Second Nature | Teach Our Teachers Well

Teach Our Teachers Well: Strategies to Integrate Environmental Education Into Teacher Education Programs

Prepared for the W. Alton Jones Foundation

Prepared By:

Nancy Gabriel
Second Nature
44 Bromfield Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02108-4909

January 15, 1996

 

Acknowledgments

This report would not have been possible without the contribution of numerous individuals. While I cannot acknowledge each and every one, some deserve special thanks.

More than two dozen practitioners took the time to participate in phone interviews and share their experiences regarding environmental education (see the Personal Communication section). A very special thanks to Abbey Ruskey, Paul Rowland and Dan Vertrees who each in their own way want beyond the call of duty and provided me with invaluable resources and contacts, insights into the university culture and first hand examples of integrating environmental education into teacher preparation programs. Thanks also to Claire Cassel for her review and comments on the draft report.

Thanks to my colleagues at Second Nature, who all assisted in the creation of this report. Specifically, many thanks to: Tal Gilad who conducted much of the research and analysis; Austin Bliss; Carla Melucci and Teri Vienot for their many hours spent helping with edits and formats; and Tony Cortese for his wisdom and expertise.

Finally, thanks to the W. Alton Jones Foundation for support of this project and to Dr. J.P. Myers for his guidance and vision.


Contents

Call to Action

Methodology

Findings
1. Status of Environmental Education Programs
2. Barriers to Incorporating EE in Higher Education
3. Potential Impact of Stakeholders

Recommendations
1. Institutions of Higher Education
2. Stakeholders
3. Funding Organizations

End Notes

References

Personal Communication


Call to Action

The unprecedented increase in resource consumption over the last four decades has altered the face of the earth and is stressing our life support systems. Environmental experts contend that society has 20 to 40 years to adopt new strategies to meet the needs of an expanding population in an environmentally sustainable and equitable manner. Moving society in this direction requires a major shift in the thinking, values and actions of all individuals in their relationship with the natural environment.

Rapid, systemic change in the education of our youth is needed to achieve this shift in thinking. Presently, basic environmental education is rarely taught to children, due, in part, to a lack of environmental focus in teacher education programs. Few institutions of higher education have effectively incorporated environmental content and methods into the teaching of current and future teachers.

An opportunity exists for higher education to train a significant number of future K-12 teachers in environmental education. Education experts estimate that one out of every three teachers in the year 2005 will be a new K-12 teacher.1 Since many of these teachers will soon be entering a teacher education program, it is crucial to focus immediately on integrating environmental education. These new teachers will be responsible for educating a citizenry prepared to meet the environmental and societal challenges of the twenty-first century.

This report identifies strategies for influencing colleges and universities to include environmental education (EE) in their teacher education programs as a means to increase the demand for EE at the K-12 level. It is the result of an intensive research effort undertaken by Second Nature, with sponsorship from the W. Alton Jones Foundation. Section I outlines Second Nature's research methodology. Section II contains the research findings and is divided into three subsections: Status of Environmental Education Programs; Barriers to Incorporating EE in Higher Education; and Potential Impact of Stakeholders. Section III contains recommendations for Institutions of Higher Education, Stakeholder Groups and Funding Organizations.


Methodology

Second Nature identified key individuals who could provide information to further define this project. We distributed a brief description of the project to approximately twenty environmental education (EE) leaders and advocates. They were asked to provide feedback on the area of focus, the content and methodology, and people and organizations to contact. There was widespread agreement among respondents that creating demand for environmental education among teachers is the highest priority at this time.

Further research by Second Nature indicated that most in-service teachers had neither the background nor appropriate materials to teach about the environment. A high leverage way to reach teachers is through environmental education programs at institutions of higher learning for both pre-service (prospective) and in-service (practicing) teachers. However, study after study showed a lack of environmental education in teacher preparation programs. Second Nature confirmed these findings by contacting members of the Global Network of Environmental Education Centers to gather information regarding existing national EE programs. Forty professors were contacted, and more than fifteen responded and participated via phone interviews.

Second Nature staff also contacted individuals in key stakeholder groups including those working on education reform activities, education standard setting organizations, state agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Based on these findings, Second Nature identified, assessed and developed strategies for inducing colleges and universities2 to incorporate environmental perspectives into their teacher preparation programs. This report is the result of that effort.


Findings

1. Status of Environmental Education Programs

This section identifies the key findings regarding the status of environmental education programs in pre-service teacher education.

a. Inadequate teacher training is the primary reason K-12 teachers are not teaching environmental education

A 1994 survey was designed to assess Wisconsin K-12 teachers' perceived competencies in, attitudes toward and class time devoted to teaching about the environment. Responding teachers indicated that lack of an EE background and belief that EE is unrelated to their disciplines were the main reasons they do not teach about the environment.3 The same survey found that the amount of time teachers spend teaching about the environment increases with the number of in-service courses they have taken. The conclusion of this study identified the need for teacher education courses in EE to help teachers relate environmental topics to their teaching area.

Results from a state-wide EE program in North Carolina confirm the importance of teacher training. Evidence shows that teachers introduced to environmental education techniques during their pre-service studies are more likely to bring EE into their classroom. These teachers are also more interested in teaching about the environment and more likely to seek additional training opportunities.4 Moreover, qualified EE teachers act as stimuli to the introduction of EE into the greater school curriculum.

Shortcomings in teacher education affect the quality of EE education provided at the K-12 level. An assessment of EE school curricula indicates that EE programs primarily address base-level goals of environmental awareness and knowledge. In most cases, science courses are the "host" for environmental topics, with social studies identified less frequently and other subjects only occasionally.5 Most instructional materials address basic knowledge of ecological principles, but little attention is given to specific resource management issues and few lessons encourage students to develop analytical skills and environmentally conscious behavior.6 Project Learning Tree and Project WILD, two national programs that account for the majority of in-service workshops conducted, are perceived by educators as being science-based; they do not often attract teachers from other disciplines. Thus, the majority of environmental education that is taking place is not truly interdisciplinary in nature.

According to a national survey conducted by the National Consortium on Environmental Education and Training (NCEET) on in-service EE training programs, existing training efforts are not enough to result in the widespread inclusion of environmental perspectives in K-12 education. The survey reinforces a growing recognition that the lack of in-service education opportunities results in shortcomings in the widespread implementation of EE.

b. Higher education is not a player in current EE efforts

Environmental education for future teachers has been described by UNESCO as the "priority of priorities" in developing a world-wide citizenry capable of moving society on an environmentally sustainable path.7 Higher education is largely responsible for training the teachers who educate children from kindergarten through high school (K-12). As a result, universities bear a profound responsibility to increase the awareness, knowledge, and skills needed to create an environmentally sustainable future. Universities have the expertise necessary to develop the intellectual and conceptual framework to achieve this goal and must play a strong role in education, research, community outreach and policy development.

Historically, higher education has not been an active participant in developing programs to incorporate environmental perspectives into the teaching of our current and future teachers. This indicates that the teaching about the interdependence of humans and the environment is not a priority in higher education.8 The majority of existing EE programs target in-service teachers and were initiated and developed by state natural resource agencies and nonprofit environmental organizations. This trend is illustrated by the dominance of nationally developed programs such as Project Learning Tree (PLT) and Project WILD. Over half of NCEET survey respondents indicated that these two programs accounted for the majority of EE in-service workshops attended by their states' teachers.9 PLT and Project WILD are implemented in partnership with a state department (usually the State Department of Game and Fish or the State Department of Forestry). The state partner is responsible for conducting the workshops for in-service teachers and deciding how to disseminate PLT and Project WILD materials.

The NCEET survey also found that respondents perceive in-service providers to be more skilled in environmental content and less so in pedagogy. Higher education involvement in program development and modification could help overcome current pedagogical shortcomings.

Programs aimed at prospective teachers are even less prominent. While there are a few excellent university programs, a 1992 report to Congress on the status of EE found that "in general, undergraduate teaching programs place low emphasis on preparing environmentally literate teachers capable of environmental instruction."10 For example, only 9% of teachers' colleges require a practicum in environmental education at the elementary level and only 7% at the secondary level.11 Of the programs that do exist, a survey by UNESCO of pre-service programs revealed many inadequacies. The survey indicated that programs lacked a holistic conception of environmental issues and did not encourage the development of interdisciplinary techniques or teamwork. Few undergraduate programs adequately concentrate on the process involved in studying major environmental questions and preparing students for the methodological and pedagogical aspects of teaching EE in their classroom.12 When EE is included, it is most often an add-on in a science or social studies methods course. A literature review of the provision of pre-service EE revealed that where EE does exist in teacher training programs, it is more a policy than a practice.13

c. The definition and implementation of EE at the K-12 level is too narrow

EE is usually viewed as a part of science education or as a separate subject; only rarely is it viewed as a basic underpinning of the curriculum or as a basis for curriculum integration. As a result, current and future teachers perceive teaching about the environment as science focused and separate from their discipline. This separateness is reinforced by the content of available training opportunities. Teachers interested in learning about the environment must attend a separate EE workshop because environmental concepts are not integrated into other teacher education opportunities at either the pre-service or in-service levels. This lack of integration creates the perception that EE is a special topic. It also reinforces western societal beliefs that humans are separate from the environment and that EE is limited to understanding and caring for the environment.

The content of pre-service EE programs need to be expanded to include the interdependence between humans and the environment. Because all humans consume natural resources and produce waste that must be absorbed by the natural world in order to live, all human activities utilize and/or impact the environment. This makes the interdependence of humans to the environment an integral part of everything we do and thus needs to be the foundation of teaching in all disciplines and at all educational levels.

Development of critical and systems-thinking skills must also be a component of pre-service EE. These skills are necessary for students to understand the complex relationship between humans and the environment and to be able to critically analyze how their actions will impact the natural world. In addition, a comprehensive pre-service program should strive to overcome societal beliefs and attitudes that humans are the dominant species and are separate from the natural world. It must deal with human values and the social structures which determine a great deal of human behavior towards the natural environment. In the book Earth in Mind, David Orr opines "the crisis of the biosphere is symptomatic of a prior crisis of mind, perception, and heart. It is not so much a problem in education, but a problem of education."14

A balanced education about such issues as population, consumption, the environment, natural resource management, human health and well-being, and sustainable development must become an integral part of the curriculum in teacher education programs. This interdisciplinary approach will give future teachers repeated exposure to environmental concerns in the proper context -- related to all human activities, ideas and values -- as well as avoid adding new requirements to already crowded curricula. EE represents a more systemic and holistic way of thinking that will benefit all learning.

d. State legislation has not had the long term impact EE advocates had anticipated

Lobbying for state EE legislation has been a primary strategy used by EE advocates to increase the amount of EE being taught at the K-12 level. According to the 1995 book Promoting Environmental Education, thirty-three states have EE guidelines, forty-four states have developed EE curriculum for infusion into school subjects, and twenty-two states have full-time EE specialists. Most state legislation focuses on EE curriculum requirements or recommendations and three states have a pre-service EE requirement: Arizona, Maryland and Wisconsin.15 State EE legislation has been an effective tool for raising awareness and generating support for environmental education. It has also helped to legitimize the efforts of K-12 teachers already interested in including EE in their curriculum. Unfortunately, to date, legislation has not significantly increased the amount of EE being taught in schools, since EE recommendations and requirements are often put in place without corresponding teacher training.

State efforts to increase the amount of EE taught at institutions of higher education via pre-service programs have had mixed results. Paul Rowland, a professor at Northern Arizona University (NAU) who was instrumental in implementing his state's EE legislation, is uncertain about the impact of state mandates. In his experience, states do not develop effective accountability mechanisms for insuring that EE is incorporated and as a result, mandates are often ignored.

For example, Arizona never adopted competency standards and regulations for teaching EE, and it is not included in their teacher certification requirements, providing no incentive for teacher preparation programs in Arizona to include EE. In addition, there is no watchdog group chartered with ensuring that teacher preparation programs make the changes necessary to meet the mandate. This leaves school districts with the responsibility of evaluating whether or not the mandate was met, yet they often have neither the time nor money to do so.

At NAU, EE was incorporated in the pre-service program. This was due in large part to the personal initiative of Rowland and institutional support from faculty and administrators, rather than a direct result of the mandate, although the mandate provided impetus and legitimacy for university efforts.

EE reform through state legislation is also subject to political shifts. Because the responsibility for education is the purview of the state, standards are subject to the political realities of the state. For example, prior to the 1994 elections, Arizona had one of the most comprehensive EE programs in the country. However, the newly elected legislature argued that there was a hidden agenda in the EE curriculum and teaching it promoted a particular set of values. After contemplating the idea of forbidding the teaching of EE altogether, the legislature repealed the EE requirement and instituted guidelines that make it extremely cumbersome to teach EE. Rowland believes these new guidelines will act as an effective deterrent. Carol Adkins, a doctoral student at NAU, recently completed a survey of elementary, middle and secondary school teachers in a rural Arizona school district and found that only 8% knew about the original EE Act; only 3% knew about the new state guidelines; and only 3% knew about the repeal of the EE Act. Furthermore, none were planning to change what they were teaching based on the state legislation.16

Thus, convincing Schools/Departments and Colleges of Education17 to incorporate EE into their teacher education programs through state mandates is an uncertain venture due to the issues of accountability, enforcement and political uncertainty.

2. Barriers to Incorporating EE in Higher Education

This section identifies some of the barriers to systematic integration of EE in teacher preparation programs. Many of the barriers examined are actually problems of higher education as a whole and not just teacher preparation programs. Therefore, the process of integrating EE becomes doubly difficult because it requires change not only in education departments but throughout all departments of higher education.

a. Compartmentalized structure in institutions of higher education

Effective interdisciplinary teaching about the environment requires a depth and breadth of knowledge in a variety of content areas. Future K-12 teachers need to have an understanding of the interactions between human activities and the environment, as well as the strategies, technologies and polices required for an environmentally sound future. These issues cut across disciplinary boundaries, yet today's institutions of higher education are organized into highly specialized areas of knowledge and traditional disciplines. As a result, it is often difficult to develop the skills necessary for effective K-12 teaching of EE. For example, environmental concerns are not usually a part of the subject matter taught to social studies teachers because the scientific basis is outside of their specific domain. For science teachers, the social science basis of environmental concerns is not usually a part of the subject matter they are taught because the social sciences are viewed as outside of their domain. However, an interdisciplinary focus is critical to understanding the dimensions of environmental concerns and the interrelationships between the social and physical and natural sciences.

The interdisciplinary nature of EE requires university faculty to collaborate with faculty from other disciplines. This is particularly important in teacher preparation programs because the entire college/university has responsibility for educating prospective teachers. Pre-service teachers take educational methods courses from faculty within the School of Education, but take the majority of their content courses from faculty in other university schools and departments. As a result, there is a need for Schools of Education to work with other schools and departments within their university to determine the best method for incorporating EE into the curriculum of teacher preparation programs.

Current reward and recognition systems for university faculty, such as tenure and promotion, are largely based on teaching and research within a single discipline. Quality scholarship is usually considered synonymous with originality in a single discipline, and individual contribution is generally encouraged over team efforts. It is extremely difficult to obtain tenure as an interdisciplinary scholar in the overwhelming majority of institutions of higher education. Therefore, these long-established incentives and professional practices discourage faculty from extending their work into other disciplines or inviting interdisciplinary collaboration or team teaching.

b. Lack of faculty skilled in the pedagogical techniques needed to teach EE

Many university faculty (including Education School faculty) are not skilled in the pedagogical techniques needed to teach EE effectively. The process of environmental education should encourage collaborative, active learning in which students work on real problems on their campuses, in surrounding communities, in government or in industry. It is well known that students learn more when the subject matter is something they relate to or care about. Long term learning and retention from "doing" is several times greater than from reading and hearing. Techniques such as experiential learning help develop multi- and interdisciplinary analytical and problem solving skills.18 Education reform advocates identify these techniques as crucial to the effective teaching of all disciplines. However, they are not currently practiced or taught in many teacher preparation programs. The 1986 Holmes Group report A Nation at Risk, declared: "the undergraduate education that intending teachers receive is full of the same bad teaching that litters American high schools." The report argues that Schools of Education must model the good teaching that they advocate.19

The problem here lies in the institutional reward structures which do not typically recognize university faculty for demonstrating excellence in teaching and service. Instead, the criteria for promotion relies heavily on published research, creating a disincentive for faculty to devote time to developing the pedagogical skills necessary to teach about complex environmental relationships.

c. Lack of commitment of educational systems to training teachers in EE

According to the 1995 report Pieces of a Puzzle: An Overview of the Status of Environmental Education in the United States, prepared for the Pew Charitable Trusts:

The commitment of educational systems to training teachers in EE is the most significant fact related to the expansion of training programs. The limitations of "funding" and "training staff time" could be easily overcome if school districts, principals, and schools were committed to EE and providing EE training to their teachers.20
There is not yet a collective motivation among universities, and specifically Schools of Education, to change their teacher preparation programs from a fragmented to an interdisciplinary approach. This reluctance is understandable given the magnitude of the change EE and education reform advocates are promoting. Reformers are in essence asking universities and colleges to fundamentally alter the way nearly three million K-12 educators develop their professional expertise, so that they in turn can reorient their work for more than 40 million children.21 A solid commitment for change is needed from college and university presidents, administrators and faculty, as well as outside funding organizations, accrediting organizations and employers, to take on this major challenge. According to the proceedings from the Workshop on the Principles of Sustainability in Higher Education, prepared for the President's Council on Sustainable Development, higher education needs to be a leader in the paradigm shift to environmental sustainability:
Meeting basic human needs now and in the future requires a major shift in the thinking, values, and actions of all individuals and institutions in their relationship with the natural environment. This shift in mindset must be led by the higher education system because it prepares most of the people who develop and manage society's institutions, and who serve as teachers. It will require comprehensive short- and long-term educational change, necessitating unprecedented leadership and commitment by colleges, universities and professional schools.22
d. EE is not part of state teacher certification requirements

The fact that EE is rarely included in teacher certification requirements discourages Schools of Education from teaching it and students from specializing in it. For example, the University of Vermont has an environmental specialization in its teacher education program. However, the state of Vermont does not recognize EE as a subject area for certification. To become state certified to teach, EE majors must classify themselves in either the natural or social sciences and essentially specialize in two subject areas. These obstacles to certification have discouraged students from using their EE background in the public school system; instead most plan to use their training in non-formal teaching situations. As a result, the University of Vermont plans to continue the environmental specialization program, but not to widely promote it.

e. The action component of EE is controversial

The National Advisory Council on Environmental Education defined EE as:
... the interdisciplinary process of developing a citizenry that is knowledgeable about the total environment, in its natural and built aspects, and that has the capacity and the commitment to engage in inquiry, problem-solving, decision-making, and action that will assure environmental quality.23
The content dimensions referred to in this definition are generally agreed upon by educators. The content includes a strong emphasis on natural and social sciences, significant attention to humanities in terms of values and ethics, and an underscoring of the interdisciplinary nature of EE. However, the action component is controversial and lacks consensus among educators and the public about whether it should be part of the public school curriculum and thus taught in teacher preparation programs.24

Critics view the action component of EE as a way for EE advocates to promote their specific world view and a set of values and beliefs. The controversial nature of EE has discouraged Schools of Education from teaching EE in an integrated fashion and has led to the development of "selective curriculum" where only certain methods and knowledge are taught. As a result, some undergraduate teacher preparation courses intentionally avoid linking with other controversial areas of study and omit consideration of the political, economic, ideological and cultural perspectives. The holistic teaching of environment and development issues is viewed as a controversial and political issue for Schools of Education and they often play it safe with a generic environmental studies or science course.25

These findings are supported by other studies which indicate that the action component is often missing from teacher education programs.26 According to Dr. Harold Hungerford at Southern Illinois University, action skills need to be developed, but should be done in a way that does not teach values or promote specific solutions to the environmental issues.27 For example, elementary education majors at Southern Illinois are required to take a 4-hour course called "Environmental Issue Investigation and Evaluation" which develops the skills needed for what Hungerford calls "issue investigation." This course helps prospective teachers design curriculum that encourages their students to investigate environmental (or other social) issues and develop their own values, beliefs and potential solutions.

f. Limited class time, funding and faculty interest

Dr. Rosalyn McKeown-Ice from the Education School at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, conducted a recent survey of faculty of 715 institutions of higher education. Responding faculty identified limited class time, funding and faculty interest as the principle reasons that more EE is not being incorporated into teacher training programs.28 The curriculum for prospective teachers is already jammed with state course and content requirements; new requirements for topics such as English as a Second Language or technology are also being promoted. Incorporating EE by adding another course overwhelms an already crowded schedule. In addition, recent cuts in funding to higher education are forcing faculty and administrators to look at reducing requirements. Finally, many education faculty were hired in the early 1970s, and were not schooled in EE, therefore they do not have the experience, expertise or interest to teach environmental topics.

3. Potential Impact of Stakeholders

This section identifies some of the key stakeholders in environmental education and analyzes their potential influence on teacher education programs. This is not a comprehensive list of stakeholders, but represents the key players identified by EE leaders in the initial research phase of this project. Individually these stakeholders have varying degrees of influence on academic direction and programs, but collectively they have great potential to encourage innovation in education.

a. The State

The state is a major stakeholder in the education of teachers, since graduating students must be state certified and teacher education programs must be state accredited. To become certified to teach, a student must complete a teacher preparation program in an accredited college or university. To become accredited, the curriculum in the teacher education program must be validated through state education department accreditation and a regional accrediting body. The accreditation process includes a review of university courses offered, syllabi, institutional support and facilities. This process is designed to ensure that the framework exists to meet the state defined level of teacher preparation.

Compliance with state standards is mainly left to the discretion of the university, however. According to the Holmes Group Report, Tomorrow's Schools of Education, Schools of Education meet minimum state requirements and are then basically free to do whatever they want.29 University deans or administrators are responsible for submitting a report to the state outlining how their curriculum is meeting the requirements of the state standards. These reports are rarely questioned by state agencies. Approximately every five years, the State Department of Education sends a team to each pre-service institution for a certification site visit, rarely citing the school for not meeting state requirements.

Therefore, the impact of working with states to integrate environmental perspectives into K-12 teacher certification and program accreditation requirements is questionable. It is unclear how directly and quickly the certification and accreditation requirements affect what is actually being taught to future teachers, the content of which is left in large part to the discretion of university faculty and deans. In addition, because every state plus the District of Columbia has different certification requirements, this strategy requires 51 separate efforts making this an extremely time consuming and costly approach. Finally, as mentioned above, such requirements are subject to political shifts and thus may be changed before they have an impact.

b. University Faculty and Administrators

According to Dan Vertrees, Dean, College of Education, Alabama State University, faculty and administrators are the stakeholders with the greatest say in what gets taught in pre-service programs. State mandates define the basic curriculum for teacher education, but the state has minimal requirements on how the mandate is implemented by Schools of Education. As a result, what is actually taught in pre-service programs is in large part the responsibility of deans and faculty. Deans exert some influence over program direction and curriculum content, but the culture of academic freedom within the university is very strong, leaving final decision-making authority to the faculty.

Deans are influenced by faculty, and faculty by deans. Deans will be more amenable to supporting EE if the faculty display an overall interest and strong demand for EE. Faculty will be more likely to support EE if deans allocate the necessary funding and recognize and reward their efforts. One thing is certain, any EE reform effort will require the active support and collaboration of both university faculty and deans.

According to Dr. McKeown-Ice, the current lack of university faculty interest in EE may be due in part to the fact that many education faculty were hired in the early 1970s, and were not schooled in EE. Thus, efforts to integrate EE into the pre-service curriculum may require expertise that does not currently exist in Schools of Education. Most faculty members have been in their positions for nearly twenty-five years and are expected to retire soon. Replacing those faculty with faculty schooled in EE could provide the expertise needed to integrate EE into pre-service programs. However, retiring faculty may not be replaced due to tight university funding and competition for new positions in other departments.

c. Education Reform Advocates

The education reform movement is comprised of key stakeholders involved in influencing all levels of the educational system. The US Goals 2000 Educate America Act of 1993 groups education reform efforts into the following four categories: higher expectations for all students; new approaches to teaching; making schools accountable; and building partnerships. Federal agencies, State Departments of Education, universities, school districts, think tanks, and private corporations have embraced the principles of educational reform and at the present time there are literally hundreds of programs across the country working on one or more aspects of educational reform.30 Much of the standard-setting activities described below are the result of education reform efforts.

There is currently an important opportunity for reform advocates and EE advocates to work together to further common educational goals. Environmental education models the pedagogical methods endorsed in education reform, such as experiential learning and activities that engage students and make them active participants in the learning process. EE programs also provide practical implementation experience for education reformers. Some reformers see EE as "the hook for implementing innovative pedagogical approaches in science, math and literature."31

Many education reformers have strong working relationships with state and federal education agencies and Schools of Education. Promoters of EE could benefit from this rapport as EE has traditionally been organized by groups outside of the formal education system such as conservation organizations and zoos. As a result, there is a perception in higher education that EE is outside of the mainstream. By historically seeking separate mandates and standards for EE, advocates have reinforced this separation and as a result it has discouraged the integration of EE into the daily operations of the classroom teacher.

d. Standard Setting Organizations

Standard setting is a major trend in education reform and has the potential to influence pre-service education, in terms of program approval and content, teacher certification, and teacher and student competence. None of the current national standard setting efforts include environmental education as a core component. However, for EE to become a foundation of learning at all levels of our educational system, its integration in educational standards is imperative. EE integration has the potential to help gain acceptance for EE by raising awareness regarding its importance, ensuring that it is not taught in a biased way, and demonstrating how it can be integrated into all disciplines. Participating in standard setting efforts could help legitimize the work of EE advocates who have traditionally worked outside of the mainstream educational system. However, the potential for standards to catalyze widespread and rapid change with higher education is unlikely because they are not strictly enforced.

There are several levels of standard setting that could potentially effect what is taught in teacher preparation programs, and they are outlined below. The first two sets of standards are aimed at the quality and content of pre-service teacher education programs, the third set is directed at teacher certification requirements and the fourth at K-12 teacher and student competencies.
e. National Educational Associations

Organizations such as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) also have some influence in the content of teacher education programs. The AFT represents more faculty at teacher education institutions than any other union and believes the union should play a leadership role in increasing educational standards in higher education. Unions such as AFT usually focus their lobbying efforts at the state level. Before an organization like AFT would lobby higher education for EE, they would need to be convinced that there is something in it for their constituency. They would not be natural allies of EE if it were perceived as more work for teachers or requiring a greater amount of accountability. However, if EE were presented as a way to meet current requirements they might be willing to advocate it. Further research in this area is worth pursuing.

AACTE's membership represents 715 teacher education institutions and is active in distributing information on current issues and trends in teacher education. Organizations like AFT and AACTE are good organizations in which to raise consciousness, as they can endorse an idea, but in reality do not have the power required to bring about the level of change necessary in higher education. They are probably best tapped for their extensive networks of teacher educators.

Discipline-specific professional education associations are also possible leverage points (e.g., The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). These groups disseminate teaching methods information through journals and conferences which faculty use as an avenue to professional development and training. An environmental orientation in professional education associations' materials and workshops would help focus faculty in EE.

f. Federal Natural Resource Agencies

Federal agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Bureau of Land Management recognize the need for broad-based environmental education programs. For example, USFWS increasingly points to education as essential to the conservation and continued viability of our nation's fish and wildlife resources. Partnerships between federal natural resource agencies and Schools of Education could provide resources and expertise for faculty incorporating EE in teacher training programs while furthering agency education goals.

g. School Districts

School boards, superintendents and principals can influence what universities teach. As employers of pre-service teacher graduates, if school districts demand teachers that are knowledgeable in environmental issues and skilled in experiential and interdisciplinary learning techniques, higher education will likely adjust their programs accordingly. Historically, school districts have exerted little influence on higher education curriculum. However, this is beginning to change with the development of university/community partnerships and holds promise for the future.

h. Students and Alumni

Students in teacher preparation programs should let faculty and administrators know that the integration of EE into their content and methods classes is crucial. Students should publicize courses that include environmental and sustainability perspectives and encourage attendance in them. University alumni can influence higher education by demanding employees who are knowledgeable in environmental and sustainability concepts and issues. Universities will respond to this pressure because they want to create graduates who are employable.

i. The Private Sector

Business and industry influence higher education through funding research and employing graduates. Lack of funding is one of the most common reasons cited by university faculty for the lack of EE in their teaching. With recent state and federal cutbacks, the possibility for more university funding for EE is slim. Business and industry could play an important role by directing some of their funds to researching EE. For example, they could fund programs to study the integration of environmental and sustainability concepts into higher education and the development of a framework for implementing EE in an interdisciplinary fashion both in higher education and at the K-12 level.

The private sector is an audience that has not been targeted by EE advocates, but is one worth pursuing. Due to the range and diversity of the private sector players, targeting specific sectors, or companies that show an interest in the environment, could be an excellent place to start.


Recommendations

The following recommendations section is divided into three subsections: Recommendations for Institutions of Higher Education; Recommendations for Stakeholders; and Recommendations for Funding Organizations.

1. Institutions of Higher Education

a. Form regional coalitions to make EE a foundation of learning

Coalitions should include decision-makers from the university (both faculty and administrative), the State Department of Education, K-12 educators and curriculum coordinators, state and federal natural resource agencies and environmental educators. Coalitions should focus on the challenges of incorporating EE across disciplines. Research activities would include determining the status of what is currently being taught in universities, how school districts respond to EE, and methods for weaving EE into the curriculum in both higher education and K-12 schools. Coalitions would provide recommendations on ways to include EE in all levels of teacher education and could be involved in the development and implementation of a systems thinking pedagogy for EE.

Regional coalitions could also help build indigenous capabilities to deal with local environmental problems. By developing educational materials and curricula that focus on the most important environmental problems of a given region, regional coalitions can help students develop sensitivity to and understanding of his or her surroundings in order to "live well in a place."

b. Implement faculty development programs

Faculty involvement must be central to any university effort to make EE a foundation of learning in all disciplines. Faculty development programs can help faculty develop the knowledge and skills needed to incorporate environmental perspectives into their teaching. These programs should include environment and sustainability workshops for all faculty, programs for ongoing faculty capability enhancement such as seminars and field experiences, and faculty exchanges with government, NGOs, industry and other partnerships.

Programs such as those developed by Second Nature, the Tufts Environmental Literacy Institute and the Center for Respect of Life and Environment provide models and mechanisms for raising awareness and developing skills among university faculty and administrators.

c. Lead the development of a systems oriented pedagogy for EE

Schools of Education should take the lead in developing an education pedagogy for incorporating principles of environment and sustainability into the process and content of higher education. According to the proceedings from the Workshop on the Principles of Sustainability in Higher Education, sustainability is best understood by exploring the intersection of a number of different dimensions, such as the interaction of social, political, cultural and economic and ecological perspectives. Systems thinking provides a common language for understanding and communicating about these different dimensions and the interaction between them. It offers a framework that reflects the complexities of the modern world as well as the actions that need to be taken or avoided to ensure sustainability.

More research is needed on the difficulties and constraints of implementing a systems thinking approach both in higher education and in the K-12 system. Faculty from all disciplines should be involved in the development of this pedagogy so education about the environment and sustainability becomes an integral part of the normal teaching in all the disciplines. Benefits to this approach include providing students with repeated exposure to environmental concerns, not adding new requirements to an already crowded curricula and reducing the isolation of the School of Education from the rest of the university. In addition, if EE is a part of all learning, it will no longer be perceived as a separate subject that involves teaching values.

d. Create university institutional support structures for EE

University presidents and deans should provide leadership in environmental education by directing funds to faculty development programs for EE, fostering and recognizing faculty efforts and encouraging interdepartmental collaboration. Tenure and promotion requirements should be changed to reward interdisciplinary work on environment, population, sustainable development and community involvement. Multi-disciplinary thinking and action should be encouraged with the use of internships, capstone courses and integrative seminars, work study, case studies and community service. Team teaching should be supported and rewarded. Development of recognition and incentive programs that show university support for faculty efforts to promote and integrate environmental education are critical. Such programs might range from simply showing appreciation to providing clerical help, equipment, bonuses and pay increases.

e. Sign the Talloires Declaration

All college and university presidents and deans of professional schools should sign and implement the 1990 Talloires Declaration of University Presidents for a Sustainable Future. The Talloires Declaration is a proclamation of actions outlining university leadership for global environmental management and sustainable development. It has been signed by 215 university presidents from 42 countries.

f. Replace retiring education faculty with faculty schooled in EE and/or systems thinking

A large number of Education School faculty are expected to retire soon. Universities should replace retiring faculty with faculty schooled in EE content and teaching methods. The hiring of new faculty should be based on their ability to meet crucial department needs and contribute to interdisciplinary programs such as research efforts to integrate environmental education across disciplines and the development and application of innovative teaching and learning techniques. These positions could also be filled by experienced master teachers and environmental educators currently active in the informal education sector.

g. Encourage interdisciplinary faculty curriculum development

University administrators should create mechanisms for faculty from all disciplines involved in teacher training to work together to realign curriculum so that it has an environmental and sustainability component both in terms of the content and methods taught to future teachers. Schools of Education could establish centers of excellence for studying and coordinating interdisciplinary curricula and course requirements. Presidents and deans could provide support by funding positions for interdepartmental and inter-school faculty who participate in the center, as well as providing release time for participation from existing faculty throughout the university.

h. Establish partnerships with primary and secondary schools

Universities should establish partnerships with local schools to enhance the ability of university faculty and K-12 teachers to teach about the environment and sustainable development. Community service projects addressing a local environmental issue would provide experiential teaching and learning opportunities for pre-service and in-service teachers and K-12 students.

i. Develop campus environmental stewardship programs

By integrating campus environmental stewardship and community outreach projects into their teaching and research, faculty can engage students and administrators in promoting change. Campus environmental stewardship programs raise environmental awareness and provide pre-service teachers with the opportunity to develop their skills and apply experiential teaching techniques.

2. Stakeholders

a. K-12 In-Service Teachers should individually and collectively let colleges and universities know that they are more employable and more competent in their jobs when they are schooled in EE. K-12 teachers should participate in university faculty development programs that inspire education faculty with examples of classrooms where EE has been successfully integrated. K-12 teachers should also assist university faculty in making pre-service course and curriculum changes, and develop practicums for future teachers that have an environmental component. For example, practicums that link together prospective and current K-12 teachers would provide practical teaching experiences for pre-service teachers and the opportunity to see how EE is being taught by an in-service teacher. Incoming teachers who have seen their peers successfully integrating EE material are more likely to find a way to adapt their own teaching.

b. State Departments of Education should review teacher certification requirements and revise them to include requirements for environmental education and systems thinking.

c. Education Reform Advocates and Pre-service Teachers should urge campus student environmental organizations to help create the demand for environmental education in teacher education programs by raising awareness among university faculty, administrators and students.

d. School Boards, Principals and Superintendents should urge their professional organizations to reach out to their members and raise awareness regarding the importance of EE and its ability to help them reach their educational goals and better prepare students for citizenship in the 21st century. Materials such as a paper or booklet that target K-12 administrators and policy makers outlining why EE is important and specifying how EE can help them are needed.

e. Environmental Educators and Environmental Advocacy Organizations should build partnerships with education reformers whose ranks include university faculty and administrators and State Department of Education specialists, two key constituencies for EE. These partnerships should work to integrate EE into existing structures of curricula, standards and state frameworks. There is potential for great synergy between the two movements which needs to be cultivated.

f. Environmental Educators and Environmental Advocacy Organizations should participate in standard setting drafting committees. The incorporation of EE into the education standards being developed at the local, state and federal levels is an essential step in legitimizing EE in the broader K-12 educational community, providing credibility for environmental educators and creating the demand for EE. Environmental advocacy organizations should be vocal at public hearings on state and local standards.

g. Accreditation Boards should require that prospective teachers be able to demonstrate and apply EE and systems thinking skills as a requirement for certification.

3. Funding Organizations

Funding organizations should support university efforts by:
End Notes

1 An estimated thirty percent turnover rate is based on the following two findings. 1.) 13% of elementary teachers and 13% of secondary teachers are expected to retire by the year 2000. These statistics were generated by The National Data Resource Center (Alexandria, VA: October 23, 1995). 2.) Based on projected population increases in the United States, an estimated increase of 25% of elementary teachers and 38% of secondary teachers will be needed by the year 2005. Statistics from: The Projections of Education Statistics to 2005 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics., 1995) 65-66.
2 The terms "colleges" and "universities" are used interchangeably throughout this report.
3 Jennie Lane, Richard Wilke, Randy Champeau and Dan Sivek, "Environmental Education in Wisconsin: A Teacher Survey," The Journal of Environmental Education, (Vol 25, no 4: Summer 1994), 12.
4 North Carolina Office of Environmental Education, Making the Commitment: Conference Recommendations from the Three Discussion Groups on Pre-Service Environmental Education in North Carolina, (North Carolina: December 15-17, 1994).
5 John F. Disinger and Robert W. Howe. Trends and Issues Related to the Preparation of Teachers for Environmental Education, (Columbus, Ohio: ERIC, 1990), 5.
6 Gerri A. Pomerantz. "Evaluation of Natural Resource Education Materials: Implications for Resource Management," The Journal of Environmental Education, (Vol 22, no 2: Winter, 1990-91), 16.
7 Daniella Tilbury. "Environmental Education Within Pre-Service Teacher Education: The Priority of Priorities," International Journal of Environmental Education and Information , (Vol 11, no 4: Oct-Dec, 1992), 269.
8 The President's Council on Sustainable Development: Public Linkage, Dialogue and Education Task Force, Workshop on the Principles of Sustainability in Higher Education, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: February 24-27, 1995), 5.
9 Kim Wade, National Survey of Environmental Education Teacher In-service Education, (Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of University of Michigan, 1994).
10 National Advisory Council on Environmental Education, Review Draft: National Report on Environmental Education, (Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency., 1992), 46.
11 Rosalyn McKeown-Ice, Summary of Environmental Education in the United States: A Survey of Pre-Service Teacher Education Programs, (University of Tennessee, Knoxville: 1995), 1.
12 Tilbury, 273.
13 Tilbury, 272.
14 David Orr. Earth in Mind. (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1994), 5.
15 Abby Ruskey and Richard Wilke. Promoting Environmental Education. (Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 1994), 3.
16 Paul Rowland. Personal Communication. January, 1996.
17 The term "Schools of Education" will be used to signify Schools/Departments and Colleges of Education in the remainder of this report.
18 The President's Council on Sustainable Development: Public Linkage, Dialogue and Education Task Force, 14.
19 Linda Sand Guest, Improving Teacher Preparation: What Reform Reports Recommend, (University of Denver, May 1993), 3.
20 Gerald A. Lieberman, Pieces of a Puzzle: An Overview of the Status of Environmental Education in the United States, (Poway, CA: Science Wizards, 1995), 18.
21 The Holmes Group, Tomorrow's Schools of Education, (The Holmes Group: 1995), 90.
22 The President's Council on Sustainable Development: Public Linkage, Dialogue and Education Task Force, 5.
23 National Advisory Council on Environmental Education, 12.
24 Disinger, 15.
25 Tilbury, 275.
26 Disinger, 15.
27 Harold Hungerford, Southern Illinois University. Personal communication, March 1, 1995.
28 McKeown-Ice, 1.
29 The Holmes Group, 95.
30 Lieberman, 31.
31 Lieberman, 31.
32 Richard W. Riley. A Teacher's Guide to the US Department of Education. (US Department of Education: Spring, 1994), 7.


References

A Framework for Discussion: The North Carolina Environmental Education Plan. Draft, 1994.

American Federation of Teachers College-School Task Force on Student Achievement. Closing the Circle: Making Higher Education a Full Partner in Systemic Reform.

Bowman, M.L., and Disinger, J.F., editors. Environmental Education in Action - IV: Case Studies of Teacher Education Programs for EE. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC, 1980.

Bradley, Ann. "Signs Abound Teaching Reforms are Taking Hold." Education Week. April 5, 1995.

Bradley, Ann. "Teacher Education and Standards." Education Week. Nov. 24, 1993.

Disinger, J.F., editor. Trends and Issues in Environmental Education: EE in School Curricula. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC, 1987.

Disinger, J.F. and Howe, R.W. Trends and Issues Related to the Preparation of Teachers for Environmental Education. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC, 1990.

Fein, J. "Teaching for a Sustainable World: The Environmental and Development Education Project for Teacher Education." Environmental Education Research, 1(1), 1995, 21-33.

Guest, L.S. Improving Teacher Preparation: What Reform Reports Recommend, University of Denver, 1993.

The Holmes Group. Tomorrow's Schools of Education, East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group, Inc., 1995.

Hungerford, H.A. Investigating and Evaluating Environmental Issues and Actions. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue (Draft for Comments). Washington DC: Council of Chief of State School Officers, 1992.

Lane, J., Wilke, R., Champeau, R. and Sivek, D. "Environmental Education in Wisconsin: A Teacher Survey." The Journal of Environmental Education. 25(4), 1994, 9-17.

Lieberman, G.A. Pieces of a Puzzle: An Overview of the Status of Environmental Education in the United States. Poway, CA: Science Wizards, 1995.

McKeown-Ice, R. Summary of Environmental Education in the United States: A Survey of Pre-Service Teacher Education Programs. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 1995.

National Advisory Council on Environmental Education. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). FACTS: The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Washington DC: NCATE Information Materials.

North Carolina Office of Environmental Education. Making the Commitment: Conference Recommendations from the Three Discussion Groups on Pre-Service Environmental Education in North Carolina. North Carolina: December 15-17, 1994.

Orr, David W. Earth in Mind. Washington DC: Island Press, 1994.

Pomerantz, G.A. "Evaluation of Natural Resource Education Materials: Implication for Resource Management." The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(2), 1990-91, 16-23.

The President's Council on Sustainable Development: Public Linkage, Dialogue and Education Task Force. Workshop on the Principles of Sustainability in Higher Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Second Nature, 1995.

Quammen, D. "E is for Ecosystem." Outside Magazine. XIX(8), August, 1994, 35-42.

Riley, R.W. A Teacher's Guide to the US Department of Education. Washington DC: US Department of Education, 1994.

Ruskey, A and Wilke, R. Promoting Environmental Education. Stevens-Point, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1994.

Tilbury, D. "Environmental Education Within Pre-Service Teacher Education: The Priority of Priorities." International Journal of Environmental Education and Information. 11(4) 1992, 267-280.

Wade, Kim. National Survey of Environmental Education Teacher In-service Education. Ann Arbor, MI: Regents University of Michigan, 1994.


Personal Communication

Allam, Caroline. KIDS Involved Doing Service Consortium. South Portland, ME.

Allen, Tina. Arizona Department of Education. Phoenix, AZ.

Benson, Bernard. University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. Chattanooga, TN.

Billups, Lovely. American Federation of Teachers. Washington, DC.

Braus, Judy. World Wildlife Fund. Washington, DC.

Britt, Peggy. National Consortium for Environmental Education and Training, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI.

Case, Marshall. Trust For Wildlife, Inc. Vermont.

Cassel, Claire. National Education and Training Center, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, VA.

DuBay, Dennis. Office of Environmental Education, Natural Resources and Environmental Health Department. Raleigh, NC.

Early, Penelope. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Washington, DC.

Field, Maurice H. Center for Environmental and Conservation Education, University of Tennessee at Martin. Martin, TN.

Hair, Donald. National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. Seattle, WA.

Hale, Jennifer. National Council of Accredited Teacher Education. Washington, DC.

Hayes, Peter. Environmental Studies and Program Development, Lakeside School. Seattle, WA.

Heath, Gary. Environmental Education Specialist, State of Maryland. Baltimore, MD.

Heimlich, Joe. ERIC Clearinghouse. Columbus, OH.

Hungerford, Harold. Science and Environmental Education Center, Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL.

Isenson, Beverly. Governor's Council of Environmental Education. Olympia, WA.

Israel, Ron. Education Development Center. Newton, MA.

Kaye, Allison. Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington DC.

Knapp, Clifford E. Lorado Taft Field Campus. Northern Illinois University. Oregon, IL.

Lehr, Terry. Pennsylvania Department of Education. Harrisburg, PA.

Mattingly, Kevin. Lawerenceville School. Lawerenceville, NJ.

McCalley, David V. Institute for Environmental Education, University of Northern Iowa. Cedar Fall, IA.

McCrea, Edward. North American Association for Environmental Education. Washington, DC.

McKeown-Ice, Rosalyn. Energy and Environment Resource Center, University of Tennessee-Knoxville. Knoxville, TN.

McLean, Jay. United States Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Minton, Ty. Environmental Studies Program. Antioch New England, Keene, NH.

Morgan, Bill. National Consortium for Environmental Education and Training, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI.

Myers, J.P. W. Alton Jones Foundation. Charlottesville, VA.

Potter, Gerald R. Shaver's Creek Environmental Center, Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.

Rowland, Paul. Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, AZ.

Ruskey, Abby. National Environmental Education Advocacy Project, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Stevens-Point, WI.

Schumaker, Karen. Arizona Department of Education. Phoenix, AZ.

Simmons, Deborah. Lorado Taft Field Campus, Northern Illinois University. Oregon, IL.

Smith-Walters, Cindi. Middle Tennessee State University. Murfreesboro, TN.

Sobel, David. Elementary Education. Antioch New England, Keene, NH.

Sykes, Shari. Project Learning Tree. Washington, DC.

Taylor, Anne. Office of Environmental Education, Natural Resources and Environmental Health Department. Raleigh, NC.

Vathis, Patricia. Pennsylvania Department of Education. Harrisburg, PA.

Volk, Trudy. Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL.

Vertrees, Dan. School of Education, Alabama State University. Montgomery, AL.

Wacey, Carole. Education Outreach Committee, Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Wilke, Rick. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Stevens Point, WI.