INTRODUCTION

Our paper analyses the affordances of a selection of pre-university subjects for climate-related learning, focusing on Victoria and extending this to other Australian states and territories. Internationally, the K-12 education sector has seen a range of responses that illustrate shallow to deeper forms of engagement with the climate crisis (e.g., NRC, 2012; Bonnett, 2013; Henderson & Drewes, 2020; Dunlop et al. 2021; Finnegan, 2023). On the one hand, studies show curriculum is designed and enacted in particular subject areas in ways that can foster forms of denialism, disavowal and negation,directly and indirectly (see Eaton & Day, 2020; Höhle & Bengtsson, 2023; Perrin, 2023; Säfström & Östman, 2020; Tannock, 2020, and most recently, PragerU and climate denial education in Florida). On the other, there are a range of initiatives in curricular, co-curricular or extra-curricular spaces may propose fostering variousdimensions of ‘climate literacy’ to combat this, as well as reframe contemporary educational priorities (see Huopenen, 2023; Kwauk & Wyss, 2023; Mayes & Center, 2023; Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2022; Cook et al., 2023).  

In Victoria, like the affordances in other Australian states and territories, current state-level education policy has created two main clusters for learning about climate within Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) subjects: STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and HASS (Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences). Our study illustrates how both clusters offer core and optional areas for provision of quality climate-related learning—i.e. that might engender hope and action—for 16-19 year olds, even as they present diverse opportunities for advancing learning and competence development in cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural domains. 

Extending Dawson et al.’s (2022) recent international comparative study of middle years climate-related curriculum, we offer an examination of the the breadth, depth and quality of learning affordances in the current and next generation versions of VCEs, and present an analysis of patterns of possible learning within and across subjects. Findings for Victoria suggest continued fragmentation within some study designs, innovation and depth in others, and significant differences in emphasis and approach across each cluster. We then extend this analysis to the equivalent provision in the other current state and territory senior secondary school certificates. 

Dawson et al. (2022) documented the inadequacies in climate change education provision in Australian Foundation to Year 10 (F-10, 4-16 years old) curriculum, a curriculum policy that sets the foundations for each of Australia’s state and territory curriculum authorities. While the term ‘climate change’ appears in the policy, it is barely mentioned. Most often it appears at Years 9 or 10 (15-16 years old) and when it does, it is presented as a context or example rather than a core or mandated aspect or discrete topic and knowledge. For the previous version of the Australian curriculum, Dawson et al. (2022) concluded “although there are implicit opportunities for a teacher to choose to teach climate change it is not explicit or mandated” (p.1387). Now, Version 9.0 of the science curriculum for Year 10 mentions, “Describe trends in patterns of global climate change and identify causal factors”, but this is the only entry, and it is unlikely to offer what NOAA regards as ‘climate literacy’ (or climate science literacy for that matter). For students too, it ill affords sufficient preparation to select pre-university courses that round out their knowledge and competences, or know how to address the shortcomings in current provision by choosing subjects or finding teachers that can correct this (Beasy et al., 2023).

In brief, our research focuses on the ways learning and teaching about CC are represented in the 37 VCE studies within the Victorian senior secondary curriculum, and equivalents in other current state and territory senior secondary school certificates. Our benchmark is Eilam et al.’s (2020) analysis of VCE curriculum. In mapping CC within the VCE, Eilam et al. (2020) identified eight key CC content themes that ranged from science-based to humanity-based (socio-economic-political structures, networks, ethics and conduct) aspects. They also found that in analysing curriculum policy documents in 2019 when CC was included in VCE Study Designs, it was typically in a reduced form with students learning CC as an outcome, cause, or technological or managerial problem. In other words, unlike the headlines of the IPCC reports the remit of the Paris Agreement, or the call for climate literacy from NOAA, to date, CC has tended not to be communicated as the most pressing crisis of our time in pre-university subjects, nor as posing unprecedented challenges to humanity, requiring learning and teaching for senior secondary students that could offer positive change and hope (Reid, 2021). In the full paper, we identify changes since the last round of renewal of study designs for senior secondary school certificates, including whether, for example, addressing an emergency situation or the terms of the Paris Agreement are now reflected in the study designs. We address two main research questions: Where can we find affordances for CC education in the study design? How has this situation changed with the latest renewal of the study design? We have followed the principles of a descriptive qualitative research methodology (Creswell & Creswell 2018) analysing primary sources, such as for Victoria, VCE Study Designs (formal published curriculum policy documents) issued by VCAA (2023). We limited the document analysis to the published VCE Study Designs. Additional published resources to support the VCE study design were not searched, but will in later phases of this particular project. Such resources are typically posted much latter than the publication of the study design, and were unavailable to authors and publishers of resources and other curriculum-brokers (those involved in the production of guidance, resources and communication at a level beyond the school, Priestley et al., 2021) on the eve of enacting a new study design—a common frustration for teachers in Australia (see, for example, Marangio & Heyting, 2022).

Our findings add to ongoing debates as to whether pre-university courses provide sufficient scaffolds and affordances for learners to develop their understandings, skills and values within a ‘quality climate education’ that fosters ‘climate literacy’. As noted elsewhere (Reid, 2019), a simple set of distinctions can help unpack such a range of options in scaffolding and directing educational provision, be that a focus on the ‘climate science’, a ‘climate justice education’ emphasising the drivers and effects on people more than the planet, a ‘climate emergency education’ associated in the public imagination with the schools strikes for climate, or a ‘climate resilience education’ that emphasises adaptation over mitigation in the face of potential, attributable and actual climate-related disasters (see, for example, McGregor & Christie, 2021; Monroe et al., 2019; Olsson, 2022; Skilbeck, 2020; Verlie, & Flynn, 2022). The affordances inherent in pursuing structured and intended curriculum options then, present both opportunities and obstacles to learning about climate change. For the purposes of this paper, these options must be assessed carefully if we are to make sense of how learners might participate in climate-related teaching and learning activities for specific purposes as part of their mainstream education in Australia. Thus, a shift of focus to the affordances of curriculum statements draws attention to how different tools, aims and goals of school subject areas mediate the enactment of a school disciplines’ values, norms and procedures (Tryggvason et al., 2023), alongside what shapes the mobilisation of learner’s own personal history, agency, intentionality, preferences, norms and habits (Watson, 2007; Brown, 2015; Baldwin et al., 2023) when engaging with climate-related education provision.

Bonnett, M. (2013). Normalizing catastrophe: sustainability and scientism. Environmental Education Research [EER], 19(2), 187-197. Clark, H., et al. (2020). Teachers’ uptake of problematic assumptions of climate change in the NGSS. EER, 26(8), 1177-1192. Dawson, V., et al. (2022). A cross-country comparison of climate change in middle school science and geography curricula. International Journal of Science Education, 44(9), 1379-1398. Dunlop, L. et al. (2021). The role of schools and teachers in nurturing and responding to climate crisis activism. Children's Geographies, 19(3), 291–299 Eilam, E., et al. (2020). Climate change education: Mapping the nature of climate change, the content knowledge and examination of enactment in upper secondary Victorian curriculum. Sustainability, 12(2), 591. Finnegan, W. (2023). Educating for hope and action competence: a study of secondary school students and teachers in England. EER, 29(11), 1617-1636. Henderson, J., & Drewes, A. (Eds.) (2020). Teaching Climate Change in the United States. Routledge. Höhle, J.V., & Bengtsson, S.L. (2023). A didactic toolkit for climate change educators: lessons from constructive journalism for emotionally sensitive and democratic content design. EER, 29(11), 1659-1677. Huoponen, A. (2023). From concern to behavior: barriers and enablers of adolescents’ pro-environmental behavior in a school context, EER, 29. Kagawa, F., & Selby, D. (Eds.). (2010). Education and Climate Change: Living and Learning in Interesting Times. Routledge. Kwauk, C.T., & Wyss, N. (2023). Gender equality and climate justice programming for youth in low- and middle-income countries: an analysis of gaps and opportunities. EER, 29(11), 1573-1596. Monroe, M.C., et al. (2019). Identifying Effective Climate Change Education Strategies: A Systematic Review of the Research. EER, 25(6), 791–812. National Research Council (2012). Climate Change Education in Formal Settings, K-14: A Workshop Summary. The National Academies Press. Perrin, E. (2023). Climate change, a challenging topic in the French curriculum (in 7th grade). EER, 29(8), 1118-1131. Reid, A. (2019). Climate change education and research: possibilities and potentials versus problems and perils? EER, 25(6), 767-790. Ruiz-Mallén, I., et al. (2022). Community climate resilience and environmental education: Opportunities and challenges for transformative learning. EER, 28(7), 1088-1107. Säfström, C.A., & Östman, L. (2020). Transactive Teaching in a Time of Climate Crisis. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54(4), 989-1002. Tannock, S. (2020). The oil industry in our schools: from Petro Pete to science capital in the age of climate crisis. EER, 26(4), 474-490. Whitehouse, H., & Larri, L. J. (2019). Ever wondered what our curriculum teaches kids about climate change? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ever-wondered-what-our-curriculum-teaches-kids-about-climate-change-the-answer-is-not-much-123272