Last week, the New York Times published an article entitled “Schools Embrace Environment and Sow Debate.” This story describes schools going green while teaching students lessons about community and environmental responsibility. From replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent, to designating a “No Idling Zone” in the school pick-up line, students are working to reduce their carbon footprint. While these efforts have been praised by both parents and school administrators, others have criticized these programs for taking time away from learning in the classroom.
This is a fair enough assertion, but one education researcher’s comments caused me to take up my dueling pen and write. Jane S. Shaw, executive vice president of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, stated, “Students need very basic skills, and those are so much more important than getting an emotional high because they’ve done something supposedly for the environment.”
Not so, Ms. Shaw. For many of us, it took a pivotal educational experience (a.k.a., “emotional high”) to turn us on to learning and to becoming productive members of the community. Moreover, these key moments vary from person to person; different things motivate different people. This belief of mine, however, seems to be missing from the current movement of standardized testing and the push for basic skills. Shaw’s comments reminded me of a student I had the pleasure of working with a couple of years ago in a wilderness adventure program. Daniel, a 15 yr. old who had spent the last few years bouncing between boarding schools due to failing grades, seldom responded positively to anything, and certainly not the idea of making a difference in the world. However, after a canoe trip down a river that included some pretty dramatic evidence of pollution, he was inspired to act, to protest, to work for something. I wouldn’t claim this moment changed his life forever, but I saw a big change in his involvement in our program from that moment on.
—Katie Harris
I certainly think the impact a wilderness therapy program has on a child can be life altering. Any parents with reservations should always take advantage of the NATSAP Parent Articles resource page and consult with a NATSAP professional.
Ms. Harris makes a good point. “Pivotal educational experiences” can come in many forms. A wilderness experience can be life-changing, and discovering and understanding the causes of pollution can be genuinely educational. But that is different from teaching children that all recycling is good (whether the products ultimately end up in a landfill, anyway), or that expensive solar panels are going to save energy (the fact that they are expensive tells you that a lot of resources, possibly human resources, are being used to produce them). “Feel good” activities that are not based in reality bother me a lot. Perhaps in Scarsdale people are willing to pay extra to feel that they have helped the environment (whether they have actually done so or not), but all too often environmental education comes at the expense of the basics.
I think I need to clarify a few things. First, I appreciate both readers for taking the time to post comments on this blog. Second, I also think wilderness therapy programs can be beneficial for some children, but the program I worked for was an outdoor adventure program offered through a summer camp. Our staff was not trained to provide therapeutic support to clients. Third, I’d like to respond to Ms. Shaw’s comments when I have more time. I’m both pleased and surprised to hear from her.