{"id":7334,"date":"2018-10-29T16:25:05","date_gmt":"2018-10-29T16:25:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=7334"},"modified":"2018-10-29T16:25:05","modified_gmt":"2018-10-29T16:25:05","slug":"ee-practitioners-perspective-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2018\/10\/29\/ee-practitioners-perspective-3\/","title":{"rendered":"EE: practitioners\u2019 perspective 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here are more comments on the part 2 of the King's Report:\u00a0The Practitioners\u2019 Perspective<\/a>: Understanding Environmental Education in Secondary Schools\u00a0<\/em>building on what I\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0last week. \u00a0What follows relates to the roundtable discussions that led to the report.<\/p>\n

\n

1<\/strong> Page 10 raises issues about EE as a subject, and the benefits this might have. \u00a0There's an immediate terminological problem here in that the phrase 'environmental education' does not suggest a subject. \u00a0After all, no one talks about history education at school, or biology education, music education, etc; rather, these are referred to as history, biology, and music, because they are recognised as<\/em> subjects. \u00a0The process by which something becomes suitable to be regarded as a subject is a fascinating one, and a number of conditions need to be met. \u00a0It took years, for example, for geography to be so regarded. \u00a0See this<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In this sense, every subject has a history and so it's no use thinking that a label can be attached and all will be well. \u00a0That said, it can be argued that many of the conditions may well now in place for a broad view of 'environment' to become a school subject, avoiding the 1970s split between\u00a0environmental science \/ studies that was deemed necessary then. \u00a0My view of this is that if it is to happen, it will have to be driven from above: universities will need to demand it; learned societies will need to facilitate it; NGOs and subject t associations will need to support the process. \u00a0But will they? \u00a0 There seems no sign of that; nor are there clear views on what would need to be experienced, taught and learned. \u00a0However, whatever it's called, it won't be\u00a0environmental education<\/em>.<\/p>\n

All this would, of course, be opposed, by those representing and promoting existing subjects \u2013 think geography \/ biology \u2013 and you already know what the arguments will be. \u00a0That's the thing about subject champions, they will always defend the status quo, that is: their hard-won privileges.<\/p>\n

Then there's the question of where \/ how it would fit into the secondary school and who would teach it. \u00a0But my brain's already hurting, so enough of this for now ...<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2<\/strong>\u00a0Page 11 sees the attractive idea of schools being agents of change \u2013 and so they can be at an individual level (other things being equal which they increasingly aren't). \u00a0But agents of change at a society level? \u00a0I think not. \u00a0Most schools are still the conservative force with an economic purpose they were designed to be in the 19th century, despite the huge efforts of many teachers and managers down the years. \u00a0It's a sobering truth that society (ie, government) finds it easier to influence schools than the reverse. \u00a0 How could this not be given where the money comes from, and where the power of legislation, regulation and inspection lies.<\/p>\n

There is, of course, now scope for academies and free schools (like independent schools) to carve out a distinctive curriculum niche for themselves and their communities, but you'd have to say that not enough do so yet with an environmental focus. \u00a0However, the idea of a nature school<\/a> is one to watch.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3<\/strong> The discussion section of the report (page 13 to 14) says:<\/p>\n

\"Whilst these key questions have no simple answers, it is\u00a0beyond doubt that the current environmental education\u00a0offer in secondary schools in England requires reform. Doing\u00a0nothing is not an option and compromises are required.\"<\/em><\/p>\n

Sadly, however, doing nothing<\/em> is just the thing to do if you are the DfE (which is quite satisfied with the\u00a0current environmental education\u00a0offer<\/em>). \u00a0If 'nothing' were replaced by 'not a lot<\/em>', then this probably also describes the attitude of those gatekeeping geography and biology in schools who have a lot to lose by an improved EE\u00a0offer<\/em>. \u00a0They won't, of course, say this publicly.<\/p>\n

What follows from this optimism by the authors is of greater interest:<\/p>\n

\"We acknowledge the structural difficulties implicit in\u00a0calling for environmental education to be located in one\u00a0curriculum area. We note that the inclusion of environmental\u00a0education would mean the exclusion of other content\u00a0areas. Furthermore, we note that environmental education\u00a0does not fit solely into one discipline. We also note the\u00a0epistemological differences in the way that environmental\u00a0education is taught. In science, the focus tends to be\u00a0on explaining the underlying mechanisms shaping an\u00a0environmental issue; in geography, a greater focus is placed\u00a0on examining the environmental impacts of phenomena\u00a0and discussing human responses; whilst in PSHE, religion,\u00a0or ethics, environmental topics are discussed through a\u00a0consideration of rights and responsibilities. Finally, and as\u00a0discussed above, the location of environmental education\u00a0may detrimentally affect its delivery to all students through\u00a0to the age 16.\"<\/em><\/p>\n

This seems to get the different subject foci about right, though not everyone will agree that this is how it ought to be. \u00a0The oddity in this, however, is the lack of any mention of global learning \/ development education, which, many would say, has been far more successful in getting schools to focus on the sustainability issues around social justice. \u00a0Having a lot of DfID cash helped, of course. \u00a0Where's our DEFRA cash?, I hear you say, but that's a long story and I won't repeat any of my many blogs about this. \u00a0I'll just say that a comprehensive global learning would fully embrace EE and DfID's preferred model of global learning. \u00a0This is the only thing that fully fits with the sustainable development goals.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In all this, the authors opt for a tweaking of the status quo which might be summarised as leaving the two big subject beasts (and PSHE) alone and work within the existing arrangements to change what they do, rather than trying anything too radical (like the establishment of an environment subject. \u00a0This is a more pragmatic (and sensible) conclusion than my preferred longer-term subject creation solution. \u00a0If this strategy is to succeed, however, maybe it's time to stop calling it environmental education.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here are more comments on the part 2 of the King's Report:\u00a0The Practitioners\u2019 Perspective: Understanding Environmental Education in Secondary Schools\u00a0building on what I\u00a0wrote\u00a0last week. \u00a0What follows relates to the roundtable discussions that led to the report. 1 Page 10 raises...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,3,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-new-publications","category-news-and-updates"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7334\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}