(CNSNews.com) - Surrounded by elementary students from the Green School in Baltimore and charming critters – including an armadillo, cheetah and an Asian Toddy Cat – Democrats declared that the introduction of the “No Child Left Inside Act of 2009” was “historic” legislation that would connect children with nature. Some critics, however, said it is a way to spread environmental propaganda in the public schools.
“We are gathered to unveil the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009, which will support environmental education in our nation’s schools,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a lead sponsor of the bill, said Thursday at Upper Russell Senate Park (near the U.S. Capitol). “These young people will be the environmental stewards and leaders of tomorrow, and we have to prepare them today – and that’s the whole point of this legislation.”
The
bill, sponsored and co-sponsored by Democrats, was introduced in the House and Senate on Earth Day, April 22. It would provide $500 million over five years to schools with approved “environmental literacy” plans for students in grades kindergarten through 12, and offer competitive grants to schools and non-profits for outdoor education projects.
But some critics charge that what appears to support getting kids outside to learn about nature also promotes an environmental message with a more political agenda.
“The Obama administration and Congress are moving toward having the power of a national school board,” Dan Lips, a senior policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.
“The Obama administration and Congress are moving toward having the power of a national school board,” Dan Lips, a senior policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.
Lips said the legislation amounted to “the politicization of what’s taught in American classrooms.”
But Linda Rhoads, co-coordinator of the No Child Left Inside Coalition, said the legislation is about environmental education, not environmentalism.
She told CNSNews.com that the curriculum taught in schools would be “science-based, fair and balanced, and [from] multiple perspectives.”
“It’s not intended to promote any one way of viewing a particular issue but to educate children about thinking clearly about issues and understanding multiple perspectives and the complex nature of solving environmental challenges,” Rhoads said.
At least one Republican thinks the federal government should not dictate the curriculum in America’s schools, and he vowed to fight the legislation.
“If the federal government is to have any role in education, that role should be to support basic academic achievement for disadvantaged children who might not otherwise be getting a quality education,” Rep. Howard ‘Buck’ McKeon (R-Calif.) told CNSNews.com. “We need to proceed carefully with any bill that expands federal intrusion into our schools, whether it’s environmental education or school construction.”
“The federal government should not be imposing special interest-driven doctrine through educational policy, and we’ll fight to ensure that doesn’t happen with this or any other bill,” McKeon said.
The legislation not only puts federal mandates on school curricula, it also ensures that the curricula conform to a specific worldview of what environmental literacy means.
“The bill puts propaganda officially in the schools,” Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told CNSNews.com. He added that urban populations that do not interact with the natural world can be misled to believe humans are destroying the environment and that it should be preserved at all cost.
“The environmental movement has exploited a strong demographic change in the U.S.,” Ebell said, referring to the population shift from rural to urban-based population over the last century.
“It used to be that most people who lived in the city had a relative who lived on a farm and the kids would spend the summer there where they learned you had to grow things, cut things down and dig things up to live,” he added.
“At the end of the day,” Ebell said, “it’s about preservation ideology.”