Considering the current state of our planet, the need for a vibrant environmental and sustainability education (ESE) is arguably more pressing than ever. However, education at large has also become increasingly characterized by accountability, measurements, and high-stakes testing. Consequently, ESE presently finds itself caught in a tension between two competing educational logics, namely an existential one and an instrumental one.

There is undoubtedly a deeply existential dimension to ESE as the content of its educational practices have profound implications for continued human (and non-human) existence (Affifi & Christie, 2019; Vandenplas et al., 2023; Verlie, 2019). ESE involves issues about severe threats to our planet and the extinction of numerous species as well as vast global economic and social inequalities. As such, sustainability issues touch upon the very nerve of what it means to grow up in a society where dreadful visions of the future seem to be closing in. Such visions can spark strong moral emotions in students as well as ignite intense political discussions about the development of society (Sund & Öhman, 2014; Van Poeck et al., 2019). In short, the educational content of ESE carries profound existential implications for both teachers and students that need to be carefully handled in the classroom (Vandenplas et al., 2023).

At the same time, sustainable development is being taught within a broader system of schooling characterized by instrumentalism rather than devotion to existential concerns. Many European educational systems have moved in a direction of increased teacher accountability and a stronger focus on test results and measurable outcomes (Grek, 2020). Taken together, the changing institutional condition of schooling means that teachers and students today face a harsh educational reality where didactical autonomy is being reduced and knowledge requirements are to be met. This means that there is a risk that schoolwork is being presented to students in instrumental terms that encourages them to pursue good grades for the sake of personal benefit rather than a sincere commitment to the survival of life on earth. Put succinctly, teachers and students engaged in ESE are today caught in a tension between two fundamentally different logics – an existential and an instrumental – that pose a serious pedagogical challenge.

The aim of this paper is to theoretically specify the relation between the existential and the instrumental logic in ESE.

In this theoretical contribution we explore five different aspects of how the relation between the two logics is played out. The five aspects are: (i) the role of emotions, (ii) the role of experiences, (iii) the role of knowledge, (iv) the aim of education, and (v) the temporality in teaching. By exploring the relation with these five aspects, we shed light on challenges that current ESE practices face in relation to the instrumentality of schooling. To explore these five aspects, we draw on previous theoretical and empirical research. Our selection of previous research was purpose related and followed two criteria: (1) research that clearly address either the existential logic or the instrumental logic in education, (2) research that is influential in the ESE research field. In analysing selected publications, we followed a purpose related reading and methodology (Säfström & Östman, 1999). The first strand of previous research consist of publications on the existential logic in ESE (e.g. Affifi & Christie, 2019; Vandenplas et al., 2023; Verlie, 2019). In a recent study of the existential tendency in ESE, Vandenplas et al. (2023) identify seven different ways in which the existential tendency is expressed in climate change education practices. In engaging with this result, we outline how the existential logic in ESE establishes a specific relation between the student, the subject matter and the teacher. The second strand of previous research relates to the instrumental logic of ESE. The instrumental logic of schooling, and its relation to ESE practices, are sometimes referred to a “Stevenson’s gap”. The notion of “Stevenson’s gap” highlights how the very structure of schools and its orientation toward results, achievements and measurable outcomes is at odds with vital ESE practices (Hacking et al., 2007; Stevenson, 2007; Tryggvason et al., 2022). By bringing these two strands of previous research into dialogue we are able to theoretically specify the relation between the existential and instrumental logic in ESE.

A preliminary finding from our exploration of the relation between the two logics is that the relation is characterized by a tension. We identify a tension between the two logics in all the five aspects that we explore. For instance, the existential logic highlights the role of emotions as a crucial part of environmental issues, as well as central part of the learning process (see Vandenplas et al., 2023; Verlie, 2019). In comparison, within the instrumental logic of schooling the measurable outcomes are in focus, rather than the students’ own emotions when encountering the subject matter. Moreover, within an instrumental logic the students’ previous experiences of environmental and sustainability issues do not have the same relevance as they have within an existential logic. From an instrumental perspective the question of what student should learn, and why, is already set before the students encounter the subject matter (cf. Öhman, 2014). In relation to previous conceptualizations of tensions between ESE practices and school structures, such as “Stevenson’s gap” (Hacking et al., 2007) or the “discourse-practice gap” (Vare, 2020), we argue that our conceptualization further contributes and specifies the role of environmental and sustainability issues (ES-issue) in schools. By outlining the two logics, we are able to theoretically specify why a tension arises when ES-issues are brought into current educational system. In the closing discussion of our paper, we address the wider question discussed in the ESE research field: Is it realistic to expect current educational system to fully handling ES-issues? Or is it necessary to tame the existential “nature” of ES-issues if they are to be taught in an instrumentalized school system? Even though our contribution does not provide definitive answers to these questions, the distinction between the two logics, and their specification, are helpful theoretical tools in further developing this discussion.

Affifi, R., & Christie, B. (2019). Facing loss: Pedagogy of death. Environmental Education Research, 25(8), 1143–1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1446511 Grek, S. (2020). Facing “a tipping point”? The role of the OECD as a boundary organisation in governing education in Sweden. Education Inquiry, 11(3), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1701838 Hacking, E. B., Scott, W., & Barratt, R. (2007). Children’s research into their local environment: Stevenson’s gap, and possibilities for the curriculum. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701284811 Öhman, J. (2014). Om didaktikens möjligheter—Ett pragmatiskt perspektiv. Utbildning & Demokrati – tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitk, 23(3), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.48059/uod.v23i3.1023 Säfström, C.A., & Östman, L. (1999). Textanalys [Textual analysis]. Studentlitteratur. Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose and practice. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701295726 Sund, L., & Öhman, J. (2014). On the need to repoliticise environmental and sustainability education: Rethinking the postpolitical consensus. Environmental Education Research, 20(5), 639–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833585 Tryggvason, Á., Sund, L., & Öhman, J. (2022). Schooling and ESE: Revisiting Stevenson’s gap from a pragmatist perspective. Environmental Education Research, 28(8), 1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2075326 Van Poeck, K., Östman, L., & Öhman, J. (Eds.). (2019). Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351124348 Vandenplas, E., Van Poeck, K., & Block, T. (2023). ‘The existential tendency’ in climate change education: An empirically informed typology. Environmental Education Research, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2246694 Vare, P. (2020). Beyond the ‘green bling’: Identifying contradictions encountered in school sustainability programmes and teachers’ responses to them. Environmental Education Research, 26(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1677859 Verlie, B. (2019). Bearing worlds: Learning to live-with climate change. Environmental Education Research, 25(5), 751–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1637823