Professionals meet to discuss environmental literacy

This virtually reeks of the long-standing progressive paradigm. Liberal/Progressives gotta love this approach. It sounds so…nice, who could possibly object?

A group of seven professionals – all holding positions that touch the environment in some way…

Foxes guarding the henhouse: all have a vested interest in the environmental bureaucratic industry.

…pondered ways to teach children about the natural world Wednesday at the South Dakota Discovery Center.

OK. This COULD be either a good or bad thing. The devil is in the details…some of the following details don’t give cause for optimism.

They attended a session that’s part of the Discovery Center’s effort to create an environmental literacy plan that can be used widely throughout the state. The center is tapping a grant by the Environmental Protection Agency to create resources for parents, superintendents, teachers and others in a position to teach children about the environment, said Anne Lewis the special projects director of the Discovery Center.

Hmmmm. EPA? By its record, not exactly a source of balanced information these days.

Marie Steckelberg, with Steckelberg Consulting, in Yankton, led the discussion by asking questions designed to elicit views about environmental education. Steckelberg said she’d taught science education at the University of South Dakota.

Let’s see. Ms. Steckelberg has an EdD – an Education Doctorate, and as noted in the article she taught science education…NOT the same thing as science. One other notable thing from her professional website is an expertise in grant writing…how to leap through the hoops of bureaucracy in order to gain access to the Federal cash spigot.

One of the participants, Paul Lepisto, is the regional conservation coordinator for the Izaak Walton League of America.

There are some good programs that the League promotes. There is also an orientation towards limiting and restricting access to needed resources, including energy resources. May be a wash overall, but based on this setting it seems like another progressive front, albeit a rather mild one compared to some other advocacy groups.

He said his goal was to draw a different kind of attention to nature. “(The more) we can do to get kids more in tune with the environment and natural resources and the love of spending time outdoors, the better,” he said.

Uh, anyone think about what the Boy Scouts do with this stuff? Ooops. Sorry. Not politically correct. My bad!

Lewis said a catalyst for an environmental literacy plan was a 2009 federal bill called “No Child Left Inside.” States with their own plans, she said, would be eligible to receive federal money if the legislation passed.

Ah yes…the prospect for a place at the Federal cash teat! If only that pesky Congress would realize the importance of this vital conditioning educational program and pass the bill…!

The legislation has languished, Lewis said,…

Oh, rats! (sarcasm alert!)

…but she noted the value for creating such plans nonetheless – and she said there were some other funding opportunities.

Yeah, maybe B.O. can figure out a way to call it stimulus, or something. If the Feds can cough up the cash, we’ll be waiting to do the job (and of course get a sweet pay package out of it all for planning and administrating this bit of progressive conditioning education.

A goal, she said, is “to help guide people in their sphere to develop environmental literacy skills.”

Translation: We experts will educate all you yahoos out there, and only after we shove down your throats give you an appreciation for OUR view of “environmental literacy skills” will you too be fit to enter the participatory process.

By the way, searching the web tells one that the above-mentioned “No Child Left Behind” is presented in best left/lib/progressive terminolgy as “a movement”.