-
Title
-
Eng
A Comparative Analysis on Environmental Education in North Carolina, California, and Hawaii
-
Date
-
2014
-
Creator
-
Eng
Allen, Abbey L
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Education in
North Carolina, California, and Hawaii
by
Abbey L. Allen
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2014
© 2014 by Abbey L. Allen. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Abbey L. Allen
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Dr. Kevin Francis
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Education in
North Carolina, California, and Hawaii
Abbey L. Allen
Federal funding for environmental education programs through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency was reduced from $10 million a year to $0 in
the 2013 fiscal year, despite the agency’s funds being increased. With the severe
budget cuts at the federal level, state agencies are now left to secure funds on their
own for environmental education programs, which can lead to complicated
relationships between those involved in environmental education and those
involved in the political realm.
Due to the various levels of involvement in these initiatives, there are
sometimes conflicts that can arise regarding interests. This thesis examines
funding initiative for environmental education in North Carolina, California, and
Hawaii. The analysis for each state focuses on four main categories: student
achievement in environmental education, political and social relationships,
funding and curriculum correlations, and the status of environmental education.
This research shows the major trends in environmental education and attempts to
show how some states have overcome challenges. The results indicate that
through systems of government, states can self-sustain the environmental
education initiatives if federal funding for these programs remains in its current
state.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1
GROWING SUPPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ...............................1
DEFINING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION .....................................................2
THE RESURRECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED
STATES .........................................................................................................4
OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION ....................................................................6
PROBLEMS WITH FUNDING ............................................................................7
STATE INITIATIVES .......................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR RESEARCH .....................................................8
OVERVIEW & METHODS ........................................................................9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................. 11
EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ...........................11
MEASURING THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION IN
SCHOOLS .....................................................................................................12
STATE INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ............................17
POLITICS OF STATE-LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION .........................19
CHAPTER THREE: NORTH CAROLINA .................................................... 20
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................20
iv
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION LEGISLATION ..............................................21
IN-STATE FUNDING .....................................................................................23
THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PLAN .....................24
GOALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION .................................................26
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................27
CHAPTER FOUR: CALIFORNIA................................................................... 37
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................37
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT .....................................................................39
MODEL CURRICULUM PLAN........................................................................39
INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION .........................................42
FUNDING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ....................................................43
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................44
CHAPTER FIVE: HAWAII .............................................................................. 58
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................58
HAWAII ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ALLIANCE .....................................59
FUNDING THE PLAN ....................................................................................61
THEMES THROUGHOUT THE LITERACY PLAN ..............................................62
HAWAII CONTENT AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ..................................62
COMMON CORE...........................................................................................64
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................65
EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION IN HAWAII .................................65
v
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION......................................................................... 73
PARALLELS AMONG STATES........................................................................73
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ........................73
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION.................................................................................................75
FUNDING AND CURRICULUM CORRELATIONS .............................................76
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ..................................................79
CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 82
FEDERAL FUNDING ISSUES: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ........................83
GRANTS BY STATE ......................................................................................85
NORTH CAROLINA ......................................................................................85
CALIFORNIA ................................................................................................86
HAWAII .......................................................................................................87
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 92
REFERENCES ................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Table 1: Proficiency in Reading, Math, and Writing ............................................ 29
Table 2: Proficiency in Reading, Math, and Writing ............................................ 29
Table 3: Summary of Paired Comparisons ........................................................... 46
Table 4: Comparison of Investigating and Evaluating Environmental Issues and
Actions (IEEIA) vs. Non-IEEIA Students: Critical Thinking .............................. 67
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I could not have made it this far without the encouragement and support
from my wonderful husband, Christopher, and my family who have believed in
me since day one. I would also like to thank my reader, Kevin Francis, for his
inspiration and guidance throughout the writing process of my thesis. I would like
to extend a thank you to Lisa Tolley, the North Carolina Environmental Education
Program Manager, for taking the time to discuss the program with me. Finally,
thank you to the dedicated baristas at A Perfect Cup for providing exceptionally
well brewed London Fogs and their fully caffeinated support.
v
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Growing Support for Environmental Education
One of the main reasons that the environmental movement took off when
it did was timing. People began to see the effects of environmental degradation
and the radical social reforms carrying over from the 1960s. During this time,
environmental issues and their role in politics and society for the future were
debated, even issues that had never been considered before were coming into the
light of the environmental movement; for example, the future of the Great Lakes
and their health and the role of engineers in preventing pollution (Rome, 2010).
The popularity of Earth Day and its movement extended much further beyond
media attention about these issues. It stretched into the discussion of
environmental education being taught in schools and international conferences
created for the conversation and definition of the future of environmental
education.
Growing popularity for environmental education programs, both in school
and as after-school-programs can provide information about trends in public
interest, which can also affect how much government support these programs will
receive. Government response to environmental problems can greatly affect the
public’s personal attitudes towards the environment and how much they feel they
should contribute. These fluctuations in interest and the priorities of national
agenda suggest that if government leaders acknowledge the seriousness of
1
environmental problems and offer genuine solutions to sustainability, perhaps
young people will listen and follow their example by taking on greater
responsibility (Wray-Lake, 2010).
The United States experimented with environmental education
departments very early in the beginning of the modern environmental movement.
Only a year after Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act in
1969, it passed a short-lived Environmental Education Act in October of 1970.
This act established an Office of Environmental Education in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. The office was responsible for awarding grants in
order to develop environmental curricula and train teachers (Bearden, 2002). This
office was eventually merged with the Department of Education, formed in 1979.
Once the Reagan Administration took office in the 1980s, it began to
move the role the federal government played in many existing programs to the
states (Bearden, 2002). As a result of these efforts, Congress eliminated the Office
of Environmental Education in 1981, finding it to be an unnecessary expenditure
in the federal budget. While the Environmental Education Act of 1970 only
remained in effect for eleven years, it was able to make a lasting impact on
national agenda priorities and the public’s views on the importance of
environmental education in schools.
Defining Environmental Education
As support for environmental education continued to grow in the United
States, it also began to gain support worldwide. Leading educators felt the need to
2
come together and define what exactly environmental education meant as its own
independent subject.
There were three major intergovernmental conferences on environmental
education during the 1970s which were organized by the United Nations
Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). These conferences took place in
Stockholm in 1970, Belgrade in 1975, and Tbilisi, Georgia in 1977. The Tbilisi
conference was the most influential and had five goals on the agenda to discuss:
major environmental problems in contemporary society, the role of education
facing the challenges of environmental problems, current efforts at the national
and international levels for the development of environmental education,
strategies for the development of environmental education at the national level,
regional and international co-operation for the development and needs of
environmental education (Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental
Education, Tbilisi 1977).
In regards to the role of education with environmental problems and
providing a developed structure, the conference concluded that environmental
education should be integrated into formal education of all levels and that its
integration would provide skills for formulating solutions to environmental
questions (Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, Tbilisi
1977). During the early stages of the modern environmental movement, countries
were beginning to see that not only would environmental education equip future
generations to deal with these increasing environmental problems, but that
3
economic, political, and ecological factors played a role in the success of these
programs and if they were to be implemented, these systems would have to adapt.
Because of the various factors recognized at the Tbilisi conference that
influenced environmental education, part of the core definition was for these
programs to be practical and interdisciplinary and that students should learn from
the environment, as well as about it (Intergovernmental Conference on
Environmental Education, Tbilisi 1977). Throughout the discussion of
environmental education, it was emphasized that these programs would be the
most successful if they were conducted both inside and outside of schools. These
conferences resulted in the Tbilisi declaration and the definition of environmental
education, expected to be used as a guideline for countries implementing such
programs:
“Environmental education... should prepare the individual for life through
an understanding of the major problems of the contemporary world, and the
provision of skills and attributes needed to play a productive role towards
improving life and protecting the environment... By adopting a holistic approach...it
recreates an overall perspective which acknowledges the fact that natural
environment and manmade environment are profoundly interdependent. It helps
reveal the enduring continuity which links the acts of today to the consequences for
tomorrow... Environmental education must look outward to the community. It
should involve the individual in an active problem-solving process within the
context of specific realities, and it should encourage initiative, a sense of
responsibility and commitment to build a better tomorrow” (Intergovernmental
Conference on Environmental Education, Tbilisi, 1977).
The Resurrection of Environmental Education in the United States
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the National Environmental
Education Act into effect. It was similar to the original, except that it mandated
4
environmental education become a priority within the EPA and gave the agency
the authority to provide grants, fellowships for the pursue of environmental
professions, sponsoring workshops and conferences, and provide curriculum
guidelines (Bearden, 2002). According to Bearden, the reason Congress made the
decision to create a new piece of environmental education was due to an analysis
of existing federal programs designed to educate the public about environmental
problems and train professionals. It was ruled that these areas were inadequate
and that the role of the federal government was necessary for their success
(Bearden, 2002).
Once implemented, this bill gave the EPA the responsibility of
establishing a new office of environmental education. Congress felt that this task
would be appropriate for the EPA due to its mission to “protect human health and
the environment” (Potter, 2010). The office was given a budget of $6.5 million in
1992 to begin new environmental education initiatives. Some examples of the
initiatives included national environmental education standards for materials,
students, and teachers, the first environmental education research project to
provide a baseline for literacy for middle school students across the United States,
and states were also given support for developing their own programs (Potter,
2010). According to Potter (2010), an environmental educator, the National
Environmental Education Act is the single largest funding source for
environmental education. Since the formation of the bill in 1992, until it expired
seventeen years later, funding averaged less than $6 million per year to provide
5
education to the general public about environmental issues and solutions (Potter,
2010).
Other Pieces of Legislation
The National Environmental Education Act expired in 1996. However,
Congress continues to provide money for programs and initiatives that the act
originally implemented (Potter, 2010). Although this act has not been
reauthorized, there have been other amendments proposed to reintroduce a
stronger authority of environmental education and provide more funding on the
federal level because of widespread public support, about 95% (Potter, 2010). The
National Environmental Education Act was able to work on the level it did
because the number of people in the United States was not as large as it is
currently. Trying to educate the public on its fixed budget is nearly impossible
and therefore, makes the National Environmental Education Act quite outdated.
The second most impactful piece of legislation for environmental
education would have been the No Child Left Inside Act. This proposal was
originally attached to the No Child Left Behind Act, were it to be reauthorized in
2009 (Potter, 2010). If the act passed, it would have set the budget at $14 million,
with $100 million for a national grant program to be managed by the Department
of Education. Unlike the National Environmental Education Act which focused
on Grades K-16 in non-formal and formal experiences, and the general public, the
No Child Left Inside Act only focused on formal education of Grades K-12
(Potter, 2010). However, Congress did not pass this bill in 2009. This bill has
been reintroduced in Congress several times over the last four years, the most
6
recent being July 16, 2013 and it is currently waiting to progress through the
legislative process.
Problems with Funding
Although there have been pieces of legislation for funding environmental
education, there is still a huge problem with the consistency of funding the
programs. Environmental education is not the only area that has taken a funding
hit over the years. As of 2010, the federal government in the United States only
spent about 1.26 percent of the total budget on natural resource and environmental
protection, compared to 2.35 percent in 1980 (Wang, 2011). The actual amount
allotted by the federal government is much lower than suggested by scientists for
environmental services, which was $5 to $8 billion, and the real amount was $3.2
billion a year (Wang, 2011). Much of this back and forth support for funding
these services is because of the priorities of the political agenda. Due to economic
uncertainties and lack of priority, state and local governments have taken on a
much larger role than previous years to fill the gap of dwindling funds for
environmental protection from the federal government. This goes for
environmental education as well.
State Initiatives
Many states have developed their own environmental education initiatives
with the state EPA and like the federal government, have created offices strictly
for the support of environmental education. Since the implementation of the
National Environmental Education Act in the 1990s, the public has become more
aware of just how important is it for citizens to be environmentally literate,
7
meaning that they “understand how natural systems function and how humans and
the environment are intertwined” (North Carolina Environmental Education Plan,
2006), both adults and children. Many states are beginning to draft initiatives and
others, like North Carolina, have had them since the mid-1990s and have renewed
or enhanced them as needed over the years.
Statement of Purpose for Research
Due to the lack of updated legislation from the federal government, many
states have developed their own environmental education initiatives. This is a
much more efficient and effective way for states to control how environmental
education funding and materials are distributed in their own territories. By
developing comprehensive plans with the help of outside sources, such as NGOs
and the North American Association for Environmental Education, states can
ensure that every student, at the bare minimum, has basic environmental literacy
without waiting for legislative action from the federal government.
This research will attempt to show the successes that state environmental
education plans have had with implementation in higher education and K-12
schools, as well as securing funding sources for short and long term goals,
compared to the federal government. Although federal organizations such as the
Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) provide a source of funding for environmental education
programs nationwide, it is still funding that must be approved for the current
fiscal year and, unfortunately, is not guaranteed to be as much as the previous
year or available at all. Without an up-to-date legislative bill, the government does
8
not have an obligation to provide funding or increase funding to meet the
standards of modern times.
In order to show the success of these initiatives, three states will be
analyzed and compared to the federal government; California, Hawaii, and North
Carolina. Each plan was developed at a different time and experienced different
challenges and setbacks to get to the point they are now. The analysis of state
environmental education initiatives will include the political and social
relationships, the funding and curriculum correlations, while also determining if
there is a possibility that a funding source also influences the curriculum content,
and if the initiatives accomplished the goals set forth in the master plans.
Overview and Methods
In the next three chapters, the following methods will be outlined for the
state case studies, which include North Carolina, California, and Hawaii. The
methods for analysis will be based on:
1. The effect of the environmental education initiatives on student
achievement within the state, specifically within core areas of study and
the behavioral changes within these classes. Furthermore, a systematic
review of related research will be conducted to show similar studies
outside of the scope of this research, as well as those relevant to academic
achievement in the three case studies.
2. The political and social relationships that can influence the efficiency and
effectiveness of environmental education.
9
3. Funding relationships between the states, schools, and outside influences
and if curriculum content is influenced because of these relationships.
4. The status of environmental education in selected state and if the initial
goals outlined within the initiative are being accomplished.
The framework for this evaluation was influenced by Dr. Deborah Simmons, a
professor at the University of Illinois and a board member of the North
American Association for Environmental Education (Hollweg, 2011). The
sections above will provide insight of the key areas in environmental
education initiatives and trends across states. The three states were chosen for
this research because the initiatives are very comprehensive, well developed,
and in different regions of the United States. These initiatives were
implemented at different times, but each faced individual challenges and
successes. I will look at the challenges, successes, and patterns within the
states and compare each to the federal government’s amount of funding input
later in chapter eight.
There are two goals for this research; the first is to investigate what is
happening at the state level in regards to implementing environmental
education in schools and funding their own initiatives, and the second is to
research how each state is handling budget cuts both at the state level and
federal.
10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Evaluating Environmental Education Programs
There are many ways to evaluate environmental education programs, both
in the federal and state sectors. Careful evaluation can give a lot of information
about the program and help direct the future of the program for environmental
education professionals. As discussed in the chapter one, the Tbilisi Conference
was important in earlier developments of environmental education curriculums.
There were four main objectives for individuals to accomplish in order to gain a
full understanding as environmental stewards (Stapp 1969):
1. A clear understanding of the parts of a system
2. A broad understanding of the environment, both natural and man-made
3. An understanding of environmental problems man faced and how they can
be solved, by both citizens and the government
4. Attitudes of concern for the quality of the environment
Nearly a decade later, the Tbilisi Declaration produced its own objectives for
environmental education that focused more on motivating individuals rather than
understanding every part of a system; the objectives included awareness,
11
knowledge, attitudes, skills, and participation (Stapp 1997). These objectives were
meant to be incorporated into each environmental program developed.
While the objectives provided by the Tbilisi Declaration were universally
adopted by countries, each have separate entities responsible for evaluating
environmental education programs. The largest association in North America is
the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE).
According to both the Tbilisi Conference and the NAAEE, there are three critical
components of environmental education: awareness, understanding, and the
capacity for appropriate actions (Thomson & Hoffman). The programs are then
based on the successes of these three components together.
There are four main elements of evaluations that are taken into
consideration for the NAAEE: systematic assessment, activities and outcomes,
standards for comparison, and improvement of the program (Thomson &
Hoffman). These elements shed the most light on the successes or failures of the
program and can contribute significantly as tools for analyzing funding,
accountability management, and decision making (Thomson & Hoffman). They
are also the most commonly used forms of evaluation, known as utilizationfocused evaluations. (Hug, 2010).
Measuring the Importance of Environmental Education in Schools
The North American Association for Environmental Education has
provided many frameworks and evaluations for environmental education
programs, which have also contributed to assessments conducted for state
12
programs to ensure they are effectively meeting their goals. Assessments of
environmental literacy for grades K-12 in the United States have been conducted
since the 1990s by both a working group in the Office of Environmental
Education within the Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Environmental Education Advisory Council to report to Congress. The guidelines
for assessment were based on UNESCO’s objectives and definition for what
makes environmental education successful, including cognitive skills, attitudes,
awareness, and participation (Hollweg et al., 2011). These guidelines for
evaluation involve various disciplines, such as ecologists, economists, energy
managers, and social scientists (Hollweg et al., 2011). Each field contributed to
the development of approaches and collaborative analyses.
Evaluations of non-formal and formal methods of teaching environmental
education were included in the research to determine the most effective ways to
deliver environmentally-based materials to students. Non-formal education
programs refer to learning outside of the classroom, such as nature walks,
aquarium visits, or trips to the local zoo. These programs continue to teach
students about environmental concepts, but are conducted in a way so students are
able to see, feel, or hear, and participate in real-life learning. Both types of
learning approaches have been shown to contribute to the development of
cognitive skills in students, as well as decision making and problem-solving
(Hollweg et al., 2011) because they provide hands-on, applicable activities.
According to the North American Association for Environmental
Education, there are certain skills that those who are environmentally literate will
13
have: knowledge and understanding of a range of environmental concepts,
problems, and issues, cognitive and effective dispositions, cognitive skills and
abilities, and behavioral strategies to apply the knowledge and understanding to
make effective decisions concerning the environment (Hollweg et al., 2011). The
expectations of these skills also vary among grades. One of the goals of teaching
these skills is that students will carry these concepts beyond school and apply
them to their personal decisions and those that affect their community in order to
become more engaged citizens.
It is often difficult to determine how to measure behavior by
environmental education standards, but it is also one of the most important
outcomes from teaching environmental education in both non-formal and formal
setting. The North American Association for Environmental Education claims that
self-reporting is the best way to conclude the effectiveness of environmentallybased material, but they are often viewed as less valid or reliable than other
factors that can be observed directly by the educator or clear evidence collected
for evaluation, such as a test (Monroe, 2010). However, studies conducted
throughout the 1990s and early 2000s show that children are becoming more
environmentally conscious and adults in environmental fields had significant
experiences in non-formal and formal settings that contributed to their decisions
to pursue the field (Hollweg et al., 2011).
The late 1990s to early 2000s was a time when interests in environmental
education were at a high in the United States since the 1970s. Many assessments
of ecological knowledge, behavior, and impacts of student achievement were
14
done in order to show what influence environmental-based education had in the
classrooms. The National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF)
conducted such surveys from 1997 to 2002 to provide an Environmental Report
Card in regards to environmental literacy of US citizens (Robelia & Murphy,
2012). The questions of the meta-analysis were designed to gain more insight into
citizen awareness of problems, feelings of guilt, attitudes, moral norms, and
finally, their intentions to act (Robelia & Murphy 2012). In the study, NEEF
found that knowledge is a key contributing factor to alternating behavior because
it provides understanding of many factors involved with environmental education,
such as economics, policy, natural and man-made environments, biological
functions, and the complexity of these relationships (2012).
Other studies have been provided to show the influence that environmental
education has on students when introduced in the classroom, aside from gaining
ecological knowledge. In 2000, NEEF commissioned NAAEE to publish a report
about successful environment-based education programs across the United States
in order to better educate the public and the education community on the benefits
environmental education can have when taught as part of the standard curriculum.
This report studied seven elementary schools, which included two in Texas, North
Carolina, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Florida that had already
implemented environmental material and used the evidence collected to compare
traditional student learning to how environmental-based education improves
academic performance across the board (Glenn, 2000).
15
The core subjects included in the study were reading, math, science, and
social studies. Students in this study showed a much higher passing rate and
overall increase on test scores than the total public school populations in the states
and in some cases, at the national level. Other areas of focus contributed to the
evidence in this report, such as “learning how to do” rather than just “learn
about”, discipline problems within the classroom, and abilities to make
connections in various contexts (Glenn, 2000). This study was a follow-up for
Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment as an Integrating Context
for Learning, published by the State Education and Environment Roundtable
(SEER), which shed light of further evidence that environment-based education
provided students with overall large improvements in their learning.
Closing the Achievement Gap was a comprehensive study involving 40
schools, 400 students and 250 teachers and administrators interviewed, and
comparative analyses of standardized test scores, GPAs, and attitudinal measures
(Lieberman & Hoody, 1998). According to the results from the study, significant
improvements in language arts were reported and students showed much more
enthusiasm about the subjects because the material greatly appealed to their
interests. Math was another interesting subject that reported much higher scores,
mainly due to students taking complex principles and turning them into tools that
could be used in the real world to analyze information (Lieberman & Hoody,
1998).
Finally, students showed a higher connection to their community through
environment-based education and recognition of how decisions affect more than
16
aspect and became more responsible citizens. SEER’s study was later recognized
by the Education Commission of the States (ECS), a nonpartisan organization
designed to help policymakers make decisions on effective practices for public
education, as a practice that showed evidence of success for student achievement
and could be a promising for effecting school reform and education improvement
(Glenn, 2000).
State Involvement in Environmental Education
In past years, states have relied on a majority of federal grants for
environmental spending, about $10 million in 2012, especially for environmental
education, rather than factor the costs into their own budgets. Clarke and Whitford
(2011) explain that the state/federal funding relationship works in two ways:
federal funds can make states put more effort into projects and therefore, more of
their own funds, or state’s efforts can bring in more federal funding. There are
also many factors that can affect this funding relationship as well, such as policy
processes, state cooperation with federal law, state interests, and partisan control
in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate (Clarke & Whitford, 2011).
Many researchers are concerned that funding from the federal government will
crowd out state spending and result in a lack in funds raised independently by the
state, more reliance on federal funds, and more costs to the median voter for
environmental goods (Clark & Whitford, 2011).
Arguably, the control and position within the U.S. House and Senate are
two of the most important factors, in regards to the distribution of available
environmental grants. This can occur when citizens make demands for more
17
environmental initiatives and their representatives respond by pushing for more
funding from the EPA (Clarke & Whitford, 2011). Observed by Clarke and
Whitford, it is more likely that liberal states that are also more environmentally
friendly will receive more grants and any extra funding that the EPA can
accumulate for environmental education or other environmental services.
Recently, however, states have taken more initiative not only with drafting
environmental education initiatives, but also providing funding due to economic
uncertainties and general cuts made to the federal budget in areas considered to be
“unnecessary”. In a survey of state-level environmental education in 1998,
Ruskey, Wilke, and Beasley found an increase of state funding from 8 states to 32
(2001) from their initial 1996 survey, which provided 113 responses from
environmental education association specialists, presidents, coordinators, and
those involved in state departments of education and natural resources from all 50
states. The survey contacts were chosen based on the assumption that they would
have a solid understanding of the state programs and their needs (Ruskey, Wilke,
and Beasley, 2001). Of these 32 states, 27 reported $7,250,000 in federal grant
money provided for environmental education programs, much lower than what is
needed for environmental education training, curriculum, and formal and nonformal programs (Ruskey, Wilke, and Beasley, 2001). Furthermore, the number
of state trust funds specifically for environmental education were still at a very
low number in 1998, but had increased to eight states from five. Trust funds are
an important component for the security of funding sources within states (Ruskey,
Wilke, and Beasley, 2001).
18
Politics of State-Level Environmental Education
Although environmental education is much further developed than it was
just twenty years ago, there are still skeptics who think environmental education
is nothing but a liberal agenda. There have been bi-partisan attempts to revive the
National Environmental Education Act and pass No Child Left Inside, but both
have been unsuccessful due to the political atmosphere in Washington D.C. Aside
from pushing the liberal agenda, arguments against environmental education have
that it “feeds children environmental misinformation” and “scares children into
becoming tomorrow’s environmental activists” (Crouch & Abbot, 2009).
Traditionally, states considered blue were more willing to adopt environmental
education practices, and red states were less willing. However, some surprising
exceptions have emerged in the last 15 years with traditionally conservative
states, such as Kentucky and Pennsylvania, developing their own comprehensive
state-level environmental education plans, and traditionally liberal states, such as
Oregon and Rhode Island are lacking in comprehensive environmental education
plans (Crouch & Abbot, 2009). The results of a survey conducted by Crouch and
Abbot of red and blue states and their environmental education plans revealed that
party affiliation has little influence over plan implementation or development at
the state-level. The study attributed this finding due to the fact that these decisions
are much more complex than simply choosing a political affiliation (Crouch &
Abbot, 2009).
19
CHAPTER THREE
NORTH CAROLINA
Historical Background
After the federal government signed the Environmental Education Act into
effect in 1970, many states followed closely after with environmental education
initiatives at the local level. North Carolina was one of the first states to draft an
environmental education plan. It was led by Governor James Holshouser Jr. in
1971 and passed by the General Assembly in 1973. (EE North Carolina, History).
North Carolina’s initiative was supported by the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, which at the time was responsible for overseeing the
growth of environmental education. The department was able to offer a starting
grant to provide adequate resources and materials for the development of this
plan, called A State Master Plan for Developing Environmental Education
Programs in North Carolina (EE North Carolina, History). The Master Plan
outlined coordination and efforts between various state agencies in order to
increase the success of environmental education within the state. This also meant
evaluating existing resources across the state that would be able to provide a base
for student learning, as well as teacher training (EE North Carolina, History).
20
While North Carolina was making strong headway in developing its
environmental education program, legislation for EE was struggling at the federal
level. In the early 1980s, funding for the Master Plan was no longer available due
to cuts made in the federal budget during the Reagan Administration. Once this
occurred, implementation of environmental education fell to the responsibility of
the state government and agencies with “little financial support” (EE North
Carolina, History). Although federal funding was no longer provided, North
Carolina kept pursuing statewide environmental education. It was the highest
priority for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources during the late
1980s and into the early 1990s. Additions were made to the original Master Plan,
including establishing an Office of Environmental Education, considered to be a
“long-term funding base for environmental education programs” (EE North
Carolina, History). North Carolina was one of the few states at the time that had
an office specifically for overseeing environmental education, which was included
in the state budget. The Office of Environmental Education continues to provide
funding for the implementation of environmental education today.
Environmental Education Legislation
Legislation for environmental education in North Carolina developed early
in the resurrection of environmental education in the 1990s. In 1993, the North
Carolina General Assembly passed the Environmental Education Act, authorizing
funding for environmental education within the state budget. This act also created
the Department of Environmental Education and Natural Resources, with which
the Office of Environmental Education is attached. The act not only gives full
21
responsibility of coordinating environmental education needs and evaluations, but
it is also responsible for providing grants to “promote the further development of
local and regional environmental education...especially, but not limited to, schoolage children” (NC General Statues-Chapter 143B Article 7).
Curriculum Development
In order for environmental education to be successful on this level,
educators, department staff, and the General Assembly felt it was necessary to
include curriculum standards. Article 7 established a clause that would provide
the Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction the responsibility to
coordinate environmental education within North Carolina, integrate topics within
the various curriculums in core areas of study, and provide materials for
instruction and the dissemination of information to teachers and schools (NC
General Statutes-Chapter 143B Article 7). Extending from Article 7, the North
Carolina Environmental Literacy Plan, developed by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Public
Instruction, and the North Carolina Environmental Literacy Plan Working Group
further outlined how environmental education curriculum content would be
incorporated. The content was integrated throughout Pre K-12 classrooms, as well
as allowing students the opportunities for outdoor learning and classroom
activities designed to increase environmental awareness (NC Environmental
Literacy Plan).
22
Because this is such an important area of focus, state department staff and
working groups have provided enough support and materials to make teaching
environmental education an easy process, as well as evaluations to ensure that the
programs are working as they were designed. These materials are used in a wide
variety of environmental education programs, ranging from the local level to the
national level; such materials include Project WILD, Project WET, and Project
Learning Tree. Each project is supported at the national level and the international
level, with contributions coming from private foundations, large companies, such
as Nestle and ConocoPhillips, and federal agencies, such as the Environmental
Protection Agency (NC Environmental Literacy Plan).
In-state Funding
Initially, to secure funding for environmental education across the state,
the North Carolina General Assembly proposed an additional bill known as the
Environmental Education Trust Fund. This bill was sponsored by Senator Odom
in 1997 and was projected to go into effect the same year. The purpose of this bill
was to create a fund to provide grants and awards for environmental education in
both formal and non-formal programs. Once enacted, the bill would provide
$200,000 to the Environmental Education Trust Fund from the General Assembly
for the 1997-1998 fiscal year and the same amount for the 1998-1999 fiscal year
(General Assembly Senate Bill 139, 1997), as well as any money donated to
environmental education from contributors or grants from both public and private
sources. The trust fund was not established, but funding was still secured through
grants, donations, and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
23
Resources. As of 2009, state funding for the Office of Environmental Education
was $377,000, which was to be distributed throughout the state (EENC, Letters).
Even without a trust fund, the state was able to go forward in its plans to promote
and coordinate environmental literacy, as intended.
The North Carolina Environmental Education Plan
The North Carolina Environmental Education Plan is the backbone for
providing environmental education to children and adults across the state. It
provides a framework for the most efficient, effective ways to deliver
environmental literacy (North Carolina Office of Environmental Education,
2006). Developing alongside this plan was the North Carolina Environmental
Education Advisory Council. The council has representatives from various
backgrounds, such as business, environmental communities, and academia and is
responsible for advising the Office of Environmental Education on programs and
policies for the most beneficial outcome for increasing environmental literacy
(North Carolina Office of Environmental Education, 2006).
The original plan was published in 1995, right after the General Assembly
passed the North Carolina Environmental Education Act in 1993. The plan
certainly had room to improve and allowed environmental educators and other
members within the environmental education community to provide their
feedback and opinions in the direction that the Office of Environmental Education
should pursue (North Carolina Office of Environmental Education, 2006). To
date, there have been three editions of the Environmental Education Plan, the
most recent being 2006. Only minor revisions have been made since 1993 and
24
have mainly been updates to education plans or including more council
backgrounds, such as agriculture and cultural arts. Due to increasing
environmental concerns, it was extremely important for the advisory council and
the office to enhance their goals and tools in and out of the classroom in order for
people to be knowledgeable about natural systems and the human relationship
with the environment in hopes that the skills developed and interest in nature
would continue throughout their lives.
One of the most important aspects about the North Carolina
Environmental Education Plan and the passing of the Act is that they are
controlled by the state. This means that environmental education does not have to
be limited to an after-school activity and can be implemented into schools. North
Carolina has especially made an effort to provide environmental education in
PreK-12 classrooms and environmental education certification programs for
teachers so that this can become an integrated subject of learning in schools
(North Carolina Office of Environmental Education, 2006). According to the
North Carolina Environmental Education Plan, the Office of Environmental
Education’s primary focus is “providing support to formal and non-formal
educators to improve their effectiveness and on increasing the number of
educators who provide environmental education” (North Carolina Office of
Environmental Education, 2006). In this context, non-formal environmental
education is defined as education that takes place in settings such as parks, zoos,
community centers, or nature centers and is not incorporated into the formal
education system (North Carolina Office of Environmental Education, 2006).
25
Providing education in both types of settings makes it very easy for anyone to
access environmental education resources and information.
In 1995, North Carolina began the implementation process for integrating
environmental education curricula into the state curriculum standards in PreK-12.
It was not until 1997 that there was an effective change. The Office of
Environmental Education was highly impactful in changing graduation
requirements across the state for students. This change meant that high school
students were required to take an earth/environmental science course before
graduation (North Carolina Office of Environmental Education, 2006). The
curricula for these courses was developed by the Office of Environmental
Education and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Goals for Environmental Education
There have been four major goals met since the plan was first published in
1995:
1. Improve Access to Environmental Education
2. Build Leaders and Organizations throughout the State that Provide
Quality Environmental Education
3. Enhance Environmental Education for Adults
4. Support Preparation and Professional Development of Teachers
Aside from providing access to environmental education to virtually everyone, the
plan has made huge accomplishments for building leaders and supporting
preparation in the field. North Carolina was the first state to “create a professional
26
development program for environmental educators” (North Carolina Office of
Environmental Education, 2006), both formal and non-formal. Originally, North
Carolina used its own model, but revised the program with guidelines set by the
North American Association for Environmental Education in 2009, an
organization that has also been responsible for state environmental education
evaluation and guidelines for implementation and will later be addressed.
ANALYSIS
One of the most important aspects in an environmental education
program’s success is funding. Having a strong source of funding can provide so
many opportunities for students, teachers, and the state itself. It can also help meet
goals outlined in the original plan without compromising important strategies.
However, a lack of funding or budget cuts can completely break a program and a
department’s ability to successfully fulfill the goals. In North Carolina’s case, the
environmental education initiative has been so well developed over the years and
so much has been invested into it, that it will likely remain even with severe cuts
made to the state and federal budgets. Using the methodology outlined in the
introduction will provide a solid foundation with which North Carolina’s initiative
can be compared to that of the federal government’s legislation and contribution,
as well as the three other states involved in this research.
1. Effect of Environmental Education in North Carolina
27
Student Achievement in Environmental Education
In 2000, NEEF conducted a progress report on several schools across the
United States, including North Carolina for the success of Environment-based
Education in schools. As mentioned in Chapter 2, this study involved 40 schools
and a total of 650 students and teachers in the interview process. In NEEF’s study,
Isaac Dickson Elementary School in Asheville, North Carolina was analyzed for
its environmental education integrated into the school’s curriculum. Other than its
integrated curriculum, this school was chosen because of its demographics. 330 of
the K-5th grade students were reported living in housing projects, and 50% of the
total number of students are from low-income families (Glenn, 2000). The
decision was made to implement environmental education material into the school
in hopes that the school would catch up to state learning standards, as directed by
Asheville City’s plan to increase student achievement. The plan specifically for
the school was implemented slightly differently by incorporating nature activities
into all subjects (Glenn, 2000).
The plan for Isaac Dickson Elementary involved outside forces such as
government agencies, community organizations, as well as teachers and students.
Combined, they created the Gardening/Science Club, the Mountain Area Gardens
in Community Program, and restoration of nature trails around campus (Glenn,
2000) in order to help students actively learn about the environment. The
curriculum was assessed during the 1998-1999 school year and it was revealed
that students met the standard state achievement tests, and exceeding the standard
in writing, and the overall improvement of school achievement was 9.1 points
28
above the expected growth (Glenn, 2000). Below are two tables from the case
study by NEEF in North Carolina reflecting the percentage increase from 1998 to
1999 of student proficiency in reading, math, and writing. It is very important to
note the drastic increase from 1998 to 1999 in each core area of study once
environmental education was implemented and how proficient students at
Dickson Elementary were in these areas compared to the state as a whole:
Table 1: Proficiency in Reading, Math, and Writing
Isaac Dickson Elementary School Averages
Reading
Math
Writing
1998
70%
70%
46%
1999
79%
76%
57%**(state average was 55.3%)
*Percentage of students proficient in skills needed to perform at grade level.
**For the first time, Dickson’s proficiency ratings rose above the state average.
Table 2: Proficiency in Reading, Math, and Writing
Isaac Dickson Elementary, By Cohort Group
Reading
Math
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5
Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5
Cohort
Cohort
Cohort
Cohort
Cohort
Cohort
1998 (Dickson)
55.0%
53.8%
73.3%
48.0%
46.1%
77.7%
1998 (NC State)
N/A
71.6%
70.9%
N/A
68.2%
79.3%
1999 (Dickson)
75.4%
75.0%
91.7%
68.4%
77.1%
91.7%
1999 (NC State)
73.6%
71.4%
75.8%
70.0%
82.7%
82.4%
*Percentage of students proficient in skills needed to perform at grade level
29
A second study regarding high school biology students was conducted
within the state of North Carolina, involving a faculty member from the
University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction. Specifically, how students developed critical thinking and problem
solving skills with environmental problems, both natural and man-made
(Fleetwood & Hounshell, 1976). The purpose of this study was to assess the
cognitive development throughout a course integrated with environmental
education. The framework for this study used the objectives outlined by the North
Carolina Task Force, which included ecosystems, natural resources, pollution, and
environmental decision making and were also used to conclude the outcomes of
student learning.
In order to determine these outcomes, two different tests were made for
1,633 biology students of seven selected schools to take. One was a multiple
choice achievement test, modeled after the Likert Method and was designed to
test the students’ understanding of environmental concepts and application. The
second test was based on behavior outcomes and used a scale of measurement
with agree, undecided, and disagree to gauge individual feelings towards
environmental issues and protection, both positive and negative (Fleetwood &
Hounshell, 1976). Once details were agreed upon, the two model tests were sent
to a panel of professionals within the environmental education field to provide an
“answer key”. After students finished both tests, they were sent back to the panel,
which then evaluated the responses and determined that students who scored
higher on their tests had more positive feelings about the environment. The test
30
also gave a better indication as to what should be included on an achievement test
in order to gauge the effectiveness of environmental education and if goals are
met (Fleetwood & Hounshell, 1976).
2. Political & Social Relationships of Environmental Education
State Stakeholder & Organization Influence
One of the biggest obstacles when integrating environmental education
into a class is the political influence that some of the material may have or may
not have. There are several controversial topics that are important for students to
learn about when it comes to the core messages of environmental-based material,
for example, climate change, coal mining, and oil spills. These issues can be
controversial across the nation, but at least two of them are region-specific and
may be influenced by particular stakeholder interests. In 1987, a non-profit
organization was created called the Environmental Educators of North Carolina
(EENC). This organization involved many stakeholders, including professors
from both universities in North Carolina, schools around the state, park rangers,
naturalists, agency officials, utility professionals, and policy-makers (EENC,
History, 2013). The EENC held meetings in attempts to raise environmental
awareness and push environmental education more throughout the state.
The EENC was able to gain popularity through affiliation with the
NAAEE in its early years, which allowed it to also make wider connections in the
environmental education community in North Carolina. Once the first board
meeting occurred in 1990, the EENC grew into an organization recognized as the
31
key organization of environmental education professionals in the state and soon
took part in drafting the North Carolina Environmental Literacy Plan and support
for the NC Green Schools Program (EENC, History, 2013). The EENC is perhaps
one of the most important ways stakeholders can become involved in
environmental education projects that may affect them and have input or provide
expertise.
Agency Influence
North Carolina public schools adopted the new Standard Course of Study
in 2010 and implemented them for the 2012-2013 school year, which also aligns
with the Common Core State Standards for English, math, social studies, and
science, an initiative developed by the National Governors Association (NGA)
which acts as the collective voice for the governors in the fifty states and
territories within the United States. The NGA is bi-partisan and in order to
prevent one party from controlling the Chair for too long, the position alternates
between Republican and Democrat each year (NGA, About, 2011).
As mentioned before, North Carolina implemented a required earth
science credit for high school students in order to graduate. The inclusion of what
was recognized as the environmental education curriculum was a very long
process, largely headed by an interest group known as Education and Industry
Committee for Earth Science in NC. This organization lobbied politicians for
fifteen years and was comprised of scientists, universities, and the EPA (Watson
& Tucci, 2002). The title of the class was somewhat controversial amongst
32
committee members within the legislature, mainly due to the fact that the
environment was to be a core subject in this class. The subjects within the class
included weather, atmospheric science, geology, and general concepts about
Earth, but did not mention what many think of when they hear “environmental”;
the human impact on these systems or ways to alter behavior (Watson & Tucci,
2002). Although some committee members fought it, the title settled upon
Earth/Environmental Science.
Along with the Common Core Standards, the North Carolina Department
of Public Instruction created Essential Standards for each subject, which serve as
supplementary materials students in various grades are expected to learn. For
example, a supplementary and also required course is Earth/Environmental
Science. Although these standards are state-wide, they still maintain respect for
the Local Education Authority to design the specific curriculum that delivers
content to the students (North Carolina Essential Standards, Earth/Environmental
Science, 2010). The environmental material was integrated into the science
curriculum and was meant to provide students with the same skills that other
science courses teach, such as inquiry, experiment design, and problem-solving,
while also providing hands-on activities to successfully engage students in the
course material.
3. Funding & Curriculum Correlations
For many initiatives and programs related to environmental education, the
EPA still provides funding, but it is not nearly enough to support the entirety of
33
programs across the state. Through a program called Project Tomorrow
Environmental Education Model Library Grant Program, the initiative was able to
establish some source of funding and also accomplish one of the outlined goals,
which was for everyone to be able to access environmental education materials.
Over the years, the program has gathered quality materials, including journals,
curriculum guides, books, and media and created an online category that can be
accessed by anyone needing environmental education resources across the state
(N.C. Environmental Education, Accomplishments). From 1995 to 2005 Project
Tomorrow provided $685,050 to 93 counties in North Carolina and 388 public
and private schools, as well as other centers supporting environmental education
(N.C. Environmental Education, Accomplishments). However, this was a onetime appropriation for the state has not been renewed since 2001.
Like most environmental education programs, North Carolina receives
grants from outside sources such as foundations, industries, the public, and
businesses. North Carolina does not have a program for environmental education
grants specifically. There is however, a non-profit organization called the
Environmental Education Fund was formed in 1998 that acts as a “middle man”
to ensure that funds going towards environmental education programs in North
Carolina will enrich the programs and promote the values outlined in the
initiative. Usually, funds that come from these kinds of programs are interested in
investing in science curricula, but the funding provided can allow teachers to
purchase materials that help children fully grasp the concepts in environmental
education courses. Many states, North Carolina included, rely solely on public
34
and private donations rather than major state grants that once came from the EPA
because funding is limited and extremely competitive.
4. Status of Environmental Education in North Carolina
Like many states and the federal government, budget cuts have had to be
made across the board, in many agencies. In regards to environmental education
in North Carolina, 2001 was a major turning point for designated funding sources.
Up until this point, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided funding
for environmental education programs within states and a state appropriation was
provided for Environmental Education Centers and libraries to arrange for
collections of environmental education to be made available (North Carolina
Office of Environmental Education, 2006). Federal funding for these programs is
very limited in the amount allotted and number of available grants and was not
provided past 2005. The state appropriation was also eliminated in 2001 because
of budget cuts within the state (North Carolina Office of Environmental
Education, 2006). Despite setbacks in finding a secure funding source, more and
more teachers are becoming certified to teach environmental education. As of
2009, eight hundred and thirty-two educators had completed the certification
process and seven hundred and sixty-six were enrolled for the next period (Burke,
2009). Students are also still required to complete the earth science credit in order
to graduate. The 2012-2013 graduate statistics report from the North Carolina
Department of Education Environmental recorded a graduation rate of 82.5%,
which includes the number of students who completed high school in four years
or less. This means that because earth science is a required course, 353,949
35
students were exposed to environmental literacy in a public school setting
(NCDPI, Communications & Information, 2013). Environmental education in the
state remains as important as it was when the initiative was in the early stages.
36
CHAPTER FOUR
CALIFORNIA
Historical Background
California’s environmental education initiative was introduced by
Assemblywoman Fran Pavley in 2003. The bill was also supported by many nonprofit organizations and school districts around the area such as The Ocean
Conservancy, Jefferson School District Governing Board of Trustees, and Heal
the Bay, to list a few. Its main purpose was to “develop and implement a unified
education strategy on the environment for elementary and secondary schools”
(California AB 1548, Pavley, 2003). At the time, a law previously in place
instated an Office of Integrated Environmental Education as a part of the
Integrated Waste Management Board. The proposed initiative, however, created
the Office of Education and the Environment, which was part of the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), holding similar responsibilities as
the two separated offices; thus, disbanding those offices. California’s initiative
was projected to be the leader of environmental literacy in the United States,
mainly due to the state’s reputation of being innovative and progressive in green
initiatives.
The initiative was signed into effect by Governor Gray Davis during the
2003-2004 legislative session. In order to push this initiative forward, the Office
of Education on the Environment was required to develop key concepts and a
37
model curriculum for environmental education for elementary and secondary
students by July 1, 2004. Once developed, the curriculum content had to be
approved by the State Board of Education and could not duplicate or conflict with
existing academic content standards (EEI Principles and Concepts). According to
the initiative, there were fourteen topics that were to be included in the concepts:
1. Environmental sustainability
2. Water
3. Air
4. Energy
5. Forestry
6. Fish and wildlife resources
7. Oceans
8. Toxics and hazardous waste
9. Integrated waste management
10. Integrated pest management
11. Public health and the environment
12. Pollution prevention
13. Resource conservation and recycling
14. Environmental justice
During the time of implementation, climate change was not included as one of the
major issues, but was later added to the topics list (California AB 1548, Pavley,
2003, EEI Principles and Concepts).
38
Curriculum Development
In order to ensure that the curriculum would be as comprehensive as
possible, the CalEPA partnered with the Natural Resources Agency, the State
Department of Education, and the State Board of Education, which allowed
interested parties, including state and federal agencies, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and educators, to give their input and feedback
throughout the process (EEI Principles and Concepts). This process continued
until 2005, when the curriculum was approved by the Secretary for Environmental
Protection. From this point, the Model Curriculum Plan was created, which
defined the methodology, scope, and sequence in which the content would occur
(EE Curriculum and State Standards Alignment).
Model Curriculum Plan
The model plan was created to support K-12 teachers, schools, and
districts in order to teach environmental concepts and learning objectives required
by the state of California. Throughout its development, a team was created as a
guide to align the proposed objectives to the standards in grade-level sequence
(EEI Model Curriculum Plan, 2005). The team included representatives from
CalEPA, State Department of Education, State Board of Education, Office of the
Secretary of Education, and the Natural Resources Agency. Once established, the
team sent an Educator Needs Assessment to 10,000 teachers to gather suggestions
in regards to the design of the environmental education curriculum (EEI
Curriculum and State Standards Alignment). The model curriculum was designed
39
so that it could be easily distributed by grade and discipline and so that they could
stand on their own as a separate course.
Although the environmental education is designed to be a separate course,
in this plan, it is also meant to correspond with core course curriculum. It is
designed this way for students to learn environmental literacy and the standard
course material at the same time (EEI Model Curriculum Plan, 2005), rather than
become material that is time consuming or does not end up being integrated into
the core curriculum due to the volume of material within each subject and
pressure on time. The environmental education content was originally aimed at
being integrated into each standard core course, but developed to work best in
science and history/social sciences (EEI Model Curriculum Plan, 2005) that could
also be applied to students’ surroundings and real-life environmental situations
within the state, it was called “California Connection” (EEI Curriculum
Development and Field Testing). This process took a total of three months in the
beginning of 2005.
As defined in the environmental education legislation, the material would
be integrated into each core standard of instruction. The Model Curriculum
Planning Team created a section outlining supplemental environmental education
materials designed for non-science or history related courses, such as English,
vocabulary, and math (EEI Model Curriculum Plan, 2005). The content used for
the supplemental comes from the model previously used for science and history
and includes the use of reading comprehension and analytical skills. The targeted
grades for introducing this material are K-3rd and would begin the focus on
40
environmental literature to teach students about the world around them and how
to process information through critical thinking, with the intention that students
will have a better sense of the world’s interconnectedness in grades 4-12 (EEI
Model Curriculum Plan, 2005).
The California Board of Education developed a way to evaluate the
environmental education instructional material to make certain that it was lining
up against the core standards. There were five categories of evaluation for the
materials;
1. Science Content, History-Social Science Content
2. Program Organization
3. Assessment
4. Universal Access
5. Instructional Planning and Support
The first category certifies that the content of the material is accurate, used at an
appropriate age level, and does not instill bias or prejudice (Education and the
Environment Initiative Instructional Materials Evaluation Criteria). The second
through fourth categories look at the various tools used for the course and how
they work logically together or what methods are most effective when teaching
students about environmental concepts. Finally, category five determines if
students will understand the material presented in lesson plans and homework and
what materials would be needed to make the experience the most effective and
valuable.
41
Incorporating Environmental Education
In order to test the plan development, a pilot test was conducted of the first
drafts of the environmental education curriculum. The drafts went to nineteen
school districts, which included over one hundred and ninety teachers and four
thousand seven hundred and fifty students (EEI Curriculum and Field Testing). In
the pilot tests, instructors taught the proposed curriculum in their classrooms,
using multiple units so the students would be exposed to various concepts and
background information for the material. To determine the questions and possible
changes that needed to be made, teachers were asked by the State Board of
Education to make changes on the actual drafts which they received. To gather a
clear consensus, the demographics were spread to all socio-economic levels and a
large portion of California (EEI Curriculum and Field Testing). The final results
of the pilot test and the surveys sent in the early developments of the curriculum
were overwhelmingly positive, reaching in the high 80s and mid- 90s, stating that
the material was useful and would be used again in a course.
The Environmental Education Initiative in California is one of the most
developed and comprehensive environmentally based curriculums in the United
States. There were eighty-five curriculums for K-12 developed pertaining to basic
environmental concepts and California specific materials and exercises designed
to help students understand the world around them. The cumulative process once
the initiative was passed in 2003 spanned seven years, after final approval from
the State Board of Education in 2010, making it ready to use in classrooms across
the state.
42
Funding Environmental Education
As stated in the Environmental Education Initiative legislation, funding for
this program would come from federal, state, local, public or private
organizations, and individuals. CalEPA is the only agency allowed to distribute
the funds from the Environmental Education Account within the State Treasury
and the Secretary for Environmental Protection administers the amounts as
needed (California AB 1548, Pavley, 2003). Further addressed in the bill is the
question of what happens to the donations made by private contributors and their
influence over the allocations of the funds. It was expressed that individuals and
other private sources of contribution have no authority in how their donation is
distributed or influence beyond the donation itself (California AB 1548, Pavley,
2003).
One of the most important ways California secures general funding for K12 education is Proposition 98, passed in 1988. This proposition guarantees a
minimum funding level for K-12 schools and fluctuates with positive and
negative revenue for the fiscal year. If revenue is especially bad one year, the state
is responsible for restoring the funding level in the following year (Proposition 98
Basic Principles, 2012). For example, in the 2013-2014 fiscal year, Proposition 98
provided $49.2 billion for education. This was actually $1.3 billion less than the
previous year due to a one time grant for the implementation of the Common Core
Standards. Although this funding is general for California schools, there is an
amount for environmental education, plus various contributions from private,
public, and corporate donors.
43
In the 2012-2013 results for environmental education funding, eleven
counties received an amount from the California Department of Education. The
amounts were consistent for each county, ranging from $46,170 to $30,980. The
total amount from Proposition 98 Sources, which included the State General Fund
and Local Property Taxes was $47,651,000 and the total from all sources,
including the State Lottery, other state funds, Federal funds, and Local debt
service was $68,363,000 (California Department of Education Funding Results
2012-2013 Fiscal Year). In the case of environmental education in California,
specifically from the K-12 education funds in the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the
amount provided was $360,000. This amount came from the California
Environmental License Plate Fund, which is a program that offers specialized
license plates in support of a specific cause or interest (California Fiscal Policy
Office, Non-General Fund Appropriations for K-12 Education, 2013-2014) and is
also a way for there to be guaranteed funds that support environmental education
in California.
ANALYSIS
1. Effect of Environmental Education in California
Student Achievement in Environmental Education
The “effect” of something can mean different things and include various
factors, but in this context, student achievement with environmental education
integrated into core courses will be the focus. The specific evaluation to
44
determine the effect on student achievement will come from the State Education
and Environment Roundtable (SEER) and two previous studies known as the
California Student Assessment Project I and II. The first project was conducted in
2000 and the second in 2005. Since the California Department of Education is a
member of SEER, it is easier to gather support among teachers, principals, and
administrators for studies to show improvement within programs and gauge
student achievement and attendance when environmental education is integrated.
Not only did the California Department of Education provide materials and
cooperation during the study, it also provided funding from the Office of
Environmental Education (California Student Assessment Project I, 2000).
California Student Assessment Project I
In 1999, SEER conducted a study of eleven schools throughout California
that integrated environmental education into core classes. In order to compare
student achievement in these programs, the study also evaluated students only in
traditional classes (California Student Assessment Project I, 2000). Data was
collected from standardized test results, attendance rates, grade-point averages,
and an instrument developed by SEER called Qualitative Program Comparison,
which is used when assessing the status of programs and how they align with
environmental education principles (California Student Assessment Project I,
2000). The Qualitative Program Comparison considers six criteria during
evaluation:
1. Natural and community settings as a context of learning
45
2. Integrated, interdisciplinary instruction
3. Problem and issue-based instruction
4. Collaborative instruction; and,
5. Learner-centered, constructivist methods
6. Independent and cooperative learning (2000)
These criteria were then used in surveys and interviews for both groups,
which mainly included teachers of various grades and disciplines (California
Student Assessment Project I, 2000).
The results of this study revealed that students exposed to environmental
education integrated into traditional subjects outscored students in only the
traditional courses by 72% in academic assessments and 77% in attendance
assessments (California Student Assessment Project I, 2000). Below is a chart
comparing the scores of environmental education based curricula to traditional
(20),
Table 3: Summary of Paired Comparisons
Assessment
Content
Number of Assessments
Indicating Higher Scored for
EIC Students
Total Number of
Assessments
Percent
Language Arts
69
91
76%
Math
17
27
63%
Science
7
11
64%
Social Studies
8
11
73%
TOTALS
101
140
72%
46
Assessment
Content
Number of Assessments
Indicating Higher Scores for
EIC Students
Total Number of
Assessments
Percent
Attendance
17
22
77%
TOTALS
17
22
77%
More specific examples of schools also revealed the level at which
students exposed to environmental education scored higher on standardized tests
and in which areas to those in traditionally taught courses. The scores were
evaluated based on the six criteria mentioned above and were sometimes
influenced based on how the instructors presented the information and how the
materials were integrated. For example, Yreka High School and Del Norte High
School were paired together in this study, both located in the most northern part
of California. Yreka High School applied real-world concepts into the curriculum,
and also emphasized local issues. Hands-on, applicable activities were
incorporated using a nearby stream and resources that could be found in natural
world to give students more of a connection with the living world (California
Student Assessment Project I, 2000).
In contrast, Del Norte High School students were mainly taught with a
textbook discipline approach, with classroom activities rather than outdoor
activities. It was rare that real-world problems were brought into the curriculum
(California Student Assessment Project I, 2000). Overall, Yreka High School
students scored higher than Del Norte High School students in 20 of the 21 areas
evaluated, which were academic and attendance. Yreka students scored 8% higher
47
in language arts, 11% higher in science, and had higher annual attendance rates
than Del Norte students. Del Norte students scored higher in only one area than
Yreka students, 11th grade spelling at a 3% higher score (California Student
Assessment Project I, 2000).
California Student Assessment Project II
Going forward five years, SEER conducted another study similar to the
first California Student Assessment Project. It was the California Student
Assessment Project II. In this study, SEER used a qualitative framework known
as a Concerns Based Adoption Model and Innovation Configuration as a tool to
evaluate how methods of instruction are being used by teachers in classrooms
(California Student Assessment Project II, 2005). The model used focused on
seven major areas; integrated-interdisciplinary instruction, community-based
investigation, study of natural and social systems, collaborative instruction,
learner-centered constructivist approaches, cooperative and independent learning,
and authentic assessment. The overarching motivation for the strategies was
student learning and interactions (California Student Assessment Project II,
2005).
The comparison for this study used eight elementary schools and were
matched together using the results from California’s Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) system in math, reading, language and spelling (California
Student Assessment Project II, 2005). In this study, the treatment schools
experienced hands-on activities and real-world learning application, which
48
resulted in much higher test scores in each category than the control groups, 96%
in all cases conducted, with only 4% of control schools scoring higher than
treatment schools (California Student Assessment Project II, 2005). As a more
specific example, Edna Maguire Elementary School and Pleasant Valley
Elementary School were two schools paired together in this study. Edna Maguire
students were introduced to environmentally-based concepts at beginning of the
school year. Students are taught about native habitats that can be found locally
and how human interactions affect the environment (California Student
Assessment Project II, 2005).
Similar to the example from the first project, students explore components
of a local creek and some of the classes at Edna Maguire are even associated with
Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed (STRAW). There are many
organizations involved with STRAW, including the California Center for Ecoliteracy, The Bay Institute, and restoration experts within the community
(California Student Assessment Project II, 2005). Classrooms are also provided
resources in order to study the watershed and give students an opportunity for
hands-on learning experiences and problem solving. While the watershed project
is an off-campus study, it is not the only source for environmental education at the
elementary school.
During spring of the school year, students and teachers construct a garden
filled with vegetables and wheat to simulate how early settlers of the area
gathered food, which brings in the history course. Students are also taught how to
make their own snacks from food gathered in their gardens and how to compost
49
(California Student Assessment Project II, 2005). Growing plants and vegetables
in the garden allowed the students to be innovative and learn valuable problemsolving skills due to circumstances that often affect gardens, such as insects or
birds. Each learning experience incorporated both traditional subjects and
environmental education so that the students were not missing out on any viable
subject required by federal and state (California Student Assessment Project II,
2005).
In contrast, Pleasant Valley Elementary School students were taught using
traditional, classroom-based methods. Students were occasionally taken on field
trips, where teachers used state science standards, mainly focusing on earth
science (California Student Assessment Project II, 2005). As a result of the
differences between Edna Maguire and Pleasant Valley Elementary Schools,
students taught using environmentally-based instruction scored higher than
traditionally-based methods in almost all subjects. For example, students at Edna
Maguire scored higher in reading, math, and language arts than Pleasant Valley
students. Only in spelling did Pleasant Valley students score higher than Edna
Maguire students (California Student Assessment Project II, 2005).
Conducting these assessments provides valuable insight about which
methods seem to be working best amongst educators in their programs, the grade
levels certain materials work best in, and how other schools that do not integrate
environmental education can do so. By conducting a similar assessment five years
later, it sustains the findings in the first California Student Assessment Project and
allows other states or organizations to build upon this research by integrating
50
environmental education into schools (California Student Assessment Project II,
2005).
Other studies of the impact of environmental education on children have
been led by SEER, specifically K-12 student experiences. In 1994, the efficacy of
environmental education in state-based programs was evaluated to determine the
effectiveness of student achievement in environmental education (Hoody, 1996).
It was also valuable to assess these types of programs because the content and
effectiveness was believed to be very useful in the education reform movement,
which was especially picking up speed in the 1990s and adopted outcome-based
education models to determine if students were learning what was set as the
standard for each grade level in K-12 (Hoody, 1996). In this study, twelve case
studies were reviewed measuring the effectiveness of knowledge and attitudes
towards environmental issues and concerns.
One of the case studies included was a measurement of the attitudes of
high school seniors who attended an outdoor science school in Orange County,
California during the 1975-1976 school year. At the time, these students were
sixth graders and later asked about their time in this program. There was a total of
3,278 sixth graders who attended the Forest Home Outdoor School and when
asked again, 449 students responded to the survey. The survey reflected some of
the topics that were taught to the students, including interest in natural sciences,
interest in camping, appreciation of the environment, impact on home
responsibilities, and feelings about conservation and preservation (Hoody, 1996).
51
The results of the surveys reflected that students who attended the outdoor
school in sixth grade retained positive attitudes towards the environment. The
study revealed that there was an 80% increased appreciation for the environment,
59% showed a higher interest in natural science and 95% felt that every sixth
grade student should have a similar experience (Hoody, 1996). Although this
study differs from showing cognitive development in students over a period of
time with environmental education, it does show the positive impacts of an
environmental education course that helps achieve one of the goals within the
definition of environmental education, agreed upon at the Tbilisi Conference in
1977; fostering an environmentally aware citizenry.
2. Political and Social Relationships of Environmental Education
During the discussion of the environmental education curriculum, major
issues were agreed upon, such as fish and wildlife, water, air, and several others.
At the time, climate change was not included on the list of topics to be covered in
the curricula. Then, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed Senate
Bill 908 that would have required the State Board of Education within California
to add frameworks for climate change instruction (Tanton, 2008) Schwarzenegger
felt that it was the state’s place to established academic standards, but not be
“overly prescriptive in specific school curriculum” (Boudreau, 2008) and leave
the environmental curriculum to the Office of Education and Environment. The
bill was introduced by State Senator Joe Simitian in January of 2008 and was
approved in the Senate later that month. California’s General Assembly followed
in July of 2008.
52
There were three main reasons that SB 908 did not make the final pass.
The first reason Governor Schwarzenegger did not sign the bill was because of
California’s textbook industry. California is a major distributor of textbooks,
about 11% of all textbooks nationwide as of 2008 (Martin, 2008), and if
mandated, climate change would have been added to new textbooks and
distributed nationwide, which was not something to which he was willing to
attach his name. This brought up controversy across the nation, especially in
states with previously mandated content regarding certain science standards.
Whatever California mandated to be in its textbooks would have influenced other
state’s students (Martin, 2008). Although states are currently picking up speed
with introducing climate change discussions into course material (Watanabe,
2013), California’s legislation was a bit ahead of the times with the proposal in
2008.
Second, the bill was flawed in the fact that it did not require scientific
balance between scientists who support or dispute climate change. Discussions
were not required to be analytical of all sides of the debate. Finally, the third
reason was that Governor Schwarzenegger did not feel that legislators should be
the ones to dictate what should or should not be taught in schools and those
decisions should be left to advisory committees in the State Board of Education
(Tanton, Boudreau, Martin, 2008). Although vetoing this bill was mainly a
political move, it did have serve as an important starting place for the discussion
of adding climate change to the environmental education topics that were later
finalized in the curriculum at the discretion of the State Board of Education.
53
3. Funding & Curriculum Correlations
In the beginning of the initiative implementation, the state budget
provided the majority of the funding to launch the program. However, since its
completion, California has suffered a budget crisis and funding for environmental
education was one of the first things to be cut. Due to the size of California and
the initiative’s goals to reach every student in the state, it has been estimated that
it would take approximately $22 million to continue implementation. All of these
factors have led to the need to find funding from outside sources and in
California’s case, funding has mostly come from big oil corporations such as
Chevron and BP (Chevron, California Partnership, 2009, BP A+ For Energy
Program).
In 2009, Chevron announced the California Partnership which was
designed to strengthen partnerships with non-profit organizations and public
school districts to provide program materials for energy education. Other
education projects also in partnership with Chevron are Project Lead the Way,
Science Technology Education and Mathematics (STEM), which are geared
towards middle and high school students (Chevron, California Partnership, 2009).
This initiative is also geared towards community involvement because California
is Chevron’s home-base and there are several facilities within the state. Part of the
funding coming from Chevron in this initiative is $7 million for community
investments alone, and $28 million total for 2009, which were given to the nonprofit organizations in partnership to deliver educational materials.
54
In Chevron’s view, the local partnerships are a way to “give back to the
community”. Jobs are provided and students are given resources, specifically in
the Richmond, California area. Richmond is home to one of Chevron’s oil
refineries that has had fourteen incidences since 1989 (Lee, 2013). With its most
recent troubles, a fire at the refinery in 2012, the city of Richmond sued Chevron
for negligence of the community and several warnings from California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) about a corroded
pipe that was later found to be the cause of the fire (Wilkey, 2013). The smoke
from the fire sent more than 15,000 residents of the surrounding area to the
hospital for respiratory problems. The lawsuit resulted in a fine of $1 million for
failure to correct initial problems and $10 million paid to hospitals, government
agencies, and residents around in Richmond (Wilkey, 2013).
Even after huge complications, funding from the big oil companies
remains a huge contributor to the curriculum and materials in environmental
education classes in California. The educational materials include lesson plans
about oil and natural gas and a book called Oil and Natural Gas, which is part of
an environmental education program supported by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers called Energy4Me. The book shows children the history of how oil and
natural gas has shaped history and countries’ development, but addresses very
little in regards to the environmental costs that come with extracting oil and
claims that creating more farms for forms of energy such as wind. Ethanol, or
solar will ultimately destroy more habitats than oil fields will (Society of
Petroleum Engineers, 2007). Furthermore, in the Oil and the Environment section,
55
claims that the oil and natural gas industry have been working to improve the
natural environment are made. These claims include that since 1990, the overall
carbon footprints for everyone in the United States have been reduced and much
less waste has been generated due to investments made in technological
innovations (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2007).
Many environmental education professionals are concerned with the
amount of input corporations may have in classrooms, considering the number of
news stories covered over the years illustrating the environmental costs to the
public (Smith, 2000). However, teachers are not required to use this text. There
are 85 state approved units that align with the already approved science, language
arts, and history standards while also promoting environmental stewardship.
Because most states have adopted the Common Core standards, it is perhaps more
difficult for educators to use lesson plans and materials outside of what state
departments of education or closely related agencies have approved (Watanabe,
2013).
4. Status of Environmental Education in California
The initiative in California was a long time coming. It took seven years to
complete, with developments and pilot tests, and was one of the most
comprehensive environmental education initiatives in the United States.
Throughout development, 19 school districts were tested and teacher comments
were included in the final draft. Several projects in schools have been
implemented, including California’s Green Schools Initiative which works to
56
educate and reduce the environmental footprints of schools. While California has
struggled to maintain full funding from the state budget, contributions have been
made in support of environmental education from private and public donors that
do not have a curriculum or environmental kit, but simply provide funds to reach
students across the state. Although California has faced many budget cuts, there
are still local environmental education agencies that have managed to receive
funding through the Environmental Education Grant Program. Several education
offices across eleven counties received grants during the 2013-2014 fiscal year,
one office in San Luis Obispo County received $41,205, and the rest received
$32,252. Similar to the EPA, applications are required to be submitted, but the
process is far less competitive than the EPA because it is within California rather
than the entire United States.
57
CHAPTER FIVE
HAWAII
Historical Background
The discussion of environmental education in Hawaii is not a new
concept. During the 1970s, many groups were involved in developing a
foundation for the state’s future in environmental education. Local environmental
groups were spurred into action due to concerns about Hawaii’s native
ecosystems and diminishing natural resources. The first main contribution to these
activities came from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in
Chicago, a total of more than $3.5 million. The funds from the foundation were
used to create a curriculum by the ‘Ohi’a Project (Stone, 1992). Shortly after,
state agencies began to take notice and invest energy into developing
environmental education programs. In 1976, the Hawaii Department of Education
established an outdoor education center for 6th grade students on Hawaii Island
and the National Park Service developed an interpretation program at Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park and Haleakala National Park to give visitors education
about the various historical influences of the area.
The late 1970s was an important period for environmental education in
public schools. The state legislature passed a constitutional requirement that
environmental education had to be taught in schools and later implemented
58
Environmental Education: K-12 Curriculum Guide to aide educators in finding
resources and effectively teaching environmental education to students.
Unfortunately, there was little compliance with the law, but definitely more
awareness of the importance and need to teach environmental education, both
formally in schools and in informal settings (Stone, 1992). The majority of the
money given by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation was used
for conservation efforts throughout the state, however $1 million was reserved
strictly for the needs of environmental education. The development of
environmental education in Hawaii was changing, at this point, but lacked a
strong foundation for state-wide implementation.
Hawaii Environmental Education Alliance
When No Child Left Behind was implemented in the early 2000’s, there
was a shift for schools to focus heavily on English and math. As a result, extra
courses such as environmental education were cut or reduced (Appendix E, 2010).
Similar to several states, Hawaii created a plan for environmental education
during the same time that No Child Left Inside was projected to pass. The main
proponent of environmental education in Hawaii is the Hawaii Environmental
Education Alliance, formed in 1989. During the 1990s and early 2000s, it
provided the only state-wide structure for environmental education in Hawaii, but
without support from other state departments, it became fractured and dissolved.
Later, in 2010, the alliance was brought back by the Division of Forestry and
Wildlife with funding from various organizations and working groups (Appendix
E, 2010).
59
The Hawaiian Environmental Education Alliance is comprised of partners,
a leadership team, advisory group, and citizens within the community. Perhaps the
most important aspect of this alliance is the Hawaii Environmental Literacy Plan
(HELP), which was fully completed in 2011. HELP encompasses multiple state
agencies follows the guidelines outlined by NAAEE. This initiative is designed to
not only affect schools and how environmental education reaches students, but
also non-formal environmental education programs, such as outdoor education
and other programs that are independent of the school districts (HELP, Our Island
Community).
HELP was largely designed by the Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources and the Hawaii Department of Education and aligns with the
educational standards already in place. Hawaii’s initiative was based on four main
goals which are also supported by NAAEE:
1. Setting expectations for performance and achievement in 4th, 8th, and 12th
grades
2. Suggesting a framework for effective and comprehensive environmental
education programs and curricula
3. Demonstrating how environmental education can be used to meet
standards set by the traditional disciplines and to give students
opportunities to synthesize knowledge and experience across disciplines
and;
4. Defining aims of environmental education
60
Many states have used the NAAEE guidelines from Developing a State
Environmental Literacy Plan. No Child Left Inside outlined that in order to
receive environmental education funding, a state plan was required.
Funding the Plan
Throughout development, implementing HELP was estimated to be $4
million per year, which was a fairly reasonable amount compared to Hawaii’s
total education budget. The Hawaii State Department of Education operates
on about a $1.7 billion budget, which comes from state, federal, and public
funds. The estimated state cost of the environmental education plan is not
restricted to just one or two schools, but the entire state. One of the goals
outlined in the Hawaii Environmental Literacy Plan was to provide
sustainable funding the environmental literacy, which were projected to come
from the Hawaii Department of Education, as well as partners within the nonprofit sector, and businesses (HELP Timeline, 2012). As of 1999,
environmental education funding within Hawaii was categorized together with
28 other programs to receive a lump sum of funds, which also included
science and music equipment (Thompson & Marlow, 1998).
Environmental education was in this category rather than general
education due to its nature of being “non-traditional”. Hawaii education
reform in 1994 created legislation that allowed schools to convert to charter
schools, but there can only be 25. By law, charter schools, known as Student
Centered Schools in Hawaii are considered public schools and therefore,
receive public funds (Thompson & Marlow, 1998). The charter schools also
61
assume a larger responsibility for student achievement outcomes because they
implement innovative programs that other schools have not yet implemented
or may not implement (Thompson & Marlow, 1998). The total amount
allotted for the public school budget for the 1998-1999 school year was
$661.3 million.
Themes throughout the Literacy Plan
A central theme that HEEA wanted to stress throughout the literacy plan
was Hawaii’s unique landscape, culture, isolation, and biodiversity. This
meant teaching about students about the vulnerability of the islands caused by
agriculture, human impact, climate change, and invasive species (Sato &
Staab, 2012). Because culture is such an important aspect in Hawaii, a
separate environmental education curriculum was provided by the Pacific
American Foundation (PAF). PAF is a non-profit organization established in
1993 that is dedicated to improving the lives of Pacific Americans and
provides environmental education materials in schools (Sato & Staab 2012).
The Aloha ‘Aina Curriculum focuses on teaching students in 3rd-8th grade,
using hands-on activities, and measures student achievement in the core areas.
Each grade is taught about a different subject; for example, 5th grade students
learn about stream life, 7th grade students learn about coral reefs, and 3rd grade
students learn about wetlands (Aloha ‘Aina Curriculum).
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards
Because this curriculum is designed to be taught in public and private
schools, as well as any non-formal education setting, it meets the Hawaii
62
Content and Performance Standards, which are benchmarks, or proficiency
levels, that students are expected to reach upon completing the grade level.
The Hawaii Content and Performance Standards was the result after the
publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983. The report highlighted the many
failures of the American school system and called for reform action at the
local, state, and federal levels. Hawaii created the Hawaii Commission on
Performance Standards in 1991 which outlined three main ideas, including
setting performance standards of achievement of all public school students,
recommend how to asses student attainment of these standards, and develop a
school-by-school model (Hawaii Content and Performance Standards III,
2005).
The standards were finally implemented in 2006, after much revising and
teacher input about what the benchmarks should be and how many there
should be. Originally, there were 1,544 standards, but the State Legislature
reduced the standards down to 139. One of the main reasons teachers were
concerned with the original amount of standards was due to time constraints.
Teachers felt that there was only so much time during the school day for these
benchmarks, as well as federal standards that are required of students to learn
during primary and secondary levels of education (Hawaii Content and
Performance Standards III, 2005).
Included in full implementation of HCPS III were large-scale assessments
and report cards on standards of each grade. There are resources for teachers
to get their students to where they need to be based on the benchmark
63
standards, such as curriculum guidelines and benchmark maps. The
benchmark maps are reports from previous years to use as an indicator on
what worked and what did not. For example, at the end of the first part of the
year, first grade science students should understand three major ideas; that
there are different kinds of changes that occur in the natural environment,
changes occur as the result of natural events, and some of these changes may
affect living things (Benchmark Map, Science: Grade 1). The second part of
the year focused on organisms and their needs, and how plants and animals
differ characteristics based on species type. Based on the overall curriculum
outcomes for science, students are expected to learn complex thinking and
problem solving skills and skills to recognize quality work. The type of skills
expected are the same as what is expected of environmental education to teach
children, which is why it is easiest to incorporate the learning into the existing
curriculum standards.
Common Core
Like most states, Hawaii later adopted the Common Core standards. The
Hawaii Department of Education adopted these standards for K-8 for the
2012-2013 school year, and grades 11-12 adopted them the next year. The
Common Core standards are also included as standards to be met that are
outlined in the HELP standards. It is expected that by the time students reach
their final year of high school, they will possess a basic understanding of
environmental issues and actions to take to make an impact and know the
types of questions to ask in order to analyze the issue (Webb, 2011). The
64
standards are not only designed to foster environmentally aware citizens, but
to also prepare students for college and careers, which is the main goal of the
Common Core standards. HELP argues that environmental education
integrated into core curricula can provide a strong context within the core
classes and prepare students for what college professors will expect, such as
critical thinking skills and clearly articulate the issues at hand.
ANALYSIS
1. Effect of Environmental Education in Hawaii
Student Achievement in Environmental Education
In 2001, an environmental education program on the Hawaiian Island of
Molokai called Investing and Evaluating Environmental Issues and Actions
(IEEA) was evaluated for its success in student achievement and community
impact. Molokai is the fifth largest of the Hawaiian Islands with a population
of only 7,404 when this study was conducted. Over the years, Molokai has
explicitly resisted efforts to increase tourism efforts (Volk & Cheak, 2003).
Because Molokai is so small, any environmental issues or issues with the
island in general quickly become community issues, which is exactly what the
IEEA curriculum addressed.
At the point of evaluation, the IEEA curriculum had been in place for five
years, taught to 5th and 6th grade students as an “umbrella” to cover the core
courses. The curriculum was designed to develop critical thinking skills and
65
decision making skills based on data and real environmental problems at hand
and make recommendations of the next steps to take (Volk & Cheak, 2003).
In the IEEA program, students are expected to investigate an environmental
issue for two years and develop a plan for another two. Finally, students in 5th
grade pair up with students in 6th grade to further develop the final project to
present at a community symposium at the end of the school year called
Promoting Resolutions with Integrity for a Sustainable Molokai (Volk &
Cheak, 2003).
In order to gauge the effectiveness of the program on student achievement,
interviews were conducted with teachers, students, administrators, and
parents. At the time of study, 101 students were enrolled, which accounted for
both fifth and sixth graders (Volk & Cheak, 2003). For the purpose of the
study, students were divided equally into separate classes taught with and
without the IEEA curriculum. However, in both classes, students had the
option of completing a critical thinking and environmental literacy skill set,
which was included 66 fifth and sixth grade students (Volk & Cheak, 2003).
The critical thinking portion of the program was measured using the
Critical Thinking Test of Environmental Education. There were three sections
included, which were making conclusions, making inferences, and identifying
bias (Volk & Cheak, 2003). After making an estimate of an acceptable range
within .65 to .75, Volk and Cheak found that the sixth grade students included
in the study measured .72, which was certainly within the accepted range of
critical thinking skills (13). Students involved in the critical thinking skill
66
building were also shown to outscore students in the traditional core classes
on critical thinking and environmental literacy tests, which were comprised of
questions regarding issue identification, issue analysis, and action planning
(Volk & Cheak, 2003).
In order to measure the success of incorporating environmental literacy
into the classroom, the Middle School Environmental Literacy Instrument was
used. The measurement was comprised of eight subtests, which included
knowledge of issues, ecological foundations, issue identification, issue
analysis, action planning, perceived knowledge of action, perceived skill in
action, and self-reported action (Volk & Cheak, 2003). Within the
environmental literacy portion, 38 students were tested and their scores
compared to students taught with traditional core classes. Volk and Cheak
found that the average score of students taught with the IEEA curriculum was
14.18, compared to 10.86 of students taught with traditional methods and
material. Below is a table reflecting the scores of IEEA students to non- IEEA
students.
Table 4: Comparison of Investigating and Evaluating Environmental Issues
and Actions (IEEIA) vs. Non-IEEIA Students: Critical Thinking
Group
NonIEEIA
IEEIA
*p< .05
N
28
M
10.86
SD
3.24
38
14.18
3.77
T
-3.757
Df
64
Significance
000*
Volk & Cheak (2003)
67
Aside from test scores, the IEEA curriculum students considered
themselves to be more knowledgeable about the environment and their ability to
make a difference than students taught the traditional curriculum. However, there
was still a high percentage of non-IEEA students, which included 63%, that
believed they could make a difference within the community and had taken some
sort of environmental action, which was 43%, compared to 75% of IEEA
students. The environmental actions reported included beach and roadside
cleanups (Volk & Cheak, 2003). Students became more involved with their
surrounding community and some were even reported by teacher and parents to
travel to the island of O’ahu to speak in legislative hearings or write letters to
their representatives regarding environmental issues and the actions that needed to
be taken (Volk & Cheak, 2003).
2. Political and Social Relationships of Environmental Education
Native Hawaiian Education Council
One of the most unique influences in Hawaii is its native cultural
influence. The Native Hawaiian Education Council (NHEC) has input on certain
guidelines that are implemented in education programs, especially if programs
affect Native Hawaiian students. The environmental education initiative certainly
fell into that category and has strong support within the council. In 2002, the
NHEC published Hawaii Guidelines for Culturally Healthy and Responsive
Learning Environments. The Hawaii Department of Education used these
guidelines in Hawaiian Studies courses, although not mandated. The guidelines
68
stress the importance of culturally aware citizens and the importance of having a
sense of place and caring for that place (Committee Guidelines, 2002), much like
what is expected in environmental education. Many of the same ideas behind
cultural education courses have created a good segue for educators and
administrators to implement environmental education into the current curriculum
while still adhering to state standards.
Influence of State Education Standards
Another increasingly influential factor of Hawaii’s environmental
education plan is the education standards that have been implemented throughout
the state, such as Hawaii Content and Performance Standards. While the standards
were still being debated, a science course called Malama I Ka ‘Aina (Caring for
the Land) was in place as one of the standards required by Hawaii public schools.
This course was very similar to a traditional environmental education course
because it incorporated systems thinking and engaged students in problem solving
for the greater good (Sato & Staab, 2012). The science course was designed to
help students learn about and practice sustainability through traditional Hawaiian
practices by exploring waste treatment methods, better agricultural practices, or
curricula relevant to a school’s geographical location (McGinn, 2008).
Because the course was part of the science standards, it was able to receive
funding from the US Department of Education and the Native Hawaiian
Curriculum Development, which was a program that provided educational
opportunities to underachieving Native Hawaiian high school students, developed
69
by the University of Hawaii (McGinn, 2008). Unfortunately, once the new Hawaii
Performance and Content Standards were finalized, Malama I Ka ‘Aina was no
longer available, but the concepts and resources used in the course continue to
help educators engage their students in environmental learning.
3. Funding and Curriculum Correlations
Unlike the previous case studies, North Carolina and California, Hawaii
does not have drawn out environmental education curricula. The Hawaii
Environmental Literacy Plan is a document that outlines the most effective and
efficient ways to promote environmental education, but uses previously
implemented environmental education programs within schools. There are,
however, many programs with curricula available to use from neighboring islands
and foundations that contribute to the implementation of environmental education
in schools. Even with the standards adopted, such as the Hawaii Performance and
Content Standards and Common Core, environmental education has been
integrated into classes over many decades, especially in science. One of the most
influential foundations within Hawaii is the Kokua Hawaii Foundation. This
organization was founded in 2003 by well-known musician and native Hawaiian,
Jack Johnson and his wife Kim Johnson. The organization provides programs that
support environmental education in public, charter, and private schools
throughout Hawaii (Kokua Hawaii Foundation, 2014).
There are three main programs that the Kokua Hawaii Foundation
provides for schools, including ‘Aina in Schools, Plastic Free Hawaii, and 3R’s
70
School Recycling. One of the most important aspects about this organization is
that it provides field trips and mini-grants up to $1,000 for environmental
education programs in schools (Kokua Hawaii Foundation, 2014). The idea
behind providing grants and field trip opportunities is to give students a chance to
have hands on learning experiences that may not occur otherwise, especially after
the huge budget cut specifically towards field trips. In the 1980s, the amount of
funding for field trips from the Hawaii Department of Education was $900,000.
Unfortunately, the current amount provided is zero, which leaves educators to
find funds from outside sources. On a positive note, foundations such as the
Kokua Hawaii Foundation and in some cases, cities can provide funds to close the
gap between costs.
4. Status of Environmental Education in Hawaii
Although Hawaii has developed an environmental plan, it continues to
struggle with a sustainable source of state-wide funding. Hawaii is not an exception
though, each case study has struggled to provide necessary funds, even with
operating on huge education budgets from the state and federal governments. For
the 2012-2013 fiscal year alone, North Carolina provided $7.74 billion state funds
for education, with $856 million from the federal government (North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction, 2013) and California operated on a $70 billion
budget during the 2013-2014 school year (Education Budget, CalEdFacts, 2013).
Hawaii is also in a unique position to keep their environmental education
programs “pure” due to the heavy influence of Native Hawaiian traditions and
71
culture, as well as the state’s isolation from the mainland. The education council
is usually involved in state programs dealing with education or assesses how
effective existing programs are in regards, especially when they affect Native
Hawaiian students. The importance of Hawaii’s culture and history amongst its
people keeps environmental education programs local and deals with issues that
most affect the islands. There are also many education driven organizations that
are designed to help students succeed, whether that is going to the school and
helping the set-up of a new program or giving funds so that recycling and other
environmental programs have a chance to continue and make an impact much
further than the current school year.
72
CHAPTER SIX
DISCUSSION
Parallels among States
There are several parallels that can be taken away from the research of each
state. These parallels will be shown through the consistent numbering system in
chapters three, four, five, and six.
1. Student Achievement in Environmental Education
The first parallel that can be seen in all three states is student achievement in
environmental education, as well as the core classes when environmental
education is integrated. The drastic rise in standardized test results of students
exposed to environmental concepts in classes taught using traditional, textbookdisciplined is the first major indicator that environmental education makes a
difference in the way students learn and are engaged in the material, especially
beginning in early childhood education.
To test relevance between environmental education and test scores, a
systematic review was conducted. There are many examples of evaluations, both
in the United States and internationally that reflect the benefits for students when
environmental education is implemented into the existing curriculum. For this
research, we will focus on the three case studies, North Carolina, California, and
Hawaii. In order to find these examples, a search was conducted in multiple
databases, including EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, and ERIC using an advanced
search with three different search terms within peer-reviewed journals, “test
73
scores AND environmental education AND the state” (California, or North
Carolina, or Hawaii), “academic achievement AND environmental education
AND the state”, “student achievement AND environmental education AND the
state”. The results came from the Evergreen State College Library, as well as the
University of Oklahoma Library. The listed articles were chosen because of their
relevance to understanding the impact of environmental education programs on
student achievement in core courses through environmental education programs.
The results and articles are listed in Appendix A.
The systematic review found that there were 10 articles that supported
positive influence of environmental education on test scores. From these searches
and the studies found to be relevant for the purpose of this study, it can be
concluded that introducing environmental education has positive impact on
standardized tests and improvement in other areas, such as behavior in classrooms
and community involvement.
Although the main focus in schools and both state and the federal
departments of education are standards that are set like No Child Left Behind,
Common Core, or Race to the Top, the results of studies of environmental
education within classrooms show that there is a significant effect on the
standards previously in place and can offer so much improvement in standardized
tests at each grade level, in each core subject, and even attendance and classroom
behavior. From Isaac Dickson Elementary School in North Carolina, there was
74
almost a 10% increase in test scores for students exposed to environmental
education integrated into core classes.
However, there was a much larger result from the California Student
Assessment Project conducted in 2000, with students in environmentally-based
material courses compared to their peers in courses taught with traditional
methods by 72% in academic assessments. Students involved with the
environmental education program on Molokai also outscored their peers by 3.32
points, which was based on the model designed by Volk and Cheak for the
purpose of the study. Overall, California students experienced a much more
dramatic increase in test scores over students who were not exposed to
environmental education methods or materials.
2. Political and Social Relationships of Environmental Education
The political and social relationships of environmental education within
North Carolina, California, and Hawaii is where there is less of a pattern than the
evidence for student achievement success. There is however, a correlation
between North Carolina and California. In both cases, political decisions affected
what type of environmental education curriculum would be acceptable and align
with the standards in place. More specifically, climate change was the number one
topic that was highly controversial to implement in both states. North Carolina
legislative committee members were appeased by creating an
Earth/Environmental Science course as required credit for high school students,
with more of an emphasis on geology, general concepts, and atmospheric science
75
than climate change or how humans have impacted the environment and altered
systems.
California experienced initial controversy in the form of a proposed bill to
include climate change as a topic of the available state environmental education
curriculum units. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill to essentially avoid
attaching California to the change of the textbook content that would eventually
be distributed across the country. His reasoning behind the veto was also
influenced by the amount of control the legislature should have over California
Department of Education territory. Although the bill was vetoed in 2008, it was
later added to the list of topics included in the 85 available curriculum units,
which was decided by the State Board of Education in California. Both examples
show that the political atmosphere and legislative input have quite influential
positions when dealing with educational content, especially when discussing
environmental issues.
3. Funding and Curriculum Correlations
California possibly had the most interesting example of a situation where
funding influenced curriculum content. There was hardly any overlap of North
Carolina or Hawaii in regards to funding having negative implications on the
curricula used in environmental education programs. Perhaps due to California’s
status among the other states as a leader in environmental innovations and
influence, it was a greater target than the other states in this case study for
corporations to fill the gap between being an outside influence on education, more
specifically in science, and becoming a direct influence. After all, the survival of
76
these companies that produce oil or plastic bags depends on the public being
reliant on their products. If children are taught from kindergarten all the way to
their senior year in high school that drilling for oil is detrimental to the
environment and plastic bags create health hazards for marine animals, then there
may be little support from those generations in the future.
Budget cuts, both federal and in-state have also not made the situation
easier. Although most states operate on very large education budgets, it does not
always mean those function the way they should. Plus, these set budgets are
supposed to provide for every student, teacher, and administrator involved in
education and are also under pressure from federal and state standards, which
leaves little room for other activities. Without full funding from either the federal
or state government, teachers and schools have to find the money somewhere,
which can then lead to corporations with their own curriculum to fill the gap.
Fortunately, the environmental education programs discussed in at least one of the
states, North Carolina, have “filter systems”, which are partnerships associated
with state agencies that decide where the money will go and how it will be used.
However, the scope of this study does not include states outside of the three case
studies discussed.
The Environmental Education Fund in North Carolina was a non-profit
organization that supported projects designed to promote environmental
education. Unfortunately, it is no longer in existence and the best guess as to why
is because there are so many organizations like this today and it was too difficult
for the Environmental Education Fund to keep up without a full time staff and
77
budget problems. Originally, it was assumed that the organization would provide
grants, but it became a source of funding through campaigns and was based only
on need and was specific to projects. For example, if the Office of Environmental
Education had a project proposal in mind, it would handle the administrative side
and the Environmental Education Fund would handle the finances of that specific
project, but did not provide annual funding.
The focus of the Environmental Education Fund was not to create a
curriculum, but to draw up plans for funding while the Office of Environmental
Education provided the work and outline of the project. This kind of relationship
allowed North Carolina to be creative with environmental education projects and
let another organization deal with the financial aspects and grant writing.
Although the Office was responsible for the majority of planning, the
Environmental Education Fund was able to give input throughout the projects, but
did not find it necessary. This was due to most ideas being run by the
Environmental Education Fund and the fact that for the most part, grants dictated
what the projects did or what type of environmental issue would be funded.
The non-profit organization and the state agency were a natural fit to work
together. State departments cannot accept donations and it is often difficult to find
another agency to work with or share funds with, mainly due to budget cuts across
the board. One of the main reasons the Environmental Education Fund was
created and worked well with the state agency was because it enabled the Fund to
have more control over where funding for environmental education came from,
meaning that if a business was questionable, the Fund could refuse their donation.
78
There were, however, some instances where the Environmental Education Fund
accepted funding from industries with a less than desirable track record, such as
energy companies and a large local farming company in North Carolina that had
many environmental violations later in the relationship. The ability to fund
environmental education programs can sometimes come at a price. Funds are
based on availability and if the only substantial incoming donations are from
corporations, then it makes it difficult to turn down all donations from the types of
industries that are not known for their environmental consciousness. However,
organizations in partnership with state environmental education offices can have a
better chance of screening who donates and how the funds are used.
4. Status of Environmental Education
Although it has not been an easy process to secure state funds for these
programs, environmental education is still thriving. More states have created state
environmental education plans with the projection of No Child Left Inside, which
will likely continue to be reintroduced to pass and more certification programs
have emerged for educators to teach environmental education. The benefits for
students are clear and, obviously, teaching students and adults about these issues
can be beneficial for the environment as well because there will be more of a
feeling of obligation to change behaviors and become involved with local
communities.
Based on the research shown in previous chapters, trust funds specifically
for state environmental education programs would be the best route to secure
funds. To clarify, these “trust funds” are state government accounts that are given
79
a base amount each year from the budget and then accumulate from donations
made from private or public donors, foundations, and individuals that want to
contribute to environmental education programs. Agencies involved, likely the
Office of Environmental Education within the state can then distribute the
available funds to classrooms. This scenario could protect environmental
education funds at the state-level when budget cuts occur at the federal level, like
what is happening for the new fiscal year. That way, state programs do not suffer
as much or are not scrambling around to find any source of funding, which may
not provide adequate materials for all students in the classroom.
A successful example of a trust fund program can be seen in Maryland
with the Chesapeake Bay Trust. This program is a non-profit organization
founded in 1985 that focuses on the Chesapeake Bay, rivers, and watershed
restoration through outreach and environmental education. In order to provide
grants, the trust is in partnership with the Maryland Treasure and the sale of
Chesapeake license plates. Grant money also comes from donations to the Bay,
Endangered Species Fund, individuals, by purchasing a special license plate or
contributing directly from state income tax returns, corporations, private
foundations, and federal and state agencies (Chesapeake Bay Trust, About, 2010).
These donations total about $5 million annually, 90% of the funds going directly
to grant programs, and are distributed throughout the counties, Baltimore City,
and the Chesapeake region.
To put these figures into perspective, it is useful to look at the 2012- 2013
Impact Statement from the Chesapeake Trust Fund. Because of these grant funds,
80
59,547 students were involved in outdoor learning experiences, and 4,643
teachers taught environmental education in the classroom. Outside of the
classroom, 24,575 individuals volunteered 26,303 hours of clean-up time to the
Bay and rivers around the area where 17 million people call home. Finally, these
programs included creating rain gardens, planting native trees and plants, and
restoring acres of stream buffers and wetlands (Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund,
Impact, 2012-2013). Whole communities are becoming involved with
environmental stewardship, and it can be seen throughout the United States. The
example in Maryland is a great illustration that shows how creating partnerships
with state governments and agencies as a way to fund environmental education
can result in very impactful and beneficial ways for local communities.
81
CHAPTER SEVEN
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Based on information provided in the previous case studies, environmental
education shows to have huge benefits for students, not only for becoming more
environmentally literate, but in every core class that is required by the federal
government. In many studies, environmental education has shown to increase
students’ cognitive abilities in critical thinking and problem solving, as well as
contribute to their behavioral issues in the classroom and towards other students.
Due to these benefits, it is questionable as to why the federal government would
cut funding that is so necessary for environmental education programs across the
state to thrive.
In 2010, President Barack Obama announced the launch of a campaign
called Educate to Innovate. The campaign was intended to help U.S. students
reach higher science and math achievement levels throughout the next decade.
These field are science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or commonly
referred to as STEM fields. In order to promote achievement, the President’s
campaign plan developed partnerships with companies, universities, non-profit
organizations, and government agencies that will also help train educators for
these field (Office of the Press Secretary, 2010). The partnerships will not only
help with training, but they will also provide substantial funding, initially $250
million just for support and $260 million to further the campaign.
82
As expected, the United States Department of Education is involved with
the campaign and has committed to contribute $100 million to help license and
train teachers and after the first year, another $200 million will help support
teachers in the classrooms (Office of the Press Secretary, 2010). Because the
STEM project is supported financially by the federal government, as well as other
partners, there had to be cuts made in order to secure the funding necessary for the
implementation of this campaign. Unfortunately, this is where environmental
education comes in.
Federal Funding Issues: Environmental Education
One of the major reasons so many states decided to create a state-wide
environmental education plan was the hope that federal funding for these
programs would be much more than the current level and be available for more
than a handful of programs. Without the passing of the No Child Left Inside Act
and the launch of the STEM campaign, states are basically left floating out to sea
with no support, due to cuts made to the budget. As of 2012, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Education had a
budget of $10 million and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) environmental literacy grant program had a budget of
$8 million. NOAA not only had a specific program for environmental literacy
funding, but it also provided funding through its Bay-Watershed Training (BWET). This funding provided $7 million in the last two years (Office of
Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2013). The federal budget for 2013
essentially eliminates this funding, although each agency, NOAA and EPA
83
received budget increases from 2012 (Office of Management Training and
Budget, Fiscal Year 2013).
Receiving funding for environmental education programs was already
challenging enough. The grants provided by the agencies were limited and quite
competitive. Educators were required to apply with details of the budget, a
projected timeline, a summary of the project, models of the inputs and outputs of
the project, and their qualifications (EPA, Environmental Education Grants,
2014). Even after providing this information, it was no guarantee that funding
would be provided, simply due to the volume of applicants and programs in each
region.
The amount awarded in 2013 for the Environmental Education branch of
the U.S. EPA was $2.77 million and introduced a new functioning system for
awarding these grants. There were still applications that were required to fit the
criteria and outline the projects, but in 2013, the EPA awarded regions and
headquarters grant money to distribute within the locations (EPA, Environmental
Education Grant Program, 2013). There are 10 regions in which states are
grouped and several headquarters disbursed throughout the United States. Two
programs were combined in 2013, the Model Grant Program and the Sub-Award
Program, both from federal grant money. The EPA provided 2-3 grants per region
and 1-2 grants per headquarters, which was not to exceed $200,000 per project
(EPA, Environmental Education Grant Program, 2013).
84
In certain years, the EPA requires that proposed projects focus on specific
environmental issues or groups to involve, and with the EPA’s 2011-2016
Strategic Plan, the projects that focused on reaching a broad audience were
considered favorable. There was already a requirement that projects be “crosscutting strategies for expanding the conversation of environmentalism”, which
included reaching low-income, tribal, and minority audiences (EPA,
Environmental Education Grant Program, 2013). Based on the first review of the
applications within the federal office, the projects that are not eliminated are then
distributed to the regional offices. Aside from regional offices awarding grant
money, the 2013 Environmental Education Grant Program is unique because it
emphasized projects being used as models, able to fit into other settings or
subjects for future use. This would also aid in spreading the conversation of
environmentalism.
Grants by State:
North Carolina:
The most recent grant awards for North Carolina were in 2010 and only
two were provided for programs in the state. The first was for the Centralina
Council of Governments for the Regional Storm water Partnership Hispanic
Education Outreach program. The amount awarded was $11,095. The program
was designed to increase environmental awareness of storm water for Hispanic
residents (EPA, Environmental Education Grants, North Carolina, 2010). In order
to promote change, the program proposed to put posters within the community
85
and after six months, hold focus group meetings to assess the effectiveness (EPA,
Environmental Education Grants, North Carolina, 2010).
The second program to receive award money was Duke University in order
to integrate environmental health content into an existing nursing curriculum.
This program received $36,527. The major cost for this program was the
implementation of resources to be provided in class and online, as well as
training. This program differs from what is considered to be an average
environmental education program because it focuses on environmental health
rather than recycling or pollution. However, was still considered “environmental”
and was able to receive appropriate funds from the EPA (EPA, Environmental
Education Grants, North Carolina, 2010).
California:
Environmental education programs in California received funding as
recent as 2011, which included three programs. The first was California ReLeaf
Project, with a total of $150,000. This project sought to deliver hands-on activities
through planting trees and caring for them within 20 communities in California.
The overarching goal for this project was to educate the public on how urban
forestry can serve as a component to help with climate change, while also
protecting water and improving air quality (EPA, Environmental Education
Grants, California, 2011). The materials were delivered through webinars,
workshops, presentations, and activities within the classroom (EPA,
Environmental Education Grants, California, 2011).
86
The second program to receive grant funds was the Marine Mammal
Center’s Marine Science Discovery Program. The total amount for this program
in 2011 was $34,693. The goal of this program was to target low-income high
school students and offer hands-on activities to teach students about marine
science and other research in the field. Teachers are also provided education
materials. Students take part in lab work and research with marine ecology,
coastal habitats, marine mammals, and stewardship (EPA, Environmental
Education Grants, California, 2011). Through this program, students are expected
to produce a final project showing their research at the end of the year.
Finally, the last project to receive a grant for environmental education
program in 2011 was the Watershed Project’s Wild Oysters Habitat Restoration in
San Francisco Bay. This program received $20,645. The funds for this project
went predominantly to establishing four native oyster reefs near high-traffic
public spaces with the hope that the public would become more involved with the
stewardship to protect the reefs (EPA, Environmental Education Grants,
California, 2011). The project not only installed new reefs, it also works to restore
the native habitats of oysters and eelgrass. The target group for outreach is urban
high school students who are not often exposed to nature. Students are brought on
fieldtrips and monitor the progress of the reefs through classroom activities and
available data from stakeholders involved with the restoration (EPA,
Environmental Education Grants, California, 2011).
Hawaii:
87
For Hawaii, 2011 was also the most recent year grants were provided. Only
one program received a grant, the Malama Kai Foundation’s North Kohala Ocean
Warriors program. Like many of the programs previously mentioned, this also
promotes marine and coastal conservation initiatives. It received $74,600 to
provide materials for high school and middle school students over a two year
period (EPA, Environmental Education Grants, Hawaii, 2011). Students, teachers,
and volunteers participate in activities and projects around the community that
include beach clean-ups, habitat restoration, and training. These projects were
completed after school and throughout weekends, but students were taught about
the issues through lessons and activities in the classroom.
The examples above are meant to show two things: how much impact
environmental education funding from the federal government has on local
programs and the diversity of environmental topics of these programs. Depending
on what the approved curricula is, how much time there is during the school year,
and grade level, students may only be exposed to a few topics. Non-profit
organizations can fill this gap for topics by providing resources and speakers for
the classroom to discuss the goals and topics within the organization. However,
providing classroom support means funding, whether it is from the pool of grant
money from the federal government or private donors.
Without the funding provided by the EPA, these programs may not be
able to continue. While individually it is not substantial enough to provide for all
schools across the states, the funding from the federal government alleviated some
of the costs that will now have to be provided by the states or an outside source,
88
such as a private or public organization. As seen with California, when there is
not enough funding to go around, programs may seek funding and resources from
outside sources, such as big corporations. When this happens, the material can
often be twisted or leave out crucial details than curricula that is approved by state
education departments, which is why it is important to establish curricula
approved and funded within the state.
Based on available data shown in chapters four, five, and six, more
consistent evaluations of these programs need to be conducted to determine if the
goals originally outlined in the initiatives are being met and if they are not, how
they can be improved. Evaluations can also serve as resources or models for other
states with environmental education plans. However, conducting evaluations
requires time and funds which may not be available, even from organizations, due
to current budget cuts that may have strained the available funds.
In order to fully understand the impact environmental education has on
students and their roles as environmental or community leaders, comprehensive
evaluations must be available. If a problem within a program persists, then it is
not meeting the goals that it should be meeting. Full evaluations on student
performance, behavior, and attendance within the classroom will be a huge
determining factor for the success of environmental education programs
implemented at the state level and integrated into core courses.
Finally, there is the matter of the correlation between environmental
education and STEM fields. Currently, the federal government is pouring millions
89
of dollars into programs that support these types of fields, at the expense of
federal funding for environmental education. However, this is not to say that the
funding cannot support both fields of study. Environmental education has been
shown to increase test scores in science and math courses, both of which are
valued courses within STEM fields, and also increase critical thinking and
problem solving skills. Therefore, it would make sense for environmental
education programs to be funded with federal money allotted for the STEM
campaign.
A foundation that supports both types of programs is the National
Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF). The organization supports many
Environmental Education Weeks, which have themes related to environmental
issues. In 2014, the EE Week’s theme was Greening STEM: Engineering a
Sustainable World, which focused on incorporating engineering lessons and
activities for all grade levels to apply to real world environmental challenges
(NEEF, Greening STEM Learning Center, 2013). This was also a continuation of
the 2013 EE Week, called Greening STEM: Taking Technology Outdoors, which
combined environmental education learning styles with STEM concepts.
NEEF also provides lesson plans to draw correlations and real-world
applications between environmental challenges and STEM subjects. These lesson
plans include content ranging from Sustainable Energy and Design,
Environmental Conservation, Recycling and Reusable Materials, and
Engineering, and are able to be broken down by grade level starting in
Kindergarten and ending in 12th grade (NEEF, Engineering a Sustainable World,
90
Educator Toolkit, 2014). Both subjects are very important to teach children in a
today’s changing world and have become top priories to educators and
governments over the years. NEEF’s Environmental Education Week provides a
thriving example of how the two subjects can work well together and benefit one
another. By combining environmental education and STEM field concepts, funds
can help further the two types of programs throughout America’s schools in one
fell swoop.
91
APPENDICES
A: Meta-analysis
Below is a summary of the systematic review conducted to test the
relevance of academic achievement and environmental education among North
Carolina, California, and Hawaii.
ERIC
Test Scores
California: Two results, but only one relevant.
Black, S. (2006). A transforming partnership. Science and Children, 43(4),
42-44.
-This article is relevant to this specific search because the study sought to
increase student’s test scores at Jefferson Elementary in San Diego County. The
study evaluated a partnership between the school and the San Diego Natural
History Museum, which focused on a local watershed. Students studied local
issues and concerns with the watershed and were taught about water and soil
quality, plants, animals, and the habitats around the area. The study concluded
that student test scores increased in the school’s science classes, from 574 to 750
composite scores (Black, 2006).
North Carolina: One result, but not relevant.
Hawaii: Three results, but only one relevant.
Stepath, C. M. (2005, July). Reef education evaluation: Environmental
knowledge and reef experience. National marine education association
conference, Maui, HI.
-This article is relevant to the specific search because it is an evaluation of
environmental and coral reef knowledge of high school students. Students were
taught monitoring techniques both in the classroom and on field trips and ways to
maintain the reef’s sustainability. In this study, 389 students were given a pre-test
and scored a total of 4.87 out of 9. After the exposure in the classroom and reef
field trips, students were given a post-test and resulted in a 44.73% increase to a
score of 7.11 out of 9 (Stepath, 2005).
Academic Achievement
92
California: Nine results, but relevant result was same as the first.
North Carolina: One result, but not relevant.
Hawaii: 0
Student Achievement
California: Nine results, but only two relevant results.
Black, S. (2006). A transforming partnership. Science and Children, 43(4),
42-44
Educational Development Specialists, (1990). Think earth environmental
education program. report on may 1990 field test of units for kindergarten
through third grade. Lakewood, CA:
-This article is relevant to this specific search because this project
implemented environmental education units in kindergarten through third grade
classrooms in Southern California. The units were tested in 42 classrooms at 12
schools, with 1,000 students. The study revealed an increase in student
achievement in units and increases in attitudes towards material (“Think Earth”
Project, 1990).
North Carolina: Five results, but non relevant.
Hawaii: Two results, but none relevant.
EBSCOhost
Test Scores
California: One result
Cleaver, S. (2007, November). Classrooms are going green. Instructor,
117(3), 20-24.
North Carolina: 0
Hawaii: One relevant, but same as ERIC search.
93
Stepath, C. M. (2005, July). Reef education evaluation: Environmental
knowledge and reef experience. National marine education association
conference, Maui, HI.
Academic Achievement
California: Four results, but only one relevant.
Educational Development Specialists, (1990). Think earth environmental
education program. report on may 1990 field test of units for kindergarten
through third grade. Lakewood, CA.
North Carolina: 0
Hawaii: 0
Student Achievement
California: One result, but no relevant
North Carolina: 0
Hawaii: 0
ScienceDirect
Test Scores
California: One hundred and twenty-seven, but no relevant results
North Carolina: Seventy-nine, but no relevant results.
Hawaii: Three, but no relevant results.
Academic Achievement
California: Fifty-three, but no relevant results.
North Carolina: Seventy-nine, but no relevant results.
Hawaii: Fourteen, but no relevant results.
94
Student Achievement
California: Fifty-four, but no relevant results
North Carolina: Forty-four, but no relevant results
Hawaii: Twenty-six, but no relevant results.
Further evaluations from California, North Carolina, and Hawaii within
the search parameters showed only four relevant results. Other results revealed
new findings from other states across the nation, including Florida (2006),
Washington State (2009), Missouri (1990-1991), New York (1975-1976),
Louisiana (2007), and the United States (2000) as a whole. The following will
include a break-down of the results found in the studies:
Florida: This study focused on four hundred high school students, grades ninth
and twelfth in eleven schools. The results showed that environment-based
programs increased critical thinking in both grades.
Ernst, J., & Monroe, M. (2006). The effects of environment-based
education on student's critical thinking skills and disposition toward
critical thinking. Environmental Education Research, 12(3), 429-443.
Washington: This study focused on student achievement with environmental
education based standardized tests in math, English, and listening. The study
included eighth grade students and compared participating schools to traditional
schools, revealing that environmental education integrated into traditional
disciplines improved student performance.
95
Bartosh, O., & Tudor, M. (2009). Impact of environment-based teaching
on student achievement: A study of washington state middle schools.
Middle Grades Research Journal, 4(4), 1-16.
Louisiana: This study focused on an elementary school that implemented a
school-wide environmental science curriculum, which included Project Learning
Tree, Project Wild, and Project WET. Before implementation, the school was
facing very low enrollment rates and facing closure, but after the environmental
education was brought in, the school saw huge improvement in enrollment, test
scores, and behavior.
Irvin, T. (2007). Nature lessons. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 54-56.
Missouri: This article focused on an evaluation of an environmental science
program at a high school in the Kansas City, Missouri area. The program
conducted field trips, environmental projects, and kept an environmental theme
throughout the school year. The evaluation revealed that test scores improved
positively.
Seever, M. (1991). East environmental science magnet high school: 19901991. formative evaluation.
New York: This study was an evaluation of an environmental education program
focused on marine science. The study included one hundred and eighty-five 7th
grade students from four schools around the area. Students took a pre-test and a
post-test to determine if there was improvement in academics. The evaluation
concluded that students reading skills and language arts achievement improved.
96
Gunther, P. Office of Educational Evaluation, (1976). Reading
improvement through marine environment exploration, 1975-1976.
Brooklyn, NY: New York City Board of Education.
97
REFERENCES
Bearden, D. M. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. (2002).
National environmental education act of 1990: Overview, implementation, and
reauthorization issuesCRS Report for Congress.
Boudreau, J. (2008, July 26). Governor vetoes climate change curriculum. San Jose
Mercury News. Retrieved from http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10010291
BP. (2005). Bp a + for energy. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/en/global/aplus-forenergy/about-bp-a--for-energy/program-overview.html
California Department of Education, Education and Environment Initiative. (2000).
Evaluation criteria for eei instruction materials. Retrieved from website:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/ee/eeievalcriteria.asp
California Department of Education, Fiscal Policy Office. (2012). Proposition 98 basic
principles
California Department of Education, Office of Public Instruction. (2013). Education
budget
California Department of Education, State Education and Environment Roundtable.
(2000). California student assessment project: Phase one, the effects of
environment-based education on student achievement. Retrieved from website:
http://www.seer.org/pages/research/CSAP2000.pdf
California Department of Education, State Education and Environment Roundtable.
(2005). California student assessment project: Phase two, the effect of
environmnet-based education on student achievement. Retrieved from website:
http://www.seer.org/pages/research/CSAPII2005.pdf
98
California Department of Education. (2012-2013). Statewide totals and averages for
school districts general fund. Retrieved from http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Education.
(2005). Model curriculum plan. Retrieved from website:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Education/EEI/documents/ModelPlan.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency. (2011, July 26). California's
environmental principles and concepts. Retrieved from
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Education/Principles/EPC.pdf
Chesapeake bay trust .impact. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.5435813/k.C14F/Impact.htm
Chesapeake Bay Trust. about. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.5435807/k.AFFA/About.htm
Chevron. (2009, October 21). Chevron announces california partnership to invest in
education and jobs. Retrieved from
http://www.chevron.com/news/press/release/?id=2009-10-21
Clark, B. Y., & Whitford, A. B. (2011). Does more federal environmental funding
increase or decrease states’ efforts? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
30(1), 136–152. doi:10.1002/pam.20547
Crouch, R. C., & Abbot, D. S. (2009). Is Green Education Blue or Red? State-Level
Environmental Education Program Development Through the Lens of Red- and
Blue-State Politics. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 52–62.
99
Department of Education State of Hawaii, Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and
Student support. (2005). Hawaii content and performance standards iii
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Act of 1993, 7 NC General
Statutes. § 143B-279.1-279.2.
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife.
(2010). Appendix e conservation education. Retrieved from website:
http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/forestry/files/2013/09/SWARS-Appendix-E.pdf
Department of Public Instruction, Public Schools of North Carolina. (2010). North
carolina essential standards: Earth/environmental science. Retrieved from
website: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/acre/standards/newstandards/science/earth-env.pdf
Education and the Environment Initiative. (n.d.). Eei curriculum and state standards
alignment. Retrieved from http://www.californiaeei.org/History/default.htm
Education and the Environment Initiative. (n.d.). Eei curriculum development and field
testing. Retrieved from http://www.californiaeei.org/History/default.htm
EENC - In The News. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2014, from
http://www.eenc.org/index.php/features
EENC. (2013). History. Retrieved from
http://www.eenc.org/index.php/typography/history
Environmental Education Trust Fund of 1997. 7 NC General Statutes. § 143-285.26.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Education. (2014).
Environmental education grants program. Retrieved from website:
http://www2.epa.gov/education/environmental-education-ee-grants
100
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Education. (2010).
Environmental education grants north carolina. Retrieved from website:
http://www2.epa.gov/education/profiles-environmental-education-grantsawarded-north-carolina#2010
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Education. (2011).
Environmental education grants california. Retrieved from website:
http://www2.epa.gov/education/profiles-environmental-education-grantsawarded-california#2011
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Education. (2011).
Environmental education grants hawaii. Retrieved from website:
http://www2.epa.gov/education/profiles-environmental-education-grantsawarded-california#2011
Fleetwood, G. R., & Hounshell, P. B. (1976). Assessing cognitive and affective
outcomes of environmental education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
13(1), 29–35. doi:10.1002/tea.3660130106
Glenn, J. L. North American Association for Environmental Education, National
Environmental Education & Training Foundation. (2000). Environment-based
education: Creating high performance schools and students. Retrieved from
website: http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/NEETF8400.pdf
Hawaii Environmental Education Alliance. (2011). Help for our island community.
Retrieved from http://heea.org/resource/about.aspx?s=95217.0.0.89929
101
Hawaii State Department of Education, Hawaii Content and Performance Standards
III. (2005). Benchmark map: Science, grade 1. Retrieved from website:
http://165.248.30.40/hcpsv3/benchmarkmaps/search_results.jsp
Hollweg, K.S., Taylor, J.R., Bybee, R.W., Macinkowski, T.J., McBeth, W.C., &
Zoido, P. (2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy.
Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education.
Hoody, L. L. State Education and Environment Roundtable, (1996). The educational
efficacy of environmental education. Retrieved from website:
http://www.seer.org/pages/research/educeff.pdf
Kokua hawaii foundation. (2014). Retrieved from
http://kokuahawaiifoundation.org/home
Lee, H. K. (2013, August 2). Richmond sues chevron over refinery fire. SFGate.
Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Richmond-sues-Chevronover-refinery-fire-4703370.php
Lieberman, G., & Hoody, L. State Education and Environment Roundtable, (1998).
Closing the achievement gap. Retrieved from Science Wizards website:
http://www.magicoflandscapes.com/Research/Closing the Achievement Gap.pdf
McGinn, J. (2008, July 10). Malama i ka 'aina. Retrieved from
http://malama.hawaii.edu/overview/
National Environmental Education Foundation. (2013). Greening stem. Retrieved from
http://eeweek.org/greening-stem-educator-toolkits
National Environmental Education Foundation. (2014). Engineering a sustainable
world. Retrieved from http://eeweek.org/engineering-sustainable-world
102
National Governors Association. (2011). About. Retrieved from
http://www.nga.org/cms/about
Native Hawaiian Education Council, Office of Hawaiian Affairs. (2002). Hawaii
guidelines for culturally healthy and responsive learning environments.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Office of
Environmental Education. (2006). The north carolina environmental education
plan. Retrieved from website:
http://www.eenorthcarolina.org/ee_plan_web_print.pdf
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2013). 2012-2013 cohort
graduation rates. Retrieved from
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/newsroom/news/2008-09/20080807-03
North Carolina State Board of Education, Office of Public Instruction. (2013). Fiscal
year 2012-2013 budget comparison
Office of Education on the Environment of 2003. 1548 CA Assembly Bill. § 33541
Pacific American Foundation. (n.d.). Aloha 'aina curriculum. Retrieved from
http://heea.org/net/org/info.aspx?s=93282.0.0.89929
Potter, G. (2010). Environmental Education for the 21st Century: Where Do We Go
Now? Journal of Environmental Education, 41(1), 22–33.
doi:10.1080/00958960903209975
Robelia, B., & Murphy, T. (2012). What do people know about key environmental
issues? a review of environmental knowledge surveys. Environmental Education
Research, 18(3), 299-321. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2011.618288
103
Rome, A. (2010). The Genius of Earth Day. Environmental History, emq036.
doi:10.1093/envhis/emq036
Ruskey, A., Wilke, R. & Beasley, T. (2001). A survey of the status of state-level
environmental education in the United States – 1998 update. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 32(3
Sato, P., & Staab, J. Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Hawaii
Environmental Education Alliance. (2012). Hawaii environmental literacy plan.
Retrieved from website:
http://heea.org/Files/eehi/2012/HELP_Report_401_FINAL_021312_lores_lock.p
df
Society of Petroleum Engineers. (2007). Oil and natural gas. New York: DK
Publishing.
Stapp, W. B. (1969). The concept of environmental education. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 1(1),
Stone, C. P. (1992). Environmental education in hawaii: History and overview. In C.
Stone, C. Smith & J. Tunison (Eds.), Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems
of Hawaii: Management and ResearchHonolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Tanton, T., & Martin, M. (2008). Schwarzenegger vetoes global warming curriculum
mandate [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://heartland.org/policydocuments/schwarzenegger-vetoes-global-warming-curriculum-mandate
The Office of Environmental Education. (2006). Accomplishments since 1995.
Retrieved from http://www.een Burke, E. (2009). Letters and testimonials
regarding the nc office of environmental education. Retrieved from
104
http://rtpnet.org/eenc/oeeletters.htmlnorthcarolina.org/about-us-accomplishments.html
The White House. Government. Federal Budget, Office of Management and Budget.
(2013). Fiscal year 2013 cuts, consolidations, and savings
The White House. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2010). President
obama launches "educate to innovate" campaign for excellence in science,
technology, engineering & math (stem) education. Retrieved from website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-launches-educateinnovate-campaign-excellence-science-technology-en
Thompson, J. A., & Marlow, S. E. National Center for Education Statistics, (1998).
Public school finance programs of the united states: Hawaii. Retrieved from
website: http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/pdf/StFinance/Hawaii.pdf
Thomson, G., & Hoffman, J. Canadian Parks and Wildnerness Society, Calgary-Banff
Chapter. (n.d.). Measuring the success of environmental education programs.
Retrieved from website:
http://macaw.pbworks.com/f/measuring_ee_outcomes.pdf
Volk, T. L., & Cheak, M. J. (2003). The effects of an environmental education
program on students, parents, and community. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 34(4), 12-25.
Wang, X. (2011). Exploring trends, sources, and causes of environmental funding: A
study of Florida counties. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(11), 2930–
2938. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.002
105
Watanabe, T. (2013, April 9). New teaching standards delve more deeply into climate
change. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/09/local/la-me-0410-schools-science20130410
Watson, Mary E., and William Tucci. (2002, September). A victory for earth science.
Geotimes on the web. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from
http://www.geotimes.org/sept02/feature_victory.htm
Webb, S. Hawaii State Department of Education, Hawaii Environmental Education
Alliance. (2011). The hawaii environmental literacy plan educational standards
alignment
Wilkey, R. (2013, August 2). Richmond sues chevron: California city alleges
negligence following 2012 refinery fire. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/richmond-sueschevron_n_3697056.html
Wray-Lake, L. (2010). Examining trends in adolescent environmental attitudes, beliefs,
and behaviors across three decades. Environment and Behavior, 42(61), doi:
10.1177/0013916509335163.
106
107
Allen_AMESThesis2014.pdf