The methods used for evaluating curriculum efficacy include 1) semi-structured teacher interviews, 2) student surveys , and 3) participant-site observation.Deeper understanding can be gained from a small set of cases on CCE, and best practices can then be applied to a larger universe of schools. More specific to each method, teacher interviews followed a six-question interview guide and were semi-structured in nature. Compared with post-intervention surveys, this allows basic statistical analysis to define the effect size in the sample population and whether it is significant. The survey assessment includes 10 knowledge-based questions on climate science and food systems applications, as well as 19 engagement questions asking opinion statements measured on Likert-type scales. This multi-faceted assessment of climate literacy recognizes that “knowledge about climate change can be divided into several general and overlapping categories: knowledge about how the climate system works; specific knowledge about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming; contextual knowledge placing human-caused global warming in historical and geographic perspective; and practical knowledge that enables individual and collective action” . The engagement questions adapt the Six Americas survey questions to capture students’ change in engagement towards climate change following the curriculum intervention. Participant and site observation over a six week period captures important features of the school climate, both environmental and social, that help contextualize interpretation of results. The quality of the school garden, behavioral norms, and student informal interactions are all variables of interest for understanding other forms of data collection. In climate literacy evaluations, it is important to understand student intention to take action and follow up to document concrete examples of students taking action, which goes beyond simple survey and interview protocols. Certainly, questions can be posed to students asking whether they feel more empowered to seek out their own additional knowledge and participate in climate actions,hydroponic rack system but ideally these questions can be followed up with evaluation tools documenting actual action outcomes. This was not possible in the contexts of study reported on below but should be a focus for future student climate literacy evaluations. Results presented and discussed below are broadly relevant to climate change education interventions, with some insights as well into the value of food as an engaging entry point or frame for the climate education conversation.
Post-intervention teacher interview themes revealed a widespread appreciation of coteaching as a mechanism for delivering climate change instruction. All teachers interviewed expressed enthusiasm for having a content expert present to deliver instruction on climate, complementing the garden teachers’ expertise in food-related topics, classroom management and student behavior. The positive response from teachers is important to contextualizing student results, as the more enthusiastic and knowledgeable teachers became about climate change connections in the school garden, the more engaging lessons became for students.Teachers were able to learn from the experience and expressed desire to replicate elements of the curriculum on their own in the future, thus meeting one of the process-specific goals of the research. Interviewees also revealed a common theme of searching for hope and action amidst the daunting reality of climate change; the garden and classroom were often identified as key arenas where hope and solution steps exist. Key quotes from interviews are highlighted in Table 15 below.These results, in particular the challenges highlighted by teachers, closely match national findings on climate change education. In a recent national review of science teachers, the first nationally representative study of science educators to focus on climate change, fewer than half of all teachers reported any formal coursework on climate change, yet over two thirds would like targeted professional development opportunities to allow them to dive in deeper to this complex and emotionally sensitive topic . It is well established that teachers are in need of professional development in order to teach an unfamiliar subject with confidence and competence, and several national leaders in climate education are addressing this . Having a climate science “expert” in the classroom to co-teach a climate change curriculum for the first time is another promising form of PD explored here. Partnerships emerged as a key feature enabling success of food and climate education in schools, mirroring the findings in example 1 above. Partner organizations and individuals are able to provide infrastructure support, outdoor learning environments, guest speakers to reinforce climate education units, and program evaluation assistance.
Questions of how to scale impact via partnerships at the district or state level and education policy implications are discussed below. Examining results by school context offers strategies for scaling this type of intervention in rural vs. urban school districts. Students at the Lopez school, with abundant local farm and forest resources to devote to furthering climate curricula endeavors, selected a bio-char experiment as a class climate action project, and will be applying locally produced bio-char to test plots in the school garden to compare with non-treated plots , in partnership with the community. This community-school partnership adds to the body of successful climate change engagement strategies meriting replication, particularly other rural communities where local farmers might be interested in participating in farm to school programming at the school or district level. Stepping back and looking at on-the-ground realities across the contexts of study presented in this dissertation, there are numerous examples of individuals and organizations who are theoretically on the same “team” when it comes to goals of mitigating climate change and advancing social equity, and yet engage in intense debate in their activities, rhetoric, and interactions around how to achieve these goals. Vegetarians calling out those who eat grass fed beef on Lopez for contributing to negative climate impacts; urban farmers with different visions and theories of social change choosing not to work together to advocate for policy change; educators who promote a more factual teaching of climate science arguing with those who aspire to a more holistic, socially grounded form of climate education. This antagonism among those working towards shared goals can be seen playing out on a global scale as well: environmental movements that do not adequately incorporate environmental justice, indigenous land ethics, and communities of color; climate activists who disagree about how best to reduce emissions, who bears primary responsibility for action, or whether to directly confront entrenched institutions and power structures; new farmers who glorify small-scale agriculture without acknowledging that pathways to farm ownership are not equitably available to all groups; food systems researchers who demand immediate revolution pitting themselves against those who argue for a more gradual approach to change from within the system. Recognizing these rifts as well as the reality that the global food and climate system is currently at a critical juncture, Anderson articulates a vision for a “healthy,rolling benches canada sustainable food system” that joins with other visions, key to any successful social movement.
Confronting the dominant food system and greenhouse gas emitting global economy can only happen through a broad-based social movement where the majority of people across race and class lines can see themselves held in a common vision. Social movements, according to Saru Jayaraman , by definition contend directly with the centers of power; they do not avoid direct confrontation in seeking to change the status quo. Remembering as Obama repeatedly told Americans that “there is more that unites us than divides us,” there is work to be done reconciling disagreement among food and climate researchers, practitioners, and activists in order to confront the forces of the status quo: corporations, bureaucracy, and fossil fuel interests that prevent progress on issues where there is wide public support, in effect subverting democracy. For example, there is an opportunity for alignment among those who choose not to eat meat for environmental reasons and those who choose to eat grass fed meat in opposition to a common enemy: concentrated animal feeding operations . CAFOs contribute dramatic negative impacts to the environment and human health, beyond the footprint of their feedlots and extending to the vast acreages used to grow synthetically fertilized, monocropped grains for animal consumption. Imagine if much of this acreage was converted to growing diverse requirements of a plant-based diet for humans, and some was allocated to grass fed meat operations . Cows contribute to pasture restoration and can lead to net carbon sequestration through aerating and adding manure to grassland soils. Furthermore, the manure from some grass fed beef operations contributes to creating high quality compost that enables organic vegetable production. There is a possible convergence between disparate food systems activism that requires further research and participatory collaborations among food scholars, consumer groups, farmers, and ranchers. Education systems can contribute to reconciling some food systems debates as well: well-crafted food and climate curricula can enable collective action by uncovering shared motivation among different actors, organizations, and individuals. The chapters of this dissertation articulate the role of small farms and farm-based education in providing social-ecological and educational benefits to communities. Small farms are involved in educating youth, beginning farmers, and the general public about the food system as a whole, and its potential to transform into a climate-beneficial system that promotes rather than destroys human health.
Many small farmers are on the front lines of pioneering climate friendly growing practices, gathering data on these practices, and educating their communities about why they are doing what they’re doing. These small farmers are leading farmer-to-farmer workshops, hosting tours of their farm for the public, partnering with researchers and applying for soil health grants, and engaging with schools in their communities to provide both farm-based education and nutritious local food for school lunches. How can the work of small farmers be supported and scaled up? They are undoubtedly positive community influences and providers of essential services . But when so much is stacked against them in terms of marketing channels, research and technical support, land access, and political influence, how does small scale farming come to be an occupation that more people are drawn to, and one that is economically viable? According to a recent publication , less than 1% of the USDA Research, Education and Extension budget is allocated to support agroecological and organic farming operations . In the policy realm, change is needed in budget allocations, incentive structures, and subsidies in order to truly scale the food system transition work that small farmers are leading . Looking to the technology and infrastructure arena, farmers in the cases presented clearly state that additional tools, equipment and facilities appropriate for processing and transporting smaller quantities of food items over shorter distances are also integral to allowing food systems to relocalize.Small farmers in developing countries are producing 70% of the world’s food supply on 30% of the available agricultural land , but some regions of the world are inherently more difficult places to produce food than others, and some degree of large scale farming and global distribution will be necessary to support a growing global population and buffer against adverse conditions in particular locations. Distribution channels must shift in order to allow food to more easily reach the people and places most in need, and export-oriented economies must refocus on feeding their own people—these are areas for future research and civic engagement. This dissertation is not arguing that all farms must be small farms, nor is it a prescription for how or what food should be grown in each region of the world. It is also not arguing that small agroecological farms are “the future of food;” many competing visions exist for how food should be produced in the future, from controlled-environment agriculture to lab-grown meat to renewed attention to soil health. My cases do not speak to every part of the world, but rather are nested within and illustrative of larger theoretical frameworks. I am not arguing for the complete abandonment of a global food system to be replaced with entirely small organic farms serving local communities all over the world. Rather, I am arguing for the valuable social, ecological, and educational role small farmers are playing in addition to producing food—a role that current industrial production farms are not able to play—and arguing for political-economic system shifts that allow small farms to co-exist with larger farms and “scale across” as a vital form of human connection to the food system.