Environmental education in the public teaching network in western Paraná State

Sanchez, Anna Carolina Espósito; Iared, Valéria Ghisloti

doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc2022037r2vu2023L4OA

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Ambient. soc. 26 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc2022037r2vu2023L4OA copy

Environmental education in the public teaching network in western Paraná State

Educación ambiental en la red de educación pública del oeste Paraná

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The present study is an analysis of the environmental education insertion in state schools, in Toledo regional Center. A matrix of indicators comprising four dimensions (Democratic and Participatory Management, Discipline Matrix, Physical Space and Community) were applied in 59 schools; it corresponds to 64.13% of the registered institutions. Results have shown that schools report to develop actions in environmental education. However, financial and human resources destined to this field, as well as schools’ proximity to surrounding communities, are weak. The herein used instrument provided an overview of how schools perceive, and act in, environmental education. However, broader studies remain essential to help better understanding environmental education insertion in this study field, in a deeper way.

Keywords:
Public policy; Policy cycle; Formal education; Sustainable schools; matrix of indicators

DEMOCRATIC AND PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT DIMENSION
Indicator	Affirmative answers
Democratic management (I1)	Affirmative answers
1. Does the school promote participatory events (meetings, fairs, gymkhanas, lectures or similar activities) for the school community?	59
2. Does the school community take part in continuous qualification linked to Environmental Education?	37
3. Does the direction board promote democratic management in the school?	59
4. Do the direction board, pedagogical body and students use dialogue to mediate conflicts?	59
5. Does the school share its propositions with the school community?	59
Planning, management and communication instrument (I2)
6. Is the Political, pedagogical project updated in a participatory way, along with the school community?	57
7. Does the school use any participatory planning instrument?	55
8. Does the school use communication tools to make information available to the school community?	58
9. Are educational and/or social communication processes (production of communication materials) used in the school?	40
10. Does the school seek partnership with other institutions to develop joint Environmental Education actions in order to turn the school into a sustainable education space?	47
Collegiate instances (I3)
11. Does the parents, teachers and employees’ association act in Environmental Education actions?	48
12. Do students take part in the school’s Environmental Education actions?	55
13. Does the school council contribute to the school’s Environmental Education actions?	47
14. Are the School Committee/Team in Environmental Education or the Environmental and Quality of Life Commission (COM-VIDA) proactive and fulfill their responsibility?	28
Financial and human efficiency (I4)
15. Are the financial resources sent to the school enough for the proper maintenance (building maintenance, to cover costs with pedagogical and cleaning materials, with didactic materials, with programmed extracurricular activities)?	21
16. Does the school seek financing from non-governmental organizations aimed at Environmental Education or from the UN to develop the Environmental Education proposition?	16
17. Does the school have teachers qualified to the development of Environmental Education at school?	41
18. Does the school have a staff big enough for its proper functioning, with emphasis on environmental management?	20
19. Does the school have a professional for pedagogical support, with emphasis on Environmental Education actions?	27

DISCIPLINE MATRIX DIMENSION
Indicator	Affirmative answers
Discipline matrix organization (I5)	Affirmative answers
20. Does the school include Environmental Education in its Political Pedagogical Project (PPP)?	56
21. Do teachers provide content regarding Environmental Education topics in their planning (Discipline Matrix Pedagogical Proposition and Teachers’ Work Plan)?	58
22. Do teachers share the same view of Environmental Education aims?	54
23. Does the school put in place a joint plan by teachers aimed at inserting Environmental Education knowledge in the discipline matrix, in an integrated way?	43
24. Does the school suggest spaces for the environmental contents selected through planning/projects to emerge from students themselves, based on environmental issues in their context, of their interest?	48
Pedagogical activities and practices (I6)
25. Do the pedagogical practices developed in the school allow the inclusion of different knowledge (traditional and cultural diversity), diversified topics (gender and ethnic/racial issues) and of students with disabilities?	58
26. Does the school take actions to value multi-culturalism, urban/rural sub-cultures, such as gastronomic fests, typical dances, traditional storytelling, and exposition of local artists, among others?	55
27. Does the school develop curricular activities that involve the surrounding community (community leaders) in community and local environmental issues?	42
28. Do pedagogical practices use or produce technological and audiovisual resources to facilitate the understanding of the local and global socio-environmental reality?	49
29. Do students have field classes or make technical visitations in order to work with socio-environmental issues?	35
Programs and projects (I7)
30. Does the school develop environment and Environmental Education governmental Projects or Programs?	36
31. Does the school develop its own projects focused on socio-environmental sustainability?	42
32. Does the school develop Environmental Education research projects along with the community, with emphasis on potentials/values to reinforce the sense of identity and belonging?	32

PHYSICAL SPACE DIMENSION
Indicator	Affirmative answers
School territory and surrounding areas (I8)	Affirmative answers
33. Are the physical spaces in the school (garden, other green areas, patio, local ecosystems, biome, squares, and public parks) territory used as environment for Environmental Education learning?	50
34. Does the school community promote environmental care and preservation?	55
35. Do teachers perform study activities around the school with the students so they can get to know and learn about the environment?	49
36. Does the school develop practices to identify changes caused by local climate change effects (such as water-quality monitoring, previous warnings about drought periods or floods, among others)?	39
Education infrastructure and environment (I9)
37. Does the school provide accessibility conditions (ramps, bathrooms adjusted to wheel chairs or to gender, equipment, among others)?	50
38. Is the sports court used for cooperative activity practices (sports, games and for playing)?	55
39. Do employees, students and teachers use sustainable transportation means (bike, walking, skate board, bus, solidary lift, ecological fuel, among others)?	52
40. Does the school have a library of some space for reading, to study and capable of helping research about the Environmental Education topic?	50
41. Does the school have a computer/ innovation lab accessible to students, with emphasis on pedagogical orientation to websites about research, activities and sciences focused on sustainability?	41
Eco-efficiency (I10)
42. Does the school suggest measures for the critical analysis of consumption and to promote the proper reduction, separation and discharge of its own solid waste (recyclables and organic waste)?	51
43. Are the consumption practices and/or energy production in laboratory environment encouraged in the school (photovoltaics, gas from waste, solar panels, among others)?	27
44. Does the school encourage healthy eating based on tasting and observation (vegetable garden, biology, botany, ecology, agroecology, hunger, malnutrition)?	52
45. Are measures to reduce water use in school and to preserve water resources adopted?	54
46. Are measures to avoid the waste of stationary material (paper, ink, among others) employed?	59

COMMUNITY DIMENSION
Indicator	Affirmative answers
School/community relationship (I11)	Affirmative answers
47. Does the school create the conditions to reinforce bonds with the community?	58
48. Does the school take part in some local or collective hydrographic basin group?	12
49. Does the school promote sustainability actions along with the community?	38
50. Is there any community action to prevent the emergence or risk of socio-environmental issue?	18

ANPPAS - Revista Ambiente e Sociedade Anppas / Revista Ambiente e Sociedade - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistaambienteesociedade@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Anna Carolina Espósito Sanchez ✉ annacarolinasanchez@gmail.com