Valuable lessons in ‘school boiler war’
REGARDING the burning of coal and the ‘‘School boiler war’’ (ODT, 6.5.17): I am pleased there is such a thing as an ‘‘activist project’’. However, selecting the incorrect organisation to influence once an issue is identified is not helpful. The issue is common to many schools and the organisation to influence should be the Ministry of Education or even central government.
Opoho School could easily have given up and said we cannot be an ‘‘enviroschool’’ as we have a coal boiler and we might appear to be setting a double standard. Pursuing a high standard, even when we can’t immediately achieve every aspect of such a standard, is an important part of learning. Questioning the standard or various components of it and seeing the reaction of others to meeting or not meeting such a standard is also important. There are hopefully valuable lessons from all this.
I wonder if Prof Adler’s project evaluation includes an assessment of appropriate selection of the correct organisation to influence? Does picking on the small fry, so to speak, get evaluated as a good or a bad thing? Is it a valid tactic to generate publicity? Will this publicity be used to do the real project of influencing government? From some angles I would see this as a form of bullying. Will someone defend those being bullied? Does the project have a remedial part where they apologise and correctly target the larger organisations controlling/influencing the smaller organisations?
Prof Adler will objectively manage the assessment of this particular pupil’s assessment given he lives next to the school. Clearly there is an apparent risk of bias/vested interest — perhaps this is already taken care of with someone else marking the pupil’s work? I would like to declare my vested interests — my child goes to Opoho School and along with myself my child emits carbon dioxide.
Steve Searle
Dunedin [Abridged. Prof Ralph Adler replies: ‘‘Steve Searle’s attempt to cast Opoho School as the victim of central government neglect is unsupported by facts. Ministry of Education records show that in the 12 years since becoming an Enviroschool in March 2005, Opoho School has received just under $500,000 for capital works. Not one cent of this amount has been applied to lessening the harm its coalburning is causing its pupils’ health and the planet’s atmosphere. Instead Opoho School has spent its funding on such projects as building roofed decks on to its classrooms and renovating its classrooms. While the new carpeting looks lovely, such vanity projects neither directly improve student learning nor address the school’s responsibilities as an Enviroschool.
‘‘Mr Searle’s preference to blame the Government and claim that Opoho School is too small to make a difference is misguided and damaging to future generations. International climate talks have been happening for almost 40 years, with no real progress achieved. Where significant change has occurred, it has happened because of smallscale, grassroots initiatives (e.g. the EU, the state of California, and small communities like Waitati). People who try to pass the blame on to ‘‘authority’’ figures are either naive or guilty of delay tactics.
‘‘Mr Searle is correct; there is a teachable lesson in what Opoho School is doing. But unlike what he suggests, the true lesson is one of hypocrisy. And quite contrary to his description, the university students attempted to engage constructively with the school, dreaming of helping it to lead a panDunedin campaign to replace all school coal boilers with heating systems that don’t belch lead, mercury, arsenic, and other toxicants. The students specifically chose Opoho School because of its GreenGold status, but report the school figuratively flipped them the finger. In contrast to Opoho School’s antipathy, Enviroschools recently met with the students. In other words, there is still reason to hope.’’ Abridged. ]