For a school’s curriculum is not only about subjects. The chief subject matter of school, viewed culturally, is school itself. That is how most students experience it, and it determines what meaning they make of it. (Bruner 1996, p. 28)
39 4 Toward Awakening Consciousness: A Response to EcoJustice Education
We need to grow up and move beyond the command-and-control discourse that dominates government efforts to improve education. As a nation, we should have learned by now that command and control is a losing strategy in the chaotic system of the classroom. Trying to apply chaos and complexity theory to organizations like schools, Dee Hock (2000) has coined the term “chaordic,” by which he means chaos and order existing at the same time. Hock argues that the harmonious inter- play of both is necessary for all vital, adaptable systems. He distinguishes between control and order: control is imposed, an attempt to eliminate chaos. Control sti- fles creativity and self-motivation. In contrast, order should arise naturally out of a shared purpose that engages students deep down and calls forth their best efforts. In an open letter to the current Secretary of Education, Herbert Kohl (2009) reminds us that
[i]t is possible to maintain high standards for all children, to help students learn how to speak thoughtfully, think through problems, and create imaginative representations of the world as it is and as it could be, without forcing them through a regime of high-stakes testing. Attention has to be paid to the richness of the curriculum itself and time has to be allocated to thoughtful exploration and experimentation. It is easy to ignore content when the sole focus is on test scores.
The Obama administration’s educational program will be an obstacle rather than a segue to the implementation of Martusewicz, Lupinacci, and Schnakenberg’s eco- justice education framework, but that does not mean that we science and social studies educators should fold our hands in resignation. There are those already- mentioned long-standing and respected movements in our field for us to draw upon – the “STS” (science–technology–society) approach, place-based education, experiential education. Even the National Science Education Standards make room for the goal of teaching “science in personal and social perspectives” and “the nature of science” (National Research Council 1996). If it turns out that compul- sory national standards for science and social studies education are enacted and then accompanied by high-stakes tests, perhaps there will be some comfort in that these subject areas also will be assessed, even if by inappropriate and dubious means, so that they will still have a place in the curriculum.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy:
Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baines, L. (2007). Learning from the world: Achieving more by doing less. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 98–100.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal
environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Bentley, M. L., Fleury, S. C., & Garrison, J. W. (2007). Critical constructivism for teaching and learning in a democratic society. Journal of Thought, 42, 9–22.
Bracey, G. W. (2009). Education hell: Rhetoric vs. reality. Alexandria: Educational Research Service.
40 M.L. Bentley Brown, C. L., & Bentley, M. L. (2004). ELLs: Children left behind in science class. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 8, 152–157.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Association of California School Administrators (2008, January 21). Ruling: NCLB an unfunded mandate. EdCal. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/ Media/EdCalNewspaper/2008/January21/RulingNCLBanunfundedmandate.aspx
Corcoran, P. B., & Sievers, E. (1994). Reconceptualizing environmental education: Five possibili- ties. Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 4–8.
Corsiglia, J., & Snively, G. (1995). Global lessons from the traditional science of long-resident peoples. In G. Snively & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Thinking globally about mathematics and
science education. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Research and Development
Group.
Cuban, L. (2008). The perennial reform: Fixing school time. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 240–250. Dewey, J. (1987). Freedom. In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 11,
pp. 247–255). Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Gibson, R., & Wayne, E. (2009). The education agenda is a war agenda: Connecting reason to power and power to resistance. Workplace, 16, 31–52.
Giroux, H. A. (2009). The corporate stranglehold on education. Sociologias. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from http://sociologias-com.blogspot.com/2009/09/corporate-stranglehold-on-education. html
Glasson, G. E., & Bentley, M. L. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists’ reporting of research to teachers. Science Education, 84, 469–485.
Glickman, C. (2008). Backtalk: Educators tell business how to stop ruining America. Phi Delta
Kappan, 90, 392.
Goddard Institute for Space Studies. (2009). GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Global
Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation. Retrieved September 19, 2009, from http://
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (Eds.). (2007). Place-based education in the global age. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hock, D. (2000). Birth of the Chaordic Age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kohl, H. (2009). Good stuff: An open letter to Arne Duncan. Rethinking Schools, 23. Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_04/good234.shtml
McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strate- gies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Meier, D. (2008). Schooling for democracy or for the workplace? Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 507–510.
Mueller, M. P., & Bentley, M. L. (2009). Environmental and science education in developing nations: A Ghanaian approach to renewing and revitalizing the local community and ecosys- tems. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 53–64.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nelson, G. (1997). Environment-population-sustainable development: Where do we go from here?
Focus, 7, 36–39.
Obama’s “Race to the Top”. (2009, July 30). Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574308442726348678.html
Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an economic hit man. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Publishers.
Reiss, M. J. (1993). Science education for a pluralist society. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Self, E. (2009). A school for peace and justice. Educational Leadership, 66(10). Retrieved
September 6, 2009, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/jul09/ vol66/num10/A_School_for_Peace_and_Justice.aspx
Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Teaching for democracy in an age of corporatocracy. Teachers College
41 4 Toward Awakening Consciousness: A Response to EcoJustice Education
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. Great Barrington: Orion Society.
Takahisa, S., & Chaluisan, R. (1995). New York City Museum School. In Proceedings, Museum
School Symposium: Beginning the Conversation. St. Paul: Science Museum of Minnesota.
Thomas, L. (1974). The medusa and the snail: More notes of a biology watcher. New York: Bantam New Age Books.
Worldwatch Institute. (2009). State of the world: Into a warming world. New York: W.W. Norton. Yager, R. E. (Ed.). (1993). What research says to the science teacher, vol. 7: The science, technol-
ogy, society movement. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.
Zell, S. K. (1998). Ecofeminism and the science classroom: A practical approach. Science &
Education, 7, 143–158.
Zhao, Y. (2009, August 30). National education standards can end up hurting students. Detroit
Freepress, 28A. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from http://www.freep.com/article/20090830/
OPINION01/908300438/1069/OPINION01/National-education-standards-can-end-up- hurting-students
43 In the following essay, I reflect on the chapter by Rebecca A Martusewicz, John Lupinacci, and Gary Schnakenberg. I do so from many standpoints: that of scien- tist, mother, person of faith, middle-school science teacher, and science teacher educator. I do not see these roles as distinct; rather they all help to shape my peda- gogical project in ways that strive for coherence, despite the many contradictions.
Enclosing–Opening Possibilities Through Language
Every word we learn encloses some facet of life by defining, naming, and claiming ownership. Yet, every word also opens the possibility of asking new questions. So to learn that something in the world is called a “tree,” is to be able to ask: What is a tree? What kind of tree is it? How did the tree get here? How long will the tree live? What does a tree need to live? What animals live in the tree? What do trees do? How is this tree connected to other living things? What makes this tree beauti- ful? Thus, words have the dialectical power to enclose–open possibilities for inquiry and reflection. Dialectical thinking pushes us away from mutually exclu- sive binaries, such as enclosed versus open. Rather, enclosure and openness may exist side by side, such that one constitutes the other. A tree may be enclosed by the conventions of language, no longer subject to naming; however, the meaning or significance of the tree remains open to the values or discourses driving the ques- tions that might be asked individually or collectively about the tree. For example, discourses of utilitarianism or capitalism bring forth questions about the commodi- fication of the tree. What can the tree be used for? What is the economic value of the tree as wood, paper, or energy? What are the most efficient and economical