Mark H. Shour, Extension Program Specialist, Entomology
K-12 public school Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the North Central Region has either involved independent implementation efforts (with varying successes) or has been unable to get a program started in certain states. Further, there has been little communication among school IPM state programs. In this organizational shortfall, misinformation continues to exist about proper pest management approaches and many school districts continued to approve monthly preventive pesticide treatments. Consequently, more than 10 million students and school personnel could have been exposed to unnecessary pesticide residues.
To assist in creating a network among K-12 public school IPM programs in the North Central Region by facilitating the sharing of resources, information, and tools in order to minimize duplication of effort. To assist states without a school IPM program by participating in pilot/demonstrative efforts.
During the past year, Iowa State University Extension has co-led the North Central Region School IPM Working Group. This leadership involved three aspects. First, coordinating and participating in face-to-face meetings of the Working Group members; in the past year, this has occurred twice – on August 20-21, 2008 in Champaign, IL, and on June 9-10, 2009 in Columbia, MO. Each meeting involved a school walk-through and group discussions covering items needed to implement school IPM. The second aspect involved monthly teleconferences with Working Group members discussing pest management issues, including successes and failures of programs/approaches. The third aspect involved planning and participating in pilot programs in states without a school IPM program; Iowa State University Extension worked in MO in 2008 and has begun a year-long program in SD.
School IPM Working Group members have grown from less than 10 at the onset in 2007 to more than 45 workers, covering various professional disciplines. Each of the 12 states in the North Central Region is represented. Face-to-face meetings initiated or strengthened interaction between Working Group members in the region. School walk-throughs showed the technical processes of implementing IPM, as well as demonstrated the items that can slow or hinder successes. For the SD project, 4 teleconferences have occurred in 2009, initial site assessments have been made for 2 districts (Brookings, Flandreau), one IPM newsletter has been distributed to all staff in both districts, and 30 people participated in training on June 23, 2009. All of the participants (100%) said the training familiarized them with pesticide safety, and most (87.5%) said they would do additional reading on the school IPM topic.
170 Pesticide Applicator Training
Page last updated:
August 5, 2009
Page maintained by Linda Schultz, email@example.com