By 2023, the government expects teachers across England to be delivering “world-leading climate change education” through a “model science curriculum”. The change is one of many announced by the Department of Education during COP26, all designed to boost the action taken by schools and teachers to tackle the eco-crisis.
But when it comes to the curriculum, what exactly needs to change? Anecdotally we know that teachers, and students, feel that eco-education isn’t up to scratch. So what is the problem? Science and geography are the subjects that traditionally cover this area, but where are the gaps within them? And how can we develop a truly “world-leading” climate change curriculum?
Climate change education: where are the gaps?
A quick look at the results from a recent survey published by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) proves that, in the sciences, there’s a long way to go. “Overly complicated”, “irrelevant”, “boring”, with some content, such as fossil fuels, overrepresented - that’s what one in three chemistry teachers think about how climate change is covered in their subject. It’s a damning review.
Teachers also called for the curriculum to be “defossilised” after raising concerns that there was too much content related to fossil fuels. One respondent, in particular, had a problem with the time devoted to teaching around crude oil, which they said gave the impression that the chemistry industry doesn’t care about sustainability and climate change.
As a result, the RSC is calling for the scientific basis for climate change, and the unequivocal role of human actions, to be made fundamentally clear in the curriculum.
This is partly covered already, says Andrew Charlton-Perez, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading, but there’s not enough specific information on how this conclusion has been reached.
Professor Charlton-Perez is one of the academics behind the University of Reading’s Climate Education Action Plan that was developed in collaboration with other organisations (including the DfE) and launched at COP26. He says that over 99 per cent of papers published with the word “climate” in the title support the view that human actions are driving climate change. But, despite this, he warns that misconceptions still exist.
“There will never be a point at which climate scientists have to stop saying that climate change is unequivocally caused by human activity because there will always be people that want to put forward other arguments. We see in all areas of science that people will question published peer-reviewed work but the anthropogenic origin of climate change is absolutely clear - this is not a controversial point,” he explains.
He stresses the importance of demonstrating the real change humans can make in tackling climate change throughout the science curriculum. This, he says, will make a real difference to the students.
“How do we estimate what the future change is going to look like? How do we know that making changes to our behaviour will result in these changes to global mean temperature, and what do those changes in global mean temperature actually mean for a young person who is at school right now, in the UK or elsewhere?” he asks.
“How much these changes alter the likelihood or severity of extreme weather events is probably much more important for many young people, and there is really good science about that now. What is needed is for some of that, at an appropriate level, to feed through into the curriculum.”
When it comes to geography, things look a little bit more positive. Alan Kinder, the chief executive of the Geographical Association, says that in geography, the curriculum is already solidly engaged with the topic - much more so than it is advertised.
“In the GCSE, the content requirements include far more [about climate change] than is normally acknowledged. For the most popular GCSE, AQA, if you simply have a look at their specifications and put the word “climate” in you’ll find 17 references to climate, which again goes far beyond what parliamentarians would normally talk about. So there are loads of things covered - climate, climate change and technology, adaptations,” he says.
“And for the A level, the same is true. If you look at the core concepts of A level geography, causality, systems, equilibrium, mitigation, adaptation and sustainability are all included. There are key aims around people and environment relationships, there is a requirement around the amount of content that must be environmental in its nature, there’s core content around the carbon cycle and the integrated nature of the Earth and atmosphere, there are even things in there around people as a component of landscape change, including their influence on future climate change.”
However, he says, there is one gap that needs to be addressed: politics.
“What are the political choices, personal political choices that we have, and who’s doing what about what? And what’s the responsibility for the government, corporations, individuals, etc. [The curriculum] is much lighter on those elements,” he says.
Does updating the curriculum go far enough?
So, we know where the gaps are and the topics that need to be introduced in lessons. But, in the battle against climate change, does updating the science and geography curriculum really go far enough?
Definitely not, says Dr Elizabeth Rushton, a lecturer in geography Education at King’s College London. With coworkers, she created the British Educational Research Association Manifesto for Education for Environmental Sustainability, and she’s adamant that the misconception that climate change belongs only to the sciences and geography is a barrier to effective climate education and argues that sustainability should be as ubiquitous in schools as safeguarding.
“If you think about the way that safeguarding is integrated at every level in school…you cannot think about English and maths before you have a safe space - environmental education and sustainability in the context of climate change are as important as that,” she says. “We have to elevate it beyond the curriculum.”
However, Dr Rushton insists that that’s not the job of teachers. “[We shouldn’t be asking] what schools and teachers can do - actually, that is the job of the government to work with teachers and young people to rethink curriculum,” she says. “A single teacher in a school can’t change the system. I don’t want to put the onus of the pressure on the individual teacher who already is dealing with so many other things, not least the pandemic.”
Beyond updating science and geography
The Climate Education Action Plan, too, recognises the need for this work to go beyond updating the science and geography curriculum. It also calls for more teacher training, the nomination of a climate leader in every school, and the creation of a national bank of quality-assured climate education resources.
Indeed, according to Dr Nasreen Majid, an associate professor of primary mathematics education at the University of Reading and cowriter of the plan, it’s up to teacher trainers to empower teachers to include climate change and sustainability across the curriculum.
“Let’s look at maths, for example, and how it is taught in primary schools, and let’s look at data science,” she explains.
“We have got some wonderful visual representations of climate data that are out there to use; how can we use that to start a conversation around climate education, and how can that be built in as an investigative tool? Mathematics is all about problem-solving.
“The biggest challenges are timeframes and the anxiety that teachers have around ‘I have got to fit this idea into the maths curriculum, and I don’t have time’. But actually, we can really empower teachers and that’s where our role comes in as teacher trainers.”
It’s not just time that teachers are struggling with, but confidence too. The RSC survey found that 40 per cent of teachers working with 16- to 19-year-olds are hesitant about teaching climate change as others may see it as a controversial topic.
For Majid, this is a clear cry for help from teachers. “They need professional learning opportunities and resourcing to confidently say ‘I am going to be teaching climate education to my Year 6 pupils, for example, and there is strong data and robust science to back that up’.”
However, Majid has data that shows that not all teachers are floundering with climate change education. She ran her own survey of 32 teachers and found that many are already doing professional development on the topic. Indeed, 97 per cent of the teachers who took part in the survey stated that they had gained understanding around climate change through their own reading and doing research and courses online, and 100 per cent stated that they did not have any specific training about the teaching of climate change.
“The majority of teachers are very reticent about their subject knowledge around climate education,” she says. “One of the key things that came out was that teachers who were more confident in teaching climate education were those where the leadership said: this is really important.”
Clearly then, there’s a lot of work to do before 2023. There are gaps not only in the content taught in science and geography but in other subjects too. According to the experts, teachers don’t always have the confidence, training and resources to really embed this kind of education into their everyday teaching. Some, however, are taking matters into their own hands, and upskilling of their own accord. It’s key, however, that the support is there from the government too.
So by 2023, will teachers use the words “overly complicated”, “irrelevant”, “boring”, “misrepresented” to describe the “world-leading climate change education” they’re delivering? Only time will tell.
Claudia Civinini is a freelance journalist
