[Odonata-l] [se-odonata] Re: [SoWestOdes] annual odonate surveys

[Michael Blust]

As an example of the problem, I wrote a proposal to Epscor (the educational research startup program of the NSF) this past year to help fund my Vermont Odonate research.  The reviewers were relatively postitive, but it was not funded because "we don't fund survey work".  From what I see happening to University museums and other collections, taxonomy and survey work is not well respected these days.
 
Michael Blust
Dept. of Science
Green Mountain College
Poultney, VT   

________________________________

From: odonata-l-bounces at listhost.ups.edu on behalf of Dennis Paulson
Sent: Tue 11/7/2006 12:55 PM
To: Steve & Marcia M. Hummel
Cc: Odonata-l; se-odonata at yahoogroups.com; gl_odonata at yahoogroups.com; SoWest Odes; CalOdes; Jana Baldwin; neodes at yahoogroups.com; ckline at ag.arizona.edu
Subject: Re: [Odonata-l] [se-odonata] Re: [SoWestOdes] annual odonate surveys


I'll continue the non-odonate thread just a bit, as it's so important. Maybe after a change in administration we can get the program changed to  

NO CHILD LEFT INDOORS

Of course I say mostly this in jest, because the emphasis on molecular biology is not going to go away, as long as it is linked to human health. Why the powers that be don't understand that the environment is also linked to human health has always been beyond me. And, as E. O. Wilson has pointed out, we have to understand that our psychic health is also linked to the environment.

We just have to keep trying. I assume everyone on these lists who is a US citizen is voting today. 

Dennis 

	-----

Dennis Paulson
1724 NE 98 St.
Seattle, WA 98115
206-528-1382
dennispaulson at comcast.net


On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Steve & Marcia M. Hummel wrote:

	

	Hi all,
	This is a bit off subject, but I felt I needed to reply to the 
	education comments of Chris's. It isn't just AZ, but probably most 
	states where abadonment of field biology has happened. The rise of 
	molecular biology and its stressing in state (or in IA) and local 
	standards, as well as no child left behind, is very much to blame. 
	Additionally, many administrators don't understand the value of 
	nature study. I spent 25 years teaching high school science and found 
	it difficult to get permission to take the students out of the 
	classroom. I did finally get to establish an environmental science 
	class and made the first quarter of the school year based on an insect 
	collection connected to later study of biodiversity. 4 years ago my 
	position with the school was cut due to declining enrollment and the 
	environmental science class was dropped.
	
	I've worked as a county naturalist for the last 3.5 years doing 
	environmental education. I try to get kids (I'm working with 
	pre-school through high school) outside as much as possible. The 
	kids, of course, love it, but we have to be rather creative to connect 
	what we are doing to "standards". My personal feelings is that the 
	narrow standards and NCLB is nearly criminal in what they have done to 
	the study of the natural world and the consequent lack of 
	understanding and appreciation in the younger population of this 
	country.
	
	Everyone that is interested in nature should be contacting school 
	administrators and science teachers expressing their concern about 
	nature study not being an important part of the curriculum.
	
	We need many more young people to have an interest in the natural 
	world (and drogonflies, butterflies, etc) and this needs to be started 
	in school if they aren't getting it elsewhere.
	
	Thanks,
	Steve Hummel
	Lake View, IA
	DSA board member