Climate change education in England: A welcome step forward or another missed opportunity?

Reflections on the DfE’s (2025) Curriculum and Assessment Review: Building a World-Class Curriculum for All

Now that the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) has been published together with the Government’s response, we invite members to share their reflections on these publications. In this blog, Melissa Glackin, Heather King and Kate Greer highlight some key features of the CAR report and call for greater ambition in relation to climate change and nature education.

The Department for Education’s 2025 Curriculum and Assessment Review positions climate change and sustainability education more prominently than any previous national policy document. At first glance, this is a landmark moment. The review acknowledges that the climate crisis is “the most significant environmental challenge of modern times,” and identifies sustainability as one of five priorities raised by young people, parents, carers and other stakeholders.

Yet, if we look a little deeper, the review and its recommendations (most of which have been accepted by the Government) do not bode well for meaningful climate change education. Despite a strong opening, the review repeatedly fails to address the scale of the challenge. From the start, its reference to climate change education frames the issue as one of economic opportunity, emphasising the need for young people to acquire the skills to “thrive in tomorrow’s industries” before turning its attention to the planet itself. Throughout, the tone is one of ‘industry leads the way’.

Drawing on our research (e.g. Glackin & King, 2020; Greer, King & Glackin, 2023; Glackin & Greer, 2025), this blog examines what the review accomplishes, where it falters, and (again) asks what a more ambitious approach to climate change and nature education might require.

Greening the Curriculum: Green-worthy or greenwash?

Perhaps the most notable shift in the review is the sudden ubiquity of the word “green.” Education is now expected to develop “green skills”, enhance “green knowledge” and support the rapidly growing “green economy”. As we have argued previously, this vocabulary is not neutral. The term “green” can be a helpful bridge between current neoliberal priorities and a more life-sustaining orientation, but it can also be a linguistic device that masks the absence of deeper structural change. In this sense, the enthusiasm for “green” runs the risk of softening the radical implications of the climate crisis, offering reassurance without meaningful transformation. It is unclear whether “green” in this review marks a first step toward reimagining education or simply a rebranding of familiar economic goals.

Curriculum absence: Acknowledged, but narrow remedies offered.

One strength of the review is its direct admission that climate change and sustainability education in England is weak, fragmented and often entirely absent. Climate change is scarcely visible in the primary curriculum, mentioned only superficially in Science and Geography at later Key Stages, and almost non-existent in subjects like Design and Technology. Teachers and 16–19 providers report that the lack of coherent policy guidance makes it difficult to build meaningful climate change education into their curricula. These findings echo our research, which has repeatedly shown that environmental and climate change education in England is marginal, incoherent and heavily dependent on individual teachers’ initiative.

Yet despite acknowledging these gaps, the review offers only a narrow remedy: it proposes strengthening climate change content in Science, Geography, Citizenship and Design & Technology. The limited scope of this response is difficult to justify. If the review recognises, as it claims, that the climate crisis presents “wide-ranging, urgent challenges”, then confining the response to a small handful of subjects, many only optional, drastically undersells both the scale and complexity of the crisis. Climate change and sustainability issues permeate all aspects of life; an equally broad educational response is needed. By failing to extend the conversation across the wider curriculum, the review either misunderstands, underestimates or knowingly overlooks the magnitude of the socio-ecological challenges we face.

The Technocratic Trap: Science for the economy, not the Earth

The review positions Science as the main disciplinary home for “climate science” justified primarily by its importance to the “green economy” and the projected growth of STEM jobs. This framing exemplifies what we have described as the technocratic and conservative reform model of environmental education. Environmental issues are acknowledged, but they are interpreted through the lens of economic productivity and technological innovation.

Students are asked to understand the causes and consequences of climate change and to consider potential solutions, but these ‘solutions’ are implicitly framed as scientific or technological, rather than as responses that require ongoing ethical and political reflection and recognition of connections amongst people, and with the Earth. The crisis becomes a solvable technical problem rather than a symptom of deeper societal values and systems. In this sense, the review risks cultivating young innovators who can ‘fix’ climate problems without ever questioning the worldviews, structures and priorities that create them.

Pedagogy: Named, but not nurtured

The review briefly recognises that pedagogy — not just curriculum content — is vital in influencing how learners engage with climate change issues. Yet this acknowledgement remains largely superficial. When mentioned, it is often alongside the document’s strong push for “knowledge-rich curricula” and “disciplinary rigour” – approaches that often narrow the pedagogical space teachers need to nurture the emotional, ethical and civic dimensions that will be part of climate change learning that has depth.

Our research argues for an approach that integrates head, heart and hands, combining cognitive understanding with emotional engagement and opportunities for meaningful action. Such an approach requires pedagogy that is participatory, builds connections and is justice-oriented. That is, authentic projects based on real life problems requiring collaborative work which are prioritised in the curriculum rather than sidelined to additional extras. These are difficult to cultivate in an education system dominated by high-stakes assessment, limited teacher autonomy and an overwhelming emphasis on content acquisition. While the review hints at the importance of pedagogy, it does little to create the conditions in which transformative teaching approaches might actually flourish.

A richer pedagogy would include intergenerational, global and more-than-human considerations. It would recognise that the socio-ecological crisis disproportionately affects future generations, communities across the Global South, and the countless species and Earth systems with whom we share the planet. These broader perspectives, which are fundamental to any meaningful ecological worldview, are almost entirely absent from the review. Without them, climate change education in the England will be shallow, perfunctory, and will make little contribution.

Beyond learning about change to learning for change

The DfE review marks a step forward in recognising the significance of climate change education, but it stops far short of meeting the moment. Education that genuinely responds to the climate crisis and that tackles nature depletion cannot simply be an add-on within existing disciplinary structures, nor can it be reduced to a pipeline for ‘green’ jobs. The challenges we face require a reorientation of the entire educational project — a shift from economic growth to ecological sufficiency.

To educate for a future worth living in, we need an approach that equips students not only to understand environmental change, but to participate in shaping fairer, more sustainable and more compassionate worlds. Anything less risks preparing young people merely to survive in a damaged world, rather than empowering them to imagine and contribute to a flourishing one.