecting shifting public opinion and political leadership.
During the early seventies the emphatic writing of Carson and pleas of activists like Cousteau aroused the public. Politicians responded to their alarmed constituency by enacting policies and providing funding to environmental programs. The National Environmental Education Act established an Office of Environmental Education within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and began providing funding for teacher training and curriculum development from 1970-1975 (Bearden, 1998). This resulted in pockets of activity across the country - wherever there were individuals and organizations interested in taking advantage of the federal monies and communities receptive to their efforts. Strong emotional support for environmental issues subsided as the public felt more secure with changes in policy and practice, and economic concerns began to outweigh environmental concerns. At the same time individuals such as Sanera and organizations like the Ayn Rand Institute began actively campaigning against environmental education programs, which proffered values and behaviours that conflicted with their own.
In 1981, Congress repealed the National Environmental Education Act, giving responsibility for funding back to state and local governments. By 1987, only 19 of the 50 states had enacted legislation or policies in support of environmental education. The federal government then reinstated the Act in 1990 and reestablished an Office of Environmental Education. This time, however, it was placed under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency not, interestingly enough, under Education. The EPA adopted the Tbilisi objectives as national standards and made a significant effort to work with state governments and non-governmental organizations. EPA established the Environmental Education and Training Partnership (EETAP http://eetap.org/) and partnered with groups such as the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE http://naaee.org/). Congress failed to re-authorize the Environmental Education Act in 1996 and again in 2000, although funding for certain programs has continued.
By 1998, nearly every state in the country offered environmental education programs in some form or another at museums, parks, clubs, camps and schools. These were highly diverse and uncoordinated. According to A Survey of the Status of State-Level Environmental Education in the United States-1998 Update, only 15 states required that environmental education be included in K-12 curricula. Of the 32 states supporting environmental education efforts, less than $7.3 million was invested in in-school programs (Kirk, Wilke & Ruskey, 1998). Numerous organizations have called for increased federal support including the National Council for Science, Policy and the Environment (2000), the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (2001b), and the National Environmental Education Advisory Council (2000). They recommend:
In 2001, the Senate tried adding environmental education to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which provides guidelines and funding incentives to states for implementing certain programs (e.g. basic education grants, educational technology grants, American Indian education grants, etc.). However, the House did not give its support and the proposition was defeated. The other recommendations have yet to be acted upon.
The National Environmental Education Advisory Council (NEEAC http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/neeac.html) was established under NEEA to report to Congress on the progress of environmental education. In 1996 they reported that environmental education was not becoming institutionalized and that environmental education programs were inconsistent from state to state, community to community (NEEAC, 1996, p.15). In their follow-up report in September 2000, they reiterated: "Environmental education has not been effectively infused into the educational reform movement, nor has it been institutionalized throughout K-12 or higher education. Thus, environmental education has not achieved the desired impact in government and business circles, or in communities,” (NEEAC, 2000, p. 11).
The council stated that inadequate coordination of programs and financial support was the main problem. Programs, though ‘impressive’, were "diffuse and fragmented and therefore fail to reach a 'critical mass' capable of achieving overall direction or consistent, definitive accomplishment," (NEEAC, 2000, p. 1). They also felt that environmental education has a public relations problem. Americans do not recognize the necessity of funding environmental education. In addition, due to misconceptions and fears, some Americans are actively trying to prevent environmental education from spreading. Just what are these Americans afraid of?
Modern socialist leaders claim to know how to manipulate human nature. ... This horrendous mission is now pressing forward under the banners of Agenda 21 and its partners around the world. Only a solid, unshakable commitment to truth will enable us to stand our ground. Only a clear understanding of the evil forces driving this agenda will enable us to resist the mental manipulation used to induce compliance. (Kjos, n.d., “Social Juctice,” ¶ 5)
Berit Kjos is a religious conservative who fears that environmental education will induce "radical population reduction, oppressive lifestyle regulations, and a coercive return to earth-centered religions as the basis for environmental values and self-sustaining human settlements." Although this is an extreme position, it reflects the degree to which some people see environmental education as a threat to religion and freedom in general.
In as much as environmental education does represent, "efforts to expand the human moral community, to demand some fundamental transformation of traditional values, and to construct new values,” (Li, 1996, ¶ 24), there is a legitimate reason for traditionalists to be concerned. In the fall of 1996, the National Environmental Education Advancement Project identified eighteen organizations critical of environmental education and its potentially subversive agenda: "Alabama Family Alliance, the Alaska Council on Economic Education, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Freedom Coalition, the Arizona Institute for Public Policy Research, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Environmental Education Working Group, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Independent Commission on Environmental Education, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, the Reason Foundation, the Washington Roundtable, and the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute,” (“Organizations Represented in Articles”). Bora Simmons, President of the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), summarized the criticism of environmental education offered by these groups:
In an effort to stem these concerns, amendments to the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 were introduced by Representative Klug and Senator Inhofe in 1998. These included provisions that would ensure that EPA funding would only be provided for initiatives that are:
The National Center for Public Policy Research responded to this proposal in a news item entitled Republicans Back Environmental Indoctrination Program.
...closer examination of the EPA's concept of "balance" suggests that the program would continue to be used to indoctrinate children. ... While it would bar electioneering, political party activity, and direct lobbying using federal grant money, it would not stop educators from teaching students the political action skills that frequently make them pawns in the environmental policy debate. Children could, for example, continue to be encouraged by educators to write letters to the editor supporting environmental policies they learn in class. Tucson, Arizona second-grader Brian is just one of many students who have learned such skills. As part of a class project, he wrote a letter to the editor opposing a new housing development saying, "Man is killing Mother Nature just for money. (1998)
The amendments were not passed. Despite efforts of the EPA and NAAEE to redefine environmental education in such a way as to clarify the need for balance and respect for a wide range of values, criticism has continued.
During congressional hearings on reauthorizing the National Environmental Education Act, in the summer of 2000, the following concerns resurfaced:
These concerns prevented congress from extending federal support to environmental education. The NAEEC 2000 Report to Congress stated,
Environmental education has a public relations problem. It needs to be established that environmental education is an enhancement of education that serves the common good by helping an environmentally literate citizenry understand how to protect and preserve our natural surroundings while improving our quality of life. Environmental education must be not only perceived as an economic, social and environmental necessity, but the perception must be widespread and measurable. (p.9)
The problem is not however that Americans don't want environmental education. In fact, according to the 2001 Roper Starch Report Card of Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior, 95% of Americans polled endorse environmental education in schools. The problem is more complicated.
Environmental education though 'wonderful,' is often perceived as a luxury rather than necessity (Rasmussen, 2000). As previously mentioned, the Public Agenda polling research on the environment suggests that most Americans don't feel personally affected by environmental problems, and therefore may not see an immediate need for education. In addition Public Agenda found that, "Many participants seemed convinced of the gravity of environmental problems, but also believed the underlying cause was human greed and selfishness. Since those human failings couldn't be easily addressed, the participants said, there isn't much hope for solving the environmental problems they cause," (“The Public View,” ¶ 3). This pessimistic viewpoint obviates the need for education - if there is no hope for a solution why bother learning about the problems. The public needs to recognize that environmental problems affect everyone and although they may seem overwhelming, solutions are within human grasp and education is vital to the task.
In addition, even though the majority of Americans want environmental education, they need to be convinced that legislation and funding are necessary to improve the status quo. After all schools, museums, nature centres, and organizations like the scouts, etc., have been offering opportunities to learn about the environment and do things to improve the environment. People need to be shown how various programs compare and why they need to invest in establishing quality programming within the schools. Public relations efforts are necessary to inform people that quality programming is a not just a nicety.
Public relations are also necessary to counterbalance the negative press created by anti-environmental education lobby groups. Although they may not represent the majority of the population, these groups have had a strong impact on regional and federal initiatives. Michael Sanera has made a career of dismantling state environmental initiatives. Gregory Smith comments:
Sanera was instrumental in gutting a previously strong environmental education mandate in the state of Arizona. More recently, Sanera and his allies have taken their criticism of environmental education to other states including Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Washington with varying results. Most significant has been the degree to which this organized critique of environmental education has put environmental education supporters on the defensive and diverted limited resources and energy away from the development of meaningful and effective educational programs. (2000, “Introduction,” ¶ 4)
Grassroots groups like Citizen's for Environmental Education in Washington have arisen to counter the rhetoric and allegations of Sanera and associates, with some success. However, as Smith noted, this diverts limited resources away from actual programming. The public needs to understand how environmental education, as defined by the NAAEE and the EPA, not by Sanera, 'serves the common good'.
Critics of environmental education have had some success in the arena of public opinion because some of their criticisms are just. There are poor programs. People do get emotional about environmental issues. There are errors in textbooks. Some material is biased. People are encouraged to take social action, sometimes without a real understanding of the complexity of the issue. Sometimes the scientific debate underlying an environmental issue is unclear or poorly presented. Most of these criticisms, however, could be aimed at any branch of education as well as at the anti-environmental education lobby. Why is environmental education such a target?
Environmental education lacks authority and is not considered part of the mainstream of education. The council on environmental education commented:
NAAEE's membership and effectiveness of representation does not yet reflect the overwhelming demand and support for environmental education, and has not yet gained the widespread acceptance and "authority" accorded the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) or the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS), for example. (NEEAC, 2000, p. 6)
The placement of environmental education under the auspices of the Environmental Protection Agency, rather than Health, Education and Welfare, is just one way in which environmental education has been marginalized. In addition, from its inception, the environmental education community disassociated itself from the existing science and social science communities and therefore became an add-on rather than an extension of existing school programs. Environmental education exists largely in out of school programs. Improving its relationship with the science education community may be one way to improve public opinion, assuage criticism and broaden implementation of environmental education initiatives.
The schism between the environmental education community and the science education community is historic. Lucie Sauvie explains that environmental education "... was born out of modernity as a reaction to the impact of modern 'progress',” (1999, p. 2). There was a real sense among many environmentalists in the sixties and seventies that the technocratic science community was in part to blame for the perceived environmental crisis. It was felt that science education simply perpetuated an exploitive view of the environment. Thus environmental education was to be a new interdisciplinary field replacing the traditional natural sciences. (Orellana & Fauteux, 2002)
By choosing to create new communication channels the environmental community has only reached a limited constituency. It has had particular difficulty entering the school system in any consistent manner. Because teaching of environmental education is still typically initiated from within science programs, connections between these two communities are particularly critical. Efforts to correlate the goals of environmental education with science education, along with recent reforms to both environmental education and science education may make the two more compatible. However, as will be shown, long held biases and beliefs will continue to make integration difficult.
Consider this message posted by the California Regional Environmental Education Community Network (CREEC is administered by the California Department of Education):
If you are an Environmental Education organization like a zoo or a nature center, you may provide excellent environmental education opportunities for teachers. But with the push for accountability to the California State Standards, teachers will bypass your program if you do not correlate what you PROVIDE to what they NEED! It is imperative that you become familiar with these Standards. (2002)
This statement is indicative of the current trend toward standards based education. The pressure to conform teaching to particular outcomes began in the 80s and has affected education across the United States.
It perhaps began when the National Commission on Excellence in Education declared America to be a "nation at risk, " . . . [whose] educational foundations . . . are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people,” (1983). This publication was followed by the Educate America Act and a concerted effort by educational organizations to develop standards. Scientists and science educators began to explore what was necessary to be scientifically literate. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Research Council (NRC), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Education's Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program have all undertaken to establish benchmarks or exemplars for building literacy. Of these, only the efforts of the AAAS and the NRC will be discussed here, as they typify the range of results.
In 1985, the AAAS began Project 2061: Science Literacy for a Changing Future. Recommendations for essential concepts, skills and attitudes were first published in1989 in Science for All Americans. Interestingly, they framed the need for science literacy by describing the state of the world as follows:
The most serious problems that humans now face are global: unchecked population growth in many parts of the world, acid rain, the shrinking of tropical rain forests and other great sources of species diversity, the pollution of the environment, disease, social strife, the extreme inequities in the distribution of the earth's wealth, the huge investment of human intellect and scarce resources in preparing for and conducting war, the ominous shadow of nuclear holocaust-" They went one to suggest that, ... Science, energetically pursued, can provide humanity with the knowledge of the biophysical environment and of social behavior needed to develop effective solutions to its global and local problems; ....By emphasizing and explaining the dependency of living things on each other and on the physical environment, science fosters the kind of intelligent respect for nature that should inform decisions on the uses of technology; without that respect, we are in danger of recklessly destroying our life-support system;... Without the continuous development and creative use of new technologies, society may limit its capacity for survival and for working toward a world in which the human species is at peace with itself and its environment. (“Introduction”)
With its emphasis on care and respect for the environment and the idea that humans should live in harmony with the environment, the introduction to Science for All Americans could have been the introduction to Environmental Education for All Americans. (Except for the suggestion that science alone "energetically pursued" can provide solutions to problems). However when the AAAS published their specific Benchmarks for Science Literacy in 1993, the outcomes only weakly reflected environmental concern. For instance, it is only by grade 12 that students studying the Living Environment are expected to know: "Human beings are part of the earth's ecosystems. Human activities can, deliberately or inadvertently, alter the equilibrium in ecosystems,” (“Interdependence of Life: Grades 9-12”). This is one of the few explicit connections made between social action and environmental effect, and given that most students complete on average only 3 high school science courses (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001), most students are unlikely to be exposed to this kind of thinking. Blueprints for Reform followed in 1997. In this publication, the AAAS encourages an interdisciplinary approach to science and to education in general. They recommend that science education be structured around reflective literacy as well as 'predetermined outcomes'.
Reflective literacy is the ability to know and understand a concept and to connect it meaningfully to other ideas when making decisions or interpreting information. For example, reflective literacy might lead a person to realize all the potential ramifications of logging a given tree, including the potential disruption of the tree's relationships with other organisms, the complexity of those relationships, the difficulty of predicting the ramifications of those disruptions, and so on. (“Chapter 5 - School Organization: Guiding Philosophy”)
Even though the blueprints recommend an interdisciplinary approach to education, they offer no guidelines for accomplishing the task. They argue for a general reform of education that would remove the artificial divisions between disciplines but note that this change is unlikely to come in the short term.
Taken together, the three AAAS documents on one hand support the integration of environmental education and science education with lofty statements of purpose but on the other do little to advance the cause with the creation of outcomes that reinforce fragmented science programming. It is also interesting to note that environmental education is only specifically referenced once, in regard to resources and materials to be used. In Blueprints, they state:
… a current lack of materials for environmental education courses has forced many teachers to rely on resources developed either by advocacy groups or the energy industry, each of which has opposite, but clear, agendas to promote. Careful and comprehensive analyses of books, software, and other resources that describe accurately how well they represent benchmarks and standards would help assure quality and validity of materials. (“Chapter 6, Curriculum Connections: Recommendations”)
Teachers pressed for time would not be encouraged to elect an environmental program if it required 'comprehensive' analysis. The AAAS recommendations only weakly at best support institutionalization of environmental education.
At the same time the AAAS was working on Benchmarks, the National Research Council, organized by the National Academies of Science, was creating the National Science Education Standards. These were published in 1995. This time the need for science literacy was framed against the need for Americans to make scientifically informed decisions and "the need to keep pace in global markets,” (“Overview,” ¶ 2). As an example, they state:
Americans are confronted increasingly with questions in their lives that require scientific information and scientific ways of thinking for informed decision making. And the collective judgment of our people will determine how we manage shared resources--such as air, water, and national forests. (“Introduction,” ¶ 1)
This view of the environment as a resource to be managed - a highly anthropocentric and technocratic view, is quite distinct from the AAAS perspective of the environment as the sustainer of human life. Even though they are organized differently, most of the specific standards look much like the benchmarks generated by the AAAS. The language of certain outcomes is curiously more supportive of environmental goals than that in Benchmarks. Consider this outcome in the Life Science Standards. By the end of grade 12, students should understand that:
Human beings live within the world's ecosystems. Increasingly, humans modify ecosystems as a result of population growth, technology, and consumption. Human destruction of habitats through direct harvesting, pollution, atmospheric changes, and other factors is threatening current global stability, and if not addressed, ecosystems will be irreversibly affected. (“The Interdependence of Life”)
Compared to the weak statement that human activity can alter equilibriums in the environment in the AAAS Living Environment strand, the NRC standard is far more environmentally proactive. Thus although the overall tenor of the National Science Education Standards does not particularly embrace environmental science education, the inclusion of the social perspective standard does begin to bridge the gap and make it easier for educators to cross-reference standards. (Brown, 2001).
The North American Association for Environmental Education is trying to do just that. NAEE published the previously mentioned Excellence in Environmental Education: Guidelines for Learning in 1999. Drawing not only on the standards developed for science and mathematics by the AAAS and NRC, but also on those developed for the arts, civics and government, economics, language arts, geography, history and social studies, the NAAEE outlined a multidisciplinary approach to environmental education. The approach is consistent with that suggested in the Blueprints for Reform. By demonstrating how environmental education can be used to meet standards set by the traditional disciplines, the NAAEE hopes to encourage institutionalization of environmental education programs (1999). Nationally popular environmental programs like Project Learning Tree, Project WET, and Project WILD have now cross-correlated their environmental outcomes to core federal and in some cases state standards. This trend should encourage more teachers to use environmental programs. Yet many science educators are reluctant to incorporate such programs.
Recently, the National Association for Research in Science Teaching established an Environmental Science Education Committee to try and assist teachers who were interested in environmental education. They held a symposium in March 2001 to consider the Relations between Science Education and Environmental (Science) Education. One discussion strand looked at the extent to which cross-referencing standards supported the integration of environmental education and science education. They concluded:
The current content of traditional curriculum standards does not suggest that these standards are likely to improve the integration of environmental education into formal education... Education about the environment receives some attention by traditional curriculum standards but education in the environment and especially, for the environment do not have a sufficient focus. (Zint et al., 2001, March 26, “Discussion,” ¶ 2)
Another strand of that same symposium examined the distinctions and interrelationships between the two fields. Participants in this strand felt that greater inclusion of environmental concepts would be beneficial to science education. They made such remarks as: EE is honest, transformational, provides an authentic context for learning, supports inquiry-based learning, explicitly addresses attitudes, beliefs and values, encourages integration of disciplines, and motivates students to learn (Zint et al., 2001, March 27). They also felt that the trend to include social contexts in science education supported inclusion of environmental education. However, they were concerned that such inclusion may result in the loss of critical environmental goals. Carlson a participant at the conference commented:
Environmental educators do not want their efforts co-opted by mainstream science education and bristle at the suggestion that their work would be "improved" by closer attention to rational, objective scientific research and a general purging of discussions about advocacy, power, and values. (p. 3)
Other science educators were concerned about how teachers might implement environmental education and inject it with their own values. Many were not comfortable with encouraging participation in socio-democratic action.
There is definitely trepidation among traditional science educators about addressing socio-political issues within a science classroom. At a meeting of the New York's Academy of Sciences in June of 2001, scientists again acknowledged the potential benefits of using the natural environment as a means of motivating science learning, but were reluctant to fully embrace EE goals. Paul Gross argued that science education "must not be advocacy-oriented." Instead he stated, it must present a "rational, analytic, approach to problems ... and must not reduce the amount of time students spend engaged in science learning,” (Skopp, 2001. ¶ 3). As Carlson commented, Gross' form of environmental education may indeed make some environmentalists bristle. This stance harks back to traditional views of science as an objective value-free activity and somehow suggests that rational analytical scientists are not influenced by emotions, politics, religion, economics, etc.
In Teaching and Learning Science, Derek Hodson criticizes this traditional stance and in particular the aversion to encouraging socio-political thought. According to Hodson:
Many teachers studiously avoid confronting the political interests and social values underlying the scientific and technological practices they teach about, and seek to avoid making judgements about them or influencing students in particular directions. This makes little of no sense. First, it asks teachers to attempt the impossible. Values are embedded in every aspect of the curriculum: content, teaching and learning methods, assessment and evaluation strategies are selected using criteria that reflect and embody particular value position, whether you recognize it or not. Second, it mistakes the very purpose of education in science, which, in my view, is to ensure critical scientific and technological literacy for everyone. ...In other words, critical literacy necessitates the politicization of the curriculum. (1998, p.21)
Hodson goes on to describe how an issue-based science curriculum can be achieved. His approach is entirely consistent with environmental science education and paves the way for future education reform. Unfortunately, Hodson's progressive viewpoint is not reflective of the general science teaching community in the United States. Environmental education still sits outside institutions waiting to be brought in.
Environmental education is on the edge of general acceptance. Preventing its acceptance, are deep-seated concerns about the potentially subversive nature of environmental education. In addition, many are concerned that environmental education materials are biased and without scientific merit. And finally many people are uncomfortable with the idea of encouraging social activism in schools and fear that students will be compelled to act out of emotion without understanding the complexity of the particular issue at hand.
Assuaging public fears about the intent of environmental education is a critical step towards acceptance. This can be done by developing and demonstrating exemplary materials and clarifying the guidelines for their use. Reintegrating environmental education and science education can also do this. This reintegration of the two fields would lend needed authority to environmental educators.
Science education is in the process of redefining itself with a broader scope - one that encompasses societal and environmental concerns. It is an opportune time to weave the fields together. Although the current emphasis on standards makes integration somewhat problematic, excellent environmental education programs are now cross-referenced to core standards and they can serve as exemplars of science-based multidisciplinary units. Unquestionably teacher training will be essential for such programs to work effectively. In particular, educators need to learn how to appropriately handle politically charged material and to encourage responsible social action.
Only when the public perceives critical need will funding improve and legislative action occur. It is therefore necessary to continue to raise public awareness of local and global environmental issues and the importance of quality environmental education for future generations. Such actions should speed inclusion of environmental education into mainstream education, moving environmental education from the edge of the field and into cultivation.