Climate education is a national disgrace
We are failing to teach children about the most important issue of their lives. Urgent, radical change is needed.
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Nelson Mandela
The battle to save the planet will be fought on several fronts. We must protest in the streets and relentlessly pressure politicians. Journalists must shout the truth. Activists must disrupt the fossil fuel economy. And perhaps most importantly, we must educate our children.
It is our children that will face the worst of what is to come. Today’s youth will need to shape a new world, one beyond fossil fuels, beyond endless consumption and beyond the exploitation of nature. Young people need to be equipped to take on the fight for the planet, and to win.
It is therefore disastrous that our climate education is so woefully inadequate. Climate change forms just a tiny fragment of the national curriculum, confined to Science and Geography at GCSE and Key Stage 3 (ages 11–14). Even here it is mentioned only briefly, a side note worthy of only one or two lessons in the year. There is no mention at all in the primary curriculum — so children can complete their first six years of schooling without a single reference to the biggest issue of their lives.
That climate change is mentioned in the Geography curriculum at all is the result of a battle fought by campaigners against Michael Gove — who had sought to remove it entirely. Do not believe it when Mr Gove seeks now to rebrand himself as a climate leader.
Gavin Williamson faired little better. One MP asked Mr Williamson if he would consider a new, standalone subject covering climate change — a sensible idea, and one which deserves careful thought. Unfortunately his response to Parliament was largely a baffling tribute to Margaret Thatcher. No climate change course was introduced, but we do now have a pilot scheme for the teaching of Latin.
His replacement as Education Secretary is Nadhim Zahawi, a true fossil fuel acolyte, a former oil company executive paid nearly £30,000 per month by the industry even whilst an MP. With this background, Mr Zahawi is bought and paid for. He should not be an MP, he should not be a cabinet minister, and he most certainly should not be minister for education. He will not fight for a climate education policy that would erode the value of his fossil fuel interests.
Sadly, big oil has already infiltrated education. Shell is in our schools, awarding prizes, greenwashing and rebranding themselves to the young — while wielding cash that can influence teacher behaviour. That this is permitted at all speaks volumes about the Government’s intent. Our ministers do not want high quality climate education, and their plan is working.
It is instructive to look at the 2019 Edexcel GCSE Chemistry exam. Four marks are awarded for explaining ‘two factors that cause the percentage of carbon dioxide in today’s atmosphere to vary’. The acceptable answers to this rather unclear question include ‘respiration’, ‘photosynthesis’, ‘volcanic emissions’ and ‘burning fossil fuels’.
Indeed, this question only pretends to be about global warming — a student could achieve full marks without mentioning fossil fuels at all. Another mark was available in Biology for knowing that fossil fuel combustion adds carbon to the atmosphere. That’s under 1.5% of the Science GCSE dedicated (barely) to the most important scientific issue in the history of humanity.
If our children see climate change through this lens, as a dry recitation of facts, a technical footnote, a minor issue that is covered by a couple of marks in an exam, then no wonder so much of our adult population does not grasp the seriousness of the situation.
One science teacher told me that: “We have to teach climate as a few facts, shoehorned into a single lesson. It’s taught in a way that makes it irrelevant for most of the kids. It barely even features in the exam, so they don’t care.”
In the small pockets of the curriculum where it does feature, climate change content is downright negligent. The BBC Bitesize guide for Key Stage 3 Geography includes this small section on our future:
“Climate change can be managed by:
- Mitigation — limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions. Examples of this are renewable energy, such as solar panels, and new technology, such as electric vehicles.
- Adaptation — learning to live with climate change. Examples of this include building flood defences to protect against rising sea levels, and developing new crops that are drought-resistant.
Climate change sceptics are people who have doubts about whether climate change is happening or whether attempts to manage climate change will work.”
This is banal, vacuous education. It lacks any sense of the reality of the crisis and the action needed to tackle it. It provides a false sense of security through technology — and the mention of sceptics gives credibility to these dangerous groups, when it should instead discredit them outright.
Yet another example is the teaching of hydrocarbons. The GCSE Science curriculum includes a substantial section on crude oil, fractional distillation and cracking. This covers all of the chemistry of crude oil — but nowhere mentions climate change or the potential harm caused by these practices. There is no doubt this is deliberate. The Government’s subject guide for GCSE Science requires that students are taught to:
“Recall that crude oil is a main source of hydrocarbons and is a feedstock for the petrochemical industry; and
explain how modern life is crucially dependent upon hydrocarbons and recognise that crude oil is a finite resource.”
This is pernicious propaganda and purposeful miseducation. Hydrocarbon education should be taught entirely through the lens of climate change, explaining the harm of fossil fuels and the reasons they must be eliminated. Instead it seems that the opposite is mandated.
And yet there is some light here. The curriculum, by including references to climate change, oil, pollution and water gives teachers a licence to discuss them. The presence of these topics is a justification to expand and explore, to debate and to counter fossil fuel propaganda.
So here is my call to action. Teachers of Britain, this is a global emergency. This is not the time to stick to the intent behind the curriculum. Go beyond, and teach our children the true state of the planet and what we need to do to repair the damage done. Sadly this will mean that other areas are covered in less depth — but given the circumstances it is essential. We can sacrifice the general formula for an Alkane in exchange for an education that can save the world. ‘Why didn’t you tell us’ must be avoided at all costs.
Teachers across all subjects should avail themselves of every loophole, every excuse and every opportunity to teach climate change. ‘Drop down’ days (off-syllabus days used to enhance practical learning) are one avenue. Assemblies are another. Even a five minute discussion of how students travelled to school would be beneficial. English teachers can discuss relevant literature, Food Technology can explore the sustainability of food. Some educators propose incorporating discussion of environment into every subject — there are few areas where it could not feature.
Many teachers do not feel equipped to deliver such education. Additional training would be the obvious solution, but holding out hope for such things from this Government is a fool’s errand. This is a major issue — one solution may be a network of teachers and climate experts collaborating to equip our educators with the necessary knowledge and skills.
Teaching has yet another crucial role in addressing climate change. We must inoculate young people against the plumes of disinformation spewing from our media and politicians. Baseless opinion is now all too common across the press and social media, our press congested with outrage, unscientific belief and sometimes barefaced lies. Nowhere is this more dangerous than the climate debate.
Children must understand the scientific method, learn to constructively doubt, think independently, and debate logically. Debate should be a daily occurrence in our classrooms, with students asked to question and challenge each other – and even the teacher themselves. Unfortunately most teachers do not feel empowered to do this.
We must also be cautious of distilling environmental learning into a recitation of facts. Our examination focussed model pushes children to a utilitarian perspective of schooling, the path to work and money — but saving the natural world will require more than this. We need the next generation to be philosophers, to seek morality and understanding, and to completely rethink our economic system.
Climate change cuts to the core of what it means to be human, how we live, and where our future lies. Today’s children will need to answer these questions for our species. It is vital we educate them to be able to do so.
