On November 17, 1994, an ``atomic bomb'' was brought into the Arizona House of Representatives, Hearing Room 3, during a meeting of the Environmental Education Curriculum Review Committee. The bomb was so frightening that the committee, acting by ``consensus'' (actual votes cannot be taken without prior notification), decided not to release it for public scrutiny. It would provoke far too much controversy, thereby hampering the work of the Committee.

The bomb consisted of six pages labeled ``Working Draft'' of ``Curriculum Materials Needed'' for programs that ``help pupils develop an understanding of the scientific and economic concepts which impact on environmental and natural resource issues.''

Some samples of the inflammatory (fissionable?) materials:

State Superintendent of Public Instruction C. Diane Bishop immediately took the microphone to call A-11 unacceptable because it would require discussion of abortion. [Although teenaged girls are allowed to have an abortion─in some states, on a referral from a publicly funded, school-based clinic─they are not allowed to hear about forced abortions in China. They do, however, sometimes study materials that give a glowing account of China's population control policy, according to Michael Sanera, who wrote the draft after an extensive review of available school materials.]

Several persons testified that it would be too burdensome for Committee members to review actual curriculum materials. Furthermore, if the Committee were to disapprove of certain materials, issues of censorship would be raised. We needed to rely on teachers' judgment, it was said; a good teacher would study the materials and reject those that were biased. On the other hand, it would be too burdensome to require teachers to familiarize themselves with NAPAP before teaching about the (assumed) deleterious effects of acid rain; the study is very lengthy. Teachers need ``bullets'' because they are so busy.

Michael Sanera, Ph.D., presented an example of ``good'' and ``bad'' curriculum materials, both from Ranger Rick's Naturescope. The ``good'' lesson plan, entitled ``A Heated Controversy,'' featured articles by two scientists with opposing views. Despite this affectation of balance, the final activity was to have kids ``brainstorm'' on ways to reduce the release of greenhouse gases─leading them to assume that such actions would reduce global warming. The ``bad'' plan suggested ``demonstrations to find out about the effects of acid rain.'' Students were to plant seeds and water them with distilled water or with vinegar diluted 4:1 to produce a pH of about 3. To be fair, teachers were to tell students that acid rain was rarely as acidic as vinegar. The pH of acid rain is generally about 4, the article stated─without giving a rationale for ``simulating'' its effect with a solution ten times as acidic (or pointing out that the difference is that large). The article also failed to mention that normal rainwater can have a pH as low as 4.2 (Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, Trashing the Planet, Regnery Gateway, 1990).

Committee members were invited to a teacher's workshop at the TREE center (Tucson Resource Center for Environmental Education). The displays featured a number of interesting natural items─tree rings, bird's nests, bones, animal skins─that were formerly studied in classes called ``science.'' There were a couple hundred books: for example, Earth's Vanishing Forests. One chapter,, entitled ``Is It Too Late for the Pacific Northwest?'' used terms such as ``shocking desecration'' but presented not a single graph or statistic concerning the number of trees. Another contained ``science activities'' for secondary schools. In addition to some experiments (such as comparing the lubricant qualities of shortening and motor oil), students were led to create artistic propaganda. One prize-winning poster (grades 10-12) showed continents about to drip off the globe into a storm sewer: ``We're draining more than we need to.'' In others, a homeless mother monkey pleaded for newspaper recycling, and a smiling Mr. Sun, wearing fashionable shades, proclaimed ``I don't need a plug to turn me on.'' An eloquent testament to ignorance of basic scientific principles (such as the Law of Conservation of Energy) read: ``If we don't save energy now, soon there will be none to save.''

At the public hearing, one irate citizen advised the committee to recycle the book Eco-Sanity instead of recommending it for use in public schools. (This excellent book is by Joseph Bast, Peter Hill, and Richard Rue, copyright 1994 by the Heartland Institute and published by Madison Books, 4720 Boston Way, Lanham, Maryland 20706). Another complained that to exclude materials by animal rights activists constituted a violation of free speech.

A concerned parent brought two exhibits to the committee's attention. Exhibit A: a bound notebook of environmental education guidelines for fulfilling the state mandate. Exhibit B: the entire core curriculum for grades K through 12.

Exhibit A was thicker.

There might indeed be the functional equivalent of an atomic bomb in the state legislature. Replacing scientific literacy with mandated ``environmental awareness'' could return civilization back to the Dark Ages.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: If your community has a ``resource center'' for environmental education that accepts donated materials, give books or audiotapes. Provide teachers and young scholars with references. Some examples: The Free Market Environmental Bibliography, CEI, 1001 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20036; the Heartland Institute PolicyFax network (which includes some DDP materials), telephone (510)208-8000 for the main directory; DDP newsletters and audiotapes; Access to Energy, a monthly newsletter, $35 per year from Box 1250, Cave Junction, OR 97523; back issues of Access to Energy and other publications by Petr Beckmann, Box 2298, Boulder, CO 80306; Environment Betrayed, a newsletter by Edward Krug, PO Box 1161, Winona, MN 55987).