A curious half-discussion the other day – by zoom, of course. It focused on how best to raise public awareness of the ecological / environmental issues we all face, especially climate change, so that the said public then might bring pressure to bear on government to require schools to provide students with more opportunity to learn about such matters. A key word in there is “more” because the English national curriculum already requires such opportunities, as DfE ministers tirelessly point out. There are a heap of assumptions in this strategy; most significantly that government will be amenable to public influence, if the public were so biddable which is also a question. But let that be for a while.
Much of the discussion was around how such awareness raising might framed. Although ‘framing’ was not mentioned, it did not need to be as it’s implicit in all such questioning. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are a popular framework, for example as they usefully bring together social, economic and environmental issues, and hence development education and environmental education, or global and environmental learning (if you like). But even with the Goals as a framework, choices need to be made as to how to introduce ideas or where to place the emphasis. Will it be, for example, by focusing on poverty and disadvantage, as development educators might be won't to do; or will it be by an emphasis on the loss of species, global heating, and the climate, as some environmental educators might think important. I'm in the latter group it should be said; partly because of my disciplinary background, and partly because of my academic career. But also because I know that when the CO2 levels reach 500ppm and/or keystone species have gone for good, there will be plenty of time to think of poverty and disadvantage: historic, current and future.
But do you really have to choose between these? Is there not a way to bring these together? Is this, perhaps, the value of a focus on climate justice as a way in to discussions? This was the assumption underpinning much of the half-discussion as we zoomed along the other day, and I can see its heuristic benefits. I was not convinced, however, especially we managed to talk without ever mentioning the existential nature of the crisis afforded by climate change and species extinction. I was left thinking that it was more of a slogan than a concept. But maybe I just need re-educating. Perhaps it will be made compulsory at some point.
Respond