Teachers in Havana and Philadelphia use opportunities through schools and the social context to legitimate marginalized garden-based learningThis case study compared the way teachers in cities in two different countries navigated challenges and opportunities relating to the use of gardens in their school settings. This case study also showcases how they made meaning of the gardens by situating them in a pedagogical framework consistent with the policies, mandates, and cultures of their respective educational systems.
Havana, Cuba and Philadelphia, United States were chosen as sites for this case study. While these cities clearly differ in many ways, both cities have a history of agricultural or garden-based learning. Cuba’s focus – at least until the 1990’s – was more on agricultural-based programming. In 1997, however, Cuba passed a national mandate calling for all students, primary through secondary, to have school-based gardening experiences. Cuban educators tend to view this more as a suggestion than a mandate.
Philadelphia’s focus has been more on garden versus agricultural programming. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, Philadelphia’s garden education program was well supported financially and philosophically. By 1915, Philadelphia was also recognized as a national leader in garden education. Since then, the city’s garden education program has gone through various cycles of support.
Fieldwork for this study involved multiple trips to Havana and Philadelphia from 2008 to 2011. Data collection in Cuba extended over a period of 4 months; in Philadelphia, 5 months. Twenty-six educators were interviewed in Cuba; thirty-five in Philadelphia. The interviews were semi-structured and extended from 45 minutes to 2 hours in length. During the interviews, educators were asked to share their perceptions of their school garden experiences.
While Havana teachers referenced the national mandate as a support, they recognized the lack of enforcement. They also identified extremely limited resources as one of their major challenges. For Philadelphia teachers, there was no mandate, and administrators tended to consider garden programs “extraneous.” Teachers in both cases, however, found ways to frame school gardens as beneficial for the school and the students. The focus of Havana garden educators tended to be on group collaboration and work-study education. For Philadelphia garden educators, the focus was on child-centered engagement and science education. The focus in each case provided personal meaning and some public validation of their school garden programs.
The Bottom Line