1997 Sustainability Curriculum Program: Sustainability in the Sierra

Intent of the Workshop

As a region, the Sierra is facing environmental and economic trends which are endangering our environment and causing undeniable changes in our economy and communities. While we seem to be facing insurmountable challenges, we have better tools at our disposal now to address these problems than we ever have. We have a demonstrated willingness to work collaboratively and an increasing knowledge base about systems, both natural and human. We also have technological tools to illuminate choices. This workshop intends to create dynamic learning opportunities for students to examine such topical issues using appropriate tools.

The workshop began with a community-wide examination of sustainability issues in the Sierra. The National Issue Forum Process was led by Kathryn McFarland, Director for Educators, University Extension, UC Davis.

Summary of Views

Prior to the workshop, a local group representing different viewpoints met to initially identify four different views on sustainability. These served as the basis for deliberation and can be summarized as follows:

View 1 The environmental situation is urgent, we must act now. Scientific study examining ecological systems point to rapid world-wide environmental decline. Throughout the world, we have compromised and postponed actions needed to make a real change in these trends. Radical action is urgently needed.

View 2 Technology is the answer. We can continue current lifestyle patterns with little alteration because we can find a technological solution to whatever environmental problems develop. We have proven experience of our ability to meet environmental challenges with technology. Considering our successes, it is not necessary to force broad lifestyle changes to protect the environment.

View 3 There is no problem. The increasing cry of environmental catastrophe is based on poor science and perpetuated by elitist groups with a self-interest in forcing societal change. Not enough evidence of adverse environmental trends exists upon which to base the need for wholesale economic and lifestyle changes.

View 4 Trust the market. We recognize a problem, but must use the tools of our economy to produce a solution. We must be realistic in searching for answers to our environmental problems. We must be free to find creative solutions and to tailor those solutions to individual situations. We must respect the rights of property owners and recognize that environmental protection will only occur in a thriving, healthy economy.

Summary of Deliberation
(Group One was facilitated by Kathryn McFarland; Group Two by Sue Rae Irelan)

Defining the Problem The area bounded by the Sierra Nevada bioregion is undergoing tremendous change. The attitudes about this change and the perceived solutions possible to address its consequences vary widely. Bitter conflicts have raged between different factions; pro-growthers vs. anti-growthers, loggers vs. environmentalists, and property rights advocates vs. government entities. In response to continued conflict, many people in the Sierra are ready to try to define a future which protects and restores the integrity of the area's natural systems, promotes economic activity able to be sustained without boom or bust cycles, and meets the variety of lifestyle and cultural expectations of residents and visitors.

View 1. Group One felt this view had many appropriate elements; the urgency is real and efforts to change individual behavior is necessary. Underlying values identified were moral imperative and personal responsibility. Many comments reflected a basic disagreement with one aspect of this view (i.e. collaborations have resulted in too many compromises); the group felt that solutions must be generated through consensus with all stakeholders. Costs or shortcomings of this view were that people need the right to make a living in a reasonable manner without undue regulations/restrictions and equity issues (what about people who cannot afford to fully participate?). Other comments noted that the sense of "community" needs to be refined to hold rural places (and people) in high esteem and to encompass the public interest in the Sierra.

Group Two felt this view, while it contained many important elements and true statements, was more like a caricature than an overall representation of a widely-held viewpoint (i.e. it was too extreme). Its basic value was identified as a willingness to sacrifice personal objectives for common good. All agreed with the urgency of the environmental need. Most in the group agreed that compromise between environmentalists and developers had hurt the environment, but differences were expressed over whether current or future problems could be solved without involving all stakeholders.

View 2. Most of Group One felt uncomfortable with the reliance on technology represented by this view. Underlying values identified were confidence that the world is made for people and acknowledging the value society places on technology to solve problems. The group appeared to agree that technological solutions are one tool needed to address environmental problems, but that technology should not replace personal responsibility. The costs or shortcomings of this view included that it leads to a feeling of disempowerment and that people are overwhelmed with technology, so careful choices about what will be most beneficial must be made. Overall, this group felt technology is evolving and it offers some needed options, but we cannot and should not rely on it to solve all our problems.

Group Two felt this view accurately reflects a widely held position that we can "engineer" our way out of making real changes. Every group member could relate stories where technological solutions appeared to work and those where it had failed. The group identified the sense of overconfidence in our abilities and knowledge expressed in this view could lead to poor decisions.

View 3. Group One recognized the basis of denial in this view and that it also reflects a geologic time-frame perspective. The misunderstanding of scientific research inherent in this view was troubling, as was the degree of apathy it represents. One cost or shortcoming of this view identified was the difficulty of providing good, reliable information to children without causing alarm.

Although most of Group Two agreed that this view is held, few in the group thought many in the Sierra shared it. Most felt it should not have been articulated as a separate view and therefore played too important a role in the discussion. Its basic values identified were caution and apathy.

View 4. Group One identified the underlying values of this view as self-reliance and individualism. Many comments reflected the current Sierra reality of a small business-based economy and the harsh impacts of environmental regulation. The need for both environmentalists and economists to see small businesses in relation to other issues was stressed. The group appeared to feel this view included many important elements which make up the sustainable future for the Sierra. Costs and shortcomings of this view involved the impacts corporate decisions can have locally (on the environment and economy).

Group Two felt this view included many elements important to creating a sustainable future, particularly in the context of community-based businesses in the Sierra. The role of corporate and large scale developers was seen as counterproductive to long-term community investment and environmental protection. Values behind this view identified were a high degree of personal initiative and freedom. The group did not believe that environmental regulation was harmful, but rather that it protected the very values that are creating a thriving economy to begin with.

After discussion of the four views presented, Group Two felt as though none fully represented the emerging consensus about sustainability in the Sierra. View #5 was developed to reflect the values and positions which must be present to adequately address our environmental, economic, and community needs. They include a high degree of morale responsibility for the environment; realization that an individual can make a difference and has a responsibility to try; reliance on long-term solutions that are flexible to reflect changing realities; there are limits; economic incentive to protect the environment should be a focal point; and a sustainable economy must include a long-term commitment to community, not a get-rich-quick mentality.

Forum Closing

As a wrap-up, participants were asked to consider what values they hold regarding the issue and how they may have been changed or challenged through the dialogue.

The concepts of sustainability involve protecting the integrity of ecological systems, promoting economic viability, and developing adequate human systems working in a community setting. The interrelationship of these elements lies at the core of sustainability education. This workshop promoted the goal of developing community based projects which examine interrelationships while meeting overall state and local learning requirements.

Project-Based Learning (PBL). The Autodesk Foundation has been active in promoting the goals and use of community-based projects to meet curriculum needs. Laurette Rogers, TinkerTech Program Manager, Autodesk Foundation, presented elements of that program including:

• Project-Based Learning Lessons from Brookside School
• Article reprints concerning learning in a project-based environment
• Invitation to Join the PBL Network and Request for Proposals for PBL Network Leadership Schools

Curriculum Development. The Tahoe Center and its partners are developing a curriculum workbook which will guide sustainability project development. Chris Whitcom, Sierra Nevada College Science Methods Instructor, led a discussion concerning obstacles to project development and ways to overcome the obstacles. The following primary points were made:

• Educational standards for the two states do not specifically include project-based learning or integrated curriculum, but teachers can be creative and still meet the requirements.
• Successful projects need: flexibility, persistence, people, books, projects, support, desire, transportation, press, money, administration buy-in, facility or site; networking; peer support etc.
• Using projects as a basis for teaching forces teachers into a different role with their class and it may be scary at first. This type of learning is "messier" by nature, but ultimately is more rewarding for both student and teacher.
• To make a project user friendly: collect materials & resources - phone numbers, names of people (guest speakers, consultants, mentors); dedicate staff time to discuss whats available and possible; adopt a project as an entire school; identify process of evaluation for student performance - class presentation on what they learned, peer feedback.

The second day of the workshop featured focused sessions concerning implementation tools for sustainability projects.

1. GIS and the Classroom. Presenters: Susan Lindell Radke (Berkeley Geo-Research Group), Heather Babcock (TCSF).

Ms. Radke presented the program GEODESY, an integrated application of remote sensing and geographic information systems for K-12 schools. GEODESY includes a GIS and remote sensing toolkit and an integrated local data set, embedded within a curriculum-based graphical use interface which allows students to view, manipulate and analyze geographic information about their community. Heather Babcock presented a GIS information resource with annotated descriptions of available GIS and related resources.

2. Community Connections: Strategies for Success. Presenter: Sue Rae Irelan (TCSF).

Ms. Irelan led a discussion on the ways to identify and cultivate community connections necessary to make sustainability projects work. This presentation included the following topics: