| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
National Curriculum (Sustainable Development)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Allen.]
11.1 pm
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): I am exceptionally grateful to have the opportunity of raising this subject at a topical time in the development of the national curriculum. The only interests I have to declare are membership of my local wildlife trust and my local Country Landowners Association committee. I have no links, either direct or indirect, with any genetically modified food company--indeed, I have serious concerns about the sustainability of GM technology in the British environment.
I have a number of constituents who take a close interest in the environment and sustainable farming. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Stephen Martin whose close involvement with many environmental initiatives and organisations--and specifically with the World Wide Fund for Nature--inspired me to seek this debate.
It was a meeting with the WWF, organised by Dr. Martin, that persuaded me that this was an important issue, and that organisation has been very helpful in preparing me for tonight's debate. I am particularly grateful to another Martin, Peter Martin--I am assured that he is no relation to Stephen--who is head of education at WWF, for his patient guidance and advice. I have also received the views of two other organisations for which I have a high regard: the wildlife trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when I was young my dreams were regularly of a nuclear holocaust. That dreadful mushroom cloud soared into the sky of my nightmares on too many restless nights. I am glad to say that my nightmares are now more mundane, but my waking fear is very real. It is about the consequences for our environment if we do not approach it with greater respect and understanding. That, in turn, could have huge consequences for the welfare of billions of human beings on this planet.
I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but sometimes I despair as I watch the contempt shown by too many of our fellow citizens for the environment in which they live. Litter, graffiti and waste seem to characterise our urban lives. The countryside is defaced by thoughtless fly tipping, and, even worse, it faces more serious threats from agricultural polices that force farmers into behaviour that many of them dislike intensely.
Recycling may have caught the imagination of some, but how much fossil fuel has been used making special journeys to take small quantities of bottles, cans and newspapers to recycling facilities? How much energy and how many chemicals are then used to do the recycling?
If I may be allowed to make a slightly partisan comment in an essentially non-partisan speech, I believe that the Government are guilty of some muddled thinking on this subject. They are trying to use the mask of sustainability to justify what are actually only simple tax increases. Look at the proposed pesticides tax, for example. However--I see the way that you are looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker--that is a matter for another debate.
Our understanding of sustainability is still very limited and that is why this debate is so important. Sustainability is a new buzzword, often twisted to suit the argument of whoever is using it at the time. That is why children must be taught to think critically about what it means. Our world has to work out how to meet present human needs and improve the quality of life without diminishing the Earth's capacity to provide for the needs of future generations. That is what I mean by sustainability.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not one who believes that education is the answer to all our problems. I am intensely reluctant to dump on teachers all the problems of our society at the end of the second millennium. Problems such as declining democratic participation rates, teenage pregnancies, loss of basic social skills and increased vandalism and crime all seem capable of solution, according to many, simply if teachers educate pupils about those matters in our schools. That is profoundly wrong. Teachers are there to do many things, but above all their purpose is to teach the academic subjects, to inspire young people to wider horizons and to develop their skills, wherever they lie.
Teachers are not there to solve the whole kaleidoscope of problems that confront modern Britain. If they are asked to spread themselves too thinly, their attention will be diverted from their real tasks as teachers, but--this is a big but--there are some things, essentially factual in nature or lying beyond any reasonable expectations of pupils' parents or guardians, that can best be taught in schools rather than in families. Among those is the importance of education for sustainable development.
The 1992 Rio conference concluded that
One of the key recommendations of the sustainable development education panel, which was set up by the Government, was that
In the Secretary of State's introductory comments to "The review of the national curriculum in England, the Secretary of State's Proposals", he says:
For geography, those decisions have certainly been made correctly. In that section of "The Consultation Materials", the distinctive contribution, programmes of study and attainment targets all fully address geography's role as a key deliverer of sustainable development education. Concepts such as global citizenship, environmental change and values and attitudes are all well represented. I congratulate the Department on that and hope that when the Minister winds up, he will be able to confirm that that will remain the case in the final curriculum.
Elsewhere, however, all is not quite so rosy. As I have already made clear, increased prescription and increased work loads for teachers are not the answer and they are not necessary. A few small changes here and there in most of the other subjects would make all the difference. They would ensure that teaching effort is well used to further the cause of sustainable development without adding to teachers' burdens or even introducing new subjects into the curriculum.
Let us consider science. That is specifically and rightly identified by the Secretary of State as providing essential understanding of the importance of sustainability, but, incredibly,no reference to sustainability is made in the distinctive contribution or in the attainment targets of the proposals for the national curriculum. The programmes of study include content that is important for sustainable development education, but without proper detail.
Those deficiencies need to be remedied, and the easiest way to do so would be to add a suitable phrase to the distinctive contribution and to flesh out the programmes of study a little. To take one example at random, at key stage 4, it is suggested that pupils be taught
History is another subject that is specifically mentioned in the Secretary of State's proposals as providing "essential understanding" of the "importance of sustainability". However, no reference to sustainable development is made in the "distinctive contribution" section for history; nor is there direct reference to it in the programmes of study or attainment targets. That is despite the fact that many of the programmes could easily be directed towards a better understanding of the complex links between society, the economy and the environment. Those deficiencies could easily be remedied with just a few words, but what a difference those few words would make.
Most of the other subjects provide many opportunities for elements of sustainable development education to be fully implemented. For example, the "distinctive contribution" section for different subjects says:
Design and technology, we are told,
In art and design, we are told that pupils
There are similar opportunities in other subjects as diverse as English and mathematics. Unless there are powerful statements of the importance of sustainable development education, and unless the vital role that all subjects can play in its delivery is both endorsed and explained, sometimes the implicit and at other times the potential opportunities are in danger of being overlooked.
There are other concerns, too. One is the limited reference made to education for sustainable development in the non-statutory guidelines for personal, social and health education and the complete lack of any mention of it in the recommendations for teaching citizenship. Education for sustainable development seems to be added as an afterthought, with no introductory preamble that identifies it as one of the key global concerns of the 21st century.
I know that the Minister understands the importance of education for sustainable development. He knows about the likely impact of climate change on the British coastline, the consequences of household growth for new housing locations, the implications of ozone depletion, public concern about genetically modified organisms, the worldwide concern about fresh water supplies, and so on. The apparently limited profile given to the importance of education in addressing major national and international concerns is ironic given the commitment of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to achieving sustainable development, and the growing number of large corporations that are making major and very public commitments to such development.
Among those large organisations are the Government themselves. In the very good document, "A Better Quality of Life--A strategy for sustainable development for the UK", the Prime Minister says:
Non-statutory guidelines should be produced to explain how education for sustainable development can be integrated across the curriculum, identifying the unique contribution that each subject, including citizenship, can play. That would not add to teachers' or pupils' burdens, as it would provide focus and purpose for and--often, for young people--relevance to much of what is already being taught.
The panel for education for sustainable development made several specific recommendations in its first report. It discussed the curriculum issues that I have largely been talking about this evening. It talked about the need to monitor outcomes of education for sustainable development and to give governing bodies specific responsibility in that area. It talked about giving Ofsted the duty to evaluate education for sustainable development in its inspection framework. Finally, it said that education for sustainable development should be incorporated into all initial teacher training, continuing professional development and governor training, and that local education authorities should give encouragement and support to schools to conduct all their activities sustainably.
"education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address sustainable issues."
Since then a lot has happened under Conservative and Labour Governments, but there is still a serious gap between official endorsement and practical educational policy. Now, the review of the national curriculum for England gives us a unique opportunity to put that right. The consultation closes this Friday and the final curriculum documents will be sent to schools this autumn. The revised curriculum will become statutory from September 2000.
"sustainable development be identified within the aims and purposes of the revised curriculum".
It is only fair to say that the Government have met that objective in their proposals, and it has been strongly welcomed by the environmental movement. I associate myself with that welcome.
"Each subject makes a distinctive contribution to pupils' learning and development . . . History, geography and science give an essential understanding of our place in the modern world, including the importance of sustainability".
On page 5 of the other main document, "The Consultation Materials", we read that the school curriculum should develop pupils'
"awareness, understanding and respect for the environments in which they live, and secure their commitment to sustainable development at a personal, local, national and global level."
20 Jul 1999 : Column 1094
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has told me that it views that statement as the most important breakthrough for education for sustainable development for over a decade.
There is, therefore, much that is encouraging, but warm words and good intentions must translate into concrete reality if they are to mean anything. Those decisions will be set in concrete very soon. They will not, I hope, be revisited for many years, so they must be got right now.
"the basic principles of cloning and genetic engineering",
but there is no mention of the environmental and ethical implications. A little more thought about the detail would bring great dividends.
"Information and Communication technology. An essential part
of ICT capability is being discriminating about information and the ways in which it may be used, and making informed judgments about when and how to apply aspects of ICT to achieve maximum benefit. Pupils also develop understanding of the implications of ICT for working life and society". How easily that could be expanded to explore our interdependence in a shrinking world. How easily it could offer children first-hand experience of other societies, economies and their environments.
"contributes to the school curriculum by preparing all young people to participate in a rapidly changing technological world. It enables them to understand how to think and intervene creatively to improve the world, combining their knowledge with understanding of aesthetics and function."
There is no mention anywhere of how to choose materials for their sustainability. Cost, durability and appearance are all rightly mentioned, but not sustainability. Again, one word could make a great difference.
"learn how to become actively involved in shaping environments, making informed, aesthetic choices and practical decisions which enrich their personal and public lives".
That is absolutely right, but when it comes to shaping environments, sustainability is a vital dimension. Again, there is no mention of it in the detail--that is easily put right.
"That is why sustainable development is such an important part of this Government's programme. We must ensure that our economy
thrives, so we can deliver the schools and hospitals we want, the jobs we need, and provide opportunities for all. But we must ensure that economic growth contributes to our quality of life, rather than degrading it. And that we can all share in the benefits.
Talking about sustainable development is not enough. We have to know what it is, to see how our policies are working on the ground. We must hold ourselves to account--as a government, but also as a country. Because the only way in which we will succeed is if we all play our part".
It is difficult to argue with that, although it is disappointing that there is only very passing reference in the document to the role of education in achieving sustainable development. I would have hoped--this is intended as friendly criticism--that the Department for Education and Employment would register its commitment to sustainable development education with a little more conviction.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |