Environmental Education Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1999 267

So You Want to Teach For theEnvironment ...

DAVID JAMES CHAPMAN Massey University College of Education, PalmerstonNorth, New Zealand

SUMMARY This article contends that the most effective way to move forward in therealm of environmental education may be to do so outside the sanction of official policy.When all the rhetoric is removed, teaching for the environment is a radical activitywhich governments will almost certainly attempt to neutralise and control. Thus,attempting to reconcile market-driven government policy with environmental educa-tional goals is likely to be a waste of effort.

Introduction

It seems that environmental educators are caught in a bind. They would like tospread their message to the captive audience in schools by having their subjectbecome an integral part of the formal curriculum however attempts to do thisseem fraught with frustrations as will be seen in the following discussion.Environment provides one of the most powerfully unifying themes for curricu-lum that it is possible to have. It provides contexts for study and the potentialfor action in almost every discipline. Rather than attempting to win formalrecognition, however, it may be a better strategy to provide teaching materialsin existing subjects. If these work effectively within current school frameworksproviding teachers with the solutions to day-to-day planning and teachinglogistics, a much more effective way targeting environmental education goalscould be opened.

The rarely spoken truth of environmental education is that it is a sociallyreconstructive activity working for social and environmental justice. As long agoas 1976 the Belgrade Charter (UNESCO-UNEP, 1976) called for a new globalethic. Since that time western governments have instead become more reaction-ary and their societies less equitable while simultaneously global inequities havealso increased. Annette Greenall (1987) is one of the few writers who states thisreconstructive goal clearly as she chronicles the 'snakes and ladders' support

1350-4622/99/030267-06 © 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd

268 D. /. Chapman

provided to environmental education by Australian governments of changingpolitical hue. In a British context, Elliot (1995) describes a similar pattern of doubletalk and frustration in an effort to win support for an environmental educationproject. Politicians have paraded a public stance of support for the environmentyet, by their control of resources, they have ensured little of substantive value hasoccurred. A simple examination of the philosophical perspectives of environmen-tal education and of many current governments should be enough to convince usthat this behaviour is totally consistent and expected.

The political right does not wish to preserve the environment, it wishes toprofit from exploitation of people and cheap resources. Faber and O'Connor(1993) document this most starkly. Based on this premise I wish to review theissues raised by Law and Baker (1997) in their effort to develop a curriculumguideline document in environmental education for the New Zealand Ministryof Education. I contend that the cause of the tensions they articulate was to enterinto a contractual agreement with the Ministry in the first place because theideological perspectives of the two parties were diametrically opposed. Since themotives of Barry Law and Robyn Baker are above reproach in regard to thiscontract I wish only to examine the position of the New Zealand Government asmanifest through the Ministry of Education.

A little history is required. In 1988 the Labour Government released acurriculum framework document entitled the National Curriculum Statement(Department of Education, 1988). Figures 1 and 2 show the arrangement ofsubject groupings it contained along with detail of the significant grouping,Science, Technology and the Environment.

Figure 3 shows the altered subject headings, the 'essential learning areas'published by the National Party Government in 1993, in the New ZealandCurriculum Framework (The National Party came to power in 1989). In this

Curriculum AspectsThe suggested areas of the curriculum are set out as eight aspects of learning on pages10-57. The curriculum aspects are:

Culture and HeritageLanguageCreative and Aesthetic DevelopmentMathematicsPractical AbilitiesLiving in SocietyScience, Technology, and the EnvironmentHealth and Well-being

Collectively they describe the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values which a school'scurriculum should provide for all students.

In addressing these aspects, schools can organise their programmes in a number of ways.In whatever way programmes are organised, they should incorporate the knowledge, skills,attitudes, and values derived from the eight aspects of learning. These aspects should beseen as interrelated, not separate or exclusive. The relationships between aspects need tobe emphasised so that an integrated approach can be taken to learning where this isdesirable or appropriate. For example, culture and heritage are involved in all learning, andare particularly related to, and expressed in, language, the creative arts, the way people worktogether, and the way people understand and interact with their environment.

Fig. 1. Arrangement of subject groupings (Department of Education, 1988, p. 9).

Teaching for the Environment ... 269

Science, Technology, and the EnvironmentThe curriculum should provide for learning which:develops students' experience and understanding of the physical, biological, and techno-logical world, and their understanding of how people interact with their environment. Bothin their homes and work-places, the adults of tomorrow will have to cope with anever-expanding emphasis on science and technology. Schools should take an active role inpreparing students to be confident and responsible in using and controlling these.

This aspect of learning enables students, both girls and boys, to understand and use ideas,skills, and practices which relate to science and technology, and to understand the impactof these on society and the individual. It also helps students to explore how people andcultures relate to, use, and conserve the environment and its resources, and form their ownviews about the responsible use of science and technology.

Teachers need to take into account that, from an early age, children from differentbackgrounds and cultures explore and construct their own ideas and explanations of thephysical, biological, and technological world, and further learning must build on children'sunderstandings.

Teachers need to assist students to develop their skills and understandings throughenquiry and problem-solving to help them make better sense of their world.

Figure 2. Provisions of the curriculum for the grouping Science, Technology and the Environment(Department of Education, 1988, pp. 12-13).

document Science and Technology each form a separate curriculum area whileenvironment has been relegated to the small print in both the framework and inthe subsequent supporting subject curriculum documents. A focus on economicutility at the expense of environment is clearly evident in this material.

While I do not wish to denigrate Ministry officers in general or in particular,I conclude that the move to develop a policy statement on environmentaleducation in 1995 described by Law and Baker (1997) is, in the light of thechanges described above, the type of political manoeuvre one would expectgiven my opening premise. Two further pieces of evidence strengthen thatconclusion. Firstly, as a participant at the 1992 Earth Summit New Zealandagreed that:

Governments should strive to update or prepare strategies aimed atintegrating environment and development as a cross-cutting issue intoeducation at all levels within the next three years. (Agenda 21, UNCED,1992, Ch. 36, p. 265)

The New Zealand Government was in the process of a complete curriculumrewrite over this period and rather than writing environment into the curricu-lum, the authors of the document wrote it out. (Environment as a cross-curricu-lar theme is mentioned in the New Zealand Curriculum Framework once in thetext.) This is a very similar process to that described by Palmer (1998, pp. 25-26)as occurring in Britain in the early 1990s. At the time of writing, mid-1998, thepolicy document framed by Law and Baker remains unpublished leaving NewZealand, 20 years after the Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO-UNEP, 1978) with noformal curriculum statement on environmental education. It might be noted thatone of the acts of the Labour Government in its second term from 1987 to 1989was assumption of responsibility for education by the Prime Minister, DavidLange, who oversaw a complete reorganisation of the administrative structure ofeducation. Thus it will be noted that the Department of Education whichpublished the National Curriculum Statement (1988) has since been replaced by

270 D. /. Chapman

All young people in New Zealand have the right to gain, throughthe state schooling system, a broad, balanced education that

prepares them for effective participation in society.

The PrinciplesNga Matapono

•

The Essential Learning AreasNga Tirio Wahanga Ako

»!* «

The Essential SkillsNga Tino PukengaCommunication Skills

Numeracy SkillsInformation Skills

Problem-solving SkillsSelf-management and Competitive Skills

Social and Co-operative SkillsPhysical Skills

Work and Study SkiHs

Attitudes and ValuesNga Waiaro me nga Uara

National curriculum statementsspecify clear learning outcomes against which

students' achievement can be assessed.

mft)

sL"

era

st/1

en

re

Figure 3. The New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Te Anga Marautanga o Aotearoa) (Ministryof Education, 1993, p. 5).

a new Ministry which has a very different function from its predecessor. TheNational Government continued the impetus of reform in tackling the nationalqualifications structure as well as rewriting the entire curriculum. The essentialpoint here is that neither government lacked the political will or capacity tomake sweeping change over this period. The second piece of follow up evidencerelates to the nature of the specifications for the production of the policystatement itself. While it is interesting to note the non-collaborative processdescribed by Law and Baker (1997) with its checkpoints, contractual obligationsand business speak, the actual substance of these specifications is of crucialimportance. They intend that:

... students develop increased awareness and understanding of issuesrelated to the concept of sustainability and the need to maintain andimprove the quality of the environment. (Law & Baker, 1997)

It appears that the document lacks any reference to action skills and environ-

Teaching for the Environment ... 271

mental problem-solving by which the environment might be protected andimproved. (This leaves aside what might constitute the documents definition ofsustainability.) Thus the policy contract would be anticipated to produce astatement which legitimised the kind of neutralised programme, lacking a for theenvironment component that Greenall described in 1987.

My conclusion could be taken as harsh, for there are numerous references toenvironment throughout the range of curriculum statements which informschooling in New Zealand. This could be interpreted in a number of ways; acommitment to the environment by policy makers, liberal rhetoric in thecurriculum clothing its reactionary shift in the manner described by Huckle(1993), or perhaps curriculum-writing groups at odds with policy deliberatelypreserved a place for it. I suspect some combination of the latter two factors forthe following reasons. Firstly, 15 years had elapsed since the Tbilisi Declaration.During this time governments could have established a positive commitment tothe environment in curriculum materials for schools. Secondly, as describedearlier the status of the environment has regressed rather than advanced in thewriting of current documents. Thus the whole process closely shadows thatdescribed by Elliot in which an education official admits the promotion of anenvironmental award scheme, 'launched to marginalise the role of ... environ-mental education on the school curriculum while at the same time to promoteit as the periphery' (Elliot, 1995, p. 387). It should be noted that the draftdocument circulated by Law and Baker (1995) did contain action goals and thata more recent Ministry for the Environment publication (1998), contain theTbilisi objectives, including skills for participation.

The four main sources I have quoted (Greenall, 1987; Elliot, 1995; Law &Baker, 1997; Palmer, 1998) evince the same sense of frustration at the lack ofprogress and the rhetoric-reality gap. Should not this suggest to us that we areoften playing the game by the wrong rules? The New Zealand curriculumcontains skills that are congruent with many of the goals of Tbilisi. They arespread out through a range of subjects. There is potential for showing teachershow to use the environment, environmental issues and action to teach theseskills demanded by the curriculum and to make the cross-curricular links whichare also strongly recommended. This seems vastly more productive than squab-bling with the Ministry over a policy statement which the authors' own consul-tation indicated is likely to do little but gather dust (Law & Baker, 1997).Environmental education is a socially reconstructive activity. It challenges exist-ing social and economic structures. If you wish to teach for the environment youcannot expect to be showered with blessings by the rich and powerful. You canexpect to find many obstacles placed in the path, obstacles of the sort describedby Greenall (1987), Elliot (1995) and Law and Baker (1997), obstacles whichprovide false promise and end up sapping energy and enthusiasm while oftenproducing nothing productive as a result. For these reasons it is my conclusionthat to develop environmental education within the present Curriculum Frame-work in New Zealand provides greater possibility than persuing policy changein the current political climate.

Notes on Contributor

DAVID CHAPMAN has worked for a number of years in science education on

272 D. J. Chapman

pre-service teacher education courses. More recently he has been working toestablish environmental education in the degree programme. He is particularlyinterested in teacher empowerment to change classroom practice, with a focuson environmental education. Correspondence: Science Department, Massey Uni-versity College Of Education, Private Bag 11035, Centennial Drive, PalmerstonNorth, New Zealand. Email: D.J.Chapman@massey.ac.nz

REFERENCES

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (1988) National Curriculum Statement (draft), discussion documentfor primary and secondary schools, Department of Education, Wellington, New Zealand.

ELLIOT, J. (1995) The politics of environmental education: a case study, The Curriculum Journal,6(3), pp. 377-393.

FABER, D. & O'CONNOR, J. (1993) Capitalism and the crisis of environmentalism, in: R.HOFRICHTER (Ed.) Toxic Struggles: the theory and practice of environmental justice, pp. 12-24(USA, PA, New Society Publishers).

GREENALL, A. (1987) A political history of environmental education in Australia: snakes andladders, in: I. ROBOTTOM (Ed.) Environmental Education: practice and possibility (Geelong, DeakinUniversity Press).

HUCKLE, J. (1993) Environmental education and sustainability: a view from critical theory; in:J. FIEN (Ed.) Environmental Education: a pathway to sustainability, pp. 43-68 (Geelong, DeakinUniversity Press).

LAW, B. & BAKER, R. (1995) Draft curriculum guidelines for environmental education(Christchurch, Mimeo).

LAW, B. & BAKER, R. (1997) A case study of dilemmas and tensions: the writing and consultationprocess involved in developing a national guideline document for environmental education,Environmental Education Research, 3(2), pp. 225-232.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1993) The New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Wellington, LearningMedia).

MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (1998) Learning to Care for our Environment: a national conservationstrategy (Wellington, Learning Media).

PALMER, J.A. (1998) Environmental Education in the 21st Century: theory, practice, progress andpromise (London, Routledge).

UNCED (1992) Earth Summit Agenda 21: the United Nations Programme of Action from Rio,United Nations Conference on Environmental Development, 3-14 June.

UNESCO-UNEP (1976) The Belgrade Charter, Connect, I(1), pp. 1-9.UNESCO-UNEP (1978) The Tbilisi Declaration, Connect, III(l), pp. 1-8.