This paper explores the position of environmental education within the primary education (approximately 4 up to 12-year olds) curriculum of the Republic of Ireland. It draws on desk research which mapped the development of environmental education in Irish primary schooling across the five curricula from 1872 to the present dayFootnote 1. As well as positioning environmental education within the Irish primary curricula, this paper charts broader changes within the Irish education system and their connection with wider political developments through a particularly turbulent era in Irish history and the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1922, as the Republic of Ireland was called after gaining independence.

Secondary data analysis consisted of a review of historical documents to map the transformation of environmental education in Ireland and to show the significant impact of major historical events, such as Irish independence and EU membership, on curriculum development in general, and environmental education in particular. The combination of analysis of publicly accessible information from scientific, research, and popular publications, policy reports, curriculum documents, and existing quantitative statistics identified trends not only in the development of environmental education but also its position within primary education. No formal model of curriculum development was adopted. Rather, the timeline of change across the curricula was deemed sufficient as a lens to highlight curricular evolution with respect to environmental education.

What is the purpose of environmental education?

One of the main goals of environmental education is to equip individuals and society with the necessary environmental skills and knowledge to address the urgency for environmental sustainability (O'Malley, 2014; Rickinson, 2001; Stapp et al., 1969). As global environmental and ecological crises continue to increase, the expectation of environmental education to meet this goal increases. The ability of environmental education to solve the environmental and ecological crises by producing an environmentally sustainable society is uncertain. It has been argued that children, the future policy makers and environmentalists, are disconnected from the natural environment (Britton et al., 2022; Louv, 2005; Malone, 2007; O'Malley, 2020; Share et al., 2012; Sobel, 1999). Interest in the ‘disconnection hypothesis’ (Corcoran et al., 2009, p. 39) has increased exponentially, moving beyond environmental education research to wider sustainability debates and general discourse. However, there are concerns that environmental education research ‘may not necessarily reflect children’s lived experiences in nature as they [the children] represent them’ (Linzmayer & Halpenny, 2013, p. 311; see also O'Malley, 2015).

Saylan and Blumstein (2011) question the success of environmental education at halting environmental degradation, arguing that ‘to be effective and relevant, educational efforts should fit into the trends and rules of the societies in which they exist’ (p. 36). Contemporary western society’s neoliberal tendencies ignore the social and environmental ramifications of the highly sought after, and somewhat oxymoronic, sustainable development in favour of economic growth and expansion (Redclift, 2005). Such leanings can affect education as ‘the purpose of education should reflect the philosophy of society’ (DoE, 1971a, p. 12). The more the world is focused on capitalist expansion, the larger the gap becomes between contemporary society and the goals of environmental education. Relph (2008) sees having a connection to place(s) as a ‘pragmatic foundation for addressing the profound local and global challenges… [of] climate change and economic disparity’ (p. vii). Environmental education can play a pivotal role in such societal change aiming ‘to embed in all of our children ways to sustainably co–exist with nature’ (Lloyd & Gray, 2014, p. 3).

Defining environmental education

In the drive to educate children about the natural environment, terminology matters. One widely used focus for environmental education is to include education in, about, and for the environment (Ford, 1981; Palmer, 1998). Such a broad focus leaves little room to systematically critique environmental education per se, or to scrutinise its relationship with formal education as this definition allows for such a diverse range of interpretations (Davies, 1998; Gough & Gough, 2010; Lucas, 1972; O'Malley, 2014; Palmer 1998). The more general and/or abstract the focus of environmental education is, the more difficult it can become to measure its impact.

During the 1960s and 1970s a number of definitions of environmental education emerged partly in response to a rapid rise in global environmental concern. These concerns included visible air and water pollution, greater awareness of population growth, rapid economic development and the depletion of environmental resources (Gough & Gough, 2010). Early definitions adopted a rational tone that marginalised any emotional connection with the natural environment in favour of a model whereby instruction and the provision of information was expected to result in pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours (Stapp et al., 1969; UNESCO, 1975, 1977).

Later definitions aligned environmental education with the emerging idea of sustainability, and is said to be multidisciplinary, occurring in both informal and formal educational settings with a focus on educational outcomes (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991; UNESCO-UNEVOC, 2007). This signified a shift away from solving environmental problems (pollution, climate change) to the development of social, cultural, and economic sustainability. The concept of environmental education was of a multi-disciplinary educational approach to learning that developed environmental knowledge, awareness, attitudes, behaviours, and active participation (UNESCO, 1975, 1977, 1992).

However, these definitions overlooked the development of a meaningful or emotional connection between humans and the natural environment. Being in the outdoors for recreational and educational experiences which focus on exploring the diverse habitats, flora, and fauna is an important starting point for environmental education and long-term environmental sustainability (Bögeholz, 2006; Drissner et al., 2014). For children especially developing a sense of responsibility through active play, enjoyment and the use of the senses enhances their understanding of, and relationship with, the natural world. Therefore, a holistic perspective can play an important role in the development of sustainable environmental behaviours (Loughland et al., 2002; Ojala, 2017).

The term environmental education has evolved to include many similar, yet distinct, concepts. Terms like place-based education, place-based learning, outdoor learning, nature play/natural play, and free play, to name a few, come with an array of subtle differences of meaning. Add to this a focus on facilitated, learner-centred, and experiential approaches while also emphasising cognitive and attitudinal development through outdoor play, and the murkiness of the definitional waters of environmental education is clear (Francis, Paige, and Lloyd, 2013; Hinds and O’Malley, 2019; White & Stoecklin, 2008).

This focus on hands-on learning through outdoor experiences is more holistic than earlier definitions. However, there is little critical examination of the varying nuances these concepts (of nature, of the environment) exhibit, particularly from the perspective of the learner (Bonnet, 2007; Bonnett and Williams, 1998; O'Malley, 2015; Rickinson, 2001). As environmental education continues to develop, finding a ‘one size fits all’ definition is problematic. Some argue that definitions of environmental education remain elusive as it integrates with emerging concepts(s) of sustainability (Kopnina, 2012; O'Malley, 2014).

This research paper presents a contemporary definition of environmental education that has a more balanced pedagogical approach to environmental education considering both the teacher and learner. This contrasts with many traditional definitions which focused more or less exclusively on educational outcomes, with little appreciation as to the process of learning or the learner as an active agent of a person’s environmental education. Similar to previous definitions, it promotes both formal and informal educational approaches. However, it specifically advocates for outdoor hands-on outdoor experiences as part of any environmental education effort:

Environmental education uses learner relevant approaches and practices that work within the social, economic and political barriers in order to facilitate children’s experiences in the natural environment and their development of environmental attitudes, appreciation, empathy, moral, and ethical obligations towards human-environment relations (O'Malley, 2014, p. 68).

This definition reorients the discourse within relevant definitions focusing on learner relevancy and sees a direct connection with the natural world as part of the wider environmental sustainability process.

There is a clear evolution of environmental education in terms of the definitions offered since the 1960s (half of the time period of this curricular review). This is also true of how nature is understood. Goodlad et al. (1966) noted that such curricular changes can ‘reflect the relatively gradual evolution of society itself’ (p. 9). Further evidence of this evolution can be seen in Table 1, below. Environmental education was delivered within Elementary Science (1872 onward), then Nature Study and Rural Science and School Gardening (1900 onward) before changing to Social and Environmental Studies in 1971, and Social, Environmental and Scientific Education since 1999. There is a growing complexity in the concepts identified in these subject titles, that move towards more recognition of the interconnectedness of nature, the environment, and society. It also presents evidence of the comparatively later industrial development of Ireland’s agrarian population as it is only in the 1970s that recognition is given to the complexities of human-environment relations.

Cognisance must be taken of such changes in attitude and culture over time when considering the situation of environmental education within the primary curriculum. Further evidence of this evolution can be seen in Table 1, below. Aspects of the working definition, above, were used to identify areas of the five curricula reviewed that contain elements of environmental education. Beyond this we have endeavoured to allow the curricula to speak for themselves in presenting the key relevant information on environmental education.

Environmental education and formal education

There have been, and continue to be, attempts at integrating environmental education into formal education (Lindemann-Matthies, 2005; Bögeholz, 2006; Malone, 2007; Ofsted, 2008). At the same time, research on the development of environmental education shows that environmental education approaches are in conflict with the dominant educational paradigms that underpin formal education in many countries (Palmer, 1998; Benedict, 1999; Stevenson, 2007; Gough & Gough, 2010). Environmental education encourages learners to be active thinkers, and to understand the ‘plurality of environmental ideologies’, yet within formal education learners are often ‘recipients of other people’s knowledge and thinking’ (Stevenson, 2007, p. 147). It has been argued that until there is a ‘major paradigm shift in education’ toward more ‘ecological thinking’, formal environmental education as it stands will ‘form only a small part of an individual’s education relating to the environment’ (Palmer, 1998, p. 240; see also Benedict, 1999).

Education is often seen as a major driver of social, economic and personal change and yet serves to maintain the status quo within modern societies, especially with regard to socio-economic and cultural dynamics that coincide with significant power differentials (O'Malley, 2014; Stevenson, 2007; The University Times, 2020). Regardless of the ideological, or curricular, focus of environmental education, the goal of environmental education is to reorient this socioeconomic and cultural backdrop by placing the environment in a more prominent position for a sustainable future (Boca & Saraçli, 2019).

Environmental education seeks to challenge education ideologies, promoting environmental knowledge while also advocating alternative pathways of learning for students. Promoting social change by transforming value and belief systems is advocated as a central feature of environmental education. How, and in what way, this can be achieved within formal education remains uncertain. Within the context of Ireland, there is at least some certainty to how the curriculum has changed over the last 150 years, and it is to this that our attention now shifts.

Primary school curricula (1872–present): positioning of environmental education

This section charts the positioning of environmental education across the five curricula for Irish primary education from 1872 until the present day. The role and amount of environmental education will be detailed for each curriculum in chronological order. Table 1, below, provides a summary of all five curricula in terms of the change in position of environmental education, the purpose of the change, and the wider social or historical events of the time. The evolution of Ireland’s modern primary education system is multi-faceted and has been subject to significant academic interest (Cloonan, 1981; Coolahan, 1981; Hannon, 2018; Hyland, 1975; Walsh, 2004, 2016). Though a full history of formal education is beyond the scope of this paper, outlining the changes within Irish education and their influence on the amount of environmental education within the curriculum is crucial.

Five primary school curricula are presented in Table 1, below. The curricula include: (1) Payment by Results (1872–1899), (2) The Revised Programme (1900–1922), (3) National Programme for Primary Instruction (1922–1971), (4) Curaclam Na Bunscoile (Primary School Curriculum) (1971–1999), (5) Primary School Curriculum (1999 – present). Each curriculum can be seen as a key milestone in the development of the modern Irish education system. This is important to consider in terms of environmental education as the state education system is the dominant avenue for the dissemination of environmental education in Ireland.

Table 1 Timeline of primary school curriculum development (1872-present)
Full size table

1. Payment by Results (1872–1899)

Prior to the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1922, the British National School system was the established educational structure in Ireland. The system dated from 1831 and aimed to improve both literacy and numeracy and was arguably, uninspiring (Cloonan, 1981; Pearse, 1916). The Payment by Results curriculum (1872–1899) expected each National (Primary) School to be examined annually and teachers were given extra payments based on results from their pupils (Sadler, 1897). With regard to the amount of environmental education in the curriculum, a Commission of Inquiry in 1879 headed by the Earl of Belmore proposed changes to the curriculum including the replacement of agriculture with elementary science. This was a difficult transition as many teachers were untrained to deal with new additional subjects (Cloonan, 1981, pp. 9–10). Considering this lack of teacher knowledge, environmental education, or elementary science as it was then called, tended to be taught at the discretion of the teacher.

Obligatory subjects for this curriculum were based around the Three Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic), to turn out children that could spell, calculate, and write with accuracy (O’Connell, 1968). Other mandatory subjects included ‘spelling, grammar, and geography, agriculture in rural schools for boys, and needlework in all girls’ schools’ (Sadler, 1897, p. 256). The curriculum was deemed narrow, focusing on the ‘accumulation of a quantity of knowledge’ (Hyland, 1975, p. 55) and the payment by results approach was ‘mechanical [and] unimaginative’ (Lysaght, 1997, p. 441). This curriculum did not help embed environmental education in Irish education due to the restrictive nature of its pedagogical approach and the inadequate teacher training made available to deliver it. It was, however, the narrow and limited approach of the curriculum towards education overall that prompted change at the turn of the twentieth century.

2. The Revised Programme (1900–1922)

The disputed, and educationally limited approach of the previous curriculum led to the introduction of the Revised Programme (1900–1922) for National Schools which was set up under the newly formed Department of Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Lysaght, 1997). The curriculum was based on the philosophies of Pestalozzi and Froebel, with emphasis on children’s ‘comprehension of the underlying concepts of the various subjects’ (Hyland, 1975, p. 55; see also Cloonan 1981). In 1904, minor changes were made to include a Kindergarten approach for infant classes which involved going outdoors as a source of stimulated education, with frequent changes between modules and ten minutes rest and play every hour (Walsh, 2004, p. 4). Though teachers who worked under the previous curriculum ‘had difficulty in adjusting their methods of teaching to the new approach’, the reaction to the Revised Programme overall was positive (Hyland, 1975, p. 56).

The curriculum was established following an evaluation, carried out between the years 1896 and 1898 by the Commission on Manual and Practical Instruction, of the best national and international policies and practices (Walsh, 2004). Environmental education again did not exist as a subject per se, but the curriculum did place a higher value on education outdoors in the natural environment. Environmental education or ‘object lessons and elementary science’ (Hyland, 1975, p. 51) had a set time allotted each week on the school timetable. Elementary science focused on scientific experiments indoors whereas object lessons comprised of first-hand education and experiences outdoors, on school excursions or in a ‘good school garden’ (Hyland, 1975, p. 80). Teachers were encouraged to take classes out and visit local sites of historical interest and collect ‘natural objects’ (Lysaght, 1997, p. 441) for a class museum. The child-centred and experiential approach that prevailed during this particular period, prior to Irish independence, appears to have provided a more cohesive balance between informal and formal environmental education than the previous curriculum.

3. National Programme for Primary Instruction (1922–1971)

Following the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1922, the primary school curriculum was reassessed and became the National Programme for Primary Instruction (1922–1971). In 1922 the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) proposed the abolishment of subjects such as elementary science, nature study, drawing, hygiene, and needlework as required subjects (Lysaght, 1997). It was argued that the previous curriculum had too many obligatory subjects; the Irish language carried a subsidiary role and that overall it was ‘out of harmony with national ideas and requirements’ (National Programme Conference, 1922, p. 3; see also Irish Times, 1922). In fact, the priority of this educational policy was to develop a command of the Irish language which reflected the dominant nationalist ethos of the time (Coolahan, 1981). There was a sense of urgency in learning the Irish language ‘and to foster an intensely nationalistic sense of culture and identity’ (Lysaght, 1997, p. 441) which did not include environmental education.

Unlike the previous curriculum, environmental education was now under the heading of ‘additional subjects’, which included object lessons and elementary science, water, air, outdoor observations, seasons, plants, insects, and study of local water sources, rural science, and school gardening. Other subjects included, cultivation, plant life, seeds, manuring, propagation, and management of a school garden. Additional guidelines and resources were also available for teachers (National Programme Conference, 1922; Rennie, 1923). Regarding the status of environmental education, the curriculum was subsequently revised in 1934 with nature study becoming an optional subject in all schools (Department of Education (DoE), 1934).

Environmental education was not a priority in this primary curriculum as perhaps an interest in flora and fauna was not deemed particularly ‘Irish’. The Gaelic League and the Free State primary schools advocated a largely anthropocentric approach to Irish heritage that emphasised history, antiquities, folklore, games, music and dancing, and largely ignored the natural environment (as well as other issues such as the built urban environment). The subject of nature studies was associated with the Ascendancy and the related scientific associations, field clubs, the Protestant gentry and the professional middle class. These associations were largely rejected by the architects of the Free State as a direct result of their relationship with the former British colonisers (Hannon, 2018). Perhaps the architect of the post-independence Irish education system also assumed that as a largely rural landscape, (outdoor) environmental education occurred naturally or rather ‘by osmosis’, hence the relegation of the subject.

4. Curaclam na Bunscoile (Primary School Curriculum) (1971–1999)

During the latter half of the 1960s, the Inspectorate of the Department of Education put together a draft curriculum which was introduced in 1971 after some piloting and revisions. The curriculum also rolled out against the backdrop of broader economic and political changes, including a move from ‘education as a social expenditure to one of investment in the individual and society as a whole’ (Walsh, 2004, p. 7). During this period, Ireland experienced a surge in economic growth. Ireland’s membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 encouraged interactions with international organisations such as UN, UNESCO, and the OECD which fostered investment and interest in education (Loxely et al., 2014; Barry, 2014). The White Paper on Economic Expansion in 1958, combined with the Investment in Education report of 1965, 'allowed space for a policy shift in Irish education' (Pierce, 2020, p. 33). The revised curriculum was partly instigated by a need for primary education to be more ‘a continuous process… that gradually changes as the child grows’ (DoE, 1971a, p. 13). This demanded practical changes within the classroom.

Unlike the didactic and rational educational approach of the previous curriculum, Curaclam na Bunscoile aimed to be child-centred, with subjects to be taught in a seamless and integrated manner. It was acknowledged that in the previous curriculum “[e]ducation was ‘curriculum centred’ rather that ‘child centred’, and the teacher’s function in many cases, was that of a medium through whom knowledge was merely transferred to his pupils” (DoE, 1971a, p. 15). This curriculum also focused on reducing pupil to teacher ratios, an introduction of reference libraries, and new furniture in older classrooms.

This new curriculum integrated environmental education across social and environmental subject areas, for example, social studies incorporated history and civics whilst environmental studies included geography and elementary science (DoE, 1971a). The syllabus for environmental studies integrated the human environment, animal life, plant life, nature walks (school garden or playground), and natural phenomena (space, water, heat/cold, and wind). In addition, part of the syllabus focused on recording aspects of nature on expeditions with older classes (learning about plants, animals, and habitats, recording temperature and rainfall levels) and elementary science (DoE, 1971a). Curaclam na Bunscoile adopted an integrated approach to a number of subject areas, which suggests a prioritisation and full incorporation of environmental education in a child’s formal education. The divisions and subdivisions of the subject appeared organised and structured with a child-centred approach. This child-centred approach was more in line with the approach of environmental education and the more contemporary environmental definitions.

However, it can be argued that such changes regarding environmental education proved unsuccessful. An Taisce (1987), the national trust for Ireland, published a report entitled Environmental Education in Ireland directed at the Curaclam na Bunscoile and its approaches to environmental education at primary level. In practice, environmental education was intermittent. This was due to a lack of first-hand experience, knowledge, and confidence from teachers and children, in addition to limiting ‘skills, methodology, discipline, insurance and administrative arrangements’ (An Taisce, 1987, p. 5) to leave the classroom and go outdoors. Sixteen years after the curriculum was introduced, An Taisce (1987) stated that environmental education ‘as a practical unifying approach, is not recognised within the formal education system’ (p. 10). For example, in the higher age classes focus was placed more on the Three Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic) in preparation for secondary (12–18 years old) education (An Taisce, 1987). The report recommended a team-teaching approach to environmental education whereby staff pool resources. It suggested collaboration or ‘teaching aid’ (support services from retired or unemployed teachers), parents and community participation (local expertise, excursions), in addition to ‘in-service education through teacher’s centres’ (An Taisce, p. 5) to counteract this issue.

It is important to note that there was no national standard for teaching environmental education at primary level at the time. Environmental education remained a marginal subject as priority was still placed on the Irish language, culture, and heritage. Once again, this left environmental education to be taught at the discretion of teachers who were largely untrained in how to deliver this content. That said, the Taisce Journal highlights a number of examples from teachers and also external initiatives that encouraged a passion, an interest, and a sense of fun for the subject at primary school (Garner, 1979; An Taisce, 1980, 1982). Such innovations, however, were not mandatory, resulting in environmental education occupying a rather precarious role within formal education.

5. The Primary School Curriculum (1999-present)

The current Primary School Curriculum was founded on its predecessor, the Curaclam na Bunscoile (DoE, 1971a, b), and continues to emphasise a child-centred approach to education (NCCA, 2005). When it was first introduced, all primary teachers took part in a national programme of in-service training to support this transition, which was completed in 2006/2007. It includes seven curriculum areas, namely, language, mathematics, social, environmental and scientific education (SESE), arts education, physical education, religious or ethical education, and social, personal and health education (SPHE) (Government of Ireland, 1999). Unlike the previous curriculum, environmental education is amalgamated within not one particular subject area, but two interdisciplinary curricular strands SPHE and SESE. SESE, for example, aims to ‘enhance children’s knowledge and understanding of themselves and the world in which they live’ and foster ‘an appreciation of the interrelationships of all living things and their environments’ (Department of Education and Science, 1999, pp. 3–4). There is also a focus on environmental conservation for future generations.

SESE promotes humanistic approaches to environmental education and encourages tuition both inside and outside the classroom. The Geography SESE Teacher Guidelines (Department of Education and Science, 1999, p. 57), provides instructions for teachers to initiate children’s observations of the biophysical environment for all primary classes, which include exercises in observing animals, plants and insects. The guidelines are clear and concise and contain practical advice including approaches to outdoor exploration and investigation, which help teachers prepare for work outdoors (Department  of Education and Science, 1999, p. 58). Such ancillary information supports and guides both students and teachers through various hands-on education teaching practices.

Reporting on the extent of implementation of the primary school curriculum, Varley et al. (2008) illustrate the importance and positive effects of conducting lessons outside the classroom and organising science trips for students. However, the report states that out of the 906 accounts of school science, only 5 per cent showed pupils outdoors compared to 86 per cent showing activities in the classroom (Varley et al., 2008). More than one curricular report emphasises the need to ‘de-load’ this particular curriculum (NCCA, 2010a; b). Undoubtedly, the task of covering twenty-three books totalling 2,650 pages across six separate curriculum areas that comprise of eleven subjects can overwhelm teachers and committees (Hunter, 2004; NCCA, 2010a, b). These curricular pressures and time constraints are an inhibiting factor to learning outdoors. Another constraint can be seen in the status of the General Design Guidelines for Schools document that specifies the principle design features for Irish schools, including natural outdoor spaces and social areas (Department of Education and Science, 2007). These principles are seen as ‘merely guidelines and consequently there is no obligation on schools to comply with their content’ (Kilkelly et al., 2016, p. 14).

Responding to curricular overload the NCCA (2019), in the reviewing and redeveloping of the primary school curriculum, published an information booklet for teachers and schools. It recommends eliminating unnecessary repetition in teaching, by providing practical advice on integrating subject areas more efficiently. The inclusion of the outdoors is mentioned in relation to the use of new and innovative approaches in teaching and learning. What ‘innovative’ means in terms of the teaching of environmental education or why the outdoor environment is synonymous with being new to learners is unclear.

Findings and discussion

The examination of Irish primary school curricula (1892-present) shows a degree of marginalisation of environmental education. Prior to Independence, environmental education was a standalone subject and after the foundation of the Irish Free State it was placed under the heading of ‘additional subjects’ (National Programme of Primary Instruction, 1922). By 1934 environmental education was an optional subject in all schools and taught at the discretion of the teacher. The more recent broadening of the scope of environmental education to include the concepts of sustainable development and education for sustainable development did little to build on the amount of environmental education being practically delivered by teachers who are already under pressure due to curricular overload. Contemporary (environmental) education in Ireland remains subject to many of these pressures and barriers, as can be seen in the final column of Table 1, above.

One major social and political influence on Irish primary education over the past 150 years has been the Catholic Church (O’Toole, 2009), so much so that Curaclam na Bunscoile (DoE, 1971a) stated that student flourishing is dependant on, in this order, the efforts of family, church, and school. Specific to environmental education, or Social and Environmental Studies as it was then known, students should ‘develop an appreciation of nature as the work of God’ (DoE, 1971b, p. 12). The church also wielded power and control in other areas of society, such as healthcare (O’Toole, 2009). One root source of this power may be established in the preamble to the Irish constitution which makes explicit reference to a Christian God (Constitution of Ireland, 1937, preamble, p. 2; Fischer 2016).

Society’s values, knowledge, and perceptions of the natural environment also played a key role in how environmental education was delivered in many of the early curricula. One focus of the first post-colonial government of Ireland was to establish an Irish identity and in so doing differentiate the Irish from their former colonists. This took the form of promoting Irish games, language, and music, and virtually ignored the environment (Hannon, 2018). It was as if the political and educational powers expected environmental education would occur naturally or rather ‘by osmosis’ (O'Malley, 2014, p. 109) through constant interaction with the environment. This suggests that this ‘informal’ environmental knowledge was largely overlooked by formal education, and it did not seek to advance or further develop such experiences during school hours, unless taught at the discretion of the teacher. In 1987, sixteen years after the introduction of Curaclam na Bunscoile (Primary School Curriculum − 1971–1999), An Taisce (1987) recommended that collaboration between parents and community as well as ongoing teacher training could alleviate the lack of environmental education in schools.

With the advent of the Primary School Curriculum (1999-present) issues of an overloaded curriculum were not resolved but rather magnified as curricular and pedagogical approaches expanded to include, for example, the emergent concepts of sustainable development and education for sustainable development. This new curriculum allowed for collaboration with environmental educators external to the mainstream schooling system. Examples of external collaborators include An Taisce’s Green Schools (2020), Áitbheo Primary (place-based education) (Burrenbeo Trust, 2019), and the National Parks and Wildlife Services Education Centres (NPWS, n.d.).

It is important that school staff feel equipped to teach environmental education and to see it as an educational experience between teacher and learner. In a world where anthropogenic environmental change is becoming increasingly problematical, to crisis levels, enhancing the status of environmental education in Irish primary education should be a priority. However, any proposed change in the curriculum is complex. It is not as simple as giving more space to environmental education in the curriculum. There are requirements for teacher upskilling, resourcing to allow for safe experiences outside, co-ordination for collaboration with external individuals and bodies and so on. Such changes could take years, but the dividends of such developments could be significant in terms of student education and attitude, as well as environmental protection and conservation.

Before any policy could be developed, it is worth considering further research into this issue. One research avenue that may be fruitful here is to explore in more depth the current provision of environmental education in schools. This paper was limited to desk research in relation to the pre-existing curricula, though a national survey on the perspectives of students, teachers, and parents on environmental education, as well as more qualitative studies on what actually happens in and out of the classroom in terms of teacher delivery and student learning would be two useful next steps.

The establishment of formal links between teacher education colleges and the larger environmental education sector could improve the status of environmental education in schools. This could develop environmental knowledge and confidence amongst teachers. Familiarity with environmental education is key during teacher education so as to increase the quality of delivery of the subject area in the long term. Going beyond the teacher education courses, in-service and/or CPD training for existing teachers is also worth considering. For example, the formation of school-community environmental education partnerships could help facilitate more regular local field trips and excursions throughout the academic year (Beames et al., 2012). Engaging with a local environmental educator whose expertise and resources could support and guide the school community in promoting the different provisions of environmental education is also worth consideration.

Conclusion

It seems clear that environmental education may not have been a priority in some curricular changeovers. One potential explanation for this may be found in Quay and Seaman’s (2013) cyclical curricular reform in the USA, where progressive, student-centred reforms eventually focus more on the subject matter than the student. They note that ‘once the outdoors can be studied indoors in the form of science, children start to spend more time in classrooms’ (Quay & Seaman, 2013, p. 4). This could be seen as a sign of the rational ideology coming to the fore in teaching environmental education (see Pierce & Beames, 2022 for a similar example from Irish outdoor education).

The development of environmental education in Ireland has been complex due to a range of inhibiting factors including political, social, and ideological barriers following Irish Independence in 1922. Under colonial rule primary school teachers were encouraged to take their pupils outdoors, even if it did not occur on regular basis. The power void, left after Ireland gained independence from Britain, allowed the Catholic church to gain authority in areas such as education, with the 92% of publicly funded primary schools in Ireland still under the control of the church (O’Toole, 2009). By 1922, an interest in flora and fauna was not deemed specifically Irish but instead associated with the Protestant Ascendency of the British colonisers (Hannon, 2018).

In 1934 environmental education became an optional subject in all national schools as priority was given to the ‘mastery of the Irish language’ (Coolahan, 1981, p. 43), which reflected the dominant nationalist ethos of the time. Environmental education did not align with the narrower “ideological demand to ‘Gaelicise’ Irish education” (Hannon, 2018, p. 200) of the Irish Free State and this examination of Irish primary school curricula highlights the place of environmental education on the margins. The demotion of the subject in 1934 led to generations of primary school children having little or no environmental education at school except at the discretion of the teacher (Kilkelly et al., 2016).

However, it is important to also acknowledge the resilience of the subject across different curricula over this 150-year period. Though not a mandatory subject since 1922, it has been, and continues to be, part of primary school curricula. But to what extent its delivery, or quality, is consistent from the perspective of the learner is unclear. The formalisation of environmental education, for example, into an interdisciplinary and cross-curricular subject did little to increase the status of environmental education within primary education policy and practice. Curricular pressures limit the time available for environmental education and deloading the current curriculum to help teachers cope with pressures, time constraints, and the delivery of the various subjects may create space to engage children in environmental education in a more meaningful way.

From the perspective of the environmental education sector, clarity as to its purpose within formal education is desirable. Relevant definitions are often underpinned by rational educational approaches in order to solve environmental problems and within that context develop environmentally sustainable lifestyles. A clear and concise definition and purpose, across the various subjects within SESE, for example may allow the wider environmental education sector to engage more fruitfully with the formal education sector in promoting more quality environmental education in primary schooling.

Ultimately, the findings of this research demonstrate that for environmental education to be effective it must acknowledge the conceptual diversity that underpins it. It needs to be defined and structured in order to build on its relevancy in the overall (environmental) education context. In order to achieve this, it must promote and identify itself as a valued asset to education and not merely a supplementary educational experience.