Abstract
Abstract
Topics relating to environmental justice are noticeably absent from the mainstream curriculum in American schools. The educational system seems to struggle with its inclusion for a variety of reasons. This article points to the problems that this lack of inclusion creates. Additionally it addresses some of the possible reasons why schools fail to include topics of environmental justice the curriculum of the K–12 grades. Finally, it outlines the importance of inclusion and poses ways in which these topics can be placed into the mainstream curriculum of the American school.
Introduction
The Current Status of Inclusion
While issues of environmental justice have ridden the edges of sociopolitical thought, rhetoric, and action since the late 1970s and early 1980s (Kushmerick et al., 2007), much of its momentum has been lost or simply subducted into the arenas of government and law where it plays out, hidden from the view of mainstream America. This condition of invisibility extends even into the American classroom where topics of environmental justice are often noticeably absent. Even in the most popular and widely used environmental education curricula, a place which logically should act as a forum for the issue of environmental justice, it is either totally absent, or if present, not developed in any concrete and meaningful ways. As Kushmerick et al. (2007) argue, environmental justice “needs to be an integral part of what we teach to all students, regardless of race and socioeconomic class” (p. 388). Yet, these same authors note that “… addressing issues of environmental justice within mainstream environmental education…[most] mainstream environmental education in the US has a long way to go before it adequately addresses this very important need” (p. 388).
A number of reasons have been put forward to explain or excuse the absence of environmental justice issues in the American classroom, all of which arguably have some measure of merit. These will be enumerated within the body of this article. However, a strong case can be made that in a democratic society, one that espouses the tenets of justice and freedom for all, this curricular omission is without any truly valid reason or excuse. Additionally, “[a]ll students should be taught about environmental justice because it is an important environmental and social problem that occurs in a wide range of contexts, from Native American reservations to migrant farm workers, and intimately affects everyone” (my emphasis) (Kushmerick et al., 2007, p. 390). Remediation of the confusion and errors of omission is within the national grasp. The question is: Is the will to remediate within the national heart? This article asserts that the impetus for setting this remediation in motion must begin in the classroom.
In order to circumscribe the topic of environmental justice and to begin to delineate how this topic should and could fit into the work of the classroom, an appropriate starting point is to define the term. Three different definitions have been chosen that together seem to embody the key concepts of environmental justice. Environmental justice has been defined by Adamson et al. (2002) as “the right of all people to share equally in the benefits bestowed by a healthy environment.” Elaborating on the term “environment” they go on to say, “We define the environment, in turn, as the places in which we work, play and worship” (p. 4). Additionally, this list must include the places in which we study and learn. On the other hand, Robert Bullard introduces a slightly more adversarial flavor into his definition which states that environmental justice is the precept that “all people and communities are entitled to equal protection from environmental and public health laws and regulations” (as quoted in Kushmerick et al., 2007, p. 386). Finally the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fleshes out an understanding of the term even more by providing a more active definition that states “Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (my emphasis) (EPA, 2010). While each of these definitions seems to have its own specific emphasis, each also articulates environmental justice as a civil right. And indeed, the environmental justice movement has ridden the coattails of the civil rights movement in many instances, employing lessons learned in that struggle to further shore up the sociopolitical standing of communities impacted by the uneven distribution of environmental risk, most often communities of color.
Just as issues of civil rights belong in the classroom, so do the related issues of environmental justice. However, there have been perceived, and continue to be perceived, constraints to a straightforward path of inclusion in mainstream curriculum in both the formal curricular offerings (such as Project WET, Project WILD, and Project Learning Tree) and more informal, teacher-generated and introduced materials. As pointed out above, these are not without merit and must be addressed in order to move beyond the roadblocks of inaction and excuse-making if the important issues of environmental justice are to enter the mainstream classroom in any meaningful way.
Environmental justice is often positioned as a subtopic of environmental education. As such it runs the risk of being hopelessly lost in the greater topic because many educators and administrators struggle to place even the encompassing topic of environmental education within the curriculum and the focus of the classroom work. In her book, Education and the Environment, Annette Gough (1997) notes that environmental education is often, of necessity or lack of a logical fit, placed in odd nooks of the curriculum and has been positioned variously in the sciences and social studies slots to occupy a multitude of ranks within programs of study. She cites Fensham as stating that “the environment does not fit neatly within the bounds of any of the traditional subject areas of the curriculum” (as quoted in Gough, 1997, p. 16). But T. V. Reed points out that “pretending to isolate the environment from its necessary interrelation with society and culture has severely limited the appeal of environmental thought to the detriment of both the natural and social worlds” (Adamson et al., 2002, p. 146).
Identifying the Problems
Because issues of environmental justice are traditionally viewed as an orphan topic, they become hedged in and may seem to have no reasonable or convenient avenue of entrance into the classroom. But while the theme of environmental justice is indeed related by familial moniker to environmental education, a curricular compartment into which it is often placed, it is in reality a unique category of its own and needs to be liberated from residence solely within the confines of environmental education. Addressing this, Bryant concludes that “[c]learly, environmental justice is not just an environmental issue or a social justice issue, but rather an environmental, social justice, health, race and economic issue in one” (Bryant, 1995 as quoted in Kushmerick et al., 2007, p. 386). And, as such it has deep ties to other areas within the curriculum. Consider for instance how it might intersect with politics, history, biology, ecology, botany, agriculture, business, architecture, psychology, anthropology, sociology, law, and even the arts. And this list is by no means exhaustive. Stenhouse convincingly argues then, for an emphasis throughout the curriculum, exploring “the power of the environmental conceptual framework across the subjects of the curriculum” (as quoted in Gough, 1997, p. 16).
Another confounding factor which can act to inhibit the inclusion of topics of environmental justice (and arguably issues of social justice of any type) into the classroom, is linked to the current American educational climate as set in motion by No Child Left Behind. Gough calls on Robottom to aptly describe this sort of climate as “an emphasis on didactic teaching of pre-existing knowledge—knowledge that is systematically selected and organized before the classroom activities are defined, which ‘transmit’ the knowledge to students” (as quoted in Gough, 1997, p. 69). Although some aspects of social issues such as environmental justice can be “factualized” (for instance places, amounts, population densities, etc.), the reality is that the heart and meat of educating students about these issues lies often in the discussion, the meaning-making and a call to empathy and justice. These things do not easily lend themselves to a process of “factualization” and commitment to memory as discrete factoids for regurgitation on a test. Additionally, the high-stakes, outcome-based nature of student and teacher assessment can make the request to introduce topics of environmental justice seem “as yet another adjectival education lobby group wanting space in an already overcrowded curriculum,” (Gough, 1997, p. 10) leaving teachers frustrated and exhausted.
Further complicating any addition of environmental justice to the curriculum is the combination of two related factors, both of which deal with levels of teacher comfort. Functioning alone or in tandem, these factors can work against the inclusion of environmental topics. In a school atmosphere that has many teachers concerned about the ways in which they may be appraised, evaluated, and rated, including materials that appear to be political, controversial or confrontational, or that target one segment of the population for scrutiny, can be uncomfortable at best and unthinkable at worst. Additionally, teachers can feel unprepared to teach environmental topics beyond the usual units on the rainforest and recycling. This certainly is in part because these were the topics they were introduced to in their own schooling and partly because few teacher education programs prepare teachers to do more.
Why Inclusion is Important
At this point readers may be asking why it is important to teach environmental justice at all. Perhaps with the high-stakes climate within the classroom, there are some things best not included in the lesson plan. The first and most general rebuttal that can be made to this argument is that while not evenly distributed, the outcomes of environmental justice do impact us all. The effects of these pockets of environmental injustice, where high pollution, hazardous waste, and pesticides have been concentrated, do ultimately work themselves through the social structure in many ways that extend beyond their initial impacts. Certainly physically, these things know no boundaries, and migrate through the environment along multiple avenues. Additionally their effects travel out in a complex web that can for example, contribute to urban decay, increased violence and social unrest, increased health costs, higher taxes, and higher incidences of children needing special services.
A second argument targets our national image and the espoused ideals of freedom, fairness, and justice for all which we hold as a democracy. In essence, it argues environmental justice as an extension and a continuation of the civil rights movement. There are two reasons to make this argument: 1) civil rights are the rights of all persons regardless of race, nationality, religion, or socioeconomic standing, and 2) instances of environmental in-justice are found almost exclusively in neighborhoods of color.
The third applicable point is that children, as the nation's future voters, consumers, policymakers, and decision-makers need first, to understand environmental issues that encompass more than the low-hanging fruit of the “safe” subjects of recycling and exotic and distant places like the rainforest; and second, need to be educated to become politically prepared and active citizens. As Jia-Yi Cheng-Levine (in Adamson et al., 2002) points out, “[t]eaching is more than transmitted knowledge or modes of thinking; it helps form political subjects who will determine the future of this planet we call home” (p. 368). In other words, teaching environmental justice gives a “why” to recycling, preservation of the rainforest, and other important environmental issues that again, impact all people.
The Underbelly of the Problem
Anyone familiar with American educational history will recall that several forms of education in/for/about/through/around the outdoors/environment have made their appearance in the popular curricular offerings, flourishing briefly and vanishing. This legacy has left a fourfold trail which educators must navigate: 1) a confusion of labels—the educational field does however seem to have finally settled on the term “environmental education” for the curricular endeavors aimed at outdoor/nature literacy; 2) a variety of approaches—educators seem to have little consensus about how to approach teaching environmental literacy; 3) a process of stigmatization, stereotyping and a good/bad polarization—terms like “tree hugger” for instance can conflate environmental issues with fringe and/or radical elements; and 4) confusion about what environmental education encompasses and more critically, what it should encompass—is environmental education an aesthetic process of teaching appreciation for the beauty and wonders of nature? Should it be aimed solely at preserving nature in its pristine state or should its focus be sustainable uses of the environment that will improve the national quality of living and grow our economy? How much background information needs to be presented…that is earth cycles, climate, biomes, biology, history, politics, business, and industry? Must one take their class outdoors to teach environmental literacy? Likewise, what if there is no “nature” to preserve or enjoy….no vast vistas or trees or clean-running streams to dip into? That is, can urban schools effectively teach environmental literacy? Can issues like global climate change, population control, consumerism, social and environmental justice, and corporate responsibility, issues which have the potential to spark controversy by appearing to be critical of government, business, or personal belief, be taught in ways that avoid stepping on toes? Or, is the idea to step on toes and create change?
Further confounding the above four issues, much of the curriculum used to teach environmental topics is developed and written by white middle class educators for white middle class students. “What is commonly accepted as environmental education is distributed on the basis of race and class in a narrow range of geographic locations. Where children of color are exposed to environmental education, frequently it doesn't reflect their cultural heritage and values” (Running Grass, as quoted in Kushmerick et al., 2007, p. 390). Giovanna De Chiro (in Adamson et al., 2002), as part of an interview with Cinder Hypki and Bryant “Spoon” Smith who oversee an urban arts program in Baltimore's most impoverished neighborhoods, puts it this way:
Art and greening projects, crafted by people struggling to make ends meet and who are unsure about the possibilities of a future “beyond the hood” raise questions about whose concerns are embedded in popular [environmental education] imaginings of the “green city” or the “sustainable community.” (p. 284)
Achieving Inclusion
Ways of seeing how human life and activity fit into the natural world abound and a number of theories have been developed to explain, delineate, and promote the ideas and tenets of these various iterations of environmental and/or ecological thought. Unfortunately these theories are at times at odds with one another. Moreover, addressing environmental justice in meaningful ways exceeds the parameters of traditional environmental education and theory. Thus, while environmental justice has its roots deep in the soil of these theories, its branches inhabit a number of other disciplines. Initially this may appear to hamper efforts to include environmental justice in the curriculum and the classroom. However, its apparent weakness is, in reality, its strength as will be delineated in the remainder of this article.
As noted above, the roots of environmental justice run deep into environmental and ecological thought and theory. Thus, a brief look at theory will be the starting locus for a discussion of how environmental justice issues can be introduced into the mainstream classroom using the framework of mainstream curriculum. Carolyn Merchant (2005), in her book, Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World, distills and presents the most prominent theories in concise and understandable language, and it is an excellent resource for those who wish to tackle these theories and other related topics in more depth. Merchant (2005), using the term “ecology” to identify ways of seeing, essentially theory, identifies three primary theoretical categories. I include her brief overviews for each below:
1) Deep Ecology—“[T]he reform environmentalism of the 1970s and 1980s dealt only with legal and institutional fixes for pollution and resource depletion, rather than fundamental changes in human relations with nonhuman nature” (p. 91). Deep ecology places an important emphasis on creating a sense of awe, respect and love for the natural world through meaningful study and connection with plants, animals and the cycles of nature. 2) Spiritual Ecology—“Recognizing the importance of some form of religious experience or worship in the lives of most people, spiritual ecologists attempt to develop new ways of relating to the planet that entail not an ethic of dominion, but one of partnership with nature” (p.118). Much of this thought draws on Eastern and Native American thought and mysticism. 3) Social ecology—“Calling themselves variously social ecologists, socialist ecologists, green Marxists, and red greens, they [the social ecologists] ground their approach in an ecologically sensitive form of Marxism. Social ecologists focus on the relations of production and the hegemony of the state in reproducing those relations” (p. 141). These groups are often politically and socially active and vocal.
Embedded within each of these general categories a range of subsets explicate specific approaches, paths, and techniques for attaining the desired end, that of understanding one's place and function within the greater natural and social environments. These approaches, paths, and techniques array themselves over the spectrum from pacifistic to confrontational. In other words (to keep the metaphor of the roots of environmental justice being deeply embedded in the soil of theory in play), we can see that the soil of ecological/environmental thought is a mixed potting medium composed of many things. The teacher who wishes to include environmental justice issues in her/his classroom is in no way obligated to be familiar with each of these subsets in order to be effective, and the level of interest of the educator will dictate to what extent s/he wishes to explore these topics further. However, it is important to understand that while this array may appear overwhelming, it in fact offers a great deal of latitude and possibility for avenues of inclusion in a variety of traditional subjects.
Each of the three ecological viewpoints as presented above, is by necessity overly generalized and fails to give the full scope and innuendo of its multiple pieces. However, in looking at them in this way an important point can be illustrated. That point is that each has its own myopic weaknesses and each has its own strengths. These are the strengths which teachers can capitalize upon in the classroom. Deep ecology, for instance, while weak in activism, emphasizes personal responsibility and lifestyle change. Spiritual ecology, while admirable for its emphasis on taking pleasure in the environment and its earth-honoring principles misses opportunities for both personal change and activism. Additionally, the mystical and religious overtones of much of this material, while personally meaningful and helpful for many, is not conducive to inclusion in the classroom. But an emphasis on personal responsibility and a sense of awe and wonder can be lost and/or submerged in the push and energy of the political and legal components of a socially active ecological view. Each as a free-standing approach would be difficult to use in the classroom for imaginable reasons. However, by using a pragmatic approach to create a hybrid which picks the best and most applicable pieces from each, a flexible and meaningful approach can be taken to include environmental justice issues in the mainstream classroom. It can be argued that this hybrid must be constructed to include components of personal responsibility, awe and respect for the environment, and social responsibility and activism. With this in mind, an applicable set of questions can be posed, which can serve as a starting point:
1) What approaches to teaching environmental justice will be best received in each community? It is wise to read the sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and religious climate of the community one teaches in and to gear the content and level accordingly. This does not preclude the use of any one topic. Rather it acts as a sensitivity filter that shows respect for students and the community in which they live. It aids in the crafting of lessons that will, as Running Grass has emphasized, “reflect their culture, heritage and values” (Kushmerick et al., 2007, p. 390). 2) What are the ages and levels of social maturity of the students? In his book, Place-Based Education, David Sobel (2004) stresses the importance of “honoring the developmental progression [of students] from near to far. Curriculum that follows development from kindergarten through the end of middle school moves from home and school to neighborhood to community to watershed to bioregion to beyond” (p. 90). All too often however, the introduction of environmental issues in the classroom fails to honor the developmental readiness of students. Frequently environmental issues can take on a specter of gloom, hopelessness, and perhaps even fear, especially for children who are too young to face the world's realities and take on its problems. Again Sobel (1997), in his excellent book Beyond Ecophobia, notes that “the assumption is that if children see the horrible things that are happening, then they too will be motivated to make a difference. But those images can have an insidious, nightmarish effect on young children whose sense of time, place and self are still forming” (p. 10). He further cautions that “[i]f we prematurely ask children to deal with problems beyond their understanding and control, prematurely recruit them to solve the mammoth problems of an adult world, then I think we cut them off from the possible sources of their strength” (p. 5). He goes on to recommend the following guidelines: a) Early childhood learning and activities should focus on enhancing and developing empathy toward the natural world. It should be added that this must include empathy toward fellow humans as well. b) Middle childhood learning and activities need to be directed at exploration of their own expanding sense of self and world and how they fit into that world. c) By early adolescence, students are ready to understand many aspects and realities of the world in which they live and are emotionally ready to take on a more active role in changing it. (Sobel, 1997, p. 12) 3) What classroom techniques and approaches have worked well in the past? Any teacher will tell you that each classroom demonstrates its own dynamic. Being mindful of this when planning to introduce environmental justice topics into the curriculum is essential. The resources at hand, the location of the school, and moreover the teacher's own level of comfort with the material will dictate how to proceed. 4) What are the possible locations where environmental justice topics can supplement learning in other areas of the mainstream curriculum? Consider the following example of the kind of thinking that can be helpful in answering this question. David Jardine (1998) describes an interesting exercise done in an Early Childhood Education class. Presenting the students with blank pieces of paper, he asked students to think of all the possible ways in which this common classroom item could be used to teach different areas of the curriculum. Initially students simply delineated ways to use the paper itself—writing on it, drawing on it, reading from it, etc. Eventually however, the students moved to issues of how the paper was made, opening almost unlimited possibilities for further inquiry. As Jardine comments, “suddenly and unexpectedly, everything came to be co-present with this paper, everything seemed to nestle around it” (pp. 69–70). In this same way, the large web of connections to the topics inhabiting mainstream curriculum, which environmental justice encompasses, provides infinite possibilities for resourceful and creative teachers. For instance, the tonnages, percents, and population figures inherent to discussions of environmental justice could be incorporated into real-world math problems. A wide range of related social and natural sciences and human health topics offer another connection. Specifically, setting background knowledge and creating familiarity and understanding of both the natural world and the human-constructed world build a strong foundation for understanding the issues of environmental justice. The growth of cities and industries and the infrastructure (including agriculture) that support them, the proliferation of pollution, the accumulation of hazardous waste, the exodus of white middle class populations from urban areas, and the concentration of poverty and neighborhoods of color within urban areas (as well as certain rural areas) all have an interrelated history that in turn is related to the history of our nation. Writing also offers many opportunities to explore environmental justice issues both from a purely factual approach and also from a creative approach. Likewise, literature offers many opportunities for familiarizing students with the places and causes of environmental justice. Books such as Linda Hogan's Solar Storms, Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang, and Terry Tempest Williams' Refuge explore issues and activism. More generally writers such as Gretel Ehrlich, Wendell Berry, Barry Lopez, and Sue Hubbell offer both insight and example for readers and writers interested in making a stronger connection to nature. An excellent composite of some of these writers can be found in Words from the Land, edited by Stephen Trimble. The works of many Native American, Hispanic, black, and other ethnic authors such as N. Scott Momaday, Leslie Marmon Silko, Gary Soto, Sandra Cisnero, James Baldwin, Audre Lord, Amy Tan, and Chang-Rae Lee, can provide ideas, insight, and places from which to start. For older students using case studies can be an effective way to teach environmental justice. An excellent source of such materials is Barry Hill's Environmental Justice: Legal Theory and Practice, which presents a wide array of legal cases in readable format. Art and drama are being effectively used by educators and organizations such as the Baltimore-based Urban Arts Institute, to articulate and explore issues of environmental justice in creative ways. Additionally, many teachers have effectively incorporated service learning projects into classroom materials.
In a study focused on examining the inclusion of environmental justice in mainstream curricular offerings, Kushmerick et al. (2007) found that nationally there are a significant number of programs that deal with environmental justice and/or multicultural environmental education. Unfortunately these programs tend to be small in scope and regional. Three organizations which they mention as exemplary are Literacy for Environmental Justice, the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, and the Three Circles Center for Multicultural Environmental Education (p. 390). The study is in no way exhaustive and other regional nature and environmental education centers may be offering or willing to develop materials and programs that encompass environmental justice issues.
Nationally distributed curricula such as Project WET, Project WILD, and Project Learning Tree offer some help, particularly for students in grades 6–12. Activities in these three guides are integrated with teaching standards and classroom goals. However, Kushmerick et al. (2007) found them lacking in a concerted focus on issues of environmental justice. They comment that “[i]n light of the demand for environmental justice in environmental education, [the study's] data stand out as major missed opportunities for incorporating environmental justice. Even in those guides that included at least one environmental justice indicator in every lesson, few lessons included the environmental justice context.” While problematic, this need not be a fatal flaw that makes this material unusable, and the authors do go on to note that “[t]his suggests that most lessons touch on concepts related to environmental justice, but do not take the extra step and actually present the concepts in an environmental justice context” (p. 399). Thus, it is up to the teacher who chooses to use these materials to make those needed extensions.
Considering the Counterarguments to Inclusion
Some argue that issues of environmental justice do not belong in the curriculum and in the classroom. These people maintain that environmental justice entails complicated social issues pertaining to a minority population and that they are best addressed by the communities themselves or through the channels of government and the legal system. But while that might be an apparently comfortable way of dealing with this often emotionally charged and controversial issue, it is a weak argument. In excluding issues of environmental justice from the curriculum and the classroom, students of all racial and socioeconomic groups are denied the right to know and gain understanding of one of the most pressing and important environmental and social issues which our nation currently faces. It fails to fully prepare them for an active and meaningful environmental decision-making role as a citizen in a democracy. It additionally can be argued that it smacks of neglect if omitted through lack of thought, and repression if denied through intentional omission. Additionally, by abdicating power, authority, and decision-making responsibilities to those in politics, government, and the legal system (who often have strong interests in placating the very corporations and other generators of pollution whose activities and facilities are located in neighborhoods of color), to create the very laws and craft the very decisions that impact, or may potentially impact the lives of all persons, citizens are willingly being robbed of a voice. Additionally, it deprives them of the knowledge needed to either advocate for themselves or for those for whom they have learned to feel empathy. In essence, it takes environmental justice out of the arena of grassroots participation and places it in the arena of a distant and often disinterested few.
Summary
Environmental justice belongs in the classroom. To date however, there has been little work aimed at including it in the mainstream school setting. A number of issues have militated against inclusion. Certainly they include a lack of awareness on the part of educators and educational decision makers, the lack of emphasis in teacher education programs, the fact-based and high-stakes test-heavy climate of the current educational system, and discomfort and uncertainty about the perceived political correctness and the racially and socially confrontational possibilities inherent in the topic. But arguably, “what should measure the success or failure of a learning situation is its potential for socializing youth toward cultural beliefs and practices that will be ecologically sustainable over the years to come” (Bowers, as quoted in Riley-Taylor, p. 15). Therefore, at issue is finding appropriate ways for teachers to include environmental justice in both the nationally available environmental education curriculum and the mainstream subject-based materials they use in their classrooms. This article has presented a general outline for accomplishing this. It is however, the duty of teachers to create a give and take between themselves and their school, the community, and their students that will enable them to craft specific ways of presenting environmental justice. These ways must in turn, be individually suited to these classrooms, communities, and most importantly, their students. In closing it seems appropriate to use the words of Carolyn Frerichs Benne, penned into her diary not long before her death: “Giving and taking has meaning for me. Sometimes I feel I have little to give but my friends tell me I give much, and by accepting this, I acknowledge and recognize the existence and importance of what they give to me. I am always struck by the underestimates we have of ourselves-people not realizing their potential, not understanding the tremendous value of the gifts they have given” (as quoted in Krall, 1994, p. 121).