The limits of anthropocentric policy design

The modernist ontological divide between nature and culture manifests in education policy through three primary mechanisms:

Epistemic Erasure

Anthropocentric frameworks reduce more-than-human entities to passive resources rather than agentic policy participants. UNESCO’s (2021) climate education guidelines exemplify this by positioning ecosystems as “teaching contexts” while simultaneously acknowledging the lack of “ecocultural approaches.” Barad’s concept of “agential cuts” explains how such policy language materially excludes nonhuman actors from decision-making processes.

For instance, the OECD’s (2018) Education 2030 framework emphasises “green skills” but fails to recognise forests, rivers, or pollinators as co-constructors of knowledge. This epistemic erasure mirrors what Plumwood (Reference Plumwood2002) terms “backgrounding” a process where ecological relationships are systematically marginalised and treated as irrelevant to human affairs. Kim’s (Reference Kim2007) study of Korean government-led forest schools revealed that most state-mandated activities (e.g., fixed-date tree planting) disregarded local phenological conditions, directly contradicting the ecological principles these programs purported to teach.

Temporal myopia

Human-centred policies operate within compressed political cycles that bear no relation to ecological timescales (Adam, Reference Adam1998). The five-year implementation horizons of most national education strategies are fundamentally misaligned with: forest regeneration cycles (50+ years; Kimmerer, Reference Kimmerer2013), climate feedback loops (centuries; Steffen et al., Reference Steffen, Richardson, Rockström, Cornell, Fetzer, Bennett, Biggs, Carpenter, de Vries, de Wit, Folke, Gerten, Heinke, Mace, Persson, Ramanathan, Reyers and Sörlin2015) and indigenous generation decision-making (Corntassel, Reference Corntassel and Bryce2011). This temporal dissonance produces what Adam calls “timescape conflicts.”

Material disconnection

Policies premised on nature–culture binaries fail to account for the co-constitutive materiality of learning environments. Kim’s (Reference Kim2007) study of Korean forest schools reveals how rigid infrastructure designs (e.g., concrete pathways bisecting root systems) disrupt soil ecologies that sustain pedagogical landscapes. Lövbrand et al. (Reference Lövbrand, Beck, Chilvers, Forsyth, Hedrén, Hulme, Lidskog and Vasileiadou2015) term this “infrastructural alienation,” the material exclusion of nonhuman agency from built environments.

The phenomenon of “biodiversity blindness” (Tsing, Reference Tsing2015) is particularly pronounced in urban school gardens, where aesthetic order is prioritised at the expense of pollinator habitats. In contrast, Indigenous land-based pedagogies, such as the Haida’s tll’sda (ecological temporality), conceptualise schoolyards as interconnected multispecies communities, challenging anthropocentric paradigm (Ojeda et al., Reference Ojeda, McNeill, Guujaaw, Yakgujanaas, Rhodes and Ban2025).

Neoliberalism’s epistemic violence

The neoliberalisation of education policy produces three forms of ecological alienation:

Metrication of learning

Standardised assessments such as PISA enact what Ball (Reference Ball2021) terms terrible simplifications of learning into marketisable skills. This manifests by: (1) reducing ecological knowledge to 21 broadly defined competencies, only 6 of which address ecological systems (OECD, 2019); (2) erasing Indigenous land-based pedagogies through epistemic violence (Simpson, Reference Simpson2017); and (3) privileging human capital theory outcomes over ecosystem health (Battiste, Reference Battiste2013).

Au’s (Reference Au2009) analysis demonstrates how standardised testing reduces ecological systems to decontextualised fragments (e.g., water cycle diagrams stripped of watershed contexts), with 82% of teachers omitting local examples to “teach to the test.” This epistemic violence (Battiste, Reference Battiste2013) is compounded when indigenous students are forced to validate Eurocentric ecological taxonomies that contradict their kincentric relationships with land (McCarty & Lee, Reference McCarty and Lee2014).

Commodification of nature

The neoliberal transformation of ecosystems into “natural capital” (Costanza et al., Reference Costanza, d’Arge, de Groot, Farber, Grasso, Hannon, Limburg, Naeem, O’Neill, Paruelo, Raskin, Sutton and van den Belt1997) has been rigorously critiqued as a form of fictitious commodification that obscures socio-ecological relations. This manifests in education policy through three interlocking mechanisms:

The first mechanism is carbon pedagogies. School sustainability programs increasingly adopt carbon credit schemes that reduce complex climate systems to transactional metrics (Böhm et al., Reference Böhm, Misoczky and Moog2012). For instance, the UK’s Natural Connections program trains students to calculate personal carbon footprints while omitting: the colonial legacy of emissions (e.g., 73% of historical CO₂ originates from Global North industries; Hickel, Reference Hickel2020) and Indigenous stewardship practices that enhance carbon sequestration (Whyte, Reference Whyte2017).

Another mechanism is biodiversity offsetting curricula. Curriculum frameworks such as Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence (Education Scotland, Reference Scotland2023) promote biodiversity “banking” exercises where students quantify species as “ecological credits” (e.g., tree-planting offsets). This neoliberal pedagogical approach commodifies ecological relationships and reduce complex ecological networks.

The last mechanism is ecotourism as erasure. Outdoor education models appropriate Indigenous land practices (e.g., forest schools) while displacing native stewardship (Tuck & Yang, Reference Tuck and Yang2012) and reducing sacred groves to “team-building spaces” (Simpson, Reference Simpson2017).

This triple instrumentalisation exemplifies Plumwood’s (Reference Plumwood2002) backgrounding, where: epistemic violence: Indigenous knowledge is extracted without ontological reciprocity (Simpson, Reference Simpson2017) and temporal alienation: short-term skill outcomes (e.g., employability metrics) override generational ecological knowledge. This dual process mirrors what Whyte (Reference Whyte2017) terms “kincentric alienation” the simultaneous epistemic and temporal distancing of education from more-than-human kinship networks.

Temporal dispossession

Neoliberal temporalities accelerate educational rhythms beyond ecological limits. Adam’s theory of “temporal conflict” explains how this creates: curriculum schedules incompatible with seasonal knowledge (Whyte, Reference Whyte2017), assessment cycles disrupting intergenerational learning (McCarty & Lee, Reference McCarty and Lee2014) and professional development timelines precluding place-attachment (Gruenewald, Reference Gruenewald2003).

For Sámi reindeer-herding communities, standardised school calendars that ignore boazodoallu (reindeer migration cycles) effectively sever education from livelihood practices. The resulting “temporal dispossession” mirrors what Whyte calls “kincentric alienation” the rupture of human–nonhuman temporal relationships.

Toward relational policy frameworks

Posthumanist and Indigenous paradigms offer three transformative alternatives:

Sympoietic governance

Haraway’s concept of sympoiesis suggests policies must emerge from human-more-than-human collaborations, as seen in: Haida Gwaii’s abalone-coordinated curricula (Ojeda et al., Reference Ojeda, McNeill, Guujaaw, Yakgujanaas, Rhodes and Ban2025) and Sámi place-conscious pedagogy (Keskitalo, Reference Keskitalo2019).

These cases demonstrate what Barad calls “intra-active” policymaking where syllabi, abalone runs jointly determine educational trajectories.

Polychronic policy design

Whyte’s kincentric time and Adam’s polychronicity combine to propose: ecological pulse-synchronised schedules (e.g., planting cycles dictating science units), Indigenous cyclical time integration and geological timescale accommodation.

The Sámi Parliament’s education strategy exemplifies this approach by aligning school terms with distinct reindeer herding seasons (Minde, Reference Minde2005). As documented in the Sámediggi’s Supplementary Report (2017), this approach explicitly challenges the Norwegian Ministry of Education’s calendrical practices that disregard Sámi seasonal migrations. The policy mandates avoidance of examinations during critical periods including Gáranas (spring calving, April–May) and Čakčamánnu (autumn slaughter, September-October), as formalised in the parliamentary submission on new education legislation (Sámi Parliament, 2020).

Material-discursive indicators

Extending Barad’s (Reference Barad2007) framework, this article advocates integrating more-than-human indices such as pollinator activity (Kimmerer, Reference Kimmerer2013), soil microbiome diversity (Ojeda et al., Reference Ojeda, McNeill, Guujaaw, Yakgujanaas, Rhodes and Ban2025) and watershed health (Simpson, Reference Simpson2021) into education metrics. This shift is supported by legal precedents like Ecuador’s constitutional Rights of Nature, mandating school-based ecosystem monitoring (Kauffman & Martin, Reference Kauffman and Martin2021), as well as rulings on India’s Ganges and Yamuna rivers and Colombia’s Atrato River, which institutionalised pollution control and community guardianship (Pecharroman, Reference Pecharromán2018). These cases show how legal frameworks operationalise material-discursive practices in policy.

In conclusion, this analysis reveals the need for education policy to: acknowledge more-than-human agency through material-discursive practices, develop temporally flexible governance structures and create evaluation systems honouring epistemic plurality.

The path forward requires dismantling the artificial boundaries between policy, pedagogy and ecology, recognising that forests, rivers and microorganisms are not just contexts for learning, but active participants in education’s future.

Posthumanist foundations: from agency to assemblage

Posthumanist scholarship fundamentally dismantles the nature–culture binary that has underpinned Western policy frameworks for centuries. Rather than treating policy as a human-imposed structure upon passive natural environments, this theoretical paradigm repositioning policy as relational processes emerging from continuous negotiations between multiple human and nonhuman actors. This ontological shift demands reconceptualising governance as dynamic assemblages where agency is distributed across networks of human institutions, ecological forces, material infrastructures and more-than-human entities.

Three theoretical anchors provide foundation for this reformulation:

Barad’s Agential Realism challenges conventional policy implementation models by arguing that policies materialise through what she terms “intra-actions” – mutually constitutive engagements between human and nonhuman entities. For example, in Scandinavian Forest schools, the material reality of permafrost thaw (attributed to climate change forcing by IPCC, 2023) actively reshapes educational practices. As thawing ground destabilises school infrastructure and alters local ecosystems, educators must continually revise outdoor curricula and safety protocols, demonstrating how geological processes become active policy participants rather than passive backdrops (Lövbrand et al., Reference Lövbrand, Beck, Chilvers, Forsyth, Hedrén, Hulme, Lidskog and Vasileiadou2015).

Haraway’s Sympoiesis introduces the concept of “making-with” to describe world-building through collaborative partnerships across species boundaries. Indigenous education models exemplify the integration of ecological temporalities into learning processes. In Alaska Native communities, educational activities are often synchronised with seasonal cycles and animal migrations, reflecting a holistic worldview where “all things are connected” (Barnhardt & Kawagley, Reference Barnhardt and Kawagley2005). While not dictating school schedules in the literal sense, salmon migration patterns inform culturally grounded science curricula that combine traditional ecological knowledge with Western scientific approaches.

Bennett’s Vibrant Matter (Reference Bennett, Cheah, Orlie and Grosz2010) argues for the inherent agentic capacity of nonhuman entities, from trees to rivers to synthetic materials. In urban environmental education, plants serve as valuable bio-indicators rather than active sensors. Species such as Ginkgo biloba show visible foliar damage under high ozone concentrations, while Pinus densiflora demonstrates reduced growth under nitrogen oxide exposure. These physiological responses provide tangible learning opportunities for students to monitor air quality, though urban pollution management primarily relies on conventional monitoring systems (Chaudhuri & Kumar, Reference Chaudhuri and Kumar2022). This approach acknowledges vegetal agency while maintaining scientific accuracy, creating educational experiences that connect students to urban ecosystems through observable phenomena. This policy innovation demonstrates how vegetal agency becomes incorporated into environmental governance through what Bennett terms “distended agency.”

Case evidence: more-than-human policy in practice

Empirical evidence from diverse contexts illustrates how planetary policy ecologies are already operating in practice, though often unrecognised by conventional policy frameworks:

1. 1. Scandinavian Forest Schools & Permafrost Thaw

The material impacts of climate change on educational infrastructure provide a compelling case of more-than-human policy emergence. In Swedish and Norwegian forest schools located within the Arctic Circle, accelerating permafrost thaw has necessitated fundamental redesign of both physical infrastructure and curricular practices. School buildings require specialised pilings to accommodate ground instability, while traditional outdoor learning sites become inaccessible or hazardous due to landscape transformation (Lövbrand et al., Reference Lövbrand, Beck, Chilvers, Forsyth, Hedrén, Hulme, Lidskog and Vasileiadou2015). These material constraints force continuous curriculum adaptations, exemplifying Barad’s concept of material-discursive policy emergence where geological processes intra-act with educational planning.

1. 2. Alaska Native Salmon-Centric Curriculum: Indigenous Temporalities in Education

The Alaska Native educational system exemplifies what Corntassel (Reference Corntassel and Bryce2011) identifies as sustainable self-determination through its sophisticated integration of salmon ecological knowledge into pedagogical frameworks. This curriculum enacts a temporal governance model that synchronises academic activities with five distinct phenological phases of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) life cycles (Kawagley, Reference Kawagley1995). Rather than imposing artificial academic calendars, lesson planning follows what Whyte terms kincentric temporality, structuring human activities around more-than-human rhythms.

This pedagogical approach demonstrates what Harawayconceptualises as sympoiesis (“making-with”) by positioning salmon as active pedagogical agents rather than passive educational content. The curriculum creates temporal alignment (Whyte, Reference Whyte2017) between institutional schedules and ecological patterns, maintaining academic rigour while challenging industrialised education’s temporal constraints. Empirical studies consistently demonstrate that culturally grounded curricula significantly enhance both ecological understanding and cultural identity formation among Indigenous students. For instance, Demmert et al. (Reference Demmert, Grissmer and Towner2006) confirm that Native American education models improve environmental stewardship, while Lipka’s (Reference Lipka2020) work with Yup’ik communities shows strengthened cultural connections through place-based learning.

The policy significance lies in its operationalisation of biocultural governance: regulatory frameworks that recognise more-than-human agencies through institutional mechanisms. By granting salmon ecological cycles formal authority over educational sequencing, the system demonstrates how Bennett’s (Reference Bennett, Cheah, Orlie and Grosz2010) vibrant matter concept translates into practice: nonhuman entities become policy actors rather than policy objects. This case offers a replicable model for transforming anthropocentric education systems through what Barnhardt and Kawagley (Reference Barnhardt and Kawagley2005) terms indigenous-to-place policy design.

As demonstrated in Table 2, reconceptualisation of policy ecologies demands fundamental shifts in how I understand agency, responsibility and efficacy in environmental governance. By recognising active participation of more-than-human entities in policy formation and implementation, I open possibilities for more responsive, adaptive and ecologically attuned governance approaches that respect planetary boundaries and multispecies justice.

Table 2.

Theoretical foundations and policy applications

Critique of neoliberal temporality: the tyranny of the short-term

Contemporary education policy operates within what Adam conceptualises as “timescape conflict” – a fundamental dissonance between the compressed temporalities of neoliberal governance and the extended rhythms of ecological systems. This temporal misalignment manifests through three distinct yet interconnected dimensions:

Political Cycle Compression epitomised by OECD’s (2018) five-year planning horizons creates what Harvey (Reference Harvey1989) terms “time–space compression,” where electoral cycles and fiscal years override ecological temporalities. This neoliberal temporality privileges metrics that are immediately measurable (standardised test scores, annual budget allocations) while systematically excluding considerations that operate on longer timescales (Steffen et al., Reference Steffen, Richardson, Rockström, Cornell, Fetzer, Bennett, Biggs, Carpenter, de Vries, de Wit, Folke, Gerten, Heinke, Mace, Persson, Ramanathan, Reyers and Sörlin2015).

The consequences of this temporal dissonance are empirically demonstrable across multiple ecological dimensions as illustrated in Table 3:

Table 3.

Timescape conflicts in education policy

Forest Regeneration Cycles (50–100+ years) are fundamentally incompatible with political timelines. Kimmerer’s (Reference Kimmerer2013) research on temperate forest ecosystems demonstrates that true ecological literacy requires understanding successional processes that span human generations. Yet current policy frameworks, particularly accountability measures like England’s Ofsted inspection cycles, force schools to prioritise immediately measurable outcomes over long-term ecological understanding (Ball, Reference Ball2021).

Climate Feedback Loops operating on centennial scales create what Steffen et al. (Reference Steffen, Richardson, Rockström, Cornell, Fetzer, Bennett, Biggs, Carpenter, de Vries, de Wit, Folke, Gerten, Heinke, Mace, Persson, Ramanathan, Reyers and Sörlin2015) term “planetary boundaries temporalities.” The lag between carbon emissions and climatic responses (often 30–50 years) means educational decisions made today will impact ecological systems beyond conventional policy horizons. This temporal disconnect is exacerbated by assessment regimes that reward short-term performance metrics over sustainability competencies (Jickling et al., Reference Jickling, Sterling, Jickling and Sterling2017).

Intergenerational Justice Imperatives embedded in Indigenous decision-making frameworks highlight ethical dimensions of temporal conflict. Whyte’s analysis of Anishinaabe seven-generation planning reveals how neoliberal temporality systematically privileges present generations while imposing ecological debts on future ones. This constitutes what Adam identifies as “temporal appropriation” – the colonisation of future time for present benefit.

Indigenous and posthumanist alternatives: timescape integration

Emerging alternatives demonstrate how educational governance might better align with ecological and cultural temporalities through what Adam (Reference Adam1998) terms “timescape responsiveness,” the institutional capacity to recognise and adapt to multiple temporal rhythms. This conceptual framework challenges homogenised temporal structures of modernist education systems by acknowledging what Kvamme (Reference Kvamme2024) identifies as the fundamental situatedness of ecological knowledge within specific cultural and environmental contexts. Polychronic governance, defined as institutional capacity to coordinate multiple temporal rhythms, provides a critical lens for understanding how institutions can simultaneously engage with diverse temporal frameworks without subordinating ecological timescales to bureaucratic schedules.

Sámi Boazodoallu (Reindeer Herding) Calendars exemplify what Whyte conceptualises as “kincentric time,” temporal frameworks that synchronise human activities with more-than-human rhythms through sophisticated ecological monitoring systems that position humans within networks of reciprocal responsibility. As documented by Inga (Reference Inga2007) and Inga and Danell (Reference Inga and Danell2012), Sámi herders maintain detailed TEK regarding reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) foraging behaviours across seasonal cycles, including their consumption of over 350 vascular plant species and 100 lichen varieties. This knowledge system, embedded within the siida organisational structure (Sara, Reference Sara2009), represents a complex governance model where temporal decisions emerge from continuous observation of reindeer-plant interactions rather than abstract academic calendars.

The EALÁT research initiative (Oskal et al., Reference Oskal, Turi, Mathiesen and Burgess2009) further demonstrates how Sámi temporal frameworks incorporate climate change adaptation through what Buhre and Bjork (Reference Buhre and Bjork2021) term “temporal braiding,” the interweaving of ancestral knowledge with contemporary environmental monitoring. This approach enacts what Barad would call “material-agential compliance” by recognising how environmental changes (thawing permafrost, shifting vegetation patterns) actively reshape educational practices and temporal structures. Rather than merely responding to climate change, Sámi educators participate in what Barad terms “intra-active becoming” where reindeer, herders, vegetation and climate co-constitute educational temporalities through their entangled agency.

This approach challenges what Fabian (Reference Fabian2014) critiqued as the “denial of coevalness” in Western temporal frameworks, instead creating educational practices that recognise multiple temporalities as equally valid and simultaneous. As Casi et al. (Reference Casi, Guttorm, Virtanen, Krieg and Toivanen2021) argue, such TEK systems represent “situated sustainability” where knowledge remains anchored in specific ecological relationships rather than abstracted universal principles.

In practice, this temporal integration manifests in Sámi teacher education programs that employ what Keskitalo and Jannok Nutti (Reference Keskitalo, Jannok Nutti, Harju-Luukkainen, Garvis, Kangas, Maroco, Maunula and Maunumaki2025) identify as “two-eyed seeing,” braiding Sámi temporal frameworks with Western scientific approaches. For instance, reindeer migration patterns inform school calendar design, while ice formation cycles shape science curriculum sequencing, creating what Kvamme (Reference Kvamme2024) describes as “educative distantiation” the critical capacity to understand one’s own temporal positioning within broader ecological systems. This represents the operationalisation of Adam’s (Reference Adam1998) polychronic governance through Whyte’s kincentric framework, mediated by Barad’s material-discursive practice, a theoretical integration that offers transformative potential for reconceptualising educational governance beyond anthropocentric constraints.

In conclusion, as illustrated in Table 4, These alternatives collectively challenge what Greenhouse (Reference Greenhouse1996) identified as “tyranny of the moment” in modernist policy-making, instead offering models of temporal governance that respect ecological rhythms, honour cultural temporalities and respond to material conditions. They represent not merely technical adjustments to scheduling, but fundamental reorientations in how educational systems conceptualise and value time itself.

Table 4.

Theoretical integration in Sámi temporal governance

Assessment hegemony and epistemic dominance

While standardised tests like PISA seek to gauge educational quality and increasingly prioritise socio-ecological issues, their design focused on cross-national comparability often privileges reductionist epistemologies. This can marginalise ecological and Indigenous knowledge systems by favouring abstract generalisations over situated knowledge, quantitative metrics over qualitative relationships and individual achievement over community wellbeing. Such an approach risks contributing to testimonial injustice when Indigenous students’ knowledge is discredited by assessment biases, though PISA cannot control result misinterpretation. Ultimately, this preference for universal metrics conflicts with Rockström et al.’s (Reference Rockström, Donges, Fetzer, Martin, Wang-Erlandsson and Richardson2024) planetary boundaries framework, which calls for context-specific responses to Earth system processes.

Reductionism in sustainability metrics

Conventional indicators exemplify what Kimmerer (Reference Kimmerer2013) critiques as “ecological amnesia” through three forms of reductionism as demonstrated in Table 5:

Table 5.

Three forms of biophysical reductionism

The OECD’s (2018) “green growth” indicators typify this approach by measuring carbon sequestration while ignoring cultural–spiritual relationships with land, reproducing what Plumwood (Reference Plumwood2002) termed “backgrounding,” rendering ecological relationships invisible to policy consideration.

Transformative biocultural frameworks: operationalising planetary boundary governance

Firstly, from legal and policy innovations perspective, constitutional recognition of rights of Nature Ecuador’s 2008 constitutional reforms established legal personhood for ecosystems (Pachamama), creating what Boyd (Reference Boyd2017) identifies as a “paradigm shift in environmental law.” This approach: Grants standing to ecosystems in legal proceedings through defensorías (community guardians), mandates educational institutions to monitor and report on ecological wellbeing and requires policy impact assessments to consider effects on more-than-human communities.

The implementation of these rights in educational settings demonstrates material-discursive governance (Barad, Reference Barad2007) where students participate in: water quality monitoring that combines scientific instruments with TEK, forest health assessments that integrate biodiversity metrics with cultural indicators and climate adaptation planning that values both technical and Indigenous adaptation strategies.

From resistance and transformation strategies perspective, the creation of boundary objects – artefacts that maintain coherence across social worlds while enabling flexible interpretations - facilitates knowledge integration through: seasonal calendars that combine meteorological data with phenological observations, species field guides that include both scientific classifications and Indigenous taxonomies and curriculum frameworks that accommodate multiple knowledge validation methods.

In conclusion, transformative biocultural frameworks offer pathways for addressing the interconnected crises of ecological degradation and epistemic injustice. These approaches represent what Escobar (Reference Escobar2018) terms “pluriversal governance” – acknowledging multiple ontologies coexisting in policy space while fundamentally challenging neoliberal and colonial underpinnings of conventional environmental education.