Page 108 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

7 Engaging the Environment 85

teachers returning to the status quo when he describes co-teaching a unit, so that
teaching strategies will not get decentered. In subsequent pilot testing of his projects,
he had newer teachers participate with previous participating teachers thereby net-
working a teaching community through “cultural transmission.”
Roth argues that the rural environment offers some advantages for ecojustice
and place-based science education over urban situations. He notes that parental
participation, the close proximity of research sites, and ability of teachers and
students to leave formal settings helps to engage them with the natural world more
fully. Roth also mentions that the small size and energizing qualities of the rural
school and community contribute to enhancing learning and teaching. People
know each other in rural places and resources are readily available (both human and
material) and contributed by invested businesses and parents. Newer ideas can be
self-sustaining once introduced, because prior program participants serve as cultural
transmitters of knowledge (and expertise). I am not sure how generalizable these
characteristics should be for all rural environments and, furthermore, if some of
these features are not also available in some urban environments, having lived and
taught in a variety of contexts. But Roth notes that critics of his earlier work charge
that the opportunities he describes, such as the rejuvenation of a salmon stream
were not available to drive science curriculum in all places. Thus, he responds to
these critics with what he views is important to the community, which mostly deter-
mines what is incorporated in the science curriculum. Surely, urban environments
have their important environmental issues from which meaningful engagement and
learning can take place (e.g., lead in soil, brownfields, higher levels of asthma and
students at risk, “stinky ditch” streams, combined sewer overflow systems, and so
forth). Roth’s points are made considering the knowledge and social relationships
that are generally found in smaller isolated rural communities and are definite
advantages for learning opportunities.
Peter: It has been a historically common theme among economically advan-
taged countries, whereby undesirable environments (e.g., landfills) are located near
the poorest communities in society. Some examples include petrochemical plants,
landfills, or interstate highway corridors. Indeed, a review of newspapers across the
country at any given time will show people in local communities protesting various
development plans that adversely impact them. The latest protest issue near where
I live in the northeast is whether or not to permit wind turbines near private real
estate. This issue is widespread. The “Not in My Backyard” or what is described as
the NIMBY syndrome is real. Roth’s arguments bring out both implicit and explicit
ideas of science education as a framework that makes better understanding the natural
world in rural places simultaneously result in an ever-strengthened or healthier
local community (as the goal of such education efforts). Strengthened community
can develop through a sense of empowerment for the residents of such communi-
ties. Ecojustice, as Roth describes it, which is the underpinning of his work, is an
innovative concept emerging with some of the forward-looking individuals who
sense that human beings and other organisms from all Earth’s environments should
be able to share in a healthy life without situations whereby the less fortunate popu-
lations “pay” for the excesses of the more affluent, powerful, or more connected.