C. A. Bowers

EcoJustice Education offers a powerful model for cultural ecological analysis and a pedagogy of responsibility, providing teachers and teacher educators with the information and classroom practices they need to help develop citizens who are prepared to support and achieve diverse, democratic, and sustainable societies in an increasingly globalized world. Readers are asked to consider curricular strategies to bring these issues to life in their own classrooms across disciplines. Designed for introductory educational foundations and multicultural education courses, the text is written in a narrative, conversational style grounded in place and experience, but also pushes students to examine the larger ideological, social, historical, and political contexts of the crises humans and the planet we inhabit are facing.

Pedagogical features in each chapter include a Conceptual Toolbox, activities accompanying the theoretical content, examples of lessons and teacher reflections, and suggested readings, films, and links. The Second Edition features a new chapter on Anthropocentrism; new material on Heterosexism; updated statistics and examples throughout; new and updated Companion Website content.

In the United States, and increasingly across the globe, science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is primarily linked to “vital preparation for today’s high-tech information economy” (Drew, 2011, p. 1) and has become a priority. However, the emphasis on human capital directly conflicts with goals of critical mathematics education (CME) (e.g. Gutstein 2008, Wolfmeyer, 2014). The confluence of actors promoting and implementing STEM also oppose more broadly the goals of critical education, especially via its conflation of reason, science, and technology, as this conflation contributes significantly to the ecological and social crises (e.g. Bowers, 1993; Martusewicz, Edmundson, & Lupinacci, 2011).  This interactive symposium will first orient the audience to critical math education (e.g., Frankenstein, 1983; Gutstein, 2006; Skovsmose, 1994), then lay out the basics of STEM policies and discourses (e.g. Drew, policy statements). Next, we suggest that STEM conflicts with CME, and includes roundtable discussions for audience participation. We then argue the opposite: a robust optimism for STEM as a new site for CME.