December 15, 2008
Recycling as Sacrament
John Tierney of the NYTimes wonders if we are raising children to be scientists or garbage collectors. Accolades pour in for the WV Second Graders who want to keep recycling even though the school wants to abandon it. But Tierney has concerns:
My colleague Andy Revkin suggests that the West Virginia students might be learning something useful about the interplay of economics and ecology, but I fear they and their teacher have missed the lesson. The reason that public officials cut back the program, as Matt Richtel and Kate reported, is the market for recyclables has collapsed because the supply vastly exceeds the demand. This could be a valuable learning experience for the students about markets and about the long-term tendency of prices of natural resources to fall while the cost of people’s time rises.
Instead, the students are being taught that saving resources is more important than saving human time, and that recycling is such a righteous activity that it deserves to continue even when it costs money and time to do it.
Education
Posted by John Kranz at December 15, 2008 12:06 PM
or why not raise them to be both?
mr. tierney was troubled because one third-grade class spent “the whole period” collecting and analyzing garbage instead of learning something “more profound” in science class. if teachers are eschewing the entire year’s photosynthesis lessons in favor of trips to the garbage dump, then we might have a problem – but i doubt that this is the case. my guess is that this was one lesson among many for the year, and that the kids were able to relate what they’d learned about recycling to their other, more traditional lessons.
after all, learning about recycling actually teaches kids quite a bit about science (how different materials break down, how even something as hard as glass can be melted and reblown if you get it hot enough, how certain kinds of bacteria can actually break down a lot of the things in our garbage cans, why it takes less energy to melt recycled aluminum than to create new aluminum, and so on), not to mention history (why many governments encouraged citizens to recycle during the world wars), consumption patterns (where things come from and what happens to things when we throw them away), economics (how cities and business can actually make money by recycling, why they’re not profiting now, and why many of them have chosen to continue to recycle anyway because the cost of paying for recycling is still less than the cost of trash disposal), and even civics/government (the kids in the article learned about our legislative process when they wrote letters to their mayor and governor to keep their recycling program alive... and don’t worry about them missing that more profound photosynthesis lesson – apparently they chose to write their letters during recess).
seems like those WV students have been doing quite a few useful things with their time.
or why not raise them to be both?
mr. tierney was troubled because one third-grade class spent “the whole period” collecting and analyzing garbage instead of learning something “more profound” in science class. if teachers are eschewing the entire year’s photosynthesis lessons in favor of trips to the garbage dump, then we might have a problem – but i doubt that this is the case. my guess is that this was one lesson among many for the year, and that the kids were able to relate what they’d learned about recycling to their other, more traditional lessons.
after all, learning about recycling actually teaches kids quite a bit about science (how different materials break down, how even something as hard as glass can be melted and reblown if you get it hot enough, how certain kinds of bacteria can actually break down a lot of the things in our garbage cans, why it takes less energy to melt recycled aluminum than to create new aluminum, and so on), not to mention history (why many governments encouraged citizens to recycle during the world wars), consumption patterns (where things come from and what happens to things when we throw them away), economics (how cities and business can actually make money by recycling, why they’re not profiting now, and why many of them have chosen to continue to recycle anyway because the cost of paying for recycling is still less than the cost of trash disposal), and even civics/government (the kids in the article learned about our legislative process when they wrote letters to their mayor and governor to keep their recycling program alive... and don’t worry about them missing that more profound photosynthesis lesson – apparently they chose to write their letters during recess).
seems like those WV students have been doing quite a few useful things with their time.
Posted by: insane modern liberal at December 15, 2008 5:14 PMWelcome to ThreeSources! (I actually know this insane modern liberal.)
If I believed that your suggested lesson plan was followed, I would be completely on board. All the things you describe represent valuable instruction. (Not sure I agree with your municipal economics data, but maybe these second graders will elucidate me.)
Tierney's trouble -- and mine -- is students "who fought for the right to keep recycling trash even after it became so uneconomical that public officials tried to stop the program." And "their teacher was proud of them for all the time they spent campaigning to keep the recycling program alive."
I hear the whole word cheering for these plucky lads and lasses. Fight the power! Recycle or Die! (Perhaps they are training to be Community Organizers -- that can lead to important promotion prospects.)
But my favorite lesson is Tierney's: human labor is valuable and will always attain more value. Used glass and old milk bottles will rise and fall against virgin commodities but will trend lower in value.
Posted by: jk at December 15, 2008 8:23 PM"It will indeed be a great day when our schools use all their money for academic needs and will have to hold a bake sale in order to fund feel-good recycling programs."
Posted by: johngalt at December 16, 2008 12:51 PM | What do you think? [3]