Ecology, Democracy, and Green Schools: An Integrated Framework

• In Event: Roundtable Session 18.
  In Roundtable Session: A Nested View of Democratic Leadership and Community: Agents of Change for the Public Good

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework that integrates democratic and ecological principles for describing, explaining, and predicting a continuum of development from more traditional schools to green schools. Green schools represent an emerging trend in k-12 education: whole school approaches for educating students about sustainability within more democratic and sustainable school environments (Edwards, 2006; Henderson & Tilbury, 2004; Higgs & McMillan, 2006; Schelly, et al., 2010; Shallcross, et al., 2006).
Sustainability, as discussed here, is the integration of ecological, social, and economic approaches to insuring healthy local and global communities for present and future generations. Sustainability, as a key term, began to appear in the scholarly educational leadership literature in 1999. To date, the focus has not been on broader social movements, addressing ecological, social, and economic sustainability. A search within the following educational leadership journals (JSL, EAQ, JEA) during early 2011 revealed that “sustainability” appeared in 83 articles. Only two of the 83 articles addressed socio-ecological issues related to sustainability (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004; Pepper & Wildy, 2008). Rich conversations about the sustainability movement and education have not yet entered educational leadership’s scholarly discourse.
Recent research highlights the importance of school leaders and leadership for successful green schools and provides the basis for the proposed theoretical framework (Birney & Reed, 2009; Higgs & McMillan, 2006; Pepper & Wildy, 2008; Schelly, Cross, Franzen, Hall, & Reeve, 2010). Although the proposed framework may apply to organizations beyond k-12 schools, the present discussion remains focused on k-12 schools. Foundational to the framework are the following two assertions: (1) ecological principles govern healthy and sustainable life systems, the systems in which our social systems exist and upon which they depend (Capra, 1996, 2002; Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996) and (2) democratic principles govern socially just (Furman & Starratt, 2002) and continuously learning social systems (Kensler, Caskie, Barber, & White, 2009; Slater & Bennis, 1964). The proposed framework crosses the practice of ecological principles with democratic principles and creates four general categories of schools. The two more familiar categories reflect anthropocentric paradigms (little practice of ecological principles) and include (1) machine bureaucracies (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Mintzberg, 1979), with little practice of democratic or ecological principles and (2) democratic administration/community (Furman & Starratt, 2002; Kensler, 2010; Kensler & Brooks, in press; Koopman, et al., 1943), with more intentional practice of democratic principles, but little attention to ecological principles or concerns. The two categories of organizations that reflect more ecocentric paradigms include green bureaucracies (little practice of democratic principles) and ecological democracies or green schools (higher levels of practicing both democratic and ecological principles). Green bureaucracies include organizations that demand green, more ecologically friendly practices through command and control style leadership, excessive policy and little opportunity for broad engagement or organizational learning. In green schools where the practice of ecological democracy (ecological and democratic principles) may be high, the local social and ecological context and broader community needs inform leaders’ practice. The paper ends with a discussion of future research possibilities.

Author

• Lisa A.W. Kensler, Auburn University