with nature and community in ways that involve students have also been developed and promoted through environmental curricula such as Project Wild or Project Learning Tree. While well-intentioned, these prepackaged curricular materials focus on the management of natural resources and are implemented through teacher training workshops. While the original intent of these kinds of activity-based expe- riences might contribute to developing a sense of connections with the earth, from an ecofeminist or ecosociocultural worldview, they have been seen by some educa- tors as a demonstration of man’s separation from nature (dominance) because of the reinforcement of “humans managing the land.” These kinds of environmental cur- ricular resources seem to be a poor stepchild to the greater expectations of tradi- tional science content standards and therefore do not hold the same ranking of importance in school classrooms, even while they may develop important aesthetic and affective cognitive affiliations in science. When these activities are used in classrooms, with a focus on our “connectedness with nature,” rather than our “sepa- ration from nature,” many schools offer them as “electives” in environmental science, which appeals to a handful of interested students. When workshops are provided for Project Wild and other similar Project et al. programs, they usually occur over a period of only a few short days. This short-term training provides teachers with a snapshot of what might be engaging and mind-provoking, or how they might chal- lenge ideologies embedded within the curricula, as well as activities for students to learn about the natural world, including ways in which teachers and students can challenge popular modes of thought.
One way in which science teachers become more aware of the interconnected- ness of the physical and living environment is to incorporate elements of these Wild et al. projects with environmental and science concepts into their courses while simultaneously providing opportunities for students to take responsibility for their action. Doing so enables stronger links between the interconnectedness we all have to nature while concomitantly eliciting a context for students to think about what they pay attention to. Not only do these kinds of activities reinforce environmental education and ecojustice then, but they engage a more diverse and growing popula- tion of learners in US schools.
Before moving on, I want to address a significant issue that arises out of Teddie’s discussion of mountain top removal. It is valuable to further explore a few vulnerabilities.
“But the Mountain Does Nothing for Me!” A Paradox of Misunderstanding and a Rationale to Enrich Vulnerable Environmental Education.
98 K. Love et al. It can be argued that environmental education has always been in a precarious position within the greater scheme of education. From the early 1970s with the advent of Earth Day and environmental nightmares that occurred over subsequent decades, environmental education has been around, but always it seems, at the periphery. People who seemingly have no direct connection with a region of the Earth disregard the importance of it, because they do not see it or understand any connections of their relationship with nature. Now consider again, mountain top removal for coal mining. In recent years, this practice has gained national exposure because of the extreme destruction of the practice. In short, small mountain tops are literally removed down to the seam of coal and the “overburden rock,” which covers the coal, is pushed into an adjoining valley. One could argue that this practice does not resonate with people, because they feel it does not impact them directly. Simply put, people say things like, “what does the mountain do for me?” I need the coal to make electricity, or something similar. These kinds of mindsets provide an excel- lent rationale for the strengthening of environmental and science education at every level, including the teacher education level. It is well-known that many jobs are linked to mining. Educators prepare students to enter these jobs and many other jobs which have destructive impacts on the Earth, without thinking more fully about the ramifications and responsibility to the story. This story should be told through environmental and other forms of education.
While a mountain may indeed do nothing for any one person, its destruction causes unintended consequences over the longer-term. For Clarion County in Pennsylvania, decades of strip mining have left thousands of miles of streams devoid of aquatic life and a resident population of students who will grow up seeing (literally) dead streams near their homes. This neglect resulted from over 100 years of coal mining with very little thought about the cultural assumptions being perpetuated in schools or the consequences after coal was extracted for energy consumption. A healthy 100 or 200 m soil and rock profile, taking millions of years to develop, is violently altered in just a few months to the point where chemical reactions in the iron-rich rock cause a process known as acid mine drainage (AMD). No one ever knows if or when it occurs, but for the most part it continues to destroy streams, some with a pH of <3. This pH is far too acidic to support most kinds of native animal life, with a few exceptions. So, the initial impact is habitat destruc- tion, and the longer-term maintenance (government management) of AMD involves the use of caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide to raise stream pH levels to support animal and plant life.
Despite that, the contradiction between those who are much concerned with issues of mining and drilling and those who are not, mining practices are currently continuing. There seems to be enough environmental awareness at the national level that most people would muster behind the protection of some un(fore)seen places while other un(fore)seen places seem to be on the table for destruction (because of the lack of thought associated with neglected or future places not mentioned in the textbook or classroom). Positive intervention is occurring with the debate of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or “ANWR” on the north slope of Alaska. While almost no one will ever travel to this distant location, and this place does not
99 7 Engaging the Environment
abstractly “do anything for them directly,” there is enough cry from advocates of this place to force US and Alaskan legislators to debate and converse about the issue. This debate demonstrates the positive implications of environmental educa- tion when linked with what children learn in schools and about distant places over the last 40 plus years, while also considering the thinking Kurt notes.
When environmental education comes into play, we wonder about its impact on meaningful learning. Fourth and fifth graders attending Earth Camp in Kentucky last summer were asked: “Where does your energy come from?” They had no idea. Not a single student was able to articulate that the energy near their homes comes from the coal mined within a very short distance of where they live. These students were shown Google maps of the region and they were shocked to learn that the energy used when they watch television or use a computer, comes from the coal obtained and the destruction of mountains near their city. How is this information not known to them at all, let alone in a meaningful way (Phillipson Mower, 2009, personal communication)?
Considering the information that youth can access is important for school. It is well-known that The Lorax (Dr. Seuss 1971) was banned in schools in the Pacific Northwest because children of loggers came home saying: “Why does daddy hate the Earth?” Of course, the parents of these children do not hate the Earth, but with- out an understanding of the relationships between people and the Earth conveyed with resources such as The Lorax, simplistic views emerge and books are banned. Could it simply be that where big business establishes a foothold, nearby communi- ties are kept in the dark about issues that may directly or indirectly have an eco- nomic impact on them?
It may always be an uphill battle to maintain a healthy environment education curriculum when healthy economies are concurrently at stake. However, students need scientific and environmental knowledge, understandings, and the skill sets to make informed voting decisions and ask a potential employer about associated risks with a job. People who only want to earn a living and raise a family may in fact do so at their own peril without even realizing it. This idea is what occurs when stu- dents do not think about their assumptions and how their assumptions frame their behaviors toward the Earth. Air pollution deaths in Donora, Pennsylvania, are one particular example. For decades, people worked a hard life in the steel mills of the Pittsburgh area. They went to work each day and earned a very difficult living. Over time, air pollution increased to such a degree that it caused the first known deaths in the USA due to the quality of air. Donora, Pennsylvania saw a temperature inver- sion settle over the smog-filled valley 1 week in October 1948. During this time, day became night, and people did not know the friends they passed on the street. Twenty people died quickly of asphyxiation, and 30 more died within days. More than half of the 14,000 residents became ill as a consequence of the regional air pollution. This event started a chain of clean air reactions and advocacy that eventually led to the first clean air legislation in the 1950s and further regulations that put a “checks and balances” on local Pittsburgh businesses. The bottom line to my message here is that, while there has been a vast improvement of corporate stewardship and responsibility for the environment other corporations place much
100 K. Love et al. greater emphasis on their short-term interests (and investors’ interests) rather than longer-term implications for local people or the long-term survival of their busi- nesses. While many businesses in Pittsburgh are changing (e.g., car companies), corporate greed still exists and that fact alone is an ample rationale for strengthen- ing environmental education.