Reproducing dissonance : political and institutional determinants of Climate Change Education in England and the Netherlands

(1)

Reproducing Dissonance:

Political and Institutional Determinants of

Climate Change Education in England and

The Netherlands

08

Fall

(2)

REPRODUCING DISSONANCE: POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DETERMINANTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION IN ENGLAND AND THE NETHERLANDS

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES MASTER HUMAN GEOGRAPHY

ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHY TRACK: MASTER THESIS First reader: Dr. Eric Chu

Second reader: Prof. Joyeeta Gupta Student: Gina Lovett | 10867643

(3)

Foreword and Acknowledgements

I extend heartfelt thanks to the many people who have supported and guided me throughout the process of this thesis. You know who you are. I sincerely thank my informants, for your interest in my work, support and insight. The time taken to share, explain and discuss your work and views with me – the attention to detail – was hugely appreciated.

(4)

Abstract

Post-Paris and the COP21, the debate is about building capacity and creating the institutions that will help foster a shared understanding and concern for climate change. This is critical to the feasibility of country’s pledges to take action, and the scale of transformation,

decarbonisation and collaboration needed to meet the diplomatic ambition of 1.5°c. Education is posed as critical in creating this shared baseline of knowledge, concern for and engagement with climate change. Yet, in developed countries, despite activity in climate change education, there is persistent polarisation and inconsistency in knowledge and concern. If climate change education is active, advanced and unproblematic, why does disparity and dissonance in knowledge, concern for and engagement with climate change persist?

This thesis argues that discordance at the institutional and political levels is reflected in education policy and approaches to climate change learning, reproducing through the education system, under- or over-emphasising particular aspects of knowledge and engagement leading to partiality and disparity. It aims to understand the mechanisms and dynamics in this process, and gain insight into the various strategies for integration of climate change learning in the context of particular institutional arrangements.

The research builds a politics of education framework to explain how political interests are exercised through particular aspects of education such as knowledge delivery and curriculum, producing consenting subjects economically, psychologically and culturally. It applies this framework to national case studies of England and The Netherlands – developed European countries where climate change education is typically regarded as advanced and active. This brings to the fore the interests, conceptualisations, struggles and negotiations that shape education policy and approaches to climate change learning, ultimately impacting knowledge and engagement outcomes. This is an area little studied in the literature. The thesis shows that a partially integrated climate change education in England and The Netherlands is inadequate to support the changing institutions and capacities required for the

transformation aspired to by the COP21 Paris Agreement. It calls for environmental educators to be more involved in the policymaking process, and for environment ministries active in environmental governance to consider climate change education in schools with greater gravity.

(5)

List of Figures and Tables

Fig 1 International frameworks and links to national ministries Table 1 Politics of education framework

Fig 2 Ways of knowing and engaging with climate change

Fig 3 Conceptual scheme

Table 2 Variables of interest and their operationalisation

Table 3 Informants and semi-structured interview data sources (Appendix) Table 4 Documents and artefacts list (Appendix)

Table 5 Open and thematic coding (Appendix)

Table 6 Comparison of CCE as a topic versus ESD method

Table 7 Climate change and environmental topics in the English curriculum Fig 4 Dutch educational attainment targets on environment

Table 8 Sample of climate change teaching resources in England Table 9 Dutch climate change teaching materials, Groengelinkt Table 10 Dutch ESD networks (Appendix)

Table 11 Comparison of education models and CCE in The Netherlands and England

(9)

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

CBD Convention on Biodiversity

CCE Climate Change Education

CEPA Communications, education and public awareness

COP21 The 21st_{Conference of the Parties}

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DECC Department for Energy and Climate Change

ESD Education for Sustainable Development

EZ Ministerie van Economische Zaken (Ministry for Economic Affairs)

IENM Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Ministry for Infrastructure and Environment)

INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution

OECD The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNEP United Nations Education Programme

UNDESD United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development

(10)

1. Introducing the Research

What and how people know and learn about climate change determines their willingness and ability to act on it. As the impacts of climate change manifest, and wildfires, coral collapse, flooding and drought become more frequent and intense, the scale of action and

transformation needed becomes ever more pressing. To reduce emissions and stay within a global warming threshold within which the living world as we know it can survive requires not just unprecedented awareness, knowledge and skills, but faith, imagination, cooperation and capacity.

However, knowledge alone does not guarantee the required concern or urgent action

(Whitmarsh, 2009; Sarewitz, 2011; Wolf and Moser, 2011; Berkhout, 2012). Context, meaning and institutions all play their part. Scientific knowledge is more valid than traditional knowledge in some cultures, while in others indigenous knowledge takes precedence. Socio-economic and cultural settings shape willingness and ability to engage in mitigation and adaptation action (Smith and Sharp, 2012; Lorenzoni et al., 2007), and institutions – as principles, processes, rules and ways of organising – can foster or constrain behavioural change (Lorenzoni et al., 2007).

This thesis engages with these ideas of context and knowledge validity, but additionally notes how national politics, political will and political manoeuvring frequently determine climate action. Since national politics, political will and political manoeuvring influence climate action, they must also influence climate change education. In addition, national education is the basis for the evolution and development of economic institutions, but is frequently under utilised in the development of environmental ones. Education, particularly in developed countries, is overlooked as an environmental governance strategy.

1.1 Context

The 21st_{Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on} Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Paris in December 2015 reached historic agreement on international action to tackle climate change. The major outcome was the agreement to limit

(11)

greenhouse gas emissions to remain within an average global temperature rise of 1.5°C – surpassing the previous goal of 2°C.

Ahead of the conference, countries declared their INDCs for climate change mitigation and adaptation by 2030. However, in examining emissions scenarios and reductions needed to limit average global temperature, it has become evident that these INDCs are insufficient to remain within a threshold of 2°C, let alone the ambition of 1.5°C (UNEP, 2015; Boyd et al., 2015; IEA, 2015; UNFCC, 2015 cited in Averchenkova & Bassi, 2016). There is a gap between the lofty diplomatic ambition of the agreement and the practical reality of countries’ plans. Shared norms, knowledge, public awareness and engagement are integral to the making of strategies, rules, procedures, goals and processes to ensure transparency and accountability, and are, hence, critical to the feasibility and credibility of countries’ INDCs (Averchenkova & Bassi, 2016, p6).

The required depth of emissions reductions requires a radical change in capabilities and skills. Exigent decarbonisation means that the needs and competencies of jobs and climate-related sectors will change at a more rapid pace than previously thought (Galgoczi, 20161_{). For} example, national ministries responsible for sectoral policies such as transport and tourism need to know how to integrate adaptation and mitigation into policy cycles. Local authorities need to develop skills to integrate climate resilience in city planning; civil servants in ministries of finance need to be able to draft sound project proposals to access international carbon finance schemes; and, electricians need to become familiar with in installing solar energy technologies (UNITAR, 2013, p4).

Education is the foundation for developing both the institutional framework and the capabilities to support this action and transformation. As the Stern Report noted:

Fostering a shared understanding of the nature of climate change and its

consequences is critical in shaping behaviour, as well as in underpinning national and international action. Governments can be a catalyst for dialogue through evidence, education, persuasion and discussion. Educating those currently at school about

1

_{After COP21: The EU Needs to Revise Its Climate Policy Targets} https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/02/cop-21-eu-needs-revise-climate-policy-targets/)

2_{The Belgrade Charter: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/belgrade.html}

(12)

climate change will help to shape and sustain future policy-making, and a broad public and international debate will support today’s policy-makers in taking strong action now. (Stern, 2007: xxi).

1.2 Problem statement

There is a clear argument for education to support and catalyse action on climate change by laying the foundations for institutions and capacity-building, but despite decades of

international frameworks and programmes on integrating climate change into curricula, public campaigns and training, levels of knowledge, awareness, understanding and engagement with climate change vary significantly across and within countries.

While developed countries like the United Kingdom and The Netherlands are regarded as relatively ‘advanced’ in climate change education and demonstrate high levels of awareness, societal involvement in mitigation, understanding and behavioural engagement is far lower (Whitmarsh et al., 2011). There is a ‘cognitive dissonance’ and disparity in the levels of knowledge, concern, action and behaviour across and between sections of the population. Some are ignorant of the major concepts of climate change, let alone mitigation and adaptation strategies, while others are highly engaged (IPCC, 2014, p300; COIN, 2014; Mower, 2012).

If climate change education is long-standing, advanced and active in developed countries like England and The Netherlands, why does disparity and ‘cognitive dissonance’ persist? At the same time, there is reticence among some policy-makers and scientists in instrumentalising education for environmental behaviour change (see also Chapter 3), coupled with an emphasis that schools must be a neutral and apolitical space. (Saltman, 2014, xv) Gaps in the scholarly literature on environmental education point towards a need for greater consideration of political and critical policy factors, particularly in relation to climate change education. Climate change education and environmental education policy reports, by their nature are focused less on political dynamics and context that determine policy goals, and more on efficiency and effectiveness.

1.3 Research aims

This thesis argues that discordance at the institutional and political levels is reflected in education policy and approaches to climate change learning, reproducing through the education system, under- or over-emphasising particular aspects of knowledge and engagement leading to partiality and disparity. It aims to understand and uncover the

(13)

mechanisms and dynamics at work in this process. Secondly, it aims to gain insight into the various strategies for integration of climate change learning in the context of particular

institutional arrangements. Thirdly, it aims to show that even in developed countries, sustained effort in integrating climate change into education, and developing education with climate change, is a necessary part of the climate response – a complement to climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

1.4 Research Question

With this in mind, the research question is formulated as follows:

In the cases of The Netherlands and England, how do political and institutional factors influence the integration of climate change learning into upper primary and lower secondary education? How does this, in turn, influence the potential depth and reach of learning about climate change in each country? (See also Chapter 4 for justifications)

1.5 Thesis structure

This chapter has presented the starting point for the thesis, the problem statement and the aims of the inquiry. Chapter 2 presents the relevant international frameworks, and gives an overview of the evolution of the environmental education movement, concurrent movements, and national country backgrounds to contextualise the research. Chapter 3 presents the scholarly literature across the politics of education and the environmental education fields, and develops a theoretical framework for analysis. It also identifies gaps in the scholarly literature, and consolidates the thinking underpinning the conceptual framework. Chapter 4 discusses the critical ontological and epistemological positioning of the thesis; explains the method and rationale in selecting the literature, and justifies the selection of England and The Netherlands as case studies. It details the research design, methods of data collection and analytical process. The findings of the research are described in Chapter 5, while Chapter 6 offers insight and analysis from comparison of the cases. Finally, chapter 7 summarises the outcomes of the thesis and considers the practical and theoretical implications, as well as making policy

(14)

2. Situating the Research

2.1 Introduction

This chapter aims to situate the research in the relevant historical and policy contexts. It begins by presenting the origins of environmental education and its evolvement out of an ecological movement responding to environmental disasters and pollution, in tandem with international environmental conventions and agreements. It then discusses the narrative of human capital, advocated and popularised by international trade organisations, and

dominating education. The influence of international organisations and frameworks on climate change education – UNFCCC, the UNECE and UNESCO the – is discussed, before moving on to set the national scene for England and The Netherlands.

2.2 The Evolution of Environmental Education

Environmental education has its roots in the American environmental movement that

flourished in the 1960s and 1970s. Ecologists and environmental scientists such as Paul Erhlich, Rachel Carson and Garrett Hardin increasingly voiced concern about the impact of rampant industrialisation and consumerism, and how the growth of petro-chemical pollution degrading air, water and land were detrimental to human health and wellbeing, and devastating to biodiversity (Gough & Gough, 2010; Armiero & Sedrez, 2014).

In their political lobbying and campaigning, they argued for information and transparency, asserting that the public had a right to know the true impact of industrialisation, and that armed with the full facts, the public would be able to make up its own mind as to what was their best interest and would be catalysed into action to prevent environmental degradation through conservation and preservation (Armiero & Sedrez, 2014; Gough & Gough, 2010).

This role of information, knowledge and education in fostering environmental protection was recognised internationally at the United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 (Lozano et al, 2014, p1) The establishment of the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) and its associated agencies in 1975, built on the Stockholm recommendation for environmental education, and it was at The International Workshop on

(15)

Environmental Education in Belgrade that the International Environmental Education Programme was launched (Neal & Palmer, 2003). The resulting mission from the workshop, the Belgrade Charter, set out objectives to create awareness of and concern for ecological, economic, social and political interdependence:

The goal of environmental education is to develop a world population that is aware of, and concerned about, the environment and its associated problems, and which has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations, and commitment to work individually and collectively toward solutions of current problems and the prevention of new ones2_.

The world’s first intergovernmental conference on environmental education, organised by UNESCO with the UNEP, was held in in 1977/8 and attended by 66 member states. This marked the formalisation of environmental education as a field, as the Tbilisi Declaration declared the importance of environmental education in creating ecological awareness and concern for conservation as a counter to industrial development (Gough & Gough, 2010).

However, this focus on conservation of the biophysical environment shifted in 1992, as the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, and its subsequent action plan, Agenda21, proposed the concept of sustainable development as a harmonious balance of economy, society and environment considerations. As a component of this global strategy, education for sustainable development was less about conservation of ‘nature’, and more about the sustainable management of resources and development.

The nuance may be subtle but it denotes a bias in sustainable development discourse to the exclusion of deep ecology and animal rights perspectives (Hattingh, 2006; Kopnina, 2014; see Chapter 3 for further discussion) From Tbilisi to Bonn, as international agreements and

conventions have shifted in how they conceived of the environment, so too has the concept and purpose of environmental education.

The international frameworks on climate change also make provisions for education. The 1992 UNFCCC and its subsequent iterations identified climate change education at primary and secondary levels, public awareness campaigns, public access to information, public

participation, the training of experts and the enhancement of international co-operation as the

(16)

priorities for involving all levels of society in the climate change process (UNFCCC, 2004). The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD 2005-2014) emphasised climate change as a key action theme in learning and development (UNITAR, 2013). And, the Lima Ministerial Declaration on Education and Awareness-raising at COP20 in Peru in 2014 called on governments to include climate change in school curricula, climate awareness into national development plans, and climate change into national education and development policies and plans (UNESCO, 2014).

2.3 The OECD, human capital and active social policy

International environmental frameworks and their education programmes direct official attention towards environmental education, but for national education ministries, the concept of human capital development linking education to economic and social policies takes

precedence. It is this concept that provides the foundations for contemporary education institutions.

Human capital is the ‘skills, knowledge, capabilities and arrangements’ that enables individuals and countries to be more innovative and productive (Blair, 2011, p1). This is the basis for active social policy, where the focus is on improving the productivity of lower earners and lower skilled through education and training, thus increasing labour market participation,

encouraging greater responsibilisation, and reducing reliance on social welfare transfers. In Europe, the current propensity is to re-commodify welfare states in line with this social investment paradigm, with education as the cornerstone. This approach is advocated by the OECD and the EU (Busemeyer, 2014).

While there are clearly societal and individual benefits for developing human capital and adopting this as a policy approach, there are caveats. For example, the expansion of early childhood education, rather than a reduction of work time for parents, maximises employment potential but may undermine social and family structures (Busemeyer, 2014). Human capital may become entrenched in two ways. Firstly, the politics of education shapes the institutional path, and through these educational institutions, distribution outcomes are made, which in turn, reinforce the institutions that created the programme in the first place. In other words, the beneficiaries of particular education and skills regimes will naturally support the

(17)

corresponding social protection and social welfare politics that underpin that regime (Busemeyer, 2014).

Secondly, since skill-biased technological change favours skilled over unskilled labour by increasing its relative productivity and, therefore, its relative demand, the focus of education is on improving the economic productivity of low earners through education and training. But given social welfare is pegged to a performing economy, it is only through continued economic growth that this is possible. Technological innovation and the ‘knowledge-economy’ are theorised as the engine of this growth.

Since investments in education are then tied to the economic production function, human capital must be standardised, measured and benchmarked, and this is reflected in the rise of assessments, tests and rankings to enable comparison across countries. The OECD’s

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), an international comparative study that charts countries’ performances in maths, science and literacy, is the major tool with which to do this, enabling governments to gauge outcome and effectiveness. By ranking countries and benchmarking high achievers and lower performers, the OECD steers education policies and outcomes in line with the knowledge economy and human capital framework – the modes of continued economic growth.

Critics point out that in this commitment to measurability and ranking, there is little

acknowledgement of ‘whose’ knowledge dominates or how it comes to dominate. Nor is there much room for contestation of the terms on which judgements and rankings are being made. ‘Through PISA, the OECD has assumed an institutional role of arbiter of global education governance, simultaneously acting as diagnostician, judge and policy advisor to the world’s school systems.’ (Meyer & Benavot, 2013, p9)

2.4 International frameworks

Climate change education sits within a complex web of institutional frameworks across climate change, sustainable development and education. The following sections will address their relevance.

(18)

2.4.1 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

At the global level, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the main convention governing climate change and the rising concentration of greenhouse gas emissions. The convention identifies two strategies to address climate change: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation refers to actions to reduce or prevent greenhouse gas emissions, involving new technologies or renewable energies, making older equipment more energy efficient, changing management practices or consumer behaviour (UNEP, 2016). Adaptation is the planning and implementation of measures and programmes that help cities, communities and populations cope with the impacts of climate change such as variability in the availability and quality of freshwater, threats of severe and prolonged droughts, intense, protracted flooding and storms, extreme weather events and volatility in the ability to grow food (UNEP, 2016; IPCC, 2014).

The strategies of mitigation and adaptation represent different levels of intervention in climate change (Gupta, 2014, p24). In the climate process, measures that address the system offer the greatest potential for transformative mitigation. Adaptation measures, meanwhile, address impacts of warming rather than reduce greenhouse gases. Mitigation and adaptation differ in the temporal and spatial scales on which they are effective; the extent to which their costs and benefits can be determined and compared; and the actors and the types of policies in their implementation (Klein, 2003). Without urgent and radical mitigation, adaptation will become more difficult, costly and have even greater implications in terms of damage, responsibility and liability (IPCC, 2014).

Although numerous strategies for mitigation, such as geo-engineering and carbon

sequestration have been given serious attention, mitigation must largely stem from eradicating emissions, transforming the global energy system from one dependent on fossil fuels to one based on clean, renewable energy, keeping in check land use and preventing deforestation. Climate change mitigation and adaptation are interdependent – with the current levels of concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere currently around 398-400ppm, climate change is unavoidable, and therefore adaptation necessary for survival. But without urgent and radical mitigation, adaptation will become more difficult, costly and have even greater

(19)

For this reason, the interplay between mitigation and adaptation, the temporal and spatial scales on which they operate, the extent to which their costs and benefits can be determined, and the actors and the types of policies in their implementation must be carefully considered. For example, the hasty implementation of mitigation measures such as biofuels production can negatively impact on land use, biodiversity and hinder the ability of local groups to grow food, while hydropower from dams can inadvertently release large quantities of methane.

As mentioned above, the 1992 UNFCCC and subsequent international agreements

encompassed Communications, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) provisions – Article 6, the Doha Working Group, and later known as Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE)3_. Education (and training) is articulated as ‘integral in enabling citizens’ contributions to local and global efforts to meet the climate change challenge’. Public awareness aims to enhance general understanding, impact attitudes and help people make climate-friendly choices (UNFCCC.int4_).

However, in reality, the UNFCCC is an industry, populated by officials from Environment Ministries, and their diverse stakeholders, with very few focused on education (15_{). The} UNFCCC in its capacity building, and education and outreach efforts, is largely focused on developing countries. Developed countries are regarded as already having significant CEPA activity around climate change. Thus, the ‘returns’ on CEPA for developed countries is deemed to be of little ‘added value’ compared to developing countries (7, 8, 16). Other international conventions such as the UN Convention on Biodiversity or the UN Convention to Combat Desertification also have CEPA provisions that relate to sustainable development strategies. And, the UN Sustainable Development Goals also includes distinct goals on Climate Change and Education. Altogether, this makes for a confusing multiplicity of climate CEPA initiatives.

2.4.2 UNECE and Education for Sustainable Development

The global mandate set out in the COP21 Paris Agreement is also bolstered by the advent of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Through the SDGs, at least at a rhetorical level, action on climate change is being woven into global development, acknowledging the interdependency of

3_{Don’t call it Article 6, call it ACE:}

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/dont-call-it-article-6-call-it-ace-action-for-climate-empowerment

4unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/education_and_outreach/public_participation/items/8959.php

(20)

policy drivers and impact. On one hand, climate change influences the natural environment and human living conditions – the basis for social and economic development. On the other hand, society’s priorities on sustainable development influence both the GHG emissions driving climate change and exacerbating vulnerability. Hence, climate policies are considered more effective when consistently embedded within broader strategies designed to make national and regional development paths more sustainable (IPCC, 2014, p294-5).

Education for Sustainable Development is the corresponding education framework for

sustainable development. It is developed and led by UNESCO, the UN’s ‘intellectual’ agency for world heritage and education, with the UNECE, the UN’s regional implementation body for trade, transport, energy and development. The ESD Steering Committee is a small, expert group well-acquainted and long-standing, comprising members from UNESCO, OSCE, Council of Europe, UNIDO, the European Environmental Agency, academic institutions, regional environmental centres and non-governmental organisations.

Member states of the UNECE have a national focal point for ESD, and report on their progress in implementation of the strategy through annual reports and meetings, discussing challenges and best practice (17). However, implementation is dependent on the imperative of national policy, rather than the authority or mandate of the UNECE or UNESCO. While at the global level, UNESCO is regarded as an educational body, it is perceived in some countries as more of a heritage body.

Education for Sustainable Development conceives of learning as broader than national education systems and encompasses learning through media, campaigns, networking and partnerships. Because Education for Sustainable Development is a methodology and a process, which espouses competences such as systems thinking and social learning, climate change is just one of many topics such as clean soil, water, waste, energy, food, health and consumption (see Chapter 5 for a further explanation of education for sustainable development as a

(21)

(22)

2.5 England – historical policy and politics background6

Politically, in the last decade, England has fluctuated from being a climate progressive,

introducing seminal cross-party measures such as the Climate Change Act 2008 to safeguard emissions reductions targets from short-term political whim, to being climate regressive, rolling back its renewable energy schemes and efficiency goals. Strategies such as the Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009) set out a national trajectory to deliver emission cuts of 18% on 2008 levels by 2020 by scaling up renewable energy and cutting demand through energy efficiency, however this has been side-lined in favour of shale gas and nuclear7_.

Environmental education, led predominantly by civil society organisations and NGOs, has existed in England since the 1970s (UNESCO, 2015). In the ‘climate-progressive’ New Labour era, climate change education was deemed to play a vital role in the response to climate change. It addressed a moral and intergenerational obligation to young people and their to know, and was intended to help the public to understand the rudiments of the relevance and significance of climate change, laying the foundations for public acceptance of policy measures on mitigation and adaptation.

Among the provisions to boost public awareness of climate change was a £12m fund for climate change communications led by the Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Organisations across nine regions in England, could apply to this fund to support climate-related activities. As part of this, DEFRA launched a youth climate scheme, a competition to find nine young people within regions to raise awareness of climate change, advocate climate-friendly behaviour, and champion learning on the issue. Unlike politicians, these were voices that were more natural and that could be trusted (2).

The scheme was popular in many respects – it proved synergistic with foreign policy and useful in soft diplomacy. And, backed personally by Blair and Miliband, it attracted media attention. Organisations including the British Council later led the youth climate champion delegations to Japan, China and Mexico to introduce them to similar climate CEPA schemes.

6

_{The following sections are based on recollections by relevant informants, and are triangulated by checking online} sources

7

_{Guardian, 2015:} http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/04/public-support-for-uk-nuclear-shale-gas-falls-new-low

(23)

In parallel, there was cross-ministerial discussion of integrating climate change into education through the national curriculum. The basis for this was former education secretary Alan Johnson’s decision to send DVDs of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth documentary to more than 3,500 schools as part of a climate change resource pack for 11-14 year old students. This also contained two short climate-change films and an animation about the carbon cycle, produced by DEFRA. However, sending Gore’s film into schools, in particular, provoked controversy, as a school governor and parent separately attempted to legally challenge DEFRA’s decision on grounds that An Inconvenient Truth contained some inconvenient scientific errors that promoted partisan political views8_{. However, schools were instructed to continue to show the} documentary but provide ‘guidance’ on its shortcomings. Shortly after, there was an

announcement that climate change would be part of the national curriculum and would be taught in schools across the country within two years. This would be bolstered by a national Sustainable Schools target – that all schools should be a sustainable school by 2020, meeting environmental assessment standards, set by and delivered through the Eco-Schools

programme, and its environmental targets and assessment framework.

With the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government coming to power in 2010, and the subsequent all-Conservative takeover in 2014, much of this work was abolished. The Sustainable Schools target was dropped, and the national curriculum was overhauled to re-establish a more traditional education, based on knowledge, facts and memorising. As part of this overhaul, the highly unpopular education secretary Michael Gove proposed that climate change for Key Stage 3, 11-14 year olds, would be removed from the curriculum.

This provoked national outrage among students and teachers who felt students’ right to know the impact on their generation was being taken away. A series of online petitions led by individual teachers and students, and championed by NGOs, the youth lobby and the climate coalition, meant the issue garnered enough media attention and public indignation to compel Gove to reinstate it into the curriculum. Since then, climate change has been taught as part of science, mainly chemistry, for 11-14 year olds, but without the complementary ESD framework (see also Chapter 5). There remains a legacy of sustainability and action on climate change in

8

_{Telegraph, 2007:} www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3308930/Al-Gores-An-Inconvenient-Truth-can-be-shown-to-schools.html

(24)

some schools, but for many, other priorities such as improving standards and driving up attainment have superseded this.

2.6 The Netherlands

The Netherlands has a strong tradition of nature education, driven by the nineteenth century national nature movement, where figures like Jac. P. Thijsse and Eli Heimans popularised teaching methods that focused on learning through the outdoors, to enhance awareness of endangered natural areas. There are over 120 centres for environmental education in The Netherlands – over 500 city ‘farms’ and over 80 municipal city gardens, overseen by local and regional authorities to deliver outdoor, nature learning, focused on plants and animals.

The formation of early European Union environmental directives was the impetus for a more formal environmental education policy in The Netherlands, with six ministries including the Ministry for Environment, Education, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture and Economic Affairs taking responsibility for environmental education. The then Ministry of Agriculture, later subsumed into the Ministrie for Economische Zaken (Ministry for Economic Affairs), led on policy because its remit was management of the natural environment, ‘green’ environment, while the ‘grey’ environment, air pollution and waste, was overseen by the Ministry of Environment.

Because of the Freedom of Education, which gives schools autonomy over pedagogy and flexibility with content, it is extremely difficult to introduce new measures or content from the top down. As such, Dutch environmental education has evolved in an informal learning context. Women’s groups, churches, scouts and labour unions all offer some sort of environmental education activities. This idea of informal learning channels was recognised in national environmental education policy, and its funding and resource provisions.

The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which addressed three conventions, the UNFCCC, the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and United Nations Convention to Combat

Desertification (UNCCD) prompted a shift in environmental education policy, with the emphasis less on nature, and more on sustainable development. As a result, Dutch national strategy shifted towards education for sustainable development to address this complexity. The shift caused tension between NGOs and policymakers, who found it difficult to fit their

(25)

specific nature-based learning goals to this new development and resource-management agenda.

During the UNESCO Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014), ESD scholars and leaders in The Netherlands such as Arjen Wals, also chair of UNESCO, developed the concept of social learning. This emphasised the interactions between business,

government and market, as much as individual and group competences. At present, nature education organisations and education for sustainable development networks are brought together under one national programme, Duurzaam Door, run the by Ministry for Economic Affairs (EZ).

2.7 Summary

This chapter situated the research, giving it historical and international framework policy context. It discussed the origins of environmental education evolving out of an ecological movement responding to environmental disasters and pollution, in tandem with international environmental conventions and agreements. The concurrent development of human capital formation and its role in improving economic productivity, linking education to active social policy was explained. A background on international frameworks addressing climate change education – the UNFCCC, the UNECE and UNESCO and its relevance for the field were

discussed. A brief discussion on the historical policy and politics background for both country cases showed how The Netherlands has a strong tradition of informal nature and outdoor education, while England’s climate change education has swung from being a cornerstone of progressive climate policy to a marginal scientific provision in the national curriculum. In summary, there is inconsistency between the international frameworks that underpin the national institutions of environmental governance and education. The CEPA programmes of environmental conventions exist separately and have different goals to the international Education for Sustainable Development framework. For climate change education, there is further institutional mismatch with education ministries basing their institutional development on the OECD advocacy of human capital formation, improved economic productivity and active social policy.

(26)

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 Introduction

This chapter aims to embed the notion of climate change education in the relevant scholarly literature, to identify gaps in knowledge and to create a theoretical framework to structure the findings and analysis. The chapter is organised so that it first explores the politics of education to explain how political interests are exercised through particular aspects of education such as knowledge delivery and curriculum, as well as governance and human capital formation. This produces subjects, at the individual and school level, economically, psychologically and culturally. Next, it assesses how this is reflected in the major themes of the environmental education literature, examining definitions, conceptualisations, relationships and pedagogies. The overall goals of environmental learning and a benchmark of climate change education are also set out. Finally, the chapter assesses the gaps in the literature and builds a conceptual framework to structure the findings in Chapter 5. (Further details of the selection of literature are detailed in Chapter 4, Methodology)

3.2. The Politics of Education

The politics of education recognises that education is a means to exercise political interests and attain consent of the governed through the control, ownership and instruction of values, ideas, language, ideology, common sense and culture (Gramsci, 1971). As Saltman states, ‘power is wielded through the making of ideas and meanings, and by educating people to consent to a particular way of seeing’ (Saltman, 2014, p. 43).

Those whose interests, values and ideas prevail shape the curriculum, formulating the ‘official knowledge’, and setting the ways of knowing and learning, as well as understanding what it is important or of value, through pedagogy, policy and administration. The exercise of political interests, reflected in decisions about governance and human capital formation, shapes the purpose and priorities of education, determining education policies that work to produce subjects economically, psychologically and culturally, at both the at the individual and school levels.

(27)

The aspects of education institutions – the purpose and priorities, the curricular and

pedagogical, governance and the human capital formation – can be categorised into different models based on their political choices. There are three general political types: liberal, conservative and critical (Saltman, 2014). Liberal and conservative models maintain that the purpose of education is to accommodate and maintain social order, enhance individual economic productivity on the labour market and support the development of globally

competitive economies. However, they differ in terms of the curriculum, pedagogies and ways of delivering knowledge. Liberals tend to favour a broad curriculum that incorporates the arts and humanities, emphasising dialogue, debate, critical thinking and problem-solving. This should be delivered in the most ‘effective’ manner. Conservatives, both fiscal and cultural, lean towards a narrower, core curriculum of canonised and hierarchical knowledge. This is taught through testing and memorisation (Apple, 2001; Saltman, 2014).

The liberal and conservative standpoints differ in their views of public schooling. Liberals maintain that access to education resources and spending should be expanded on a

meritocratic rationale that education is an opportunity for equality and that through education, everyone has the opportunity to improve their skills and productivity to enable them to

effectively compete on the labour market. Conservatives tend to favour private over public funding of education, on grounds that it brings considerable returns to the individuals who invest in it. Education should be invested in as capital, according to neoliberal wealth accumulation principles (Apple, 2001; Saltman, 2014). Crucially, in both the liberal and the conservative models of education, the neutrality of education is maintained, effectively obscuring the fact that to these knowledge interest groups, education is politically sacrosanct.

In contrast to both, criticalists emphasise how structural inequality in socio-political systems and institutions maintains a bias of interests by advancing a particular group’s knowledge, culture and notions of what is valuable and important. For example, it illuminates the bias in positivist-based, standardised testing, which excludes any questioning of who sets the test and why their notion of knowledge is asserted. Critical education places importance on the cultural politics of education, acknowledging ‘symbolic violence’ and ‘social capital’ as a force of exclusion (Bordieu, 1989; 1986). Criticalists call for praxis – the extent to which those teaching understand the motivations and theoretical assumptions underpinning what they practice (Freire, 1970). Criticalists point out that by overlooking the cultural politics of education and

(28)

that knowledge is not value-free, Liberal and Conservatives fail to acknowledge how consensus (liberal) or canonisation (conservative) serves their own interests. As Saltman asks, ‘How will institutions, social arrangements, and meanings change, and who will change them, and why? The denial of politics in education shuts down these questions, critical to a just social and educational change’ (Saltman, 2014, xxvi).

3.2.1 Production of subjects

The dominant political interests produce consenting ‘subjects’ in several ways – economically, culturally and psychologically. On one hand skills provide an opportunity to level the playing field economically, but at the same time provide rank ordering for class and hierarchy,

favouring those who set the ‘official knowledge’ (O’Riain, 2011). Particular skills and knowledge demanded by sectors or industry may be emphasised as having greater value or importance in education with testing and standards built around steering students towards these (Ollman, 2002). These different levels of skills and abilities are regarded as having greater productivity and value, and hence are given greater compensation and returns through income. Conversely, a lack of skills or labour market participation is increasingly penalised through declining social protection.

Secondly, subjects are culturally produced. Perceived levels of ability and skill, social and cultural constructions, are enhanced through social capital and privilege. Cultural identity and habitus, dispositions, affectations and habits derived from one’s familial or social environment, act as a marker of social standing in the education or employment system, conferring unfair advantage and reward on those who possess the ‘right’ cultural capital (Bordieu, 1986). The process of reward and penalty for particular types of cultural knowledge that begins in schools continues in the institutional career structures based on competitive or pre-determined, tournament, career models (Rosenbaum, 1986). Indeed, credentialism asserts that education has less do with required skills, and more to do with signalling calibre (Blaug, 1976 cited in Tan, 2014).

Thirdly, there is psychological reproduction of knowledge and values, stemming from the ideas of responsibilisation and meritocracy in education. Through active social policy, education fosters self-reliance and responsibilisation by improving productivity of individuals in the

(29)

labour market through enhancing skills and knowledge. And, since access to national schooling and education is generally equal (particularly in the liberal model), then it is individual talent or weakness that explains differences in income and prestige. Furthermore, human capital formation regimes are reinforced by the attitudes of those who benefit from them through the corresponding social protection and social welfare politics (Busemeyer, 2014). Those who have made greater private investments in education and reap greater rewards are less inclined to support the expansion of social insurance premiums, or de-commodification of the welfare state on grounds that inequality is the fault of the individual (O’Riain, 2011).

Performance and ranking at the school level also enables the imposition of particular modes of governance in line with particular political interests. The redesign of skills, training and

curricula according to international standards and the global economy, advocated by transnational and supra-national institutions (Davies and Guppy, 1997) has helped create a manufactured crisis of public school failure through performance and rankings (Berliner & Biddle, 1996). This failure justifies privatised takeover. By linking schools to performance through funding, the door is opened for more ‘effective leadership’ but also greater reliance on sponsorship and philanthropy – a means through which organisations can steer education towards their meeting their goals and agendas (Dale & Robertson cited in Alexiadou & van de Bunt-Kokhuis, 2013; Ball & Junemann, 2012).

Those that take over failing schools herald choice and competition, yet their more corporate ways of working and organising are often unsuitable for education (Ball, 2011). In such

circumstances, distinguishing between corporate social responsibility, education, business and the delivery of education becomes difficult, and responsibility to clients (children and

parents) and to employees, is starkly pitted against owners or shareholders or sponsors. In the case of London charter schools, compatibility of these interests has been untenable, and profit motives have taken priority at the expense of a continuous and uninterrupted education (Ball, 2011).

(30)

3.2.2 Critical policy

While the politics of education explains how political groups exercise their interests through aspects of education, it tends overlook agency, and the ways in which policy ‘subjects’ can respond, contest or input into the policy process. For this reason, critical policy is introduced to theoretical framework. Critical policy recognises that policy processes are complex, contested and interpreted, with multiple actors intervening in ways that influence which issues are identified as policy problems, what solutions are available, and how these policy solutions are championed, resisted, or subverted in practice (Aikens et al., 2016). Whether policies are ‘contained’ or ‘disruptive’, leading to radical or inconsequential change (Riseborough, 1992 cited in Braun et al., 2010), depends on how they are interpreted and enacted in practice, and on the material and situational context (Braun et al., 2010).

In addition, different types of policies can produce different effects – some may require

compliance, while others may be symbolic and not pose any major changes in practice. Policies that are imperative or disciplinary produce a passive ‘technical professional’ subject, where practice is shaped by requirements around performance. In this instance, compliance is the only option. Developmental policies can work to produce a more active policy subject, affording greater creativity and agency. In practice, such policies can be ignored or disregarded (Ball et al., 2011). Performative implementation, or creative non-implementation (Ball, 1994, p20) – essentially being seen to be doing something but without any contributing to any real change – happens when policy responses are fabricated and incorporated into documentation purely for purposes of audit or accountability. (Ball et al., 2011)

(31)

Table 1 Politics of education framework (adapted from Saltman, 2014)

Liberal Conservative (fiscal and cultural)

Critical

Purpose Individual and economic competition

Civic participation Thought and creativity Social order

Individual and economic competition

Moulding consumers Maintaining social and economic order Engaged citizenry Rigorous inquiry Challenge authority Questioning motives and interests Delivering knowledge Effectiveness (through standardisation) Efficiency through standardisation, measurability Enforcement of knowledge Teaching should be in the reality of the student’s social context Pedagogical approach Dialogue, debate, critical thinking, problem-solving Memorising, testing, obedience, discipline Scrutinising meaning-making of culture and authority, social context Curriculum Neutral content, broad

education

Hierarchal, core subjects, classic texts, Western canon

Developing capacity to understand values, assumptions and ideologies behind practice – theory and praxis

Public schooling

Expanding access to public schooling based on meritocracy and education as individual opportunity for economic and social mobility

Ignores cultural politics of education

Opposition to public schooling

Education seen as private good

Ignores cultural politics of education

Critical of schooling in reproducing inequality through unequal funding and

segregation, yet have positive contribution if rooted in theory and praxis

Related Active Social Policies

School-based skills and training

Competitive career models

Work-based skills and training

Competitive and pre-determined career models

N/A

Funding & Governance

Devolved governance Public funding with involvement of business– Sponsorship, philanthropy Centralised governance Private funding – Academisation Sponsorship Philanthropy Privatisation Chartering Vouchers Contracting

Ambivalent support for public schooling –not provided an alternative yet

(32)

3.3 Implications of the politics of education for environmental learning

The propensity for active social policy, underpinned by human capital development and facilitated by education, training and lifelong learning has inevitable consequences for

education policy. When investments in education are tied to the economic production function, human capital, performance and value must be measured and benchmarked, and this is reflected in the rise of assessments, tests and rankings. The resulting preoccupation with cognition and test scores, causes ‘bias in the evaluation of human capital interventions’ through the cultural politics of education, yet by maintaining that education is apolitical, there is little room to contest whose knowledge is being asserted as ‘official’ and on whose terms judgements and rankings are being made.

Knowledge, skills and abilities become tied to market forces and serve to enhance economic productivity, rather than being independently and critically developed. At the same time, beneficial societal activities that cannot be ‘measured’ on these economic productivity terms tend to be neither recognised, valued, nor prioritised (Sen, 1998, p734). In this way, education based on new growth and human capital, where goals are tied to ‘inexorable’ forces – global markets, competition, demographic change and economic cycles leads to ‘social bankruptcy’ (Blaug, 1976; Tan, 2014; Baptiste, 2001).

In addition, the manufactured crisis of public school failure overlooks the fact that the challenges facing teachers in poorly performing schools are more the result of socio-political inequality, unemployment, violence, crime and gentrification, and less that of teacher

performance (Saltman, 2014, p68). In a privatised education, where schooling is a consumer service or good, the social world is understood in terms of the individual and competition for scarce economic resources. Learning, therefore, is often divorced from social context and reality of students (Baptiste, 2001; Saltman, 2012; Saltman, 2014; Giraux, 2010; Apple, 2001).

This type of hegemony has implications for learning about highly unstructured public problems such as climate change, where science cannot fully predict outcomes, nor can values and norms be agreed. These demand a third-order learning, going beyond the ‘are-we-doing-this-right’ to a ‘is-this-the-right-thing’ – a learning that ultimately questions prevailing knowledge systems and institutions as the ‘right thing’ (Flood and Romm, 1996; Isaacs, 1993; Romme and Van Witteloostuijn, 1999; Snell and Chak, 1998; Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992; Yuthas et al.,

(33)

2004 cited in Tosey et al, 2011). Most crucially, since education is critical to the knowledge economy, in this type of education, climate change must be approached as matter of

technological innovation, solved according to economic imperatives, rather than attending to its social or political complexities.

3.4. Major themes in Environmental Education Literature

3.4.1 Raison d’être

With its origins in the concerns of scientists about the state of the global environment, the raison d’être of environmental education has been to preserve and improve the global environment (Tbilisi Declaration, 1978). In this way, it has been regarded as a movement that ‘seeks to establish a new social order and promote the values that will hasten this change’ (Gough & Gough, 2010). As such, it is more aligned with social reconstructionist debate, where schooling is seen as having the possibility to change rather than reproduce society (Gough & Gough, 2010). And, if the purpose of environmental education is to help remedy global

environmental problems, shouldn’t those circumstances provide the necessary framework and criteria, rather than those of traditional education? (Gough & Gough, 2010)

Early definitions of environmental education were based on the idea that it should produce a ‘citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution’ (Stapp, 1969, p34). However, distinctions between ‘education about’, ‘education in’, and ‘education for’ the environment began to be made, as the ‘problematic’ term ‘environment’ needed to be clarified (Lucas, 1972). This led to the understanding that ‘education about’ the environment was learning about ecological processes and problems. ‘Education in’ the environment became outdoor nature education. ‘Education for’ the environment was contested on grounds that it reflected the ‘values and predilections of activists more than those of educators’ (Jickling and Spork, 1998).

At the heart of the environmental education literature is a theoretical dichotomy between strategies, manifesting in tensions between two research traditions – one with instrumental aims, and the other with an emancipatory approach. An instrumental approach is about teaching students to behave in a way that is better for the environment. It assumes that behaviour can be influenced through carefully designed interventions, and identifies preferred

(34)

behaviour and target groups (Wals et al., 2008, p56-58). In this tradition, a methodology, framework and set of goals, embedded in social and behavioural psychology, are designed to produce responsible environmental behaviour (Hungerford & Volk 1990; Culen et al, 1986; Stapp et al, 1969). Critics of this approach argue it has little to do with education and is more aligned with indoctrination (Jickling & Spork, 1988). Proponents contend that environmental urgency necessitates a goal-focused, effective approach (Wals et al., 2008).

An emancipatory environmental education approach, by contrast, strives to engage learners through active dialogue, placing emphasis on the co-creation of shared meanings. The

rationale is that self-initiated learning, or self-initiated change resonates on a deeper level, and hence, is more desirable (Wals et al., 2008; Wals & Jickling, 2002). Emancipatory proponents argue that the ‘nature of sustainability challenges require third-order, transformative learning that challenges unsustainable systems’ – and this can only be done through ‘social and heuristic processes’ (Wals et al., 2008; Sterling, 2010). Unlike the designed instrumental programmes, however, this is an extremely uncertain and long-term process, and given the urgency of environmental crisis, its effectiveness is not guaranteed. ‘By the time we have all become emancipated, empowered, reflexive, and competent, the Earth’s carrying capacity will have been irreversibly exhausted’ (Wals et al, 2008, p58).

3.4.2 Definitions, concepts and relationships

Environmental education was first defined as a learning process to support people’s knowledge and awareness about the environment and associated challenges, to develop the necessary skills and expertise to address such challenges, to foster attitudes, motivations, and

commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible action (UNESCO, Tbilisi Declaration, 1978). But, as the notion of environment and environmentalism has evolved through international texts, conferences and policy trends and ‘innovations’, so too, have the definitions and concepts of environmental education (Gough & Gough, 2010).

For example, the shift from environmental education to education for sustainable development coincided with the shift in conceptualisation of the environment. A biophysically conceived environment, shifted to one comprised of economic, political, technological, cultural-historical, moral, aesthetic dimensions during the Stockholm years, 1972. This again shifted with the notion of the three pillars of sustainable development – environment, society and economy –

(35)

popularised by Rio, twenty years later (Brundtland Commission, 1987). The conceptualisation of environmental issues shifted from identifying environmental problems to one of

understanding these issues as the nexus of conflicting interests related to the use of natural resources and managing these resources for human survival (Schnack, 1998 cited in Blum et al., 2013).

Definitions and conceptualisations of climate change education stem from this, situating it in the context of sustainable development and resource management. There is recognition that on one hand climate change determines the conditions for human living and therefore, influences the basis for social and economic development. Yet on the other, societal

approaches to sustainable development can increase emissions compounding climate change and vulnerability (IPCC, 2014). Climate change education is conceptualised as ‘climate change education for sustainable development’, comprising knowledge of climate and climate change, related environmental and social implications, competencies around dealing with disaster risk reduction, and behaviour change in transitioning to sustainable consumption and lifestyles (Anderson, 2012). This is most successful when focused on local, tangible, and actionable aspects of sustainable development, especially those that can be addressed by individual behaviour (Anderson, 2012).

Climate change education is also defined as knowledge of climate change and wider

environmental processes, knowledge of local environmental conditions, associated risks and management strategies and strategies and contingencies to reduce disaster risk (Bangay and Blum, 2010). Its delivery is envisaged as a longitudinal framework encompassing short-term ‘adaptation’ measures such as climate proofing school buildings and long-term ‘mitigation’ measures re-orientating students towards sustainable livelihoods.

The fact that climate change education is sometimes addressed as part of existing thinking and practice linked to education for sustainable development, rather than being a separate

education initiative, may make the term redundant (Bangay and Blum, 2010). However, climate change education is dependent on the relationship between sustainable development and climate change policy, which can vary significantly from country to country (Laessøe &

Mochizuki, 2015, p33). In South African and Chinese cases, climate change education is carried out under the umbrella of ESD on a strategic level, but there remains a gap when it comes to

(36)

the more specific action plans. In Denmark, climate change education policy sits within non-formal education, and is disconnected from educational policy. Danish climate change policy includes an initiative on raising public awareness but has no connection to the Ministry of Education or education for sustainable development (Laessøe & Mochizuki, 2015, p34).

In other countries teaching ‘correct’ behaviours, such as conserving energy, recycling and reducing carbon consumption is prioritised over developing capacity to deal with uncertainty through critical thinking or understanding global inter-relationships (Pigozzi 2007; Bangay and Blum 2010)

3.4.3 Neoliberalism as a hegemonic force, governance

Sustainable development is defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future ones’ (Brundtland Commission, 1987). However, both ‘development’ and ‘needs’ are ambiguous, particularly in the context of a prevailing neoliberal paradigm, where the central aim is accelerating capital accumulation through the widespread introduction of price mechanisms and markets, competition and fiscal austerity, privatisation, deregulation, the removal of trade barriers, and the scaling back of the state. The compatibility of neoliberalism with sustainable development is doubtful on grounds that it assumes infinite economic growth is possible; yet this economic growth is dependent on the healthy functioning of limited eco-space and limited availability of resources (Beder, 2006).

The vagueness in defining ‘sustainable’ also carries over to education. ‘By virtue of its openness to interpretation’ (Aikens et al., 2016, p11), education for sustainable development perpetuates economic dominance, allowing a neoliberal agenda to prevail in educational policy (González- Gaudiano 2006; Kopnina 2012; McKenzie 2012; Wals & Huckle, 2012). By failing to confront head on the relevant authorities, the priority of economic development remains ‘sacred’ and prioritised. Hegemony is exercised culturally through education, supported by the UNESCO education for sustainable development programme (Berryman and Sauvé, 2016) – but also through the OECD, standardisation and international rankings in education (see also Chapter 2).

Neoliberalism, and accelerated capital accumulation is also evident in the shift in environmental perceptions, with greater anthropocentric and resourcist orientation in

Reproducing dissonance : political and institutional determinants of Climate Change Education in England and the Netherlands