EE Criticism: Challenge and Opportunity

The Environmental Education Advocate - Fall 1996

The following information is provided to you as a service of the National Environmental Education Advancement Project (NEEAP). We encourage you to use it and please credit the National Environmental Education Advancement Project where appropriate.

During the last year there has been an increase in the number of articles in the media that have been critical of EE. These articles present a challenge and an opportunity to the field of EE. Where there are truly problems with the quality of EE materials or instruction we must work to improve them. Where criticisms are based on misinformation or half-truths environmental educators must be skilled in responding effectively through the media and other sources.

Who is Challenging

NEEAP has been exploring three main areas related to EE criticism. They are: 1) groups that support or promote challenges, 2) writers that produce articles that are critical, and 3) media outlets that publish challenges.

To date, NEEAP has collected information on 18 organizations that have links to EE criticism. Single page summaries, including contact and group information, have been compiled for 14 of the organizations. They can be found throughout the United States with 6 headquartered in Washington D.C. (see "EE Criticism In The Media" in this issue).

The most active organization related to EE criticism has been the Environmental Education Working Group (EEWG). The EEWG's stated purpose is to strengthen EE "by creating a firm intellectual base of sound science and economics." NEEAP's latest information shows that the EEWG includes individuals with affiliations to such groups as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Arizona Institute for Public Policy Research, and the George C. Marshall Institute. The Marshall Institute created the "Independent Commission on Environmental Education" (ICEE) to "evaluate the current state of EE" (see below).

Writers who have written critical articles range from national columnists to local reporters working off the news service wires to professionals employed by the above-mentioned groups. NEEAP is assembling a growing library of these criticisms that now includes 60 articles produced by 40 writers. They include people such as: Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Jo Kwong of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and Michael Sanera of the Environmental Education Working Group.

Media outlets that publish critical works include large daily and local bi-weekly newspapers, national magazines, computer magazines, and organizational publications. NEEAP has compiled information on 50 media sources so far that have published articles critical of EE. Virtually all of the articles were initiated by contacts made by members of the Environmental Education Working Group. Multiple articles can be found in: Wisconsin's Business Journal, Arizona's Phoenix Gazette, California's Los Angeles Times, and D.C.'s Washington Times.

It is clear that a concerted effort has been made to get media coverage of EE criticism. This coverage is accelerating as conservative foundations have funded media campaigns which will be undertaken by organizations such as the George C. Marshall Institute on behalf of their "Independent Commission on Environmental Education." NEEAP has records of 24 major cites in 1995 and 21 so far in 1996. It is an area for EE professionals to consider carefully as it will impact their practice and could have far-reaching effects on the field.

Independent Commission on EE

The Independent Commission on Environmental Education (ICEE) is an eleven member group charged by the George C. Marshall Institute to "evaluate the current state of environmental education." Environmental education curricular materials and programs such as Project WILD, WET, PLT, and Aquatic WILD are being evaluated by the Commission. The Commission is reviewing the "most widely used curricula, textbooks, and educational materials" and intends to "make recommendations" based on its evaluation.

Several prominent environmental educators who are familiar with the proposal which funded the work of the Commission predict that the Commission's report will be highly critical of environmental education curricula. The concept for a Commission and its organization was influenced by members of the Environmental Education Working Group. Members of this group have proven to be very critical of EE. Unfortunately the criticism is usually biased and seldom constructive in nature. It is likely that the Commission's report will focus on the following 6 criticisms of EE materials.

1. EE is often based on emotionalism, myths, and misinformation.

2. EE is often issue-driven rather than information-driven.

3. EE typically fails to teach children about basic economics or decision-making processes, relying instead on mindless slogans.

4. EE often fails to take advantage of lessons from nature, and instead preaches socially or politically correct lessons.

5. EE is unabashedly devoted to activism and politics, rather than knowledge and understanding.

6. EE teaches an anti-anthropocentric philosophy man is an intrusion on the earth and, at times, an evil.

With these points in mind, and the release of the report due this winter, it is important that EE leaders be prepared to respond to criticisms. The danger of a poor response or no response is the development of negative public attitudes toward EE. See "EE Criticism in the Media: What They Say and Where" in this issue for ideas for responses to criticism.

NAAEE Standards in Relation to ICEE

While there are many excellent EE curriculum materials, there are also some materials that can be questioned regarding their accuracy and objectivity. Professional environmental educators led by Dr. Bora Simmons, president of the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), have been working for nearly two years to develop EE materials standards. Hundreds of materials have been collected and two separate compendia which document results of the standards effort and actual curriculum materials are planned.

The standards will help insure that the best EE programs and curricula are used by educators. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, business and industry, and from dozens of other sectors of society have been involved in the development, review, and revision of these standards. In fact, over 1,000 people have been involved in the review process. When the standards are approved early next year, they will be used to evaluate textbooks and other curricular materials.

Benefits and Damage to the Field

Handling criticisms of EE will be a test of the field, its supporters, partnerships, legislation, funding, and credibility. Potential damage can happen in all of these areas and many gains can easily erode away under the pressure of negative review. But, given a concerted, positive effort, benefits can be realized in this time of "opportunity."

Acknowledging that criticism exists is a positive. It opens the arena for discourse and improvement. It focuses attention on EE and allows the possibility of highlighting positive developments and programs in responses. Candid appraisal and critiques allow EE practitioners to see their field through new eyes and should be seen as a way to be proactive and address issues.

As the North American Association for Environmental Education s (NAAEE) president Bora Simmons said, "EE must respond affirmatively. We must draw from the volumes of positive examples to show the public what quality environmental education looks like." Simmons also noted that, "(we must be) continually examining our assumptions and analyzing our practice."

Critics of EE can help in that examination and analysis by drawing attention to potential trouble areas. As Simmons says, "Where examples of poor EE practice are found, we must be proactive to address the specific situations."

Return to: General Newsletter Page

Return to HOME PAGE.