The ‘web of conditions’ governing England’s climate change education policy landscape

ABSTRACT

Environmental and climate change education remains on the margins of education and climate change policy. This paper draws on Foucauldian theoretical resources to examine England’s climate change education policy landscape and understand the causes of this marginalisation. Informed by policy historiography, we examine key events and shifts in climate change, education and environmental education since the turn of the millennium. Using policy archaeology, we ‘excavate’ the contemporary policy landscape and identify that: i) policy is lacking; ii) responding to the climate crisis is overlooked in education; iii) pro-environmental ambition is absent; and, iv) economic values dominate. In a global context where activists have called for ‘more!’ climate change education, the analyses reveal the complexity of the problem. A ‘web of conditions’ governing climate change education policy is illuminated. Foucault-informed analytical tools offer insights on how this web may be rebuilt.

Introduction

Since the emergence of environmental education in 1960s, countless initiatives have been developed in response to the environmental and climate crises, many of which have remained peripheral in formal education and in national and international climate change policy. While there have been recent pleas from activists for ‘more!’ climate change education and extensive consideration of what constitutes meaningful climate change education (e.g. Kagawa and Selby 2010; Monroe et al. 2017; Rousell and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles 2020; Stevenson, Nicholls, and Whitehouse 2017), future initiatives are likely to be similarly marginalised unless we understand what is impeding progress. Hence, this paper examines England’s policy landscape and explores factors that are inhibiting the progress of climate change education. In so doing, it contributes to what has been recognised as a pressing need for more climate change education research (Henderson et al. 2017; Reid 2019), specifically in relation to policy (Aikens, McKenzie, and Vaughter 2016) and to understanding nation-level climate change education responses (Monroe et al. 2017).

Policy texts arguably play a crucial role in climate change education: they indicate the intentions of government and shape the circumstances in which climate change education exists (Ball 1993). In England, there is no standalone climate change education policy. Instead, statements that could be construed as being related to climate change education sit amongst a suite of policy texts originating from several ministries whose responsibilities span fields of education, environment and climate change. While it might be tempting to frame the climate change education ‘problem’ as the absence of a substantive policy, and the ‘solution’ being to fill the gap, this analysis reveals the climate change education policy problem, and ensuing solutions, to be more complex. Drawing on Foucault-informed theoretical resources of policy historiography and policy archaeology, we examine England’s climate change education policy landscape and propose explanations for how the situation has come to be. We offer insight into the nature of the problem by identifying conditions – past and present – that govern climate change education related policy. Being armed with such understanding, and responding appropriately, new climate change education initiatives are more likely to succeed. We begin by introducing the Foucauldian theoretical tools guiding this research: policy archaeology and policy historiography.

Applying Foucauldian analytical tools to climate change education policy

Our research is framed by Foucauldian concepts of policy archaeology and policy historiography, and interpretations by researchers in education and environmental education policy sociology (Dean 2009; Ferreira 2009; Gale 2001; A. Gough 2013; Scheurich 1994). Our interpretation of the concepts was guided by Gale’s descriptions and application relative to an analysis of Australian higher education policy, and by Ferreira (2013) and Gough’s (2013) discussions and analyses of historiography relative to environmental education research. We found that coupling the tools enabled a comprehensive analysis of the conditions – past and present – that govern the contemporary policy landscape.

Policy archaeology, which best captures the overall intent of the research, investigates factors that govern policy formation. It is a method of ‘excavating’ (Gale 2001, 388) and ‘archiving’ (Foucault 1972, 145) what is said and, more importantly, of seeking to uncover conditions and events that make some statements or views, events or actions possible over others. Policy archaeology seeks to uncover or, more aptly, to interpret conditions that play a governing role and that produce permanent effects (Foucault 1991b, 81). Scheurich (1994) describes that, through policy archaeology, strands and traces of a problem can be identified thereby enabling deeper understanding of why or how some problems come to be recognised as such, whilst others are overlooked or downplayed. ‘Excavating’ the policy landscape enables new understanding of the conditions governing what can be said, or not said, about climate change education.

This policy archaeology is grounded in historical analysis; in Foucauldian terms, in ‘policy historiography’. Foucault argues that historical analyses can be like a magnifying glass that ‘mak(es) visible what was previously unseen’ (Foucault 1980b, 50). We can deepen our understanding of the present by positioning it as interconnected with numerous historical processes and examining matters that might not previously have been considered significant (Foucault 1991b). Rather than focusing on events themselves, policy historiography traces conditions surrounding events and changes over time to understand how some things have become sayable and doable in the present, and others have not. Ferreira (2013) describes such historical analysis as a way to ‘diagnose the present … to question how our established ways of knowing and ways of doing have come to be’ (2013, 63) and, thus, to imagine alternative ways of doing and being. Coupling the analytical tools of policy archaeology and historiography enabled us to identify conditions governing climate change education in England today and, in doing so, we revealed a climate change education policy problem that is more complex than a mere policy gap, and that reaches beyond national boundaries.

Strands of the climate change education policy problem

Faltering international progress and ‘soft governance’

In several respects, the 2000s and 2010s saw growing policy prominence of climate change. However, events in international and national policy arenas did not follow a straightforward path towards ‘progress’, nor did they result in a clear climate change education policy position in England. Internationally, there were several significant climate change policy events, some that could be construed as progress, whilst others could be considered to have hampered efforts. In 2005, the Kyoto Protocol (UN 1998) came into force, 13 years after the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (UN 1992) had been agreed, and notably, over 100 years since Svante Arrhenius had identified the effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth’s temperature (Weart 2017). This milestone was followed, in December 2009, with the heavily anticipated COP15 (Conference of the Parties) in Copenhagen. COP15 was meant to produce agreement on a climate change mitigation framework beyond 2012, bringing together the largest ever gathering of world leaders alongside civil society organisations, individuals and activists in numerous guises (Brookes and Nuthall 2009; Harrebye 2011). Yet, COP15 was perceived by some to be a failure (Black 2010; Goeminne 2010; Sterk et al. 2010) in that it concluded with a (non-unanimous) agreement that was ‘noted’ rather than ‘adopted’. Shortly afterwards, in January 2010, the IPCC admitted to a small but significant error in a previous report (Carrington 2010), which brought the scientific basis of climate change as well as the associated institutions and policies, into question. Arguably, the ‘failure’ of COP15 combined with the IPCC error undermined confidence in both the science and institutions of climate change. Nevertheless, by the mid-2010s, the Paris Agreement (UN 2015a), superseding the Kyoto Protocol, was reached. The Paris Agreement directed global intent towards managing temperature rise and reducing the impacts of climate change ‘in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty’ (UN 2015a, Article 2.1(a)).

Meanwhile, policy attention to climate change-related education was growing internationally. A multi-nation study (Læssøe et al. 2009) found that, by the end of the 2000s, climate change education was ‘developing its own identity’ (2009, 14) in policies, although it was still a fringe topic in research (as part of science education) and practice (as part of environmental education or Education for Sustainable Development [ESD]). International-level climate change education initiatives, such as Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development (UNESCO 2010), sought to raise awareness of climate change in non-formal education settings and in schools. By the middle of the decade, a follow-up study (Læssøe and Mochizuki 2015) to the earlier IALEI report found that, in 15 of 17 countries examined, national policy documents addressed climate change education. However, it was predominantly being implemented at a ‘general and intentional level’ (ibid, 33), unsupported by specific initiatives or action plans, and via unregulated ‘soft governance’ (ibid, 36), that is, as varied forms of stakeholder consultation and guidance rather than as concrete policies. The report’s authors noted a continuing lack of clarity about the role education was playing in response to climate change and that ‘existing efforts seem too weak to ensure a mainstreaming of ESD and CCE’ (ibid, 38). They also identified the alignment of climate change education with discourses and policies of green economy and, in the UK, as tied to the STEM agenda and the labour market. Arguably, alignment with the green economy can instrumentalise climate change education, orienting the ends of education towards supporting the economy more so than the ‘green’ (Kopnina 2016). Thus, by the mid-2010s, international policy texts indicated commitment to climate change amelioration and intention towards climate change education, although this commitment was ‘soft’ and wedded to economic values and goals.

Committing the world to education for sustainable development

Parallel to climate change and climate change education policy developments were shifts concerning sustainable development. In 2015, the same year that the Paris Agreement was reached, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were superseded by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2015b). The SDGs positioned poverty eradication as the world’s most significant problem and economic growth as necessary for sustainability. Through the inclusion of five goals related to the environment and one specifically focused on climate change (Goal 13), the SDGs paid more attention to the environment and climate change than the MDGs. Education also featured prominently as a strategy to address poverty and environmental sustainability with a standalone goal: ‘Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (2015b, 19), and with specific reference to promoting sustainable development through ESD in Goal 4.7. This global commitment to an ESD agenda was then re-affirmed in readiness for the conclusion of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, with the launch of the Global Action Programme (GAP) on Education for Sustainable Development to ‘generate and scale-up concrete actions in ESD’ (UNESCO 2014, 9).

The affordances and shortcomings of the ESD agenda and sustainable development discourse has been the subject of extensive debate in the environmental education literature (e.g. Bengtsson 2016; Berryman and Sauvé 2016; S. Gough 2016; Jickling and Wals 2008; McKenzie, Bieler, and McNeil 2015; Tilbury 1995). Chief amongst criticism has been concern about the economic underpinnings of ESD, including that the central principle of ‘development’ can function in opposition to environment and disregard the intrinsic value and rights of nature (Kopnina 2016). Economic drivers work in concert with and cement broader neoliberal values and structures that are at the root of the climate crisis (Hursh, Henderson, and Greenwood 2015; Sauvé, Berryman, and Brunelle 2007). Thus, despite the SDGs appearing to mark progress towards a sustainable future by securing a role for education and prioritising the environment, they locked in an economic growth agenda thereby reinforcing the economic underpinnings of climate change and climate change education policy.

A national climate change rollercoaster

Parallel to the international policy developments, climate change policy was on a bumpy ride in England. First, the UK government-commissioned Stern Review (Stern, 2007) highlighted a need for urgent action on climate change and recognised the importance of related school-level education for future policy making. As Jackson describes, the Stern Review was a ‘tipping point’ (2010, 517) shaping subsequent UK climate change policy, and where UK policy has English jurisdiction, the review was pivotal in England. Second, the Climate Change Act 2008 subsequently passed, committing the UK to substantial greenhouse gas emissions reduction and a transition to a low carbon economy, primarily via an economic instrument of five yearly carbon budgets. Jackson (2010) notes that the various regulatory and economic mechanisms associated with the Act were designed to show that technology, innovation and efficiency measures would enable the UK to meet the challenge of climate change. Arguably, the Stern Review and the subsequent Act, set a positive tone for tackling climate change within an economic growth paradigm.

However, a few weeks prior to the ‘failure’ of COP15 and the IPCC error (highlighted above), the credibility of climate change science was also questioned in the UK (Nerlich 2010). In November 2009, an event referred to as ‘Climategate’ involved the unauthorised publication of over 1,000 emails from the Climatic Research Centre at the University of East Anglia. The emails, spanning a 15-year period, included discussion of flawed work and of data adjustments. ‘Climategate’ was a set-back for progress on climate change in that it mobilised climate deniers and sceptics to contest scientists’ views (Nerlich 2010). Despite the UK government’s apparent policy leadership, significant progress was thus hampered.

Government change, curriculum change and climate change education

In 2010, a change in the UK Government ushered an ‘agenda of restoration’ (Ball 2013, 106) into education. Ball (2013) describes the shift as embedded in neoliberalism thereby linking student opportunities and social mobility to notions of excellence premised on traditional conceptions of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. The shift had significant consequences for climate change-related education. First, and as has been discussed elsewhere (Martin et al. 2015), the National Framework for Sustainable Schools and funding for the Sustainable Schools Initiative were discontinued. The government justified the discontinuation based on a decentralisation of authority, the importance of school autonomy, professional judgment and freedom to make locally appropriate choices, as follows:

“Sustainability is an important issue for schools, but it should not be centrally driven. We believe that schools understand their responsibilities when it comes to sustainability and, for example, will act to ensure that their buildings are as energy efficient as possible.” (Hill 2010)

Whilst notions of autonomy and responsibility unshackled from government intervention might have appeared to grant schools freedom and flexibility, schools were nonetheless tied to the standardisation of curriculum, assessment and inspection (Alexander 2014). In this context, schools experience intense pressure to achieve high student attainment against the curriculum, exam specifications and inspections, teachers’ freedoms are limited (Gewirtz et al. 2019), and sustainability-related education, subject to ‘soft governance’, is inevitably relegated to the margins.

Second, a curriculum review was undertaken and, in a context where ‘“essential knowledge” in the “basics”’ (Alexander 2014, 6) was allegedly being overlooked by schools, and amid recent knocks to confidence in climate science and the disappointment of COP15 described above, the review provoked public debate about the appropriateness of climate change in the curriculum (Blum et al. 2013; Martin et al. 2015). Various accounts of events at this time describe that the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, sought to downgrade climate change in the curriculum, characterizing it as a ‘contemporary’ issue (Coughlan 2017; Hicks, Ward, and Lester 2013; Wintour 2013). Arguably, such a characterisation could diminish the relevance of climate change by rendering it a passing or ‘faddish’ concern, thereby providing a justification for its removal within a curriculum reform agenda oriented towards established knowledge. Whilst accounts of Gove’s comments vary, it is evident that reports of his comments sparked debate, policy submissions (e.g. Hicks, Ward, and Lester 2013) and campaigns (e.g. Change.org 2013) advocating for the inclusion of climate change in the curriculum. Climate change ultimately appeared in the revised curriculum, however, as the below policy analysis shows, what was included is deficient. The revision also led to significant changes in Citizenship education that, according to Davies and Chong, amounted to a subject that was ‘less like a professionally formed educational programme and more like a selection of perceived current political priorities’ (2016, 25). Specifically, Citizenship was removed as a statutory requirement for primary years (KS 1–2); new content was introduced related to monarchy, constitutional history and personal financial literacy; and content related to media and taking community or environmental action was removed. Reflecting the revised curriculum’s emphasis on a ‘return to knowledge’ (Alexander 2014), cross-curricular priorities, or ‘non-subjects’ (Ball 2013, 107), including sustainability and sustainable development, were removed. This concluded a journey for the cross-curricular themes that had been languishing outside the all-important assessment and inspection regimes since their introduction in 1988 (Scott and Reid 1998). Notably, the new curriculum did not track the SDGs, despite the UK’s leadership in their design (Prime Minister Cameron co-chaired a high-level panel that presented the initial version) and advocacy (Cameron 2015). Such disconnects between international leadership and education responses echoed those playing out in relation to climate change: the UK Government were keen to state that they had played a leadership role in securing the Paris Agreement (BEIS 2016) and in pushing the European Union towards ambitious emissions reductions targets (DECC 2015), yet their education ‘restoration’ diminished environmental and climate change-related education.

An increasing international profile and a national policy muddle

Recently, and internationally, there have been signs that the profile of climate change education, in varied forms, has increased. In 2019, a UNESCO report on countries’ progress on climate change education (McKenzie 2019) found that nearly all countries reporting to the UNFCCC Secretariat on national climate change action included some climate change education content. While ‘public awareness’ was the most commonly reported approach, more than half of the countries reported targeting formal education audiences and McKenzie notes that further research is needed to understand actual implementation. Despite the widespread reporting of climate change-related education activities, Reid underscores that climate change education is still not a requirement of core educational institutions or professionals, lamenting that:

“It is clear that provision of climate change education nationally, regionally and internationally is found wanting in many regards.” (Reid 2019, 770)

Meanwhile, in England, Glackin and King identified a ‘general absence’ of environmental education policy, and that environmental education sits within a ‘deficient and muddled policy landscape’ (2020, 7). Fortunately, to address the government leadership deficit, non-government organisations and subject associations support schools’ environmental and climate change education implementation. This continues the long-term tendency of NGO leadership in the sector (Blum and Husbands 2009) as well as the tradition of ‘soft governance’.

Significantly, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has leadership responsibility for the UK’s response to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (UN 1992) and its child treaty, the Paris Agreement (UN 2015a). This responsibility includes the education-related articles (Article 6 and Article 13, respectively) that together are referred to as Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE). ACE calls on national governments to engage in the development and implementation of education, training, galvanising public awareness and sharing information with other countries. Thus, as a signatory to the UNFCCC, the UK has made an international-level commitment to climate change education for which BEIS carries responsibility. Furthermore, BEIS’ leadership role regarding higher education and research also makes this policy portfolio highly pertinent to climate change education. However, given that environmental education policy landscape is already ‘deficient and muddled’ and related government leadership is lacking, it is arguably concerning that responsibility for climate change education sits in a ministry oriented around business, where responding to climate change has been described as creating ‘enormous potential economic opportunity’ (BEIS 2017b, 8).

Recent political and civil unrest

In recent years, a period of social and political unrest in England has, arguably, also had a bearing on climate change education. Since the 2016 referendum that initiated Brexit (the process for the UK to exit the European Union), there have been two general elections, three changes in prime ministership (all leaders of the Conservative party), extensive negotiations and administration between UK and EU government bodies along with heated public and political debate. For much of this time, the political and administrative primacy of Brexit overshadowed most other concerns.

In parallel, a wave of climate change activism began in 2018. The international scientific community reported that a 1.5°C warming of the earth was likely (IPCC 2018b, 4), with catastrophic consequences. In an impassioned response, Swedish school student Greta Thunberg began the ‘School Strike for Climate’, protesting against the Swedish government’s lack of action on climate change by sitting outside the Swedish Parliament each Friday. Her protest gathered attention around the world and was amplified through civil action such as Extinction Rebellion’s Autumn Rebellion in London. The UK’s first nationally coordinated school strike was on 15 February 2019 then, one month later, it was reported that the Global Climate Strike featured participation of more than 1 million students, 2,000 protests and 125 countries (Glenza et al. 2019). The complex conditions that enabled the strikes to occur at this time would merit a Foucauldian analysis of their own, and future analysis will reveal their historical significance. Nonetheless, this was a moment where young people were demanding that the government ‘Save the Future, Tell the Future, Teach the Future, Empower the Future’, step back from the ‘obsession’ with exams, and focus on ‘students’ lives’ (UK Student Climate Network 2020). In April 2019, Extinction Rebellion occupied key locations in central London for 10 days and demanded that governments ‘tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency’ (https://rebellion.earth/) and Thunberg addressed the UK Parliament. A wave of noteworthy political responses followed. By the end of April, a climate emergency had been declared in the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and in May 2019, the UK Parliament followed suit (UK Parliament 2019), once again indicating an intent towards international climate change leadership. By the end of 2019, 270 strikes had reportedly been held around the world, and they continued into 2020 (albeit physically curtailed by COVID-19). It is unlikely that the strikes, marches and occupations in the name of climate change action were what the government intended by promoting 2019 as a year of green action (BEIS 2017b; DEFRA 2018a). Whatever was intended, as the independent statutory body, the Committee on Climate Change (2019), found that the UK Government was falling short on climate change action, the government’s climate change leadership rhetoric (coupled with the economic discourse) persisted. Prime Minister Johnson’s speech to launch the UKs role co-hosting the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP26 in Glasgow (an event that was postponed to November 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic) proclaimed:

“ … and that is why we are pledged here in the UK to deliver net zero by 2050 and we’re the first major economy to make that commitment, I think it’s the right thing to do, I think it’s quite proper that should, we were the first after all, to industrialise. Look at historic emissions of the UK we have a responsibility to our planet to lead in this way and to do this … ” (Johnson 2020)

Thus, we arrive at a time when government climate change leadership rhetoric chimes with public demands for climate change action and accords with compelling scientific evidence of the need for urgent act. Moreover, as the UK fulfils its international leadership role as co-host of COP26, the situation seems well-suited to making climate change education policy progress in England. However, when viewed through a Foucauldian lens, we understand that the present is governed by historical strands and traces. That is, a ‘history of the present’ of climate change education policy reveals that the contemporary policy landscape is deeply rooted in economic values, and that government climate change leadership rhetoric is traditionally, and consistently, disconnected from education policy. Such insight, when coupled with the excavation of the contemporary climate change policy landscape that follows, enables a deeper understanding of how climate change education has come to be situated where it is today.

The study

The understanding of policy adopted in this policy archaeology is primarily informed by the work of Ball and colleagues (Ball 1993; Ball, Maguire, and Braun 2012; Maguire, Braun, and Ball 2015). Whilst policies are discursive – they generate and reproduce discourses as they are enacted in situ – the texts themselves matter. Policy texts intervene in the social order and in practice, and function as part of an ensemble of mechanisms, inside and outside the state, that govern (Foucault 1991a, 96). Ball explains, policy texts convey a sense of intention both explicitly and implicitly: they ‘create circumstances in which the range of options available in deciding what to do are narrowed or changed’ (1993, 12). Policy texts are the focus of this analysis.

We examined policy texts from within a broadly conceived climate change education policy landscape. The sample needed to be of sufficient breadth to enable identification of themes that were representative of the policy landscape, rather than offering an exhaustive account. In the absence of a distinct climate change education policy or policy statement, and in the context of a ‘muddled and deficient’ environmental education policy landscape (Glackin and King 2020), an appropriate sample was not immediately obvious so the sample was generated through a multi-stepped, iterative process. We developed an initial list of documents prompted by themes identified in the literature and discussion with experts. This list was narrowed to include ‘official’ policy texts (Bowe, Ball, and Gold 1992) published between 2010 (following the UK election) and 2019, and by skim-reading the documents for relevance based on whether the policy text: i) referred directly to climate change education; and/or, ii) made connections between climate change and schools/education; and/or, iii) appeared to play a significant role in governing education or climate change in England based on our historical analysis and our discussions with experts. The final sample included 46 texts produced by government or quasi-government organisations with policy responsibilities related to education, environment, and climate change (see Table 1). The focus of the research was England, thereby acknowledging the devolved responsibility for education in the four countries that make up the UK, however, the sample included international policies, UK policies that have jurisdiction in England, and national policies, such as the curriculum. This spread of policies means that the findings have relevance to other nations of the UK, and further afield. The curriculum analysis included texts related to Key Stages 1–4¹ and subject content for GCSEs and A-Levels.² The DfE publishes subject content for all GCSE and GCE AS and A Level subjects, which awarding organisations use to prepare their exam specifications. Glackin and King (2020) have analysed the varied approaches to environment-related themes, including climate change, taken by the exam boards. The proportionately high number of curriculum documents (n = 23) accords with the many documents that constitute curriculum policy in England and the central role of curriculum in schools in England.

Table 1. Policy sample.

International climate change-related policies
UN	1997	UNFCCC^3
UN	2012	Doha Work Programme on Article 6 of the Convention
UN	2015	Paris Agreement
UN	2015	Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Sustainable Development Goals)
National
Climate change and environment
UK Gov (CCC, BEIS, DEFRA)	2008	Climate Change Act 2008
BEIS	2017	Industrial Strategy
BEIS	2017 (2018)	Clean Growth Strategy
DEFRA	2018	National Adaptation Programme and the Third Strategy for Climate Adaptation Reporting
DEFRA	2018	A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment
UK Gov (DEFRA)	2020	Environment Bill Policy Statement
Higher Education
UK Gov (Office for Students)	2017	Higher Education and Research Act
Higher Education Funding Council for England/ DfE	2017	Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework Specification
REF Steering Group	2019	Research Excellence Framework: Panel Criteria and Working Methods
School Education
UK Gov (DfE)	2011	Education Act 2011
DfE	2011 (2013)	Teachers Standards
Ofsted	2019	Education Inspection Framework
Ofsted	2019	School Inspection Handbook
DfE/Education and Skills Funding Agency	2014	Area guidelines for mainstream schools (Building Bulletin 103)
Education and Skills Funding Agency	2018	Guidelines on ventilation, thermal comfort and indoor air quality in schools (Building Bulletin 101)
DfE	2012	Top Tips for Sustainability in Schools
Curriculum
DfE	2014	The national curriculum in England: Framework document: Key Stage 1–4 (excl Geography and Science)
DfE	2014	Geography KS 1 – 3
DfE	2013	Geography GCSE
DfE	2013	Geography GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2014	Science KS 1–4
DfE	2015	GCSE Combined Science
DfE	2014	GCSE Single Science
DfE	2014	Science GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2015	Environmental Science: GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2015	Citizenship studies GCSE
DfE	2015	Economics GCSE
DfE	2014	Economics GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2015	Design and Technology GCSE
DfE	2015	Design and Technology GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2015	Geology GCSE
DfE	2016	Geology GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2015	Business GCSE
DfE	2014	Business GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2016	Media studies GCSE
DfE	2016	Media studies GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2016	Politics GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2014	History GCSE
DfE	2014	History GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2016/2014	Sociology GCSE, GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2015	Philosophy GCE AS and A Level
DfE	2016	Law GCE AS and A Level

3. The UNFCCC and the Climate Change Act 2008 were published prior to the timeframe for the sample yet they have ongoing relevance.

As discussed above, the research was framed in terms of policy archaeology, however Foucault does not stipulate archaeological methods. He describes his analytical instruments as enabling researchers to ‘survey the battlefield’ yet leaves their operationalisation to ‘those who do the fighting’ (Foucault 1980a, 62). Thus, this ‘excavation’ of the policy landscape was guided by Braun and Clarke’s discussions of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006, 2019). We began with several rounds of data familiarisation, by reading and re-reading texts and completing a note-taking template. The note-taking templates were reviewed, and key concepts were inductively identified, grouped and re-grouped. Through multiple rounds of review, peer discussion and an iterative process of writing, reviewing the organising concepts, and returning to the original data, themes were identified. The following findings describe these themes. Where Ferreira (2009) has emphasised the importance of environmental education researchers habitually practising reflexivity and self-critique, we note our own positionality relative to the research. That is to say, as researchers with experience in climate change education-related research, policy and practice, we started with the view that education has an important role to play in response to issues of climate change and with a sense that, to date, the educational response in England and elsewhere has been inadequate.

Four features of England’s climate change education policy landscape

The thematic analysis identified four key features of the climate change education policy landscape: i) climate change education policy is lacking; ii) responding to the climate crisis is overlooked in education; iii) pro-environmental ambition is absent; and, iv) economic values dominate. These features should be understood as reflecting the cumulative failure of the policy landscape more so than the failure of individual policy documents. Whilst it could be debated whether the features (and the failure) results from negligence or mal intent, a Foucauldian lens enables us to look beyond what the features are, to consider, in view of their history, how they have come to be.

Climate change education policy is lacking

The first feature, and one that arguably adds credence to recent civil activist calls for ‘more!’ climate change education, concerns the lack of policy attention being paid to climate change education, school-based or otherwise, in England. Nationally, there is no climate change education policy, nor a section within a policy that states a clear intention in relation to such education. BEIS policies related to climate change (Industrial Strategy and the Clean Growth Strategy) lack connections with school and higher education. The low profile of climate change education carries through to the National Adaptation Programme and the environment policy, A Green Future, where education-related statements are limited to raising awareness by communicating climate data and engaging disadvantaged groups in the natural world. Similarly, climate change receives limited attention in education policy (including in the curriculum, discussed below) or is entirely absent (e.g. Education Act 2011, Education Inspection Framework, School Inspection Handbook, Research Excellence Framework). Although policy related to climate change education could reach into various ministries’ portfolios it currently falls through the gaps of all of them. In short, in England, climate change education does not materialise as essential, let alone important.

Responding to the climate crisis is overlooked in education

The policy landscape also leaves the need to respond to the climate crisis largely out of sight. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has called for ‘rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society’ or face ‘long-lasting or irreversible changes’ (2018a, para. 1) and successive UK governments have acknowledged the seriousness of climate change. Yet, the seriousness and extent of the impacts of climate change and the urgent need to respond to the crisis are largely missing from climate change education related policies.

Nationally, climate change tends to be framed in relatively benign terms. In education policies, when climate change does feature, it is not apparent that there is a crisis or an emergency, nor that society (including students) should be preparing for its mitigation or adaptation to it. The Education Inspection Framework and its offshoot, the School Inspection Handbook, establish parameters that standardise quality and demarcate what is valued through inspection of the curriculum (which is at the centre), teaching, assessment and management practices whilst overlooking other concerns. These texts omit any reference to climate change or an environmental ethic. Furthermore, while the School Inspection Handbook encourages student action beyond the curriculum and as preparation for adulthood, the three highlighted (non-mandatory) opportunities do not prioritise action for the environment or in relation to climate change: there is the military-aligned Combined Cadet Force; the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award – ‘a recognised mark of achievement, respected by employers’ (www.dofe.org); and the National Citizenship Service, the objectives of which are tied to social cohesion, mobility and engagement. While formal education is a sector where policy references to climate change might be expected because of the sector’s role in preparing students for their lives ahead, this disregard for the seriousness of climate change could be construed as negligent and paradoxical. Whilst education policies claim to be concerned with students’ futures, the impending crisis is being ignored.

Despite the lack of climate change education focus in policy, climate change is in the curriculum. Table 2 highlights the six direct and five indirect references to ‘climate change’, the latter referring to related processes without explicitly mentioning the phenomenon. While some might interpret the number of references in the curriculum as enough, and although there is the potential to address climate change elsewhere in the curriculum, this discussion focuses on examining deficiencies in the direct and indirect references relative to acting on climate change.

Table 2. Direct and indirect references to climate change in the curriculum.

Direct references to climate change
Chemistry	KS4	‘evidence, and uncertainties in evidence, for additional anthropogenic causes of climate change’ (221)
	GCSE (Combined and Single Science)	‘evaluate the evidence for additional anthropogenic causes of climate change, including the correlation between change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the consumption of fossil fuels, and describe the uncertainties in the evidence base; describe the potential effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide and methane on the Earth’s climate and how these effects may be mitigated, including consideration of scale, risk and environmental implications’ (26)
Environmental Science	GCE A Level	‘global climate change: how interconnected natural systems cause environmental change: negative and positive feedback mechanisms and tipping points … the difficulties of monitoring and predicting climate change’ (7)
Geography	GCE A Level	‘How landforms and landscapes evolve as result of processes driven by past, present and future climate changes’ (8)
Geology	GCE A Level	‘the application of evidence to study frequent changes in global climate that characterise the Quaternary period … hominin evolution in response to repeated large scale environmental and climate change, including hominin evolution up to Homo sapiens’ (Non-Core opportunity) (10)
Politics	GCE A Level	‘the role and significance of institutions of global environmental governance: including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’ (11)
Indirect references to climate change
Chemistry	KS3	‘the production of carbon dioxide by human activity and the impact on climate’ (207)
	KS4	‘potential effects of, and mitigation of, increased levels of carbon dioxide and methane on the Earth’s climate’ (221)
Geography	KS3	‘including the change in climate from the Ice Age to the present’ (243)
	KS3	‘understand how human and physical processes interact to influence, and change landscapes, environments and the climate’ (243)
Geology	GCSE	“Past global temperature and sea level changes: the major sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (volcanic emissions and burning of fossil fuels); the evidence for changes in climate through geological time (icehouse to greenhouse conditions) and sea level from sedimentary rocks (tillite, limestone and drowned forests); the evidence for changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over geological time (sedimentary rock and ice cores) (6)

First, and with reference to Lucas’ (1972) descriptions of environmental education as education ‘in’, ‘about’ and ‘for (the preservation of) the environment, the content is limited to education ‘about’ climate change. This accords with McKenzie’s (2019) finding that the increase in formal climate change education has tended to emphasise cognitive learning, over behavioural, social or emotional. Whilst learning about climate change processes is, of course, important, it is well established that such knowledge itself does not result in action (e.g. Henderson et al. 2017; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002).

Second, and as Glackin and King have discussed (2020), the curriculum fosters doubt about how responsible humans are for climate change and casts shadows over the need for action. Uncertainty about climate change is made explicit in two of the six direct references, with statements such as ‘ … uncertainties in evidence, for additional anthropogenic causes of climate change’ (Chemistry, KS4). Notably, these two references are in Science – a compulsory subject – which is where the greatest number of students will encounter climate change. Given that all scientific data include uncertainties, the repeated highlighting relative to climate change is noteworthy not least because these statements leave teachers to interpret what ‘uncertainty’ means. Furthermore, human responsibility for the causes of climate change are downplayed or overlooked: see, for instance, the benign tone of Geography KS3 where students should ‘understand how human and physical processes interact to influence, and change landscapes, environments and the climate’, and GCE AS and A Level Economics which overlook any adverse effects of the current economic model on the climate crisis. A further two of the six direct references to climate change position it as an historical phenomenon, relative to Ice Ages (Geography KS3) and relative to geological time (Geology GCSE). Although the National Curriculum claims to represent ‘the best that has been thought and said’ (DfE 2014, 6) and prepare students for their adult lives, it largely overlooks the crisis, and the need to respond. Given that curriculum is conceivably the most salient policy lever in schools, this analysis shows that it falls short.

Pro-environmental ambition is absent

The third feature of the policy landscape relates to an absence of pro-environmental ambition. Arguably, its anthropocentrism could be considered indicative of a human ‘arrogance’ that overlooks the rights of more than human species (Kopnina 2015; Orr 2017). The limited references to environmental concern evident in the Industrial Strategy, for example, can be exemplified by anthropocentrically and economically oriented statements such as: ‘we owe it to ourselves and future generations to lower carbon emissions and move towards cleaner growth’ (BEIS 2017a, 32); alongside framing of the natural environment as a hazard for humans:

“We are setting high standards in cyber and climate change resilience for our projects across the UK, which will give us greater security and protection from natural risks, and can be the basis for a successful industry exporting these services.” (ibid, 134)

The anthropocentricity is also evident in A Green Future, a policy that begins by promoting conservation of the natural environment, for ‘cleaner air and water; thriving plants and animals; cleaner, greener country for us all’ (DEFRA 2018a, 4), yet goes on to describe conservation relative to humans deriving benefits from natural resources, rather than to benefit more than human species. Children’s engagement in the natural environment through ‘nature-friendly school grounds’ is advocated on the basis of health and wellbeing benefits. Whilst deriving human benefits from the natural environment can be compatible with its conservation, the policy landscape’s cumulative emphasis consistently positions human-derived value as overshadowing the needs of other species. Furthermore, despite recognition of the benefits of naturalised schoolyards for children’s learning and well-being (e.g. Washington 2018), the Area Guidelines for school grounds recommend separating pupils from the natural environment, advising that habitat areas should ‘generally be fenced to avoid unsupervised access’ (DfE & EFA, 2014, 40).

Elsewhere in education policy, neither the Teachers’ Standards nor the Education Inspection Framework require or encourage schools to connect with or advocate for the natural environment. These policies emphasise benefits of education for the individual: discovering interests and talents; physical and mental health; preparation for the next level of education or employment; and safety. In the curriculum, there is an absence of pro-environmental ambition. For instance, the purpose of study for Science in the National Curriculum Key Stage 1–4 draws attention to a ‘future prosperity’ that leaves the natural environment unspecified, opening as follows:

“A high-quality science education provides the foundations for understanding the world through the specific disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics. Science has changed our lives and is vital to the world’s future prosperity, and all pupils should be taught essential aspects of the knowledge, methods, processes and uses of science.” (DfE 2014, 168)

Even Environmental Science GCE AS and A Level falls short on establishing pro-environmental aims. The subject builds student understanding about ‘how society makes decision about environmental issues and how these contribute to the success of the economy and society’ (DfE 2015b, 3), and its aims emphasise environmental knowledge and skills development in view of careers and further study. One seeming anomaly is GCSE Design and Technology Subject Content, which encourages contemplation of the environment:

“The study of design and technology seeks to prepare students to participate confidently and successfully in an increasingly technological world; and be aware of, and learn from, wider influences on design and technology, including historical, social/cultural, environmental and economic factors.” (DfE 2015a, 4)

Yet, the Design and Technology references are situated in the context of a ‘technological world’ that aligns with industry and economic growth, where ‘computational thinking and creativity (will) change the world’ (ibid, 230). Design and Technology is positioned as important for ‘creativity, culture, wealth and well-being of the nation’ (ibid, 234) not, for argument’s sake, for ‘living in harmony with the natural world’.

Given that human-caused climate change has human-based consequences and that education is a human endeavour, a level of anthropocentricity is understandable (S. Gough, Scott, and Stables 2000; Todd 2016). Moreover, it might even be useful, for an anthropocentric orientation might mean doing something and a more than human orientation could follow. However, the policy landscape’s lack of a pro-environmental future vision is troubling; as Stevenson has highlighted (2013, 150), omitting the environment from environment-related education, enables policy problems and solutions to be framed in ways that do not favour the environment. The centrality of the natural environment to human life on Earth requires, at the very least, clear, and frequent acknowledgement and valuing of other species.

Economic values dominate

The fourth feature concerns the economic values that permeate the portrayal of climate change, education, and the natural environment. Of course, economics needs to be part of the discussion; the economy, society and environment are interconnected in relation to climate change causes, consequences and responses. However, whilst pro-environmental ambition is lacking, economic concerns dominate. Economic values and policy solutions relative to climate change are spearheaded by the Climate Change Act 2008’s emphasis on targets, budgets and accounting and reinforced in the Clean Growth Strategy, where the guiding objectives for meeting the Act are described as:

“1. To meet our domestic commitments at the lowest possible net cost to UK taxpayers, consumers and businesses; and, 2. To maximise the social and economic benefits for the UK from this transition.” (BEIS 2017b, 10)

The Clean Growth Strategy holds that climate change and environmental protection require ‘higher growth with lower carbon emissions’. As the Secretary of State’s foreword enthuses:

“ … we want the UK to capture every economic opportunity it can from this global shift in technologies and services” (ibid, 3).

A key pillar of the government’s climate change response, the National Adaptation Programme, whilst acknowledging a need to plan for a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ (DEFRA 2018b, ii), emphasises the economic opportunities of adaptation: exporting climate change resilience capabilities; adapting infrastructure and industry; and in regard to individual and national resilience, for ‘the health and wellbeing of the nation’ (ibid, 41). Climate change and its amelioration is understood relative to international markets, in a context of global economic growth and dependent on techno-scientific solutions tied to energy, carbon and industry.

Alongside the economic ‘opportunity’ of climate change response, is the economic orientation of education. The Education Inspection Framework and its offshoot, the School Inspection Handbook, drive schools towards being efficient, aiming for perpetual improvement and directing students towards ‘the next stage of education, employment or training’ (Ofsted 2019, 10). Elsewhere, an emphasis on employment and skills weds education to the economy. The Industrial Strategy’s vision of ‘a Britain fit for the future’ (BEIS 2017a, 1) foresees ‘good jobs and greater earning power for all’ (ibid., 14) by boosting productivity and investment in ‘skills, industries and infrastructure of the future’ (ibid., 12). Invoking an internationally competitive leadership discourse, the strategy pursues a ‘world-leading knowledge economy’ (ibid., 67), boasting that ‘the UK has one of the most accomplished higher education systems in the world’ (ibid., 100), serving employer and industry needs, and students (customers). Education’s role in responding to global climate change, and relative to their portfolio responsibilities for climate change, is absent.

Finally, the natural environment is described in economic terms. Climate change and environment policies monetise the natural environment as a ‘bio-economy’ (Clean Growth Strategy) or, more commonly, as ‘natural capital’ (Industrial Strategy, Clean Growth Strategy and the National Adaptation Programme). Hursh, Henderson, and Greenwood (2015) problematize the transformation of environmental issues into economic ones and market-based solutions for environmental problems. They highlight the flawed rationalities of proposing seemingly apolitical technological and market-based solutions to socio-political problems, solutions that are indeed the cause of the current economic and environmental crises. Where the benefits of global economic growth are left unchallenged, and systems are designed to support this goal, alternative visions for the future and alternative approaches to education are denied (Kopnina 2020; Sauvé, Berryman, and Brunelle 2007; Selby and Kagawa 2010; Sterling 2017). In the Clean Growth Strategy, for instance, evidence of the devastating effect of perpetual economic growth on the natural environment is swept aside in the Prime Ministerial Foreword:

“This Government is determined to leave our natural environment in better condition than we found it … There is no conflict between this aspiration and our plan to create an economy that works for everyone.” (BEIS 2017b, 2).

Arguably, the disregard of environmental values, in preference to economic drivers, is particularly concerning in BEIS policies given what is known about the links between industry and causes of climate change and given BEIS’ responsibility for climate change response. The Industrial Strategy celebrates the contributions of the industrial revolutions: the first – mechanised production; second – electric powered production; third – automated production; and the fourth revolution (current) that ‘is characterised by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological worlds’ (BEIS 2017a, 32). The strategy is silent when it comes to the associated environmental harm and changing climate. Indeed, the natural environment is not mentioned at all.

As mentioned earlier, the point here is not to contest the legitimacy of each of these examples in isolation. Individual examples could be construed unproblematically, indeed, some instances seem eminently appropriate given the emphasis of the policy. However, when the policy texts are considered collectively, we are afforded a view of climate change education that is likely to be highly troubling for the climate activists. Clearly, climate change education is a low priority in the policy landscape, and the need to respond to the ‘crisis’ is silenced. Climate change responses are economically construed, the purpose of education is oriented towards participation in the workforce, and the natural environment is appropriated in economic terms and for human purposes.

The web of conditions governing climate change education policy in England

The historical strands and traces of climate change education interact and interconnect with the features of the contemporary policy landscape in complex ways. To make sense of the interconnectivities and their effects on the policy landscape we used a Foucault-informed concept: the web of conditions. Amongst Foucault’s writing, and interpretations thereof, are several similar and somewhat overlapping concepts: there are ‘webs’, ‘grids’ and ‘systems’, of ‘conditions’, ‘strategies’ and ‘regularities’ (e.g. Foucault 1972, 1991b; Scheurich 1994). We consider that the metaphor of a web helpfully implies a structure without denoting rigidity or uniformity, and that whilst individual strands of the web (i.e. the conditions) are discernible, their effects are only realised through the complex structure. The new insight into climate change education policy in England gleaned through the policy historiography and archaeology above, illuminates a web of conditions that is keeping climate change education at bay. The web features a climate change leadership discourse from successive governments that overlooks a role for education, ‘soft governance’ of initiatives related to such education, and it is deeply rooted in a need for global and national economic growth. In recent years, the web of conditions has also featured political instability that has made it difficult to gain traction on marginalised issues, and the emphatic calls from activists for ‘more!’. Whilst the web does not create a material reality – it neither decides nor declares that climate change education is of low policy importance – it does have tangible effects as it constitutes what is thought and ways of thinking, and influences problems and solutions concurrently. It is this web of conditions that governs how climate change education can be perceived and enacted.

Recognising the governing role of the web of conditions, rather than individual policies, is helpful in countering the climate change education policy problem. The web reveals that the climate change education policy problem is not the fault of a policy or a ministry, and the solution is not simply to plug the gap. Rather, strand by strand, the web needs to be reformed. Where the conditions, and thus the web, evolve and change over time, this rebuilding could be possible and, indeed, perhaps the recent activism indicates that rebuilding is already underway. Therefore, to conclude this article, we turn to pathways for progress. We propose that to commence the rebuilding process, there is a need to:

• connect government climate change leadership discourse to education policy responses, particularly through the Department for Education’s policy portfolio;

• strengthen connections between BEIS’ portfolio responsibilities of climate change, industrial strategy and higher education;

• connect climate change knowledge to education within the National Curriculum, AS/A Levels and GCSE Subject Content, and other policies;

• underpin policies with pro-environmental aims;

• connect ministries whose portfolios relate to climate change education; and,

• stimulate policy, strategy and programmatic connections in areas of overlapping concern, including by orienting STEM skills, education and research towards climate change amelioration, and in ways that prevent further, or better yet, reverse, environmental harm.

Whilst there are no easy solutions, policy archaeology and policy historiography helpfully highlight the interrelated complexity that governs climate change education policy. By coupling these Foucauldian theoretical resources, as we have done, we are able to recognise the problem in a new light and to think differently about solutions. The web of conditions shows that it is not simply a matter of inserting ‘more!’ climate change education but that in order to generate change, the forces, structures and mentalities that constitute the web must be re-made. Whilst history can’t be undone, the strands of the web can be rebuilt by establishing new connections. Thus, the Foucauldian tools lead us to identify pathways for progress. This paper offers the research field a way forward, that goes beyond filling a policy gap. By taking some, or all, of the strands (and by identifying further strands), a web can be rebuilt which enables and generates the sorts of policies that will bring about the necessary change.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Early Career Writing Group in the King’s College London, School of Education, Communication and Society for their feedback on early drafts of this paper.

Disclosure statement

The findings reported in this paper were part of a doctoral research project funded by the Rosalind Driver Memorial Fund.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Rosalind Driver Memorial Fund [NA].

Notes on contributors

Kate Greer

Kate Greeris a post-doctoral research fellow and Associate Director of the Monitoring and Evaluating Climate Communication and Education (MECCE) Project, a global partnership project led by the Sustainability and Education Policy Network. Her research interests span environmental and climate change education, social justice, and public policy. 

Heather King

Heather Kingis Reader in Science Education. Her research examines the ways in which educators design and facilitate socially and environmentally just learning experiences with science across many contexts including schools, museums, and the outdoors. 

Melissa Glackin

Melissa Glackin is a Lecturer in Science Education whose research is in environmental education, science education and out-of-classroom teaching. Melissa is particularly interested in how teacher’s beliefs and teacher self-efficacy influence teaching behaviours, and in pre-service and in-service professional development.

Notes

1. The National Curriculum is organised into key stages (KS): KS1: Years 1–2 (ages 5 to 7); KS2: Years 3–6 (ages 7 to 11); KS3: Year 7–9 (ages 11–14), and KS4: Years 10–11 (ages 14 to 16).

2. The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is a set of exams usually taken at the end of Year 11. The General Certificate of Education (GCE) Advanced Level (A Level) is usually required for entry into universities and taken at the end of year 13 (age 18).