Plastics industry edited environmental textbook
0 views
Skip to first unread message
GLT
Aug 19, 2011, 12:38:38 PM8/19/11
to Philippine environment conservation
Plastics industry edited environmental textbook
By SUSANNE RUST - California Watch
Posted: 08/19/2011 01:55:28 AM PDT
Under pressure from a lobbying group for the plastics industry,
schools officials in California have edited a new environmental
curriculum to include positive messages about plastic shopping bags,
interviews and documents show.
The rewritten textbooks and teachers' guides coincided with a public
relations and lobbying effort by the American Chemistry Council to
fight proposed plastic bag bans throughout the country. Despite the
positive message, activists insist there is no debate: Plastic bags
kill marine animals, leech toxic chemicals, and take an estimated
1,000 years to decompose in landfills.
In 2009, a private consultant hired by California school officials
added a new section to the 11th-grade teachers' edition textbook
called “The Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags.” The title and some
of the textbook language were inserted almost verbatim from letters
written by the chemistry council.
Although the curriculum includes the environmental hazards of plastic
bags, the consultant also added a five-point question to a workbook
asking students to list some advantages. According to the revised
teachers' edition, the correct answer is: “Plastic shopping bags are
very convenient to use. They take less energy to manufacture than
paper bags, cost less to transport and can be reused.”
“The American Chemistry Council obviously got engaged to protect their
bottom line,” said Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica, author of the
2003 legislation requiring that environmental principles and concepts
be taught in the state's public schools. She had been unaware of the
lobby's efforts until contacted by California Watch.
The paid consultant, Gerald Lieberman, who directs a statewide
nonprofit group dedicated to enhancing environmental education,
disputes that: “I never made changes to the text anywhere, in any of
the units, that I didn't see as improving the educational value of the
materials,” he said.
Still, the trade group's edit of the new curriculum illustrates a
growing concern for special-interest influence over public education.
Earlier this month, Scholastic Inc., a textbook publisher, promised to
limit its practice of collaborating with corporations to produce
classroom materials. The New York-based publisher had been under
pressure to stop distributing a fourth-grade curriculum paid for by
the coal industry.
The California curriculum, which took seven years to develop, is being
tested at 20 school districts that include 140 schools and more than
14,000 students. In the Bay Area, the plan is being tested by the New
Haven district in Union City. The Santa Cruz city, Carmel and Manteca
districts also are among those testing the material. An additional 400
school districts have signed up to use the curriculum, according to
Cal-EPA.
The curriculum covers science, history, social studies and arts and
weaves in environmental principles and concepts over 85 units.
Teachers are encouraged to use the materials, which can be downloaded
from the state's website, as handouts in the classroom and as reading
assignments for students.
The chemistry council declined to comment about its work on
California's environmental curriculum. However, its views were made
known during a period of public review and comment on the lesson plan.
“The ACC takes exception to the overall tone, instructional approach
and the lack of solutions offered — most especially, the lack of
mention of the overall solution of plastic recycling,” wrote Alyson
Thomas, a senior account executive with Ogilvy Public Relations
Worldwide, a lobbying firm retained by the trade group.
Kenneth McDonald, spokesman for the California Department of
Education, said he was not aware that the trade group's edits had been
included. He said the development and editing of the content was Cal-
EPA's responsibility.
After learning from California Watch about the chemical industry
additions and edits, Pavley said she would write to Cal-EPA to ask
officials to tweak the current text to remove some of the trade
group's additions.
As Cal-EPA began preparing the curriculum in 2004, it called together
a team of stakeholders — including industry trade groups and
environmental organizations — to provide advice on writing the new
curriculum.
By 2009, the curriculum was mostly written, and the chemistry council
once again weighed in with criticisms and suggested edits for a
section in the 11th-grade text that portrays plastic bags as harmful
to the environment.
The state handed the curriculum development and editing responsibility
to Lieberman, director of the State Education and Environment
Roundtable.
The round-table is a nonprofit group developed by 16 state departments
of education to enhance environmental education in schools. According
to Cal-EPA, the state paid Lieberman's organization nearly $2.4
million from 2004 to 2010 for consulting.
Lieberman said the state gave him discretion over whether to include
editorial suggestions and comments from outside sources.
“I had total control, really, about what comments I accepted or didn't
accept,” he said.
The first edit of the teachers' edition had been highly critical of
plastic shopping bags. It highlighted the long decomposition rate of
the bags and their threat to marine life and ocean health. That
information remains in the text.
A letter with the chemistry council's comments about the 11th-grade
curriculum was presented to Lieberman in 2009 as submissions during a
nine-month public comment period. The state received hundreds of
comments, including those from private individuals, environmental
organizations, and other agencies within the state and federal
governments.
Lieberman incorporated nearly all of the trade group's suggestions
into the teacher's edition, which provides the context and lesson plan
for the course.
He also added the section on the benefits of plastic bags, after the
chemistry council complained in a letter: “To counteract what is
perceived as an exclusively negative positioning of plastic bags
issues, we recommend adding a section here entitled ‘Benefits of
Plastic Shopping Bags.' “
Among other changes, he also removed a mention of plastic bags as
“litter” in the teachers' edition after the trade group's
representative complained. “To be clear,” wrote the Ogilvy executive,
“plastic bags don't start as litter; they become litter.” Now, when
the word litter appears in the text, it is prefaced with “can become”
or is used as a verb.
California Watch, the state's largest investigative reporting team, is
a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting. You can contact
the writer at sr...@californiawatch.org.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_18711395
By SUSANNE RUST - California Watch
Posted: 08/19/2011 01:55:28 AM PDT
Under pressure from a lobbying group for the plastics industry,
schools officials in California have edited a new environmental
curriculum to include positive messages about plastic shopping bags,
interviews and documents show.
The rewritten textbooks and teachers' guides coincided with a public
relations and lobbying effort by the American Chemistry Council to
fight proposed plastic bag bans throughout the country. Despite the
positive message, activists insist there is no debate: Plastic bags
kill marine animals, leech toxic chemicals, and take an estimated
1,000 years to decompose in landfills.
In 2009, a private consultant hired by California school officials
added a new section to the 11th-grade teachers' edition textbook
called “The Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags.” The title and some
of the textbook language were inserted almost verbatim from letters
written by the chemistry council.
Although the curriculum includes the environmental hazards of plastic
bags, the consultant also added a five-point question to a workbook
asking students to list some advantages. According to the revised
teachers' edition, the correct answer is: “Plastic shopping bags are
very convenient to use. They take less energy to manufacture than
paper bags, cost less to transport and can be reused.”
“The American Chemistry Council obviously got engaged to protect their
bottom line,” said Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica, author of the
2003 legislation requiring that environmental principles and concepts
be taught in the state's public schools. She had been unaware of the
lobby's efforts until contacted by California Watch.
The paid consultant, Gerald Lieberman, who directs a statewide
nonprofit group dedicated to enhancing environmental education,
disputes that: “I never made changes to the text anywhere, in any of
the units, that I didn't see as improving the educational value of the
materials,” he said.
Still, the trade group's edit of the new curriculum illustrates a
growing concern for special-interest influence over public education.
Earlier this month, Scholastic Inc., a textbook publisher, promised to
limit its practice of collaborating with corporations to produce
classroom materials. The New York-based publisher had been under
pressure to stop distributing a fourth-grade curriculum paid for by
the coal industry.
The California curriculum, which took seven years to develop, is being
tested at 20 school districts that include 140 schools and more than
14,000 students. In the Bay Area, the plan is being tested by the New
Haven district in Union City. The Santa Cruz city, Carmel and Manteca
districts also are among those testing the material. An additional 400
school districts have signed up to use the curriculum, according to
Cal-EPA.
The curriculum covers science, history, social studies and arts and
weaves in environmental principles and concepts over 85 units.
Teachers are encouraged to use the materials, which can be downloaded
from the state's website, as handouts in the classroom and as reading
assignments for students.
The chemistry council declined to comment about its work on
California's environmental curriculum. However, its views were made
known during a period of public review and comment on the lesson plan.
“The ACC takes exception to the overall tone, instructional approach
and the lack of solutions offered — most especially, the lack of
mention of the overall solution of plastic recycling,” wrote Alyson
Thomas, a senior account executive with Ogilvy Public Relations
Worldwide, a lobbying firm retained by the trade group.
Kenneth McDonald, spokesman for the California Department of
Education, said he was not aware that the trade group's edits had been
included. He said the development and editing of the content was Cal-
EPA's responsibility.
After learning from California Watch about the chemical industry
additions and edits, Pavley said she would write to Cal-EPA to ask
officials to tweak the current text to remove some of the trade
group's additions.
As Cal-EPA began preparing the curriculum in 2004, it called together
a team of stakeholders — including industry trade groups and
environmental organizations — to provide advice on writing the new
curriculum.
By 2009, the curriculum was mostly written, and the chemistry council
once again weighed in with criticisms and suggested edits for a
section in the 11th-grade text that portrays plastic bags as harmful
to the environment.
The state handed the curriculum development and editing responsibility
to Lieberman, director of the State Education and Environment
Roundtable.
The round-table is a nonprofit group developed by 16 state departments
of education to enhance environmental education in schools. According
to Cal-EPA, the state paid Lieberman's organization nearly $2.4
million from 2004 to 2010 for consulting.
Lieberman said the state gave him discretion over whether to include
editorial suggestions and comments from outside sources.
“I had total control, really, about what comments I accepted or didn't
accept,” he said.
The first edit of the teachers' edition had been highly critical of
plastic shopping bags. It highlighted the long decomposition rate of
the bags and their threat to marine life and ocean health. That
information remains in the text.
A letter with the chemistry council's comments about the 11th-grade
curriculum was presented to Lieberman in 2009 as submissions during a
nine-month public comment period. The state received hundreds of
comments, including those from private individuals, environmental
organizations, and other agencies within the state and federal
governments.
Lieberman incorporated nearly all of the trade group's suggestions
into the teacher's edition, which provides the context and lesson plan
for the course.
He also added the section on the benefits of plastic bags, after the
chemistry council complained in a letter: “To counteract what is
perceived as an exclusively negative positioning of plastic bags
issues, we recommend adding a section here entitled ‘Benefits of
Plastic Shopping Bags.' “
Among other changes, he also removed a mention of plastic bags as
“litter” in the teachers' edition after the trade group's
representative complained. “To be clear,” wrote the Ogilvy executive,
“plastic bags don't start as litter; they become litter.” Now, when
the word litter appears in the text, it is prefaced with “can become”
or is used as a verb.
California Watch, the state's largest investigative reporting team, is
a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting. You can contact
the writer at sr...@californiawatch.org.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_18711395
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages