Mainstream or Margins The Changing Role of Environmental Education in Irish Primary School Curricula, 1872 To 2021

Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education (2023) 26:189–206
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-022-00118-w
ORIGINAL PAPER
Mainstream or margins? The changing role

of environmental education in Irish primary school
curricula, 1872 to 2021
Sarah O’Malley1 · John Pierce2
Accepted: 24 November 2022 / Published online: 13 December 2022

© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
This article investigates the position of environmental education in the primary
school curriculum over the past 150 years in the Republic of Ireland. The extent
of how wider social, political, and cultural developments influence the way in
which teachers and learners experience environmental education can be seen
through the curricular changes. To achieve this, the five primary school cur-
ricula from 1872 to the present day were reviewed with respect to the amount
of environmental education included in them. This review demonstrates a dra-
matic change in socio-environmental relations in contemporary Irish society
during the 19th and 20th centuries, as reflected through primary school cur-
ricula. Environmental education is included, in some form, in all five Irish pri-
mary curricula over the 150-year period studied, though it does appear on the
margins of some curricula as a subject, or part of a subject, that can be taught
at the discretion of the teacher. Such a peripheral situation of environmental
education is not unique to Ireland’s curricula, and this investigation provides a
greater understanding of the broader influences on the status of environmental
education overall in Irish education.
Keywords Environmental education · Curriculum development · Primary school
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 environ-
mental education in Irish primary schooling across the five curricula from 1872
* Sarah O’Malley
sarahomalley4@gmail.com
1
Limerick City and County Council, Limerick, Ireland
2
Department of Health & Leisure Studies, Munster Technological University, Tralee, Ireland
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
190 Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education (2023) 26:189–206
to the present day1. As well as positioning environmental education within the

Irish primary curricula, this paper charts broader changes within the Irish edu-
cation 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 exist-
ing quantitative statistics identified trends not only in the development of environ-
mental education but also its position within primary education. No formal model of
curriculum development was adopted. Rather, the timeline of change across the cur-
ricula 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 environ-
mentally 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 expe-
riences 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, edu-
cational efforts should fit into the trends and rules of the societies in which they
1
The Irish education system begins at primary level from the age of four with an eight-year cycle that
consists of junior infants, senior infants, and first to sixth classes. After primary education children then
transfer to secondary, or post-primary, education. From the age of about twelve students enrol in a three-
year Junior Cycle programme which culminates in the Junior Certificate Examination. This is followed
by a two or three-year (if the optional Transition Year is taken straight after the Junior Cycle) Senior
Cycle programme which sees student complete the Leaving Certificate Examination at approximately
eighteen years old (Department of Education, 2019).
13
Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education (2023) 26:189–206 191
exist’ (p. 36). Contemporary western society’s neoliberal tendencies ignore the social
and environmental ramifications of the highly sought after, and somewhat oxymo-
ronic, sustainable development in favour of economic growth and expansion (Red-
clift, 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 chal-
lenges… [of] climate change and economic disparity’ (p. vii). Environmental educa-
tion 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 marginal-
ised 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 environmen-
tal knowledge, awareness, attitudes, behaviours, and active participation (UNESCO,
1975, 1977, 1992).
However, these definitions overlooked the development of a meaningful or emo-
tional connection between humans and the natural environment. Being in the out-
doors 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
13
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 (Lough-
land et al., 2002; Ojala, 2017).
The term environmental education has evolved to include many similar, yet dis-
tinct, 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 devel-
opment through outdoor play, and the murkiness of the definitional waters of envi-
ronmental 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 envi-
ronmental 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 edu-
cation that has a more balanced pedagogical approach to environmental education
considering both the teacher and learner. This contrasts with many traditional defini-
tions 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 per-
son’s environmental education. Similar to previous definitions, it promotes both for-
mal and informal educational approaches. However, it specifically advocates for out-
door 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 defini-
tions 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
13
complexity in the concepts identified in these subject titles, that move towards
more recognition of the interconnectedness of nature, the environment, and soci-
ety. 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 infor-
mation 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 back-
drop 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 advo-
cated 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.
13
Primary school curricula (1872–present): positioning

of environmental education
This section charts the positioning of environmental education across the five cur-
ricula for Irish primary education from 1872 until the present day. The role and
amount of environmental education will be detailed for each curriculum in chrono-
logical 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 mod-
ern 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 curric-
ula 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 mile-
stone 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.
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, uninspir-
ing (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 curricu-
lum including the replacement of agriculture with elementary science. This was a
difficult transition as many teachers were untrained to deal with new additional sub-
jects (Cloonan, 1981, pp. 9–10). Considering this lack of teacher knowledge, envi-
ronmental 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, focus-
ing on the ‘accumulation of a quantity of knowledge’ (Hyland, 1975, p. 55) and the
13
Table 1 Timeline of primary school curriculum development (1872-present)
Curricula No. Primary School Curriculum Name Purpose of Curricular Revision Wider Historical Events/Influences Environmental Education Focus
and Duration
1 Payment by Results (1872–1899) Aim to improve literacy and Based on the British National Elementary science encouraged as
numeracy. School system (since 1831). individual subject but not widely in
Monetary reward for teachers based practice.
on pupils’ results.
2 The Revised Programme Abolishment of previous practices in Complete critical re-evaluation of Elementary science and object
(1900–1922) favour of child-centred progressive previous curriculum (1872–1899). lessons, stand-alone subject, timeta-
educational approach. bled, structured but not regular.
3 National Programme for Primary Focus on Irish identity, culture, Introduction following foundation of Elementary science, nature study,
Instruction language and history. Irish State. rural science and school gardening
(1922–1971) was marginalised and then became
optional. Focus on building Irish
state; language, culture identity.
Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education (2023) 26:189–206
4 Curaclam Na Bunscoile (Primary Progressive education, continuous Instigated by Ireland’s EU member- Social and Environmental studies:
School Curriculum) (1971–1999) process, and emphasis on being ship. within a subject area. Interdiscipli-
child-centred. nary, taught at teacher discretion
due to lack of knowledge, support
and training.
5 Primary School Curriculum Critical of previous curriculum for Established in response to social, SESE interdisciplinary and spread
(1999-present) not being child centred. economic and political changes in across various subject areas. Lim-
Ireland. ited by education structure, time
constraints, curricula pressures,
teacher knowledge and confidence,
health and safety issues.
195
13
payment by results approach was ‘mechanical [and] unimaginative’ (Lysaght, 1997,

p. 441). This curriculum did not help embed environmental education in Irish edu-
cation 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 Techni-
cal Instruction (Lysaght, 1997). The curriculum was based on the philosophies of
Pestalozzi and Froebel, with emphasis on children’s ‘comprehension of the underly-
ing 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 fre-
quent changes between modules and ten minutes rest and play every hour (Walsh,
2004, p. 4). Though teachers who worked under the previous curriculum ‘had dif-
ficulty 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). Environmen-
tal 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 edu-
cation 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 curricu-
lum 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
13
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 (Coola-
han, 1981). There was a sense of urgency in learning the Irish language ‘and to fos-
ter 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 sci-
ence, water, air, outdoor observations, seasons, plants, insects, and study of local
water sources, rural science, and school gardening. Other subjects included, culti-
vation, plant life, seeds, manuring, propagation, and management of a school gar-
den. Additional guidelines and resources were also available for teachers (National
Programme Conference, 1922; Rennie, 1923). Regarding the status of environmen-
tal 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 danc-
ing, 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 relega-
tion 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 eco-
nomic and political changes, including a move from ‘education as a social expendi-
ture 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 Invest-
ment in Education report of 1965, ’allowed space for a policy shift in Irish educa-
tion’ (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
13
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 curricu-
lum “[e]ducation was ‘curriculum centred’ rather that ‘child centred’, and the teach-
er’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 envi-
ronmental subject areas, for example, social studies incorporated history and civ-
ics 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 phe-
nomena (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 elemen-
tary 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 sub-
divisions of the subject appeared organised and structured with a child-centred
approach. This child-centred approach was more in line with the approach of envi-
ronmental 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 Bun-
scoile and its approaches to environmental education at primary level. In practice,
environmental education was intermittent. This was due to a lack of first-hand expe-
rience, knowledge, and confidence from teachers and children, in addition to limit-
ing ‘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 edu-
cation 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 environ-
mental 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 discre-
tion of teachers who were largely untrained in how to deliver this content. That said,
13
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 pre-
carious 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-cen-
tred approach to education (NCCA, 2005). When it was first introduced, all pri-
mary 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 educa-
tion (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 inter-
relationships 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 encour-
ages tuition both inside and outside the classroom. The Geography SESE Teacher
Guidelines (Department of Education and Science, 1999, p. 57), provides instruc-
tions 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 les-
sons 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
13
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 rede-
veloping of the primary school curriculum, published an information booklet for
teachers and schools. It recommends eliminating unnecessary repetition in teach-
ing, 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 teach-
ing 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 Pri-
mary Instruction, 1922). By 1934 environmental education was an optional subject
in all schools and taught at the discretion of the teacher. The more recent broaden-
ing 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 Ire-
land, 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 osmo-
sis’ (O’Malley, 2014, p. 109) through constant interaction with the environment.
13
This suggests that this ‘informal’ environmental knowledge was largely overlooked
by formal education, and it did not seek to advance or further develop such experi-
ences during school hours, unless taught at the discretion of the teacher. In 1987,
sixteen years after the introduction of Curaclam na Bunscoile (Primary School Cur-
riculum − 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 cur-
riculum allowed for collaboration with environmental educators external to the main-
stream 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 individu-
als 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 confi-
dence 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 aca-
demic 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.
13
Conclusion
It seems clear that environmental education may not have been a priority in some cur-
ricular changeovers. One potential explanation for this may be found in Quay and Sea-
man’s (2013) cyclical curricular reform in the USA, where progressive, student-cen-
tred 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 fol-
lowing 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 dif-
ferent 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 for-
malisation of environmental education, for example, into an interdisciplinary and cross-
curricular subject did little to increase the status of environmental education within pri-
mary 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 pur-
pose within formal education is desirable. Relevant definitions are often under-
pinned 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 exam-
ple 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.
13
Ultimately, the findings of this research demonstrate that for environmental edu-
cation 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 over-
all (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 educa-
tional experience.
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of
interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen
ses/by/4.0/.
References
An Taisce. (1980). Wildlife book is presented to schools. Taisce Journal Irelands Environmental Maga-
zine, 4(2), 10.
An Taisce. (1982). Primary schools’ nature project. Taisce Journal Irelands Environmental Magazine,
6(3), 13.
An Taisce. (1987). Environmental Education in Ireland. An Taisce.
Barry, F. (2014). Outward-oriented economic development and the irish education system. Irish Educa-
tional Studies, 33(2), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2014.918296.
Beames, S., Higgins, P., & Nicol, R. (2012). Learning outside the Classroom: theory and guidelines for
practice. Routledge.
Benedict, F. (1999). A systemic approach to sustainable environmental education. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 29(3), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764990290311.
Boca, G. D., & Saraçli, S. (2019). Environmental education and student’s perception, for sustainability.
Sustainability, 11(6), 1553.
Bögeholz, S. (2006). Nature experience and its importance for environmental knowledge, values and
action: recent german empirical contributions. Environmental Education Research: Environmental
Education in Three German-Speaking Countries: Research Perspectives and Recent Developments,
12(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500526529.
Bonnett, M. (2007). Environmental education and the issue of nature. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
39(6), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701447149.
Bonnett, M., & Williams, J. (1998). Environmental Education and primary children’s attitudes towards
Nature and the Environment. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0305764980280202.
Britton, E., O’Malley, S., & Hunt, S. (2022). Welcome wave: Surf therapy in an unfamiliar sea for young
asylum seekers. Unfamiliar Landscapes, 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94460-5_15
Burrenbeo Trust (2019). Áitbeo. https://burrenbeo.com/our-work/learning/primary/ecobeo/
Cloonan, T. J. (1981). Primary School Curriculum and Teachers Attitudes [Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis].
NUI, Galway.
13
Constitution of Ireland (1937). Stationery Office. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html

Coolahan, J. (1981). Irish education: its history and structure. Institute of Public Administration.
Corcoran, M., Gray, J., & Peillon, M. (2009). Making space for sociability: how children animate the
Public Realm in Suburbia. Nature + Culture; New York, 4(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.
2009.040103
Davies, J. (1998). Young Children, Environmental Education, and the future. Early Childhood Education
Journal; New York, 26(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022911631454
Department of Education. (1934). Revised Programme of primary instruction. Stationery Office.
Department of Education (2019). Education. https://www.gov.ie/en/policy/655184-education/
Department of Education. (1971a). Curaclam na Bunscoile (Primary School Curriculum) Teachers
Handbook Part 1. Stationery Office.
Department of Education. (1971b). Curaclam na Bunscoile (Primary School Curriculum) Teachers
Handbook Part 2. Stationery Office.
Department of Education and Science (1999). Geography: Social, Environmental and Scientific Educa-
tion Teacher Guidelines (p. 116). https://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/6e999e7b-556a-4266-
9e30-76d98c277436/PSEC03b_Geography_Curriculum.pdf
Department of Education and Science (2007). General Design Guidelines for Schools (Primary & Post-
primary) (p. 28). https://assets.gov.ie/94048/639baec4-57e4-4d73-9c21-38716632dc1d.pdf
Drissner, J., Haase, H., Wittig, S., & Hille, K. (2014). Short-term environmental education: long-term
effectiveness? Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.
2013.799079.
Fischer, K. (2016). Schools and the Politics of Religion and Diversity in the Republic of Ireland: Sepa-
rate but Equal? Manchester University Press. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/
bmxlYmtfXzE0NDQwODFfX0FO0?sid=8437bbd3-9541-4aac-b983-caca57f14802@redis&vid=
1&format=EB&rid=1
Ford, P. M. (1981). Principles and practices of outdoor/Environmental education. Wiley.
Francis, M., Paige, K., & Lloyd, D. (2013). Middle years students’ experiences in nature: a case study on
nature-play. Teaching Science, 59(2), 20.
Garner, W. (1979). Nature study with a difference. Taisce Journal Irelands Environmental Magazine, 3(2
and 3), 27.
Goodlad, J., Von Stoephasius, R., & Klein, M. F. (1966). The changing school curriculum (p. 122). US
Department of health, education, and welfare office of education.
Gough, A., & Gough, N. (2010). Environmental education. In C. Kridel (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
curriculum studies (pp. 340–343). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Green Schools (2020). Themes. https://greenschoolsireland.org/themes/
Government of Ireland. (1999). Primary school curriculum introduction. Stationery Office. https://curri
culumonline.ie/getmedia/c4a88a62-7818-4bb2-bb18-4c4ad37bc255/PSEC_Introduction-to-Prima
ry-Curriculum_Eng.pdf
Hannon, S. (2018). Irish outdoor education: knowing my place. In P. Becker, B. Humberstone, C. Loynes,
& J. Schirp (Eds.), The changing world of outdoor learning in Europe (pp. 194–206). Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315170671.
Hinds, J., & O’Malley, S. (2019). Assessing nature connection and well-being during an experiential
environmental program. Children Youth and Environments, 29(2), 92–107. JSTOR. https://doi.org/
10.7721/chilyoutenvi.29.2.0092
Hunter, J. (2004). Environmental education in primary schools [Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis]. Institute of
Technology, Sligo.
Hyland, Á. (1975). Educational Innovation—A case history: An analysis of events leading up to and fol-
lowing the introduction of the Revised Programme of 1900 for national schools in Ireland [Unpub-
lished M.A. Thesis]. Trinity College Dublin.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991). Caring for the earth: A strategy for sustainable living (p. 236). https://
wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/30889
Kilkelly, U., Lynch, H., Moore, A., O’Connell, A., & Field, S. (2016). Children and the outdoors (p. 56).
The Heritage Council. http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Corpo
rate/Chiuldren_full_report_web.pdf
Kopnina, H. (2012). Education for sustainable development (ESD): the turn away from ‘environment’ in
environmental education? Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 699–717. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504622.2012.658028.
13
Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: how children’s interest in
common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of
Science Education, 27(6), 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038116.
Linzmayer, C. D., & Halpenny, E. A. (2013). “It was fun”: an evaluation of Sand Tray Pictures, an inno-
vative visually expressive method for researching children’s experiences with Nature. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 310–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200115.
Lloyd, A., & Gray, T. (2014). Place-based outdoor learning and environmental sustainability within aus-
tralian primary schools. Journal of Sustainability Education, 1(Sep), 1–15.
Loughland, T., Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2002). Young people’s conceptions of environment: a phenomeno-
graphic analysis. Environmental Education Research, 8(2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504
620220128248.
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the Woods: saving our children from Nature-deficit disorder. Atlantic
Books.
Loxley, A., Seery, A., & Walsh, J. (2014). Investment in education and the tests of time. Irish Educational
Studies, 33(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2014.920616.
Lucas, A. M. (1972). Environment and environmental education: Conceptual issues and curriculum
implications [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The Ohio State University]. http://search.proquest.com/
docview/302644414/citation/E87BC947623A4C5BPQ/1
Lysaght, S. (1997). Contrasting natures: the issue of names. In J. Wilson, & Foster (Eds.), Nature in Ire-
land a Scientific and Cultural History (pp. 440–449). Lilliput Press.
Malone, K. (2007). The bubble-wrap generation: children growing up in walled gardens. Environmental
Education Research, 13(4), 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581612.
National, P. & Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Education Centres. https://www.npws.ie/education/education-
centres
National Programme Conference (1922). National Programme of Primary Instruction. The Educational
Company Ltd.
NCCA (2005). Primary Curriculum Review Phase 1 Final Report. NCCA. https://ncca.ie/media/1497/
primary_curriculum_review_phase_1_final_report_with_recommendations_8.pdf
NCCA (2019). Primary curriculum review and redevelopment: Information for schools. NCCA. https://
ncca.ie/media/3963/pbm-english-final.pdf
NCCA (2010a). Curriculum Overload in Primary Schools: Experiences and reflections from the learn-
ing. NCCA. https://www.ncca.ie/media/2053/curriculum_overload_in_primary_schools_exper
iences_and_reflections_from_the_learning_site.pdf
NCCA (2010b). Curriculum overload in primary schools: An overview of national and international
experiences. NCCA. https://ncca.ie/media/2052/curriculum_overload_in_primary_schools_an_
overview_of_national_and_international_experiences.pdf
O’Connell, T. J. (1968). 100 years of Progress The Story of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation
1868–1968. Irish National Teachers’ Organisation.
Ofsted (2008). Learning outside the classroom: How far would you go? UK Government. https://www.
lotc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Ofsted-Report-Oct-2008.pdf
Ojala, M. (2017). Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable future. Futures, 94, 76–84.
O’Malley, S. (2014). (Re)Connecting Children with Nature? A Sociological Study of Environmental Edu-
cation in Ireland [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway]. http://hdl.
handle.net/10379/4784
O’Malley, S. (2015). The relationship between children’s perceptions of the natural environment and
solving environmental problems. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 21, 87–104.
O’Malley, S. (2020). To connect or not? Research exploring if children are really disconnected from
nature? Horizons, 92, 30–32.
O’Toole, F. (2009, June 6). Lessons in the power of the church – The Irish Times. The Irish Times.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/lessons-in-the-power-of-the-church-1.778683
Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: theory, practice, progress and promise.
Routledge.
Pearse, P. (1916). The murder machine. Whelan.
Pierce, J. (2020). The Nature of Public Provision Outdoor Education in the Republic of Ireland: An Ethno-
Case Study of Four Outdoor Education and Training Centres [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Edinburgh]. https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/37930
13
Pierce, J., & Beames, S. (2022). Where’s the E in OE? The McDonaldization of Irish outdoor education.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.
2022.2127110.
Quay, J., & Seaman, J. (2013). John Dewey and education outdoors: Making sense of the “educational situa-
tion” through more than a century of progressive reforms. Sense.
Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable
Development, 13(4), 212–227.
Relph, E. (2008). Place and placelessness. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Rennie, J. (1923). The aims and methods of nature study: a guide for teachers. University Tutorial Press Ltd.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: a critical review of the evi-
dence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462012
0065230.
Sadler, M. (1897). Special reports on educational subjects, 1896-7 (Vol. 1). Education Department, H.M.S.O.
Saylan, C., & Blumstein, D. (2011). The failure of environmental education (1st edition). University of
California Press.
Share, P., Corcoran, M. P., & Conway, B. (2012). A sociology of Ireland (4th ed.). Gill & Macmillan.
Sobel, D. (1999). Beyond ecophobia: reclaiming the heart in nature education. Orion Society.
Stapp, W., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., Swan, J., Wall, R., & Havlick, S.
(1969). The concept of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30–31.
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.
The Irish Times (1922, April 19). The new programme the teaching of Irish.
The University Times (2020). New higher education department will have an ‘Economic Focus’, says
Harris. https://www.universitytimes.ie/2020/06/new-higher-education-department-will-have-an-
economic-focus-says-harris/?doing_wp_cron=1598442547.0347440242767333984375
UNESCO (1975). The Belgrade Charter: A framework for environmental education (p. 4). http://www.
unesco.org/ulis/cgibin/ulis.pl?catno=17772&set=4D35905B_1_53&gp=1&lin=1&ll=1
UNESCO. (1977). Tbilisi Declaration (p. 96). http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/Tbilisi-Declaration.pdf
UNESCO. (1992). United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (p. 351). http://susta
inabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
UNESCO-UNEVOC (2007). Moving forward from Ahmedabad: Environmental education in the 21st
century (p. 11). https://unevoc.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/AhmedabadFinalRecomm
endations.pdf
Varley, J., Murphy, C., & Veale, Ó. (2008). Science in primary schools, phase 1 (p. 255). N CCA. https://
ncca.ie/media/2413/science_in_primary_schools-phase_1.pdf
Walsh, T. (2004). A historical overview of our conceptualisation of childhood in Ireland in the twentieth
century. The Human Development Conference: ‘voices and images of childhood and adolescence:
rethinking young people’s identities, Dublin. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/37548665/
a-historical-overview-of-our-conceptualisation-of-childhood-in
Walsh, T. (2016). 100 years of primary curriculum development and implementation in Ireland: a tale
of a swinging pendulum. Irish Educational Studies, 35(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.
2016.1147975.
White, R., & Stoecklin, V. (2008). Nurturing children’s biophilia: Developmentally appropriate environ-
mental education for young children. White Hutchinson Leisure & Learning Group, 8.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Sarah O’Malley is an EU Projects Officer with Limerick City and County Council, Ireland. She has lec-
tured, worked and published in the areas of outdoor learning, (dis)connection with nature, environmental
sociology, education, disability, and inclusion.
John Pierce is a lecturer in outdoor education at the Department of Health & Leisure Studies in Munster
Technological University in the southwest of Ireland. He has spent a lot of his career teaching outdoors,
and has recently completed a doctoral study in the area of outdoor education through the University of
Edinburgh.
13

Mainstream or Margins The Changing Role of Environmental Education in Irish Primary School Curricula, 1872 To 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mainstream or Margins The Changing Role of Environmental Education in Irish Primary School Curricula, 1872 To 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education (2023) 26:189–206