Conclusions and recommendations
1. Ignorance
of an individual's role in contributing damage to the environment,
such as negative bio-diversity impacts, unsustainable use of natural
resources and climate change, is inexcusable and frankly dangerous.
The longer the status quo prevails the more frightening the message
becomes and the more threatening, to the modern western way of
life, the solutions will appear (Paragraph 10)
2. It is important
for the Prime Minister to show leadership with regard to the need
for sustainable development if the effects of climate change and
other environmental impacts are to be tackled. It is vital, however,
that all parts of the Government are equally committed. (Paragraph
11)
3. The Department
for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have a crucial role to play in
helping us understand, and promoting, Sustainable Development.
The Prime Minister's vision of the threat of climate change, and
in particular the urgency he expressed about taking positive action
to deal with this threat, must be reflected in those Departments'
actions and not just their rhetoric. (Paragraph 12)
4. Whilst we have
reservations about the inappropriate use and, indeed, over-use
of the term "sustainability", we have to conclude that
what holds back the progress of education in environmental matters
is not really a problem with the terminology, whether it be Sustainable
Development, Education for Sustainable Development, Environmental
Education or something else, but rather its application, and the
fundamental lack of commitment to the basic principle on the part
of those with responsibility for promoting it and educating us
about it.
(Paragraph 23)
5. The consensus amongst
those who have contributed to this inquiry, a consensus with which
we would agree, is that the Government is failing to get the ESD
message across to the general public. (Paragraph 24)
6. Defra still has
much to do to get the Sustainable Development message across to
the public. Having made a positive start by commissioning research
in this area it is important that Defra now puts the lessons learned
from this research into practice, not only within Defra but across
Government. (Paragraph 26)
7. The National Museum
of Science and Industry, whilst relatively new to the ESD scene,
has shown commitment and innovation in its approach to ESD and
should be congratulated on its progress so far. Defra and DCMS
should work with the Museum to see how its experience could be
shared with museums across England (Paragraph 29)
8. It is clear that
the most positive signs of achievement against the SDAP, as opposed
to "activity" which is not the same thing at all, can
be found in relation to Objectives Two, Three and Four. Whilst
we welcome this progress, and commend DfES on these initial achievements,
we cannot help but draw attention to what can only be seen as
a very serious failing of Objective One of the SDAP - education
for sustainable development. (Paragraph 37)
9. what we found during
the course of this inquiry was that it was impossible to judge
with any certainty just how widely known the SDAP was outside
of the NGO sector in England. This is because there is absolutely
no way of knowing who has seen the SDAP and who is actually doing
anything to achieve the objectives of the Plan. (Paragraph 38)
10. DfES must review
the way in which it communicates key strategic documents, such
as the Sustainable Development Action Plan, to those in the Department
who need to know about it and who may well have responsibility
for delivering parts of the Plan. (Paragraph 45)
11. The absence of
any system for measurement of progress against the SDAP is a significant
failing and threatens the credibility of the Plan itself. This
is a critical error on the part of DfES and must be reviewed by
the department as a matter of some urgency. (Paragraph 47)
12. The lack of leadership
from DfES in particular has been a constant theme throughout the
course of this inquiry. The fact that the new Secretary of State
for Education and Skills, the Rt. Hon Ruth Kelly MP, has decided
not to continue to act as Green Minister, as her predecessor did,
is disappointing and serves only to emphasise the lack of priority
given to this issue in DfES. (Paragraph 50)
13. DfES and Defra
should consider how it fills the gap left by the demise of the
Government's Sustainable Development Education Panel, to provide
a central home for important conceptual thinking on ESD and thereby
help to provide a strategic dimension to the work of DfES. (Paragraph
52)
14. What we found,
however, was a total absence of ESD in the Tomlinson Report, despite
ESD being recommended to the Working Group as a "key cross-cutting
theme" by many of those who responded to the consultation.
(Paragraph 55)
15. Whilst the Tomlinson
Report may well have provided an opportunity for ESD to be somehow
"hooked on" to the various references in the Report
to vocational and skills training, the Report itself falls far
short of expectations. When introducing the Sustainable Development
Action Plan, the Rt. Hon Charles Clarke MP was quite clear that
sustainable development should no longer be a "bureaucratic
add-on" but this is exactly what the Tomlinson Report consigns
it to being. (Paragraph 60)
16. Whether intentionally
or not, as a result of poor communication, deliberate omission
or ignorance on the part of those who set the remit for the Tomlinson
Working Group, ESD was not considered by the Group. (Paragraph
63)
17. Both the Tomlinson
Report and the 14-19 Education and Skills White Paper have failed
to recognise Education for Sustainable Development as a priority.
As an indication of the way in which ESD is viewed by DfES this
omission cannot be ignored. The implications for any progress
to be made in moving ESD forward in any meaningful way have been
significantly reduced as a result. (Paragraph 66)
18. It is clear to
us that, for far too many schools, ESD is either not known about
or is judged to be a low priority. (Paragraph 72)
19. It seems increasingly
clear to us that DfES is able to be much more focused on developing
schools which aspire to be designed, built and managed sustainably,
but is unable, or perhaps unwilling, to make the same commitment
to teaching pupils about Education for Sustainable Development.
(Paragraph 75)
20. The best that
can be said about the integration of ESD into the National Curriculum
is that it is "patchy". This represents a failure of
DfES policy so far (Paragraph 77)
21. Switching the
method of dissemination and communication of important information
from hard to electronic copy might be better environmentally,
and may also prevent teaching staff being overwhelmed with paper,
but it does not address some fundamental issues. Whether hard
or electronic copy, the information still has to be accessed,
read and then, in some cases, actioned by teaching staff who have
no greater amount of time to devote to this than previously.
Combine this with the fact that, as it currently stands, there
is no real priority attached to ESD, nor is it an aspect of the
curriculum against which teachers and schools are judged, and
it is little wonder that we have so very few schools that are
aware of the SDAP, or that teachers are not comfortable teaching
ESD. (Paragraph 80)
22. The difference
between ESD and citizenship is marked and we are left to ponder
what the deciding factor is here. Is it the case that ESD is
not high profile enough, not distinct enough as a subject, to
merit Ofsted inspection? Or is it low priority and indistinct
exactly because it is not inspected? In fact, it is a combination
of both, a vicious circle which is unlikely to be broken until
DfES takes the decision to attribute sufficient status to ESD
and to request that Ofsted include it in its inspection framework
(Paragraph 84)
23. We are not persuaded
that an inspection based on a system of self-evaluation, which
allows schools to decide whether or not to include material on
ESD is any kind of improvement. We have already heard that very
few schools attach priority to ESD and we cannot see this new
system changing that fact. Unless ESD is made a mandatory part
of the self-evaluation conducted by schools we see little value
in the system. (Paragraph 86)
24. it is, in part,
a fear of litigation, but also a lack of training and experience
on the part of teaching staff, which dictates whether or not a
class will venture outside of the classroom. An overcrowded curriculum,
and the perception that ESD is a low priority for schools, serves
to stifle any remaining urges to decant from the classroom. (Paragraph
92)
25. We welcome the
appointment of Dr Jake Reynolds as Senior Adviser and look forward
to seeing what progress he can make on implementing the Sustainable
Development Action Plan. One of his first tasks must surely be
to ensure that the SDAP is properly monitored, evaluated and reported
on (Paragraph 105)
26. It is regrettable
that DfES has failed so completely to understand or accept the
extent of the funding crisis in the ESD sector and even now continues
to turn a blind eye to it. DfES must show leadership and work
quickly to contain the damage already done by developing a national
strategy to provide effective long-term funding to ensure that
there is sufficient and continued support for ESD at all levels.
(Paragraph 106)
27. given the lack
of understanding of the complexities of Sustainable Development,
which we are told is prevalent in so many schools, we are interested
to know what additional training school governors and managers
are to receive to help them make informed decisions with regard
to what ESD support they buy in to the school. (Paragraph 108)
28. If the Government
is serious about climate change and about protecting and enhancing
the environment, then it also has to be serious and realistic
about the levels of funding for ESD. (Paragraph 111)
29. Unless and until
there is a strategic review of the way in which ESD is perceived
and prioritised within government, and within DfES in particular,
so that there is a coherent, long-term plan for progressing ESD,
it is likely that what little funds are allocated to ESD will
not be used to best effect. To increase funding without this review
and commitment would be unwise and counter-productive. We look
forward to hearing from the Parliamentary Under Secretary for
Schools, Derek Twigg MP in the very near future and once he has
had time to deliberate on the ESD funding crisis. (Paragraph
114)
30. DfES, in reviewing
both its commitment to ESD and the SDAP, should make full use
of the wide range of expertise offered by the NGOs to help create
a coherent framework for their work, thereby ensuring consistency
of approach throughout the education sector. (Paragraph 115)
31. We accept that
some of the initiatives and programmes of work referred to in
the Strategy are new and will need time to bed down before any
serious analysis of their worth can be conducted. We hope that
our successor Committee will return to the subject of Education
for Sustainable Development during 2006 and this will be one of
the key areas of that inquiry. (Paragraph 121)
32. It is unclear
why there is a delay in the development of the ESD indicator,
more than twelve months after we raised the issue with the Secretary
of State in DfES. We are left to speculate on whether it is yet
another example of the low priority afforded to ESD, or whether
it is an indication that Defra and DfES simply don't know what
to do with it. Whatever the reason for the delay, it is extremely
disappointing and we would urge Defra and DfES to agree a suitable
indicator as soon as possible. (Paragraph 122)
33. It is in regard
to ESD in formal education, perhaps more than anywhere else in
the Strategy, that the Prime Minister's "moratorium on further
words", requested in his preface to the new Strategy, is
most needed. What is important now is focused action, not more
rhetoric. (Paragraph 124)
34. It is now clear
that the Prime Minister's sense of urgency about the threat of
climate change, and his commitment to do something about it, is
not matched by the actions of the Department for Education and
Skills. DfES has failed to ensure sufficient funds for ESD, has
lost the impetus that led to the creation of the Sustainable Development
Action Plan and continues to treat ESD as a "bureaucratic
add-on", and a low priority one at that. We are deeply concerned
about this failure and look to the Prime Minister, if necessary,
to ensure that DfES moves ahead and gives ESD the financial and
policy priority that it needs. (Paragraph 128)
| 
