Here is Today's Surprise Quiz

Pesticides:
A. Are necessary to feed the world's growing population.
B. Can do more harm than good.

The answer?
For some students, it depends on whether they learned their lessons from the Monsanto Co. or the National Wildlife Federation.

 

Subject:   Here is Today's Surprise Quiz-
Date:       Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:00:34 -0500
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>
          Senior Research Scientist
          State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
          Integrated Pest Management

Dear Lyndon, I thought you might like to read an articles from The Oregonian entitled: Bias may skew lesson materials - Industry and special-interest groups are using the classroom to promote views on environmental subjects. The 2/7/00 article is by Michelle Cole of The Oregonian staff.

Here is today's surprise quiz.

Pesticides:
A. Are necessary to feed the world's growing population.
B. Can do more harm than good.

The answer?

For some students, it depends on whether they learned their lessons from the Monsanto Co. or the National Wildlife Federation.

America's concern for the environment has spread to the classroom, bringing with it confusion and mixed messages.

What is society willing to do to save an endangered species? Is global warming for real? Is it better to thin a forest or to leave it alone?

The questions raised in public schools these days are often complex and controversial. And, unlike algebra, the answers aren't found in the back of the book.

Instead, businesses and environmental groups spend millions of dollars to take their message to the children. And some of the material they generate has been judged to be incomplete, biased or just plain wrong.

"They trash 'the other side' to advance their own positions, glossing over the problems and inconsistencies of their own positions," said John Disinger, a veteran educator who taught science to middle school and university students for 40 years.

Two lessons on pesticides illustrate what arrives at a teacher's desk.

Monsanto Co., maker of Roundup herbicides (POISONS) and other agricultural chemicals, published a teacher's guide linking the sharp increase in food production with the development of agricultural chemicals and high-tech farming equipment. The guide reports there's some risk when pesticides are used. But it also notes the food Americans eat today meets stringent federal safety standards and that the "vast majority" of the pesticide residues in our food are "natural," not "manmade."

The National Wildlife Federation's "Animal Tracks" curriculum has far different things to say. It teaches children that "potent chemicals can accidentally kill many nonpest plants and animals" and that "poisons can stay potent for hundreds of years."

"Teachers are finding themselves at the center of the battleground for kids' minds," said Larry Beutler, editor of Clearing, a journal published in Portland for environmental educators in the northwestern United States and Canada.

North Salem High School teacher John Borowski deals with the situation by exposing students to opposing points of view whenever he can. For example, he shows two videos about the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

The first, made by the Exxon Corp., arrived at his school unsolicited. It features Alaska state officials and Exxon scientists, who explain that the tanker wreck did not cause long-term environmental problems.

The second, produced by the Audubon Society and taped from the Discovery Channel, features actor Christopher Reeve and an oil-covered sea otter with its dead pup by its side. It suggest the spill's devastating effects will last 70 years.

"I ask the kids: 'What do you think?' " Borowski said. "They say the Audubon video has neat music that fits the mood when the oil spill came. But they say the one from Exxon is produced, slicker."

Sara Olsher, a senior who took Borowski's marine biology class last fall, said she appreciated that her teacher "let us make our own decisions." Videos and materials from both industry and environmental groups seem to be slanted, Olsher said. But she faults material coming from business as being the most "manipulative."

"If you read the stuff that they send you, it makes it look like they're not doing anything wrong," she said.

What is called "environmental education" today began as "nature studies" at the turn of the 19th century and "conservation studies" in the dustbowl era of the 1930s. It wasn't always so controversial. But there wasn't always so much at stake.

As toxic waste, dirty water and endangered wildlife pushed their way into the public debate, teachers brought those issues into civics, science and even English lessons.

Since 1990, legislators in 15 states have considered environmental education to be so important they passed laws requiring instruction in public schools.

Washington state mandates "instruction about conservation, natural resources and the environment" for all grade levels. Oregon does not have a similar state requirement. But the environment is likely to be a part of the school day in Oregon and in other states, even if it is not a required subject.

In April, 1,504 teachers nationwide answered a survey for the North American Association for Environmental Education and the Environmental Literacy Council. Sixty-two percent said they offer some form of environmental instruction. The top three topics: recycling, endangered species and energy conservation.

"We're trying to push people to be good citizens," said Bora Simmons, a professor of teacher education at Northern Illinois University.

Americans care about their impact on the natural world, but polls conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide in 1997, 1998 and 1999 indicate few people have more than a passing understanding of the nation's most pressing environmental issues. A survey of 1,500 adults finds a majority don't understand that oil spilled on city streets ends up in waterways or that most of the nation's electricity is generated by coal-burning plants.

Perhaps that's why the 1997 Roper poll found 95 percent believe it is important for youngsters to study environmental issues in school.

It's no secret that industry and other outside groups are helping to define the type of environmental education children receive today. Neither is it discouraged.

A banner at last August's annual meeting of the North American Association for Environmental Education thanked Nike, AT&T, Chevron, Phillips Petroleum Co., Toyota, Procter & Gamble, Cinergy and Georgia-Pacific for their support.

"Since Valdez, a lot of people think oil companies don't care about the environment. We're out to prove them wrong," said Ralph Prater, Chevron's exhibits supervisor, who spent three days talking to environmental educators meeting in Cincinnati.

Chevron spends approximately $6 million a year on grants to environmental educators, Prater said. The company's environmental education materials include programs discussing the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer and smog. Teachers can also request satellite delivery of a 22-minute Chevron-produced film in which the late "M*A*S*H" actor McLean Stevenson takes viewers on "an informative and humorous" tour through an oil refinery.

Other companies are also reaching out to youngsters.

Eastman Kodak spent about $360,000 on environmental education this year. Much of that was spent to help underwrite the World Wildlife Fund's "Windows on the World" environmental education curriculum, teaching middle school students about biodiversity and endangered species.

Kodak's support for environmental education "helps the community Understand issues by using data, rather than emotion or what's published in the media," spokeswoman Carol Cala said.

Tony Angell, supervisor for Washington state's office of environmental education, says teachers are savvy enough to judge the quality of the materials they receive. Angell's office will recommend materials for teachers who inquire. But most educators "know when the emperor has no clothes," he said.

Still, even as they express a lack of satisfaction with the free materials provided, teachers are putting much of what crosses their desks to use in the classroom. The April survey of environmental educators indicated that 38 percent used videos, workbooks or exercises provided by business and industry. Fifty-seven percent taught from materials supplied by environmental groups. Like Borowski in Salem, many teachers report using materials supplied by both industry and environmental groups. Teachers also rely upon social studies or science textbooks, which typically include discussion of environmental topics. And they use supplemental information gleaned from newspapers and television.

Sorting quality materials from the rest remains an ongoing issue. The North American Association for Environmental Education offers guidelines to help teachers decide which videos, workbooks and exercises should be shared with their classes. The guidelines address everything from fairness and accuracy to choosing materials that will help students build lifelong skills for "environmental problem-solving and action."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much of the environmental education material today has problems. Michael Sanera, a former political science professor at Northern Arizona University, began looking at environmental education textbooks eight years ago. Sanera said his review of more than 130 textbooks found a disturbing number tried to turn students into miniactivists. Some left out alternative points of view. Others painted environmental catastrophe as a foregone conclusion, he said.

"The catastrophic version of an environmental issue -- you name the issue -- is covered well by textbooks," Sanera said. "But any science that qualifies it, that offers a different approach, is not there. It's just missing."

Sanera now runs the Center for Environmental Education Research financed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which promotes free-market ideas and limited government. Many environmental educators are critical of Sanera's findings, because they say his research is financed by people who want to put their own spin on the subject. They note that the chapter on global warming in his book: "Facts Not Fear: A Parent's Guide to Teaching Children About the Environment," takes a point of view supported by industry and glosses over other scientists' concerns.

Yet other reviews of environmental education materials have also found trouble.

A group of educators, scientists and economists calling themselves the Independent Commission on Environmental Education issued its first critical report three years ago after reviewing more than 60 textbooks and teaching supplements. An example of the problems they identified included a 1991 curriculum from the activist group, Zero Population Growth, which reviewers said incorrectly stated U.S. population figures.

Longtime environmental educator Disinger is a part of that Washington-based group, which now calls itself the Environmental Literacy Council. There's nothing wrong with businesses or environmental groups wanting to communicate their positions or values, he said. But Disinger and the other reviewers believe the materials reaching the classroom must be correct and based on sound science.

The Environmental Literacy Council's second report, released late last year, considered textbooks used in advanced placement environmental science classes.

The Council found several textbooks failed to convey the economic trade-offs that sometimes accompany environmental decisions. Reviewers faulted one textbook for presenting the actor Ed Asner as the lone expert on global environmental conditions.

The state of California has commissioned reviews to identify high-quality environmental education materials as well as those that don't belong in the classroom. For example, a panel that reviewed 91 programs designed to teach children about energy and conservation found 41 failed to earn passing grades for balance and accuracy.

Even with more guidelines and more groups reviewing classroom materials, special-interest groups are likely to continue to be a provider of environmental education curriculum.

"It costs $3 million to do a curriculum development project and six years to do something that's really quite thorough, accurate and relevant," said Philip Sadler, head of the science education department at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Schools don't have that kind of money, he said. But industry and special interest groups do.

"What you're seeing is the impact of the way education is funded today in the United States," Sadler said.

Next: Most teachers lack training in environment subjects

You can reach Michelle Cole at 503-294-5143 or by e-mail at michellecole@news.oregonian.com.

Part 2.

A lack of training for teachers

Educators graduate from college ill-prepared to teach their students complex environmental issues - Tuesday, February 8, 2000 - By Michelle Cole of The Oregonian staff

Daniel Sadler came home from kindergarten with instructions about how his lunch should be prepared.

He told his mother he wanted his food packed in a brown bag, not his Star Wars lunch box. His sandwich should be wrapped in aluminum foil, his juice in a plastic or glass bottle -- no Thermos.

"What do you mean?" his mother said. "Why do you want to bring all this junk to school?"

The class is learning about recycling, the 5-year-old reported. "After lunch we put all our trash on the table, and I don't have anything to contribute."

Daniel's father earns his living teaching science teachers. He suspects his son, who delights in sharing, was too young to understand a lesson designed to show children how unnecessary all that packaging is.

Sadler doesn't blame the teacher, however. A frac- six years ago when he asked his students at Waldo Middle School in Salem to create plans to save an endangered species.

The project began as a way to teach students to make computer-generated presentations. After six years, it has grown to involve the school's entire seventh grade and a team of instructors who teach science, social studies and English.

"It is engaging and meaningful for students who are applying what they learn to a real-world problem," Weddle said. A study of 40 schools with environmental education programs, including Waldo Middle School, found students had higher academic achievement, fewer discipline problems and greater enthusiasm for learning. The survey conducted in 1998 for the State Education and Environment Roundtable, a coalition of 12 states' education departments, concluded that incorporating environmental themes may have the "potential to significantly improve K-12 education in America."

So why aren't more colleges and universities helping future teachers learn to incorporate the environment into their lessons?

Because environmental education is just one item on a long list of competing demands, said Penelope Earley, a spokeswoman for the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

There's a group of people who want teachers to learn more about dealing with children with disabilities. Others want teachers to learn how to work with children with limited English. Still others are calling for a return to the basics. They say teachers ought to be spending more time in core subject areas, such as history, science, mathematics and English.

There's not enough time to do it all.

"These are horrid choices for institutions and students to have to make," Earley said.

Many teachers make up for what they missed in college by attending professional seminars and workshops covering a variety of subjects. When the workshop deals with the environment, chances are the sponsoring industry or conservation group will also stress its special interests.

Last year the National Wildlife Federation teamed with mass marketer Wal-Mart to offer 120 teacher training workshops featuring its Animal Tracks curriculum. The conservation group offered an additional 80 workshops on its own, which means it was able to reach at least 6,000 teachers nationwide.

Animal Tracks includes a unit on wolves, exploring why the animals disappeared and why people want to return them to their former habitat. It does not mention the National Wildlife Federation's activities in court and in Congress to support wolf recovery in the West, however.

Elenor Hodges, Animal Tracks program manager, said the goal is to put material in the classroom that presents both sides of the debate. But trainers do make a point of telling teachers attending the workshops where the federation stands on wolves and other issues, she said. "It's not a secret."

The timber industry offers some of the most well-attended environmental educator workshops in Oregon. Since 1993, the Oregon Forest Resources Institute has sponsored training for more than 5,500 educators. The six-hour workshops feature Project Learning Tree, a curriculum developed by the industry-sponsored American Forest Foundation. Aimed at students in grades pre-K through 12, Project Learning Tree includes a high school unit on old-growth forests. It discusses the trees' value for building as well as for wildlife habitat. The next Portland workshop is scheduled for March 14.

"We'll get comments that this is industry-biased and others at the same workshop saying this is pro-environmentalist," said Jill Nishball, Project Learning Tree program coordinator at Oregon State University.

There is one message that the timber industry wants workshop attendees to take home, however. It's important for teachers to leave with an understanding that all people are consumers, Nishball said. "If we're going to consume, then it's going to come from resources."

Coyle, of the National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, said teachers who attend workshops sponsored by industry or conservation groups are usually motivated to seek out materials from both sides. He's more concerned about those who teach environmental subjects without seeking any training or additional information.

"The teachers who aren't reaching very far are the ones that often say things that aren't necessarily right," he said.

Just before it adjourned last year, Congress appropriated $7.2 million for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Education, which began under the Bush administration in 1990. By law, at least 25 percent of the money must be used for teacher training.

Environmental educators in 47 states, including Oregon and Washington, have also formed professional organizations to promote the exchange of information and teaching techniques. "Clearing," a quarterly journal published in Portland, also serves as a resource for environmental educators in the Northwest and British Columbia.

Still, Brendan Norman, a 26-year-old student teacher who will graduate in August from Portland State University, wishes he was leaving the university with a more solid background in environmental topics.

His undergraduate degree is in political science and Spanish. His environmental education has come through independent study.

"It's hard to present both sides of a subject," he said. "Of course that's hard for any teacher in any subject. This is especially hard. The environment is so much a part of our daily lives, and not to have it be a part of our education is not quite right."

Well, Lyndon, let me conclude with a quote from Dr. Janette D. Sherman's recent book, Life's Delicate Balance: "Anyone who doubts that prevention of cancer lies not in the realm of politics and economics need only read recent medical commentary attacking scientists who publish data linking chemicals and radiation cancer. 'Chemophobia, the unreasonable fear of chemicals, is a common public reaction to scientific and media reports suggesting that exposure to various environmental contaminants pose a threat to health,' wrote a researcher whose work is supported generously by chemical and pharmaceutical corporations. Appearing a month later in the same journal that carried the above quote was a review of R. Sandra Steingraber's book, Living Downstream. It said 'the work product of an environmentalist is controversy,' and added that the book 'frightens, at times misinforms, and then scorns genuine efforts at cancer prevention through lifestyle change.' The writer of this critique is the Director of Medicine and Toxicology for W. R. Grace & Company, which paid $8 million to settle claims brought by the families of seven Woburn, Massachusetts, children and an adult who developed leukemia after consuming water shown to be contaminated by chemicals dumped by that company. Now that the events of the Woburn contamination have been documented in the book A Civil Action and in the movie by the same name, perhaps the public will begin to understand the undercurrents propelling the cancer epidemic, and blocking its reversal.

Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten

---

TOP
 If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us.