Energy Literacy in MA

Map of collected information about Energy education in MA

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Energy Literacy in MA by Mind Map: Energy Literacy in MA

1. Project to Increase Energy Literacy in MA

1.1. Scope?

1.2. Goals

1.3. Outcomes- (How do we know if it is successful)

1.4. People Involved

1.4.1. SAGEE Project Team

1.4.1.1. Marybeth Campbell

1.4.1.2. Will Snyder

1.4.1.3. Tim Rayworth

1.4.1.4. Ann McGovern

1.4.1.5. Conversation Participants

1.4.1.5.1. Lisa Hutchings- MAS Joppa Flats (Newburyport)

1.4.1.5.2. Cynthia Mead- Zoo New England (Stoneham)

1.4.1.5.3. Clif Reed- DCR Quabbin Reservoir (Belchertown)

1.4.1.5.4. Jim Lafley- DCR Wachusett Reservoir (West Boylston)

1.4.1.5.5. Will Snyder- UMass Ext (Amherst)

1.4.1.5.6. Tricia Sheppard- Lloyd Center (Duxbury)

1.4.1.5.7. Sou Cloutier- Miller River EC (Orange?)

1.4.1.5.8. Kristin Karl Carnahan- DCR Ranger Services (Boston)

1.4.1.5.9. Joel Rubin- Stoughton High School (Stoughton)

1.4.1.5.10. Maria Beiter-Tucker- DCR Quabbin Reservoir (Belchertown)

1.4.1.5.11. Jennifer Marshall- SEEAL (New Bedford)

1.4.1.5.12. Shawn Reeves- energyteachers.org

1.4.1.5.13. Bob Chen- UMass Boston (Boston)

1.4.1.5.14. Ann McGovern- DEP (Boston)

1.4.1.5.15. Bill Stanwood- Product Stewardship institute

1.4.1.5.16. Mary Marro- Nashua River Watershed Association

1.4.1.5.17. John Anderson- New England Aquarium

1.4.2. Energy Education Task Force

1.4.2.1. Liza Molodovski

1.4.2.2. Meg Colclough- EOEEA

1.4.2.3. Ann Berwick- EOEEA Undersecretary for Energy

1.4.2.4. Halina Brown- head of the Environmental Policy & Science Dpt at Clark Univ

1.4.2.5. Francie Nolde

1.4.2.6. Sydney Asbury-Governor’s Office

1.4.2.7. Bob Keough- EOEEA

1.5. Phases

1.5.1. Information Gathering- Steps taken:

1.5.1.1. Survey of Education community to gather information about Energy Education

1.5.1.2. Meeting of Educators in community with Undersecretary Ann Berwick who posed 8 questions

1.5.1.2.1. 8 Questions

1.5.1.2.2. Meeting Notes

2. What is Energy Literacy?

2.1. Goals

2.2. Principles

2.2.1. Energy Education is not he province of any one discipline

2.2.1.1. Food and fiber, solid waste recycling, and water are just as much a part of energy issues as transportation and housing

2.2.2. Most effective delivery of energy education is through systems perspectives

2.2.2.1. e.g.. Ecological Footprint = Energy Footprint

2.2.3. Non-formal programs are often better than schools at getting youth involved in the community (they have more freedom to adjust their curriculum and try new ideas) and are likelier to focus on citizen empowerment/action elements of climate education.

2.3. Focus areas

2.3.1. Energy Conservation

2.3.1.1. ex. comparing energy consumed when buying produce locally compared to imported

2.3.2. Climate Change

2.3.3. Alternative Fuels

2.3.4. Renewable Energy

2.3.5. Mechanics of Energy

2.4. How is energy education being conducted?

2.4.1. Informal integration with existing topics

2.4.2. As stand alone programming at informal education sites and community resources

2.4.3. As curriculum driven programming at schools an universities

3. Strengths

3.1. Existing Energy Education

3.1.1. Existing Energy Ed Programs

3.1.1.1. Professional Development

3.1.1.1.1. Inconvenient Truth screenings

3.1.1.1.2. 2007 DOE Content Institutes

3.1.1.1.3. Climate Change backpack workshops

3.1.1.1.4. PLT Workshops

3.1.1.1.5. Integratign Science through Energy- a grad level course for teachers at UMass Boston Fall 2007

3.1.1.1.6. Energy in Schools Workshop- NYSERDA

3.1.1.2. Formal/school based

3.1.1.2.1. Energy Units

3.1.1.2.2. DEP Green Team

3.1.1.2.3. Partnership with outside org

3.1.1.2.4. Community Colleges

3.1.1.3. Informal/org based

3.1.1.3.1. Annual or Large Projects

3.1.1.3.2. Individual or Single programs

3.1.1.3.3. Ongoing Programs

3.1.1.3.4. Series programs

3.1.1.4. Curriculum

3.1.1.4.1. Climate Change Backpack

3.1.1.4.2. NESEA lessons and Curricular units

3.1.1.4.3. NESEA Special Patch Programs for Girl Scouts

3.1.1.4.4. PLT

3.1.1.4.5. The Habitable PLanet

3.1.1.5. Materials

3.1.1.5.1. Guide to Presenters on Earth-Friendly Transportation

3.1.1.5.2. MAP - Getting Around Clean & Green In Massachusetts's Pioneer Valley

3.1.1.6. Community based

3.1.1.6.1. Renewable Energy Series (SEEAL)

3.1.1.7. Recognition

3.1.1.7.1. EE Awards

3.1.2. Existing Energy Ed Audiences

3.1.3. Existing Energy Ed Providers in MA

3.1.3.1. Public

3.1.3.1.1. Statewide

3.1.3.1.2. Local Resources

3.1.3.2. Private

3.1.3.2.1. Harvard University Center for the Environment

3.1.3.2.2. Genzyme Center

3.1.3.2.3. Gilman Ordway Campus

3.1.3.2.4. Solar Now

3.1.3.3. Non-profit

3.1.3.3.1. Millers River Environmental Ed Center

3.1.3.3.2. Mass Audubon

3.1.3.3.3. Envirothon

3.1.3.3.4. Harvard Forest

3.1.3.3.5. Northeast Sustainable Energy Association

3.1.3.3.6. Zoo New England

3.1.3.3.7. Energyteachers.org

3.1.3.3.8. Charles River Museum of Industry

3.1.3.3.9. MASS MoCA

3.1.3.3.10. Museum of Science

3.1.3.3.11. Audubon Society of Rhode Island Environmental

3.1.3.3.12. Blue Hill Observatory and Science Center

3.1.3.3.13. George Robert White Environmental Conservation Center at Boston Nature Center (Mattapan)

3.1.3.3.14. H.O.B.B.E.S.

3.1.3.4. Out-of-State

3.1.3.4.1. Searsburg Wind Farm (searsburg,VT)

3.1.3.4.2. Apeiron Institute (Coventry RI)

3.1.3.4.3. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)

3.1.3.4.4. Chewonki Foundation

3.1.3.5. Industry

3.1.3.5.1. Hull Wind

3.1.3.5.2. MassInnovation Center

3.1.3.5.3. Wheelabrator Millbury Trash to Energy

3.1.3.6. Collaborative Groups

3.1.3.6.1. Southeast Environmental Education Alliance

3.1.3.6.2. Valley Environmental Education Collaborative

3.2. Energy Education Enabling Factors

3.2.1. Funding Opportunities

3.2.1.1. Public Awareness Grants (MA Tech Collaborative)

3.2.1.2. Green Schools (MA Tech Collab)

3.2.2. Infrastructure

3.2.2.1. Environmental education practitioners make strong leaders in Energy Ed because they

3.2.2.1.1. are familiar with interdisciplinary approach to education

3.2.2.1.2. Can design hands-on project-based education

3.2.2.1.3. Create materials to build skills

3.2.2.1.4. are experienced with learning outside the classroom

3.2.2.1.5. are comfortable with community based learning

3.2.2.1.6. have a tradition of handling controversial issues through citizen participation

3.2.2.1.7. are passionate about the issues they get behind

3.2.3. Administrative Support

3.2.3.1. EOEEA Interest

3.2.3.1.1. Reorganization to include dept of Energy

3.2.3.1.2. Undersecretary Berwick recognizes that education is an important tool in addressing energy issues

3.2.3.2. DOE

3.2.3.2.1. Emphasis on STEM

3.2.3.3. Gov. Patrick has linked global warming and human health

3.2.3.3.1. Global Warming and Energy Policy are closely linked

4. Weaknesses

4.1. Preparedness of Educators

4.1.1. Potential providers not prepared with content

4.1.1.1. In need of "gearing up" to provide Energy content

4.2. Linkages to traditional material

4.2.1. Teachers struggle to link sustainability of energy to other science topics...there are "shallow or no links between teaching about compact flourescent light bulbs and the rest of the curriculum, the traditioanl canon of environmental science."

5. Opportunities

5.1. Audiences

5.1.1. Zoo New England membership base: 11,000 households

5.1.2. Zoo New England: 500,000 visitors/yr

5.1.3. Stoughton HS: 400 kids/yr (example of Env Sci course- how many others across state?

5.1.4. DEP Green Team: 686 Teachers, 123,000 students

5.2. Frameworks/Standards/MCAS connections

5.2.1. "teachers feel it will help students in technology aspect of frameworks, something which is lacking in many districts)

5.2.2. Links to Standards/Frameworks

5.3. Plug in to other initiatives

5.3.1. Electrathon battery powered car racing

5.3.2. Step It Up

5.3.3. Green Schools- $15M initiative

5.4. Possible Partners

5.4.1. EOEEA should facilitate small group meetings connecting expertise with funding; for example, bringing together museum, newspaper and utility staff to brainstorm about how to connect museum/newspaper audiences with the energy conservation initiatives funded by utilities.

5.4.2. DOE

5.4.3. MA Tech Collaborative

5.4.4. Museums

5.4.5. Nature centers

5.4.6. Radio stations (including stations students listen to like Radio Disney, rock and rap)

5.4.7. TV stations

5.4.8. Red Sox and Patriots (public service announcements during their games)

5.4.9. Energy conservation industry and agencies

5.4.10. Distribution and installation professionals

5.4.11. Higher education

5.4.11.1. Teaching colleges and universities such as Bridgewater State and U MA

5.4.12. Nonprofit advocacy groups

5.4.13. Interested government representatives

5.4.14. The energy industry - it can offer students internships and research opportunities

5.4.14.1. Utility companies, esp. re energy efficiency programs they operate

5.4.15. EOEEA agency staff should be encouraged to make school and community connections, even for just a couple of days a year.

6. Threats

6.1. Challenges to Energy Ed

6.1.1. No central Theme

6.1.2. Energy can focus narrowly on new technologies

6.1.3. Risk being the "flavor of the month"

6.1.3.1. ex. many teacher in 07 added energy related materials as a result of Envirothon- an annual event

6.2. Changing the machine

6.2.1. In physics, a "Callous Disregard for the green side of mother nature is the norm"

7. Brainstorm how EOEEA can foster Environmental Literacy

7.1. Program snippets

7.1.1. Pizza Box Solar Cooking of s'mores

7.1.2. Electrathon battery powered car racing

7.1.3. Use air quality data in teaching

7.2. Comments

7.2.1. · The concept of an “ecological footprint” has really resonated w MA high school teachers and students.

7.2.2. Teach people about the additive nature of small actions to create a very big effect. Multiple, redundant and complementary opportunities for learning are important.

7.2.3. We already have plenty of great curriculum resources on energy/climate. What is needed is support for teachers and schools to adapt these resources to their own situations. NCLB and MCAS have stifled teacher leadership/initiative in curriculum choice/development, particularly in environmental education. This opens up a significant niche for EOEEA to encourage/support teacher leadership/creativity/sharing in development of such curriculum.

7.2.4. · Provide a large dose of leadership, by sending a loud and clear message on the need for education on energy use/climate change, including what we need citizens to know and be able to do; set an example by mobilizing EOEEA agencies/staff to contribute; promote high visibility for efforts by teacher/leaders, schools, communities.

7.2.5. Take the lead in making climate change progress a priority goal of this administration.

7.3. Inexpensive Ideas (0-$5K)

7.3.1. Website

7.3.1.1. Description

7.3.1.1.1. · Recruit teachers to advise EOEEA on development of a meta website with links to climate science, policy and curriculum resources for teachers.

7.3.1.1.2. · Post live data on a website about current energy use in MA; and re past energy use in MA, including what types of sources generated the electricity and end-user loads.

7.3.1.1.3. · Create a wiki website (built and maintained by users) with links to curriculum ideas and reviews.

7.3.1.1.4. · Post data on website re Boston area temperature and precipitation measures, as far back in time as data has been collected, in format exportable to Excel.

7.3.1.2. Pros

7.3.1.3. Cons

7.3.1.4. Action

7.3.2. Idea

7.3.2.1. Description

7.3.2.1.1. · Expand Secretary’s Excellence in Environmental Education awards to recognize excellence in connection to the community, linking science and social studies (educating students on critical thinking re “appropriate technology”, providing guidance on preparation for active citizenship), student action.

7.3.2.2. Pros

7.3.2.3. Cons

7.3.2.4. Action

7.3.3. Idea

7.3.3.1. Description

7.3.3.1.1. Put an education team together. Get out to the schools and regions and encourage them. Bring energy ideas to Rotaries and Chambers including demonstrated concepts of lower utility rates.

7.3.3.2. Pros

7.3.3.3. Cons

7.3.3.4. Action

7.3.4. Idea

7.3.4.1. Description

7.3.4.1.1. · Sponsor a school contest for renewable energy development or use by schools.

7.3.4.2. Pros

7.3.4.3. Cons

7.3.4.4. Action

7.3.5. Idea

7.3.5.1. Description

7.3.5.2. Pros

7.3.5.3. Cons

7.3.5.4. Action

7.3.6. Idea

7.3.6.1. Description

7.3.6.1.1. EOEEA agency staff should be encouraged to make school and community connections, even for just a couple of days a year.

7.3.6.2. Pros

7.3.6.3. Cons

7.3.6.4. Action

7.4. Modest Expense ($5-10K)

7.4.1. Idea

7.4.1.1. Description

7.4.1.1.1. · Create a public service announcement for TV/radio about current electricity consumption along with a request to turn off/unplug appliances not being used. At next ad break, report how much energy reduction has been realized, and seek additional conservation steps. Do this daily for a few days, particularly early in summer and on peak energy use days.

7.4.1.2. Pros

7.4.1.3. Cons

7.4.1.4. Action

7.4.2. Idea

7.4.2.1. Description

7.4.2.1.1. Provide a moderate dose of funding, for educational networking efforts and professional development, both web-based and face-to-face.

7.4.2.2. Pros

7.4.2.3. Cons

7.4.2.4. Action

7.4.3. Idea

7.4.3.1. Description

7.4.3.1.1. · Provide more funding for the Green Team program to enable it to expand climate change components, reach more schools, and provide more students with prizes for energy conservation achievements. (She says the Green Team is planning to introduce a climate change component this year focusing on actions students can take to reduce their contribution to greenhouse gases.)

7.4.3.2. Pros

7.4.3.3. Cons

7.4.3.4. Action

7.4.4. Idea

7.4.4.1. Description

7.4.4.1.1. · Seek out stories of students who have worked to measure/reduce energy use in their schools. Report these stories in popular media and in media for educators, both web and print.

7.4.4.2. Pros

7.4.4.3. Cons

7.4.4.4. Action

7.4.5. Idea

7.4.5.1. Description

7.4.5.1.1. there is a need for more curricula on cutting edge renewal energy (wind, wave, tidal, solar, biomass) and also on carbon sequestration technologies.

7.4.5.2. Pros

7.4.5.3. Cons

7.4.5.4. Action

7.4.6. Idea

7.4.6.1. Description

7.4.6.1.1. · Get schools to have wellness policies that promote energy-saving fitness programs like biking/walking to school, and farm-to-school programs that incorporate local produce into school lunches.

7.4.6.2. Pros

7.4.6.3. Cons

7.4.6.4. Action

7.5. Expensive ($10-100K)

7.5.1. Idea

7.5.1.1. Description

7.5.1.1.1. EOEEA should create a full-time position for an Environmental Education Director and develop a grant program to support educational programs on energy use and climate change.

7.5.1.2. Pros

7.5.1.3. Cons

7.5.1.4. Action

7.5.2. Idea

7.5.2.1. Description

7.5.2.1.1. Hands on is the best mechanism. Access to PV and wind and thermo gear through commercial partnerships with installation industry and power investors. Teachers at a # of schools like Cape Cod Community Colleges’s Mary Jane Curran and Bob Bedard have energy projects and curriculum already. Mt. Wachusett Comm College’s Rob Rizzo would share his biomass and wind power accomplishments. Put together a case study compendium of those who have such programs.

7.5.2.2. Pros

7.5.2.3. Cons

7.5.2.4. Action

7.5.3. Idea

7.5.3.1. Description

7.5.3.1.1. · Sponsor school district-wide greening efforts that involve teachers and students in planning and implementation. Greening efforts should be viewed in the largest context - not just school buildings, but also educate communities and encourage their involvement.

7.5.3.2. Pros

7.5.3.3. Cons

7.5.3.4. Action

7.6. Very Expensive (>$100K)

7.6.1. Idea

7.6.1.1. Description

7.6.1.1.1. · Work with DOE to facilitate a series of forums for high school students to work with data about where our energy comes from, how it is used, and current trends, and have students try to decide where energy should be generated in the future. Engage at least one class from every high school in MA.

7.6.1.2. Pros

7.6.1.3. Cons

7.6.1.4. Action

8. Resources

8.1. People to contact

8.1.1. Debbie Fitton- [email protected]

8.1.2. Chris Mason- [email protected]

8.1.3. Shawn Reeves- [email protected]

8.1.4. Nancy Nylen- [email protected]

8.1.5. Bil Labich- [email protected]

8.1.6. Bart Lee- St. Francis Middle School (Medford) uses energy in teaching (ref: joel rubin)

8.1.7. John Papadonis- K-8 science head in Burlington- uses energy in teaching (ref: Joel Rubin)

8.1.8. Integrating Sciences through Energy Professors at UMB

8.1.8.1. Bob Chen- Env Science Teacher

8.1.8.2. Bala Sunderam- Physics

8.1.8.3. Fernando Cleves- Middle School teacher

8.2. Organizations

8.2.1. energyteachers.org

8.2.2. MA Energy Consumers Alliance

8.2.3. Boston Science Partnership

8.3. Industry/Private

8.3.1. Parker Products (Reading)- tremendous resource for photovoltaics)

8.3.2. Conservation Services Group

8.4. References

8.4.1. MA Tech Collab Guide to Teaching Renewable Energy and Global Warming