On Tuesday the Maryland State Board of Education announced a new graduation requirement for Maryland students: “green literacy” (Wheeler, 2011, para. 2). This ruling mandates that all public schools in Maryland expose their students to “conservation, smart growth and the health of our natural world” by integrating these topics into core academic subjects. The requirement will apply to those students beginning high school in the upcoming 2011-2012 academic year. Although no additional funding will be allocated based on this ruling, Maryland may be eligible to receive additional federal funding based on the incorporation of green literacy into the state curriculum.
Initially, I didn’t find this announcement to be too radical. I currently teach fifth grade, and environmental science already exists as one of the six primary curriculum standards I covered with my students. This standard incorporates green literacy objectives related to natural resource use and human impact on the environment. According to the Voluntary State Curriculum, scaffolded variations of these same green literacy topics make up the environmental science standards for Maryland students from first grade through high school.
In actuality, this “new” graduation requirement isn’t revolutionary at all – it simply hasn’t been enforced. I personally support green initiatives and believe they are important issues to address. However, I can’t help but think that high school teachers who are struggling to meet the demands of their current subject area would be overjoyed at the prospect of infusing yet another set of objectives into their curriculums. Until all Maryland students are reading at or above grade level, maybe the focus should remain on literacy… minus the green.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As a native of Portland, Oregon, a city that touts itself for being exceptionally green, I can't help but love the premise of this mandate. I agree that these issues are extremely important to address with this world's next generation of citizens.
I agree with you, too, however, that this really doesn't seem revolutionary. I couldn't help but notice that these "green literacy standards" were not enumerated or explained in the article. I am really curious to know what these "final rules" that Grasmick posits will enforce these standards are. Truly, how is the teaching of this new literacy going to be measured?
I hate that my mind jumps here, but I can't help concluding that this seems like a move by the State Board to be eligible for more funds, period. It seems too nebulous to be done in the name of the environment instead of in the name of money.
I, too, think that this mandate is a good step towards addressing important world issues in the classroom. However, I am a little skeptical of the claims that "the new environmental instruction should not require any additional funding or staff." This seem unrealistic to me. How will teachers know what they are supposed to be teaching in terms of "green literacy" if they are not provided with the resources to do so? Without funding devoted to this initiative, how will curriculum materials be developed? How will teachers know what information they should be teaching their students? Will they attend a PD that explains 'green literacy' to them? Who will be in charge of monitoring this, and how will they do it? Where will this money come from?
My fear is that, like with so many other parts of the curriculum, the burden will be placed back on the teachers to create their own resources and try to figure out what to teach. If an initiative like this one is to be introduced and implemented effectively, I think that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that appropriate funds are invested to create curriculum material and professional development resources to go along with it.
Post a Comment