School Partnerships and the Future of Environmental Education

14 Comments in this post »

RSS feed for comments on this post.

• Molly Stoddard February 25th 2011 at 5:43 pm   #     

  Good EE is a great PR tool for refuges — effective in building community support. It is a passion of mine, and so look out, here comes alot of dialogue!
  Leopold also wrote: “The objective is to teach the student to see the land, to understand what he sees, and enjoy what he understands.”
  Thank you for putting the PWLC in the spotlight! Folks who read this document should also know that the Prairie Science Class partnership is not the only kind of EE we do here. The PWLC also hosts other EE partnerships and day-use EE visits, not to mention other forms of visitor services (special events, an active volunteer program, outreach, etc.) and supporting other refuges in R3 to form strong and balanced EE partnerships/programs.
  I am confused to see that the FWS can play a vital but limited role in EE, then later the part about positioning the FWS to be a leader in EE and then the last paragraph seems to somewhat dismiss the value of EE.
  Something we can really use is a clear direction for EE in the Refuge System. I do believe that with more place-based EE on Refuges, the FWS may be poised to stand out as a leader in EE amongst the other federal agencies which conduct EE on public lands.
  I wonder if teacher-led programming is the most common form of EE taking place on refuges. Is this documented? How do the numbers compare with staff-led EE? I disagree that professional teachers must conduct EE on Refuges. That is true for our Prairie Science Class partnership, but most teachers who visit here (and from my past experience at other refuges) want Refuge staff-led programming. They look to us as the experts at our sites, and often they don’t even feel comfortable navigating their class down the trail for fear of getting lost. Teachers have a great many demands on their time/jobs; most don’t have the time to do the leg work required to pull off a successful field visit. Some especially fear teaching science and have no idea how to teach effectively in an outdoor classroom setting. Every time we get out there in uniform with a class, they are exposed more directly to our identity and mission, something they most likely won’t get from a teacher. I know teacher-led EE may work for some field stations like SF Bay, but I believe that is more the exception than the rule. In addition, I don’t think there would be a PSC here if it were not the relationship originally built with the school district through day use programming.
  Choice is always good! I think it would be more effective and practical to give refuge managers the choice as to what kind or level of EE they think is doable at their station than to prescribe the two ways as above. The choices I don’t see above are for day-use visits or even volunteer-led visits. A Prairie Science Class type of partnership is amazing and effectifve, but there are many more ways to choose from. Most stations are not located as close to town as we are for example.
  Where we need more direction than anything, I believe, is in methodology. Here is where we can glean from the success of the Prairie Science Class and apply aspects of the partnership to day-use or other functions. There are 4 main components to the PSC: place-based, field journaling, naturalists, and phenology. Add to that from our day-use programming constructivism and developmentally appropriate practice. These methods can be applied to any field station any place in the country with success. If any standardized trunks or backpacks should be developed, it should include tools necessary for using these components, because they are so adaptable. I have seen relatively little demand for lending trunks in schools.
  Of course the Service cannot be solely responsible for the environmental education of the nation and its youth. That would be an impossible goal. We can and should provide cutting-edge, high quality EE, however, even if that means doing less EE, but doing it better and smarter than ever before. We must be careful not to let technology and virtual visits replace real visits. You can’t feel the roar of geese rising off the water through a screen. There’s just no substitute for the real thing. Our priority should clearly lay in on-site visits over off-site and virtual ones.
  I don’t think the PSC requires highly trained staff. Oooo I just dissed myself maybe! What is required I believe is differently trained staff because the PSC is not your traditional form of EE. And it is not interpretation, which seems we tend to get confused with EE. It does not require a large staff at all. The way we do it is only one way and can be modified to fit the needs of the given station/partnership. I agree that it does take a strong committment from a champion teacher, with support from the school administrator(s), not necessarily a district.
  Maybe I misunderstand the intention here, but clear research-based documentation of the viability and effectiveness of using the outdoors as a classroom already exists and is growing by leaps and bounds. I don’t think we need to create our own documentation but rather gather the current research and apply it to the NWRS.
  Yes! We need an EE Strategy for the Refuge System and dedicated, national EE staff! Touche!
  I am not sure what to make of the last paragraph. I think it’s best not to underestimate the power of an educated citizenry and to realize that education can include conservation. Students here in our day-use and partnership harvest prairie seed by hand and later sow it into the snow. Some help us conduct biological inventories and research prairie restoration methods with applications to the Wetland Management District. Education is not just about knowing. It is also about doing. That is authentic learning! Students and teachers can be our partners in this endeavor.

• Jeanne Liu March 6th 2011 at 11:14 pm   #     

  I think the NWRS does a great job of presenting ideas of informing and acknowledging the public of the various ways they can change the environment. Environmental education is an important factor to this issue because it is the key to conserving and bettering the environment. With programs such as the Prairie Wetland Learning Center in Fergus Falls in Minnesota, children are becoming directly exposed to the wonders of the environment and how they can preserve it. I think this is an absolutely amazing program and I think it would benefit the environment and NWRS more if such programs were offered around the world or if such programs were offered to middle school and high school students. I find it crucial that more people are exposed to such programs because they are extremely informational and build a connection between man and nature. By building more support from younger generations, we’ll be able to keep up with trying to preserve and protect the environment. I do find it important that there are people educating others of the importance of nature but it is even more important to further develop hands-on or direct programs. There is a much bigger impact if people were able to experience the significance of nature rather than having someone tell them that protecting the environment is vital. It is also noted that with the (monetary) support will provide and outline the basic standards for national wildlife refuges. Once again, I do see the importance of this point, but in the end, people do need to be personally involved in the conservation of the environment for it to remain pristine.

• Blaine Eckberg March 16th 2011 at 3:16 pm   #     

  Until the USFWS can provide dedicated environmental education staff at all refuges used by school groups, it should have refuges with similar natural resouces pool their efforts to help each other out. This will provide better programs and eliminate much of the duplicative efforts that goes into developing EE programs. The USFWS should also encourage refuge staff to work with the staff of other federal land agencies (NPS, USFS, BLM, etc.) and state land agencies to further strengthen EE programs offered to students in their area. At many refuges, the staff members that do provide EE programs have little training, so each region should have at least one seasoned EE Specialist available who can visit that refuge and help them design an EE Program with local educators.

• Rick Hall March 17th 2011 at 1:11 pm   #     

  I’d like to join some of the threads running through the above while integrating Earth Partnership for Schools (EPS) and RESTORE (Restoration Education, Science Training and Outreach for Regional Educators) into the discussion. Earth Partnership RESTORE, also based in Aldo Leopold’s legacy at the UW-Madison Arboretum, creates regional partnerships to build the capacity of K-12 teachers, non-formal educators, natural resource professionals and community partners to involve students in ecological restoration on school grounds and nearby natural areas, including refuges. RESTORE is a training-of-trainers program that results in a team prepared to conduct Earth Partnership for Schools teacher k-12 professional development and provide on-going support. EPS is interdisciplinary, place- and inquiry-based and is integrated with core curricula including STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math), language, social studies and the arts. The Prairie Wetlands Learning Center is a RESTORE partner and conducted an Earth Partnership teacher institute in 2009, adding to its excellent repertoire of Environmental Education strategies. Central Minnesota teachers and students are now implementing restoration projects at area schools. The learning is in the doing.

  Our goals are to make it possible for teachers and natural resource professionals to work together to provide quality, age-appropriate learning experiences that meet curricular learning goals and promote ecological literacy and stewardship actions. This can best be accomplished through direct experience in which students, teachers and community partners are involved in all the steps: studying appropriate native species and ecosystems; investigating site history; analyzing soil, water, slope, sun/shade, vegetation; connecting with community resources and partners; planning the restoration; preparing the site; planting; managing; researching; documenting; celebrating. It’s not adults “putting in a restoration.” The learning begins on Day One.

  EPS/RESTORE has been enthusiastically embraced by the service’s Schoolyard Habitat program, including FWS personnel from California, Nevada, Washington, Wisconsin, Oregon, Idaho, Minnesota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Florida, and Puerto Rico. We have contributed to the service’s upcoming Schoolyard Guide and co-sponsored a Schoolyard Action Network, which has provided a pre-conference workshop at the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) conference for four years involving service employees. (Wichita, Portland, Buffalo, Durham).

  We agree with the comments above that productive partnerships can be formed with other agencies and centers. An example is the NW Wisconsin RESTORE Partnership which includes the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Whittlesey Creek NWR, Apostle Islands National Seashore (NPS), Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), UW-Extension, UW-Superior, area school districts, the new Lake Superior NERR and the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. Similar partnerships are being formed in Puerto Rico (Cabo Rojo NWR, Caribbean Ecological Services, Vieques Historical and Cultural Trust, El Yunque National Forest, UPR), Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, Gulf Coast and the St. Croix Valley (upper Mississippi watershed).

  An important strategy is to support and extend existing local efforts and build upon them. The PWLC’s Prairie Science Classroom is an excellent model that could be disseminated throughout the RESTORE Network and the NWR’s. Earth Partnership is a way to extend the PSC to the upper (and lower) grades. Some WMD’s and refuges have legitimately feared an over-extension of limited staff and resources, yet many are already doing great things that need replication in other areas. Overcoming a tendency toward parochialism and circling the wagons could result in finding the needed resources right in one’s backyard or just up or downstream.

• 

  Phil Hesser April 7th 2011 at 4:44 pm   #     

  I understand the passage to mean that environmental education is a lifelong activity and can be carried out for and by primary/secondary/post secondary schools/students/teachers, as well as community groups, for the benefit of all ages. It is a wonderful vision, and badly needed and well-suited to the NWR System.

• 

  Cindy Samples April 11th 2011 at 5:04 pm   #     

  There are two distinct types of environmental education opportunities that wildlife refuges can provide. Top quality programs like the Prairie Wetland Learning Center require highly trained staff and strong commitment from local school districts. Such programs are valuable as demonstration projects to be emulated more broadly, especially in light of the strong community relationships such partnerships build.

  There aren’t too many refuges that have a residential facility such as Prairie Wetlands Learning Center. What I like about this model is that teachers use the refuge as “THE OUTDOOR CLASSROOM” supplemented by refuge staff providing programs. This is something that is transferreable to other refuges. Does “highly trained staff” really mean staff with education backgrounds?

• Maggie O'Connell April 22nd 2011 at 1:02 pm   #     

  I want to echo Molly’s comments (well said, Molly!) because I agree with her that there’s a misconception about the PWLC that it’s only about the Prairie Science Class (and that it’s residential). The thing that’s special about the PWLC is the APPROACH they use with all their students – whether it’s a one-time visit or they are there every day. (The stuff Molly said about: place-based, field journaling, naturalists, and phenology…. programming constructivism and developmentally appropriate practice). While the Prairie Science Class is amazing – don’t get hung up on thinking that it’s all the PWLC has to offer!

  And if you’re not famliar with the terms Molly uses (place-based education, constructivism, etc.) let me give you an example. When I was at PWLC it was mid-May – typical field trip time. Picture that for a moment – what comes to mind? A busload of crazy, wired kids reading to run off in every direction the moment they get off the bus? Does any actual learning even take place? Yeah. That’s what I thought.

  But the third-grade class that day had been there once a month through the school year (we really need to think about REPEAT visits to sites…but that’s another post). Twenty or so kids came in, with the same notebooks they had been using all year. They sat down and took out their notebooks. No running around, no “squirrelies”. The day’s topic was birds. They discussed what they already knew about birds and what they wanted to learn that day. Molly helped them set up a data sheet in their notebooks and they went outside to observe (listen, touch, smell) and find the answers to their questions. They hiked a trail, sat quiety near a wetland, made their observations (listened, touched, smelled) and went back to the class to discuss their findings. (Okay – they got a little squirrely on the trail -but it was May in north central Minnesota. I was getting squirrely too).

  This was all curriuclum based and met State learning standards. Beside the notebooks and pencils (and maybe some binoculars) it didn’t require a trunk full of “stuff”, printed worksheets, puppets, or games.

  How many times have you wondered as the kids board the bus whether they have learned anything at all? Or have an attachment to the place once they’ve left? Or know more about what to find in their backyards?

  In Region 3, we are working with individual refuges to see how aspects of their program can translated to other stations – and it’s very do-able. But it requires us to think about EE differently. It’s not about “ducks on a stick” and “Oh, Deer” and how do we move 100-or 500 kids through “stations”.

  And I disagree with this assumption:
  “There are two distinct types of environmental education opportunities that wildlife refuges can provide. Top quality programs like the Prairie Wetland Learning Center require highly trained staff and strong commitment from local school districts. …The second, more common, environmental education program on wildlife refuges involves making its facilities and information available to local teachers and informal educators.”

  I think this is leaving out a lot of different models that can be used. But again, I agree with Molly – in my experience teachers are not comfortable enough with the “science” part of our programs to lead them on their own. They would love volunteers, SCAs, interns, or rangers to help lead them.

  And maybe we need to just say “no” to the three busloads of kids or the entire fifth grade at one time. And work with our Friends or other organizations to help fund transportation to stations (Because if they can’t afford the bus, they aren’t coming).

  And we already have a tool – Rhythms of the Refuge – that can help stations develop their EE programs in partnership with local schools.

• 

  Leigh Ann Vradenburg April 22nd 2011 at 2:25 pm   #     

  The use of the phrase “two distinct types of environmental education that wildlife refuges can provide” is misleading, and instead, all staffed refuges should look to find that appropriate program within the spectrum between the two noted. While professional educators must be the ones to develop a quality EE program, there is nothing to say that a trained volunteer cannot be an effective step-on guide or a presenter for a school group. It could be someone from the local community that makes time available for the occasional school trip, or a resident volunteer that presents programs on a daily basis during peak visitation. The materials, information, and facilities are only as effective as the teacher using them, so if we are truly interested in EE, then we must provide that interpreter, whether it is staff or volunteer. I think recruitment and training for such volunteers (or SCAs or interns) should be a recommendation of this section.

• Mary Lee Ratliff April 22nd 2011 at 4:16 pm   #     

  Our refuge is very involved with local school systems and this is such an outstanding opportunity to educate the next generation of all types of children to appreciate our natural resources. I think the service should make every effort to inform all school systems, public and private, of educational opportunities available or performed in conjunction with a refuge system on a consistent basis. Every effort should be made to publicize successful programs instituted at other refuges until this flow of information is expected and anticipated.

• 

  Heather Dewar April 22nd 2011 at 5:03 pm   #     

  There is a third type of education that we’re not addressing – informal education, which is the term used to describe the learning that takes place outside the classroom/class field trio. This field is growing and making use of technology to create “virtual” educational experiences that excite children’s interest using tools that are familiar to them. These informal experiences are usually considered a portal to other, more in-depth educational experiences The National Academy of Sciences has an Informal Science Education (ISE) program created specifically to fund innovative types of outreach and education. Why not make it a goal to experiment with “virtual refuge” outreach and education? Imagine, for example, a NWRS kiosk in a big city children’s museum or science museum. It might have a live video feed to a refuge eagle cam, beaver cam, or an area where wildlife is congregating, with other displays, and a keyboard where kids could type in questions that a visitor services specialist could answer. It might be a permanent fixture, or it might go on tour to various cities. Many other innovative approaches to informal science education are displayed on the ISE website.

• Colby Hawkinson April 22nd 2011 at 5:43 pm   #     

  I am amazed at the inherent magic that happens with all kids when they are able to spend a day in the field, doing meaningful hands-on activities on refuges. I think that we will take significant strides toward engaging the next generations of school kids if we can get them out to the NWRS at least twice in their K-12 years. However, I see busing as an increasingly big obstacle standing in the way. The fact that environmental education programs at refuges are ‘free’ is holding less and less water. That is because schools and districts often can’t afford the associated busing costs. That cuts out one field trip in a child’s K-12 years, let alone two or more. I’ve seen this busing cost issue firsthand as a former teacher and as a current USFWS employee I’d like to see this issue worked on aggressively through creation of grant opportunities, formation of partnerships, what ever it takes.

• 

  Sandy Spakoff April 22nd 2011 at 5:51 pm   #     

  It’s very encouraging that environmental education (EE) is recognized to be “fundamental to nurturing a strong land ethic in the next generation …” and at the same time I have a somewhat mixed reaction to this section. I agree that the Refuge System does not have enough outstanding examples of EE programs. And, this brings up the question, “why not?” – which is not directly addressed here. I also agree that the Service cannot be solely responsible for the environmental education of the nation and its youth, nor should it be. However, given its mission, I believe the Refuge System has the responsibility to play a greater role in providing EE that supports “developing people’s understanding of and participation in decisions affecting wildlife and habitat conservation”. I envision the Refuge System investing in hiring and developing many more dedicated EE Specialists, aiming for the highest standards of professionalism in this series and becoming the leader in EE. … instead having EE as one of many collateral duties. I concur that the Service needs to establish dedicated national EE staff. But, this should not be a substitute for regional and field EE staff; each level of staffing serves a specific and very different function.

  I disagree with the assumption: “There are two distinct types of environmental education opportunities that wildlife refuges can provide. …” I agree with Maggie that this is leaving out a lot of different models that can, and are being used. Throughout the country there currently are many different, effective ways EE is being conducted. Therefore, identifying existing efforts and compiling a searchable database of these efforts would be a tremendous resource.

  I must add that in my experience, given training, teachers can become comfortable with the “science” part of our programs and lead them on their own. … And they also love it when staff or volunteers help lead them. But this is not to say that all EE programs should be “teacher-led”. Just as each refuge is unique, EE programs should, to some degree, be unique as well – they should be effective in supporting the resource management goals of the refuge at which they are being conducted.

• Laura Bonneau April 22nd 2011 at 11:37 pm   #     

  I realize that I am jumping in with a comment at the last possible minute (well, the last 30 of them, anyway), but I want to stress something that I think is MOST important when looking at EE in the NWRS. Molly mentioned it, and it’s a model that I learned while working at the PWLC and have brought with me to Ottawa NWR.

  In my experience, the most important thing we can do with EE on refuges is form partnerships with schools, and provide students with the opportunity for repeat visits throughout the school year, and if possible, throughout their school career (perhaps partnering with a school district).

  It starts with finding a “champion teacher,” that one person who believes in and understands the importance of getting kids outside, and recognizes that it’s not an “extra” curricular activity, it IS the curricula. At Ottawa NWR, we partner with local second grade teachers to bring students out 3 times per year, plus multiple classroom visits. These kids have begun to recognize that it’s THEIR refuge, and it’s made a giant difference in the community. They’re bringing their families out on the weekends, and the refuge is no longer seen as “that place run by the state DNR on route 2.” Many of our refuges are in rural areas near small towns. The kids that we’re reaching, many of them at least, will live in that area their whole lives. THEY are the ones who will be making decisions about “their” refuges in the future. We have to foster a connection with the community, and the community starts with families.

  I agree that we need to be reaching urban audiences, too – we also partner with inner city schools. Again, though, I want to stress the importance of repeat visits. They make such a difference. Transportation is getting more and more expensive, and schools are facing more and more cutbacks. I think it’s going to be important for our Friends groups to step forward and help with transportation funding, or secure grant funding. Classroom outreach is a great tool, but nothing replaces the hands-on, place-based experiences that can happen on refuges.

  The NWRS has an opportunity to be the leader in national environmental education. Now is the time.

• Boyd Blihovde April 23rd 2011 at 6:41 pm   #     

  I was surprised not to see a recommendation to encourage FWS programs to GO TO THE SCHOOLS. Some of the most successful programs I have encountered included a curriculum that focused on wildlife introduction to students and tried to visit each student in a particular school year. For instance, promote a “wildlife day” at every public school in the nation and then require / encourage every FWS program or our partners to visit schools on that day. I believe it will be well worth the investiment.