Reading Response - Week 3

 Williams, D. (2008). Sustainability Education’s Gift: Learning Patterns and Relationships.

Drawing attention to what Orr (1992) called the "crisis of sustainability," Williams (2008) aims to explore/show how the "LearningGardens" model can help address these concerns by fostering a fundamental shift in how we approach education. The theoretical impetus for this model again comes from Orr (1992, 2004), whose theorization of place-based education emphasized the importance of intimately knowing a place, engaging in reciprocity, and developing knowledge in holistic ways. Williams explores the potential for such an educational shift in two model gardens in Portland, Oregon, with students from kindergarten through eighth grade. The programs in Portland were food-based and garden-based, built on permaculture principles, and involved embodied, multisensory, interdisciplinary, multicultural, and intergenerational engagement. The program sought to foster attachment and care, and, as Williams describes its impact, it aimed to: "nurture students’ love for nature; increase their understanding of the production and uses of edible and medicinal plants; educate about nutrition and the benefits of healthy eating habits; explore the cultural significance of foods, including those from their native cultures; demonstrate the healing properties of nature and gardening; and explicate the environmental benefits of local, fresh foods and resource cycling" (p. 43-44). Williams also highlights how the programs could address concerns related to food insecurity and social justice. A key takeaway was that the relevance of the program was not limited to one or two subject areas or curriculum component but extended to the broader curricula, including "Science, Mathematics, Language Arts, and Social Studies content of each grade" (p. 49).

I found many places in this brief reading that could be further explored, as this is the topic I am currently researching. I also wish the author had provided a stronger concluding section that connected the findings to the concerns raised in the introduction. That said, here are a couple of points I’d like to mention.

Stop 1: The model reminded me of Montessori’s proposal for the ‘Erdkinder’ (“land children”) program for adolescents (with some anticipatory components in Montessori Elementary Program), but Montessori did not have the opportunity to fully develop it. However, subsequent scholars and practitioners within the Montessori tradition have sought to expand it along the lines of Montessori philosophy and methods. I am sure they are attentive to concerns of sustainability and the holistic impact of this education on children, community, and ecology. One of the online sources describe the program as follows: “It focuses on hands-on learning, connecting teenagers to nature, agriculture, and community, with the aim of fostering independence, responsibility, and real-world skills.” However, I am not sure to what extent they address some of the deeper issues raised by scholars from decolonial, Indigenous, Deep Ecology, and spiritual traditions – such as issues of deism, dualism, materialism, extractivism, and colonialism. Capra who was briefly referenced but not engaged in Williams’ reading would be a relevant author here, along with Hossein Nasr, Carolyn Merchant, Arne Naess, and many Indigenous scholars.   

Stop 2: Williams’ article was written in 2008, and since then – and even before – critical, decolonial, and Indigenous scholars have made distinctions between place-based and land-based education. These distinctions are analytical at best, as the actual practices may overlap. Nonetheless, the analytical distinctions highlight concerns with objectification, instrumentalism, and non-reflexive environmentalism, which characterized older scientific approaches to the environment (and were part of the problem). These issues could still be present in some contemporary place-based education, even when these approaches are now more attentive to sustainability and social justice concerns. So, again, I wish our author had provided a stronger concluding section.