Increased Exposure to Environmental Hazards: An Opportunity for Science,Technology,Engineering,and Math Education

Connecting Environmental Issues and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education

Environmental justice is most often defined in terms of equity and equality. ¹ The same underlying tenets of equity and equality are at the heart of educational justice. ² Just as environmental degradation is not experienced by all populations equally, ³ it has also been shown that educational justice seeks to uncover institutionalized inequities that result in uneven distribution of both educational opportunities and educational outcomes. ⁴ Dimensions of access, achievement, identity, and power are utilized to understand the dynamics of unequal educational attainment. ⁵ In the context of the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines, scholars such as Barad have examined cultural norms as power and domination centers where framing perspectives of what is “natural” are formed in large part by dominant cultural and social institutions. ⁶ What is being measured in both environmental justice and education justice are the underlying conditions that give rise to inequities. Unequal distribution of environmental harm has disproportionate and inequitable effects on marginalized communities. ⁷ Similarly, unequal distribution of education has disproportionate and inequitable effects on marginalized communities. ⁸

If we accept that environmental justice is fundamentally about the distribution patterns of environmental harm, then we can compare it with education justice defined, in part, by distribution patterns of unequal education opportunities. And, in important ways, the two are connected by their application to marginalized communities. Those who find themselves in marginalized communities are more likely to suffer from poor environmental conditions. ⁹ And they are equally likely to suffer from lower educational opportunities and outcomes. ¹⁰ Accepting this correlation, one can imply that expanding environmental harm at the margins of an existing population will impact the total number of those affected by that harm. Essentially, lower environmental conditions will have the effect of increasing the definition of those who are considered “marginalized” due to the expansion of the environmental harm. From an economic perspective, the newly marginalized will include those who were previously able to afford to live just outside of pockets of environmental harm, but are now economically incapable of moving away from the expansion of environmental harm. ¹¹ Also, those already exposed to environmental harm run the risk of a higher intensity of exposure for the types of environmental harms wherein higher concentrations are both possible and exacerbate the harm caused. ¹² Under such a scenario, the end result is an expansion of the population (and area) captured within the definition of “marginalization,” with the additional possibility of increased exposure rates and intensified harm to the exposed community.

Although increasing the number of those who are exposed to poor environmental conditions is certainly suboptimal, it does provide an opportunity to reconsider our conception(s) of STEM education, including how we apply that concept to the experiences of those we are educating in these science-based fields. What follows is an argument about the importance of placing STEM education within the context of the physical surroundings and experiences of the student. For those living in marginalized communities, this would mean considering the context of their living conditions and how that influences their own relationships with nature. If more students find themselves in less than ideal environmental living conditions, then STEM education can inculcate this reality by embracing the socioeconomic and sociopolitical conditions that have led to these outcomes, thereby providing student-orientated contextualized meaning to these science fields. And, importantly, this process can allow these students to embrace their surroundings in a fundamentally empowering way.

Connecting Stem Learning to the Natures and Cultures of Environmental Justice Communities

The authors have recently argued that dominant nature–culture binaries associated with the teaching of STEM subjects need to be reconsidered in a manner that embraces the deeper place-based associations of the learners. ¹³ Traditional Western applications of science-based learning focus largely on a reductionist methodology whereby the complexity of the world is purposely reduced in a manner that attempts to provide a basis for learning fundamentals about the world. This allows for the development of uniform principles that help to create the foundations for scientific inquiry and learning. As the argument goes, it is necessary to claim knowledge over things we ultimately do not understand to provide a road map for learning.

Others, including Barad and Snaza et al., have argued for a more holistic approach to STEM education, especially when applied to the concept of “environment,” and particularly including notions of “justice.” ¹⁴ Snaza et al. explains as follows:

[t]his “new” way of thinking, which is only new in the sense that it puts humans back into the thick ontological and political relations in which they have always already been networked, is going to necessitate wide-ranging and radical changes in how we conceive of educational practices and institutions (e.g., focusing on how cybernetics, biotechnologies, prosthetics, and computerized communications devices are reshaping human cognition, embodied experience, and relations with the wider world). ¹⁵

Effectively, by expanding our notion of science learning to include the human components, the sociopolitical aspects of human activity become a centralizing theme in science education. As Bazzul and Kayumova have noted, when we consider a more holistic approach to science education, we invite a conscious engaged citizenry that is capable and willing to connect sociospatial issues that include how we understand ourselves, the world, and our relations with others. ¹⁶

The overarching critique presented by these thinkers is that the current system of science education established a way of thinking about science that is separated from the human communities in which the role of science becomes operational. It effectively takes on a normative meaning that is exclusive in many ways. For example, many environmental justice communities find themselves suffering from disproportionate impacts such as elevated pollution levels and toxic legacies. ¹⁷ Indeed, these are often the preconditions that establish the symptoms of marginalized communities. The land is often cheaper because it is generally undesirable due to the surrounding environmental conditions. ¹⁸ Paradoxically, it is often the environmental conditions that make the land economically viable for those of lower socioeconomic status. This is an inherent sociospatial condition that then establishes the norms of those living in these communities. And, as such, these conditions also help to establish the culture, impacted by the local natural conditions, of these communities. A young person growing up next to a hazardous waste site (e.g., a Superfund site) has a different perspective on “nature” than a young person growing up next to a nature preserve. The concept of “natural,” “environment,” and, as a consequence, “science” becomes embodied in those experiences. The study of the “natural environment” carries a connotation based on experience, and that experience is often fundamentally different for those growing up and living in environmental justice communities.

If we accept the notion that scientific inquiry and learning through the STEM disciplines carry inherent sociospatial issues that break down the concept of a nature–culture binary, then we can ask how the teaching of STEM disciplines can better take advantage of the culture that evolves around the concept of what is “natural” in an environmental justice community. For example, the child growing up near a hazardous waste site, or under conditions of polluted air, accepts those conditions as part of their “environment.” Their knowledge of what we might term environmental justice issues is simply embedded into their basic understanding of the world, at least as they know it. They are arguably in a unique position to take ownership of their “reality” by engaging their environments as they learn in the STEM disciplines. Effectively, their cultural experience is fundamentally shaped by the version of the natural world they experience. This knowledge provides an opportunity for examining environmental problems through a unique lens.

Expanding Stem Education Toward Environmental Problems

If current trajectories of federal environmental policies continue, there will likely be an increase in the percentage of the population exposed and impacted by environmental hazards. This follows the simple logic that decreases in environmental standards result in increased pollution at the margins, thereby increasing rates of exposure and impact. ¹⁹ In the context of the discussion laid out in this article, this may result in more people growing up and living in communities experiencing environmental harm: more people suffering from environmental marginalization. There is support for this proposition in the academic literature. ²⁰ Although greater exposure to environmental harm should never be a policy goal, there is the opportunity to think about how this potential outcome may raise societal awareness of environmental issues and, importantly, the role of science education in translating awareness into action.

If we consider that science education can be intimately connected to the experience of the person being educated, then we can see how environmental justice communities can help to formulate the foundation for advancing a science, that is, in the words of Lisa Patel, “…grounded in the political, economic, and historical infrastructure of inequity.” ²¹ Removing the nature–culture binary creates a contextual learning space for STEM education that attempts to understand, configure, and explain the constitutions of sociospatial and environmental injustices to children who live, play, and grow in these local communities. It is a kind of science-in-the-making that imbues a contextualization of what is “natural” from the perspective of the students: from their individual and collective experiences. If more of these students find themselves in less than ideal environmental conditions, then their realities will help to define how they understand the relationship between human activities and the resulting “environment” that is familiar to them. And if all of this is true, then maybe there is an opportunity for greater contextualization of the relationship between human activities and the environment as we find it. If so, then there is the opportunity to develop more meaningful and impactful environmental policies that draw from the experience and knowledge of those negatively affected.

A STEM education program that seeks to bridge the experiences of those impacted by human activities and the science that helps to define, understand, and contextualize those impacts can lead to more rational policy actions. There have long been pronouncements of the importance in democratizing STEM education, making sure we are reaching children from marginalized communities. ²² But such pronouncements must be grounded in what it means to educate and empower those seen as “uneducated” and “unempowered.” As Gutierrez argues, views of equity and justice that are limited to notions of access and opportunity fail to understand the deeper issues involved in how STEM education operationalizes itself. ²³ As argued in this article, STEM education should seek to break down any nature–culture binary assumptions, explicit or implicit, from a pedagogic perspective. Teaching from the perspective of the student learner is a fundamental starting point toward this goal.

If STEM education refocuses its efforts toward teaching from the student perspective—removing socioeconomic, political, cultural, and normative stereotypes—then we can consider the impact of that kind of learning to a population that is increasingly exposed to environmental harm. Not only will this provide a reorientation of thinking about human impacts on the environment to a larger audience, but it will also reform how we think about the very nature of environmental problems. And this reformation will be aligned with what, today, is considered the foundations of environmental injustice: the unequal and inequitable distribution of environmental harm in our society. Of course, there is no panacea to solve the fundamental problem of environmental harm distribution. ²⁴ But if we recalibrate STEM teaching in a manner described in this article, then there is hope that an increasingly exposed population will be acutely equipped to respond to perverse policy directions. Under such a scenario, there is the opportunity to develop more meaningful and impactful environmental policies that are equitably applied to all people.