The historical context of Environmental Education and the hurdles it faces

In developing a Philosophy of Environmental Education it is important I understand the historical context of Environmental Education and the hurdles it faces. Understanding this will give me the knowledge of the current priority Environmental Education holds in society and the possible implications this may have for my future as an Environmental Educator.

According the new Australian Curriculum (ACARA n.d.) that will be in action by 2014, Sustainability is a cross curricular priority. At face value this would seem to mean that Environmental or Education for Sustainability (EfS) is becoming a priority to be taught in Australian schools. However, deeper analysis of the integration of Sustainability into the curriculum reveals that it is being treated quite superficially. If one is to consider that there is this push by EfS practitioners to have education systems reorientated towards EfS the apparent ‘add on’ of Sustainability into the curriculum is far from achieving this goal.

If Sustainability has been ‘added’ into the curriculum, it could be assumed that it has become another subject to be taught. Yet if we consider that teachers already feel overburdened with an ever expanding curriculum (Evans, Whitehouse & Hickey 2012), this would seem unwise. Instead, the Australian Curriculum’s interpretation of ‘integration’ of Sustainability into the Curriculum appears to be content based. If there is an outcome in English, Mathematics or Science that could be considered Sustainability then a little symbol is put next to this outcome that shows that if teachers are trying to achieve this outcome they are also trying to achieve Sustainability. This is most evident in the outcomes for Science. If teachers are focusing on the outcome that deals with teaching children about living things then they are also teaching students about Sustainability. According to the Australian Curriculum (ACARA n.d.) they just need to make sure they talk about caring for the Earth when trying to achieve this outcome.

Personally, the Australian Curriculum’s treatment of Sustainability is far from EfS. Where are the principles of values clarification, critical thinking and systemic thinking? Is it assumed that the teachers will pick up the corresponding Sustainability Curriculum Framework( DEWHA 201) and be able to use these principles in their teaching? Or do they really not care about Sustainability? Is it put into the Australian Curriculum as a ‘cross-curriculum priority’ to show that the Education system is ‘doing its bit’ for the environment; but still just going about their business as usual?

The Australian Curriculum is treating Sustainability rather superficially. Yet if we consider the historical context of Environmental Education and Environmentalism itself, it is easy to understand why this treatment is occurring. Saylan and Blumstein (2011) in their book The Failure of Environmental Education (and how we can fix it) discuss the historical context of Environmental Education.  In discussing the historical context of Environmental Education they also present the hurdles that Environmental Education faces. To summarise their argument, the historical context of Environmental Education can be placed into three categories. These categories are the Politicisation of Environmentalism, the Current dominant social paradigm and our current means of interacting with the world.

Politicisation of Environmentalism

Saylan and Blumstein (2011) suggest that environmentalism became politicised following the release of Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring. According to Saylan and Blumstein (2011) Rachel Carson’s book through scientific evidence, implicated industry in adverse impacts on the environment through the use of chemical pesticides. As a result of this implication Carson was subject to public attacks by chemical industries who felt her findings would discredit and threaten their business. Although it was found that Carson’s findings were solid and resulted in the immediate cessation of DDT usage, the war that was waged over protection for the environment between industry and environmentalists ‘was the beginning of the politicisation of environmentalism’ (Saylan & Blumstein 2011 p. 25).

In the American context, it was at this point that environmentalism became the cry of liberal America (Saylan & Blumsetin 2011). Environmentalism was becoming a threat to economic gain with its call for protection and conservation of potentially economically viable resources taken from the environment (Saylan & Blumstein 2011). This want by environmentalists to protect the environment despite the negative impact it could have on industry caused the environmental movement to be seen as the voices of the extremist few; those with idealistic notions of reality whose views could negatively impact on industry. Environmentalists started to be labelled as ‘tree huggers’, or in today’s context ‘greenies’,  portrayed as a barrier to economic and industrial growth of society (Saylan & Blumstein 2011). According to Saylan & Blumstein (2011) it was this marginalisation of environmentalism as a movement which also marginalised the environment itself.

The Current Dominant Social Paradigm

To understand why the environmental movement was marginalised, the Current Dominant Social Paradigm needs to be understood. According to Fein (1993) the Current Dominant Social paradigm is the current ideal that nature is secondary and submissive to the economic needs of humans. Although this notion of the Current Dominant Social paradigm is described by Fein (1993) in the nineties, in today’s context the paradigm still rules supreme. As stated by Saylan and Blumstein (2011) ‘That society has failed to accept responsibility is a result of placing ourselves at the centre of our universe and believing we are here to dominate our surroundings’ (p.21). It is our value that we place on monetary gain that has created this marginalisation of the environment.

Although this is a personal reflection and is not backed by evidence, if the environment’s needs may override our chance to gain economically then the economy will trump the environment more often than not. This personal observation could be the result of the mention by Saylan and Blumstein (2011) that success in the Current Dominant Social Paradigm is largely measured in monetary terms.

The question that arises through delving into the Current Dominant Social Paradigm is, Is the Current Dominant Social Paradigm working for us? For some whose daily activities result in monetary gain would suggest yes, but surely humanity’s success and worth is beyond measuring economically. 

According to Saylan and Blumstein (2011) in terms of humanity, the Current Dominant Social Paradigm may be doing more harm than good. Unfortunately our education system is designed to produce a workforce, not individuals who hold notions of morals and ethics (Syalan & Blumstein 2011). Saylan and Blumstein (2011) suggest that we have become so wrapped up in standardising learning that it has resulted in a populace that are functionally illiterate. This means that while they may be able to read and write, when it comes to civic concerns and critically analysing the information that is presented to them, they are less able. It is this need for a robotic performing society to create a functioning populace that has resulted in a lack of concern for social and environmental issues (Saylan and Blumstein 2011). Saylan and Blumstein (2011) suggest with this notion that perhaps Aldous Huxley’s A Brave New World is perhaps not too far away from being the truth.

Our current means of interacting with the world

With the rise of new technologies, there has been a change with how we interact with our world. Today we interact through emails, social networking , text messaging and the internet itself (Saylan & Blumstein 2011). This new way of interaction means that we are subject to insurmountable amounts of information which leaves us feeling confused and frustrated with what exactly to believe (Saylan & Blumstein 2011). According to Saylan and Blumstein (2011) the issue of access to too much information is an even greater issue when we consider that most scientific concepts are not accessible to the general public due to scientific language. Thus the populace have access to a large amount of information that may not be backed by scientific findings.

Not only do new technologies give people access to potentially invalid and unreliable information but these technologies can keep us indoors and away from interacting with the environment (Saylan & Blumstein 2011).  This means developing a connection with nature and people is complicated by the fact that people enjoy technology that is used inside.

Assessing the historical context that Environmental Education finds itself in leaves many hurdles that appear to be in the way of achieving change towards action for the environment. These hurdles appear to be the marginalisation of the environment and the environmental movement, the effect the Current Dominant Social Paradigm has on our values and our love for new technology that creates a large amount of information causing confusion and frustration and keeping us indoors.

In terms of a Philosophy for Environmental Education, two questions arise from assessing Saylan and Blumstein’s (2011) stated historical context of Environmental Education. Firstly, are Saylan and Blumstein’s (2011) critique of society’s current treatment of the environment too critical or is it based on merit? And secondly, If Saylan and Blumstein’s (2011) critique is based on merit what do the hurdles it presents mean for Environmental Education?

Saylan C and Blumstein D T 2011 The Failure of Environmental Education The Regents of the University of California, London.
Evans N, Whitehouse H and Hickey R 2012 Pre-service teacher’s conceptions of Education for Sustainability Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37(1):1-12.
DEWHA 2010 Sustainability Curriculum Framework: A guide for curriculum developers and policy makers Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Fein J 1993 Education for the environment: Critical curriculum theorising and environmental education Deakin University and Griffith University, Geelong.
ACARA n.d. Sustainability http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/CrossCurriculumPriorities/Sustainability, 20 September 2012.