Select Committee on Environmental Audit Fifth Report

4  ESD in Schools

30. It is surely through the education system that we have the best possible opportunity to educate today's children, and future generations, about the need for sustainable development and, more importantly, how to achieve it. The role of the education system, and its ability to catch children early is, in fact, going to be absolutely vital if, as we believe, the concept of Sustainable Development is simply not registering with the general public, and if there is no discernible change in behaviour to meet the challenge of climate change as described by the Prime Minister.

31. DfES already has the tools which should enable it to assume this responsibility and deliver ESD. There is the overarching, cross-Government, UK Sustainable Development Strategy, which we will discuss at the end of this report, the DfES' own Sustainable Development Action Plan, and the National Curriculum. In addition, it can also call on the expertise of a very experienced and passionate NGO network, already working within the ESD sector; and then there is the real advantage DfES has, one which is not enjoyed by Defra, for example, the advantage of a captive audience.

Sustainable Development Action Plan

---

32. The DfES Sustainable Development Action Plan (SDAP) was published in September 2003. In the foreword to the SDAP, the then Secretary of State for Education, the Rt. Hon Charles Clarke MP, said,

"We have theorised about sustainable development in education for long enough. That is why this is not a strategy but a plan of action. We need to embrace sustainable development across the education system so that best practice becomes common practice. Not as a bureaucratic add-on but as an integral part of the skills development of this country."[18]

The SDAP contains four objectives:

Objective 1  -  education for sustainable development

Objective 2   -  the environmental impact of the DfES and its partner bodies

Objective 3  -  the environmental impact of the education estate

Objective 4  -  local and global partnership activity

We were very pleased to hear that an SDAP was to be published in September 2003, believing it would represent a significant step forward for DfES. We were also very encouraged to see the commitment and energy for ESD implicit in the then Secretary of State's foreword. We therefore looked forward to seeing what progress had been made in the intervening months against the four objectives.

33. In its written evidence DfES said that the process of change had begun and that since the Plan had been published "much had been achieved against the objectives".[19] The memoranda went on to list eight of the achievements it attributes to the SDAP.[20] Of those eight achievements, three related to the sustainability of the school infrastructure; school buildings (Building Schools for the Future), school transport (the Schools Transport Bill) and the general health of pupils (Healthy Living Blueprint) were all mentioned. A fourth achievement listed was the fact that DfES was getting its "own house" in order and was achieving "more than 90% success in recycling out of date publications and passing IT equipment on to schools and charities".[21] Indeed, during the course of the inquiry when we received any positive feedback about the SDAP it was invariably in relation to these types of initiatives, the projects that look after the external factors relating to schools and which relate largely to Objectives Two and Three. For example, in its oral evidence FEdS (Finance and Education Services) was very positive about the Building Schools for the Future project and the efforts being made by the DfES team to maintain what is a huge project.[22] Similarly, RSPB also commended DfES for its progress against Objectives Two and Three.[23]

34. Of the remaining four achievements listed by DfES, one referred to the creation of the Global Gateway, a website intended to "enable people involved in education across the world to engage in creative partnerships",[24] clearly an achievement against Objective Four. The list also referred to the creation of the online "toolkit", "Learning to Last", for the Further Education sector and the inclusion of ESD into the study materials offered by the National College of School Leadership, both of which could probably be classed as achievements against Objective One. Given the very low point from which the SDAP began, these achievements must all be seen as very positive steps forward.

35. However, it is about progress against Objective One that we remain most concerned at this stage. The first achievement listed by DfES in its memorandum is actually more of a general statement about how much it says has been done to raise the profile of ESD in schools. It states:

"Much has been done to raise the profile of ESD in schools, to ensure that young learners experience ESD and engage with this at a local level, whilst appreciating the more global aspects also, and where they fit in the 'bigger picture'."[25]

This is a view of progress against Objective One which is flatly contradicted by many of those who contributed to this inquiry and which we have already explored to a small extent earlier in this report. In its written evidence, Ofsted stated that, "generally, ESD is not seen as a priority in the drive towards school improvement. Much of the guidance and information being provided to schools has no, or at best, very little reference to ESD".[26]

36. In its written evidence, RSPB was also concerned about the lack of progress in Objective One. It said:

"The RSPB is rather more critical of the implementation of Objective 1 - Education for Sustainable Development. Actions such as the development of the Growing Schools network, the new framework for schools and the QCA website on ESD are all praiseworthy but appear rather fragmented. Little progress appears to have been made with promoting sustainable development with some of the key agencies such as OFSTED, the Teacher Training Agency and the National College for School Leadership. The RSPB believes that these agencies are critical to the delivery of the Action Plan."[27]

37. 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.

Who knows about the SDAP and how successful has it been?

38. We found that the SDAP was widely known throughout the NGO sector. We fully expected that a plan developed by DfES and designed to help achieve four objectives highly relevant to the education sector would be just as well-known in every school and education establishment in England. In fact, 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.

39. In its written evidence, the Development Education Project, Manchester [28] was very positive about the fact that the SDAP existed at all but was able perfectly to illustrate a significant problem with how the SDAP was actually communicated to educators. It said:

"The main achievement was in getting the Action Plan produced so soon after the EAC enquiry and covering the four key areas that it did, plus making clear who should be involved in each part of it. However, though it said that there has been enough talk and the plan will be about action, this has not been seen on the ground. The Plan itself obtained very little publicity beyond those working in the field. We rarely come across teachers, trainees or tutors who are aware of it. At a recent conference of 60 Secondary Geography teachers in one of the Greater Manchester boroughs, I held up a copy of the plan and asked how many had seen it - about five had (many of them new trainees we had worked with on their university course) - yet Geography is one of the subject areas that explicitly has to cover sustainable development issues."[29]

40. When we tried to establish just how the SDAP had been disseminated to schools, to those who seemed most likely to need to know what it contained, not to mention what the SDAP expected from them, we found a very confusing picture indeed. In his oral evidence Mr John Westaway, Consultant for ESD at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), said that he did "not perceive that the Action Plan has had a tremendous impact on schools" and, whilst he conceded that this was not based on any firm evidence, he went on to say that he thought "there would be many schools blissfully unaware of the Action Plan".[30] We asked Mr Michael Stevenson, Director for Strategy and Communications at DfES how the SDAP had been disseminated and communicated to schools in particular. Mr Stevenson said that the SDAP had been "disseminated broadly across partners and agencies, specifically to schools"[31] and he went on to explain how this was done:

"…it was made available on the website and we directed attention to that using our panoply of communications channels with schools, and predominantly our other web portals, including "TeacherNet",[32] our Teachers' Magazine, which goes out to every single school in the country, our governors' magazine likewise."[33]

41. This was not the way in which the DEA viewed the implementation of the SDAP. In its written evidence it stated:

"…a major weakness of the implementation of the Plan is that far too few people know about it. There has been very little press or media coverage around it. The Department made little attempt to work in partnership with key stakeholders in education to identify how we could communicate our common key messages and goals. As a result, if and where teachers and other educators hear about the Plan, they are all too dismissive because it is perceived as 'just another short-term initiative' with no extra resources."[34]

42. The way in which the SDAP was disseminated and communicated could well explain why so few schools appear to be aware of it. Mr Stevenson said that it was DfES policy to try to limit the number of pieces of paper that teachers and school staff are sent, hence the switch to greater use of websites. However, the heavy reliance on websites as a means of communication has been the focus of a number of negative comments from those who have provided evidence to this inquiry. This is particularly relevant when we look at the National Curriculum and how ESD is, or is not, taught, but it is also very important here when we consider that the SDAP is the document that brings together in one place the four objectives which presumably schools and other institutions need to meet, or at the very least aspire to.

43. The original explanation of the way in which the SDAP was disseminated to schools, given to us in oral evidence by Mr Michael Stevenson, was repeated in the first DfES supplementary memoranda but this time it was qualified by an additional statement which said:

"The Action Plan is a high-level description of action and so it was felt that it was not essential to send it to every school, particularly as part of our aim is of reducing bureaucracy."[35]

We find this contradiction troubling. If the SDAP is judged by DfES to be high-level and feel it is not essential for it to be sent to every school, why does it need to be sent to any schools? This statement suggests that the SDAP is either not relevant to schools or needs to be summarised in some way so that schools only have to be sent those parts of the Plan they need to know about. Partial dissemination of a Plan which may not be fit for purpose for those schools which did receive it seems to be a waste of time for everyone concerned and sends entirely the wrong message to those receiving the Plan.

44. Of course we understand why DfES might want to steer away from the more traditional, hard copy, methods of information dissemination in many cases; we are only too aware of how very busy teachers are and how difficult it can be for them to stay on top of their paperwork. However, we are not at all convinced by this argument when it comes to important strategy documents, such as a department's Action Plan. Even where only part of a document is relevant to a school and its staff, surely it is only right that that part is properly communicated to those who need to see it?

45. We asked Ofsted whether it thought DfES had handled properly the delivery of the SDAP so that it might have maximum exposure at all schools across England and we received the response that "perhaps more could have been done in that sense".[36] When pressed for an opinion, Mr Iwaskow awarded DfES just two marks out of ten for communication of the SDAP.[37] 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.

46. As for the success of the SDAP, in its written evidence, Waste Watch was quite clear that its success or otherwise was impossible to judge. It said:

"It is difficult to measure the progress of the Sustainable Development Action Plan as it has no targets, timeframe or reporting structure. Those involved in delivery of ESD cannot easily monitor progress or identify ways of involvement. No real consultation with the environmental education sector (particularly NGOs) has taken place and no comprehensive identification of existing programmes and projects has been undertaken to assess how they might contribute to a wider framework and the key targets contained within it."

47. 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.

Leadership

48. The Sustainable Development Action Plan received a markedly less high profile launch than that afforded to PE and Sports in Schools, for example, when the latter was launched in December 2004. That initiative was considered important enough to merit the Prime Minister's involvement and had £519 million of funding attached to it. Whilst the SDAP was launched by the Education Secretary, it did not have any funding overtly attached to it.

49. Not only was the SDAP the subject of a relatively low key media launch, but it was delivered to schools via websites and magazines and without any additional supporting training for those expected to help achieve the Plan. There were no indicators or targets set for the measurement of progress against the four objectives contained within it and it was almost completely starved of funding. This was not a very auspicious beginning for a Plan that promised so much. With so little priority attached to it by the centre, and with so many other competing priorities against which they are tested, is it any wonder that many schools put the SDAP some way down their "to do" list?

50. 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. Over twelve months after the publication of the SDAP, regardless of what other progress has or has not been made, it is surely not acceptable to hear from witnesses like Trewin Restorick, (GAP) that leadership is a critical issue and is currently not being offered by DfES:

"There is a big question about leadership and desire here. I do not think DfES have the desire to deal with this particular issue. The mantra that is coming out of DfES civil servants when I speak to them is that they want to push the resource down to the schools for the schools to make the decisions about what they want to spend their budget on. It does not correspond with what is happening on things like sport. What DfES do not seem to be willing to take a leadership role on and an understanding of is that, if schools get to the stage where they decide they want to embrace this agenda and they need support to do it, they need an infrastructure that can provide them with that support. They need localised, specific, thought through support. DfES are avoiding that whole particular part of the need to promote environmental education in schools. They are not willing to put any investment in at all, not just resource but also intellectual thinking, support and guidance into the infrastructure that will enable schools at all levels to take the lead in this."[38]

51. This was by no means the only criticism of the DfES leadership role, with a number of memoranda linking this lack of leadership with a failure to think strategically. We were particularly interested to see the written evidence from the Development Education Association (DEA). The DEA were concerned about the loss of the Government Sustainable Development Education Panel (SDEP), which was wound up in 2003, and attributed the failure of the SDEP to its demise. DEA told us:

"This panel achieved a great deal which in our view has not informed the current delivery of the strategy. It operated at a strategic level and worked in partnership with a range of key stakeholders in education […] a fundamental weakness of progress since 2003 has been the failure by DfES to recognise the importance of strategic ownership and engagement on a collective basis. This has led to the delivery of the Plan in a fragmented manner with NGOs and educational bodies competing for resources, status and engagement with the department. The consequence has been that the actions of DfES have led to a more divided, more competitive and less strategically engaged ESD NGO sector. This is a missed opportunity as the nature of ESD should bring together a broad coalition of policymakers, educators, NGOs and learners from varied traditions working towards achieving shared aims of sustainable development."[39]

52. The loss of the Panel is felt by some to have led to a significant reduction in the opportunities for bringing together, under one umbrella, some of the very good, but often isolated, conceptual thinking on ESD which is being conducted in England. Ofsted refers to it as looking at "the development of the whole child rather than one curriculum area".[40] When we asked QCA where it thought this very important conceptual thinking was being undertaken it was interesting and telling to hear that all of its examples referred to universities or NGOs, most notably the Council for Environmental Education (CEE) and Forum for the Future, and not DfES itself. Given the parlous state of funding for many NGOs, this is far from ideal. 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.

53. Before we move on from the SDAP we must return to the question of whether or not we had unrealistically high expectations for progress against the Plan given its relatively short time in existence. If what we had been expecting was for every school and college, every adult education centre and work-based learning programme, to be fully up to speed with ESD and happily teaching the subject, then we most certainly would have been doomed to disappointment, and legitimately could have been seen as naïve. However, what we hoped to find was that the SDAP had laid the foundation for this degree of progress but in this we were badly disappointed.

The Tomlinson Report and the White Paper

---

54. The Tomlinson Working Group's final report, "14-19 Curriculum and Qualifications Reform", was published in October 2004. The Working Group was set up in the Spring of 2003 to make recommendations to the Government on the reform of education for 14-19 year olds. The Group had eighteen members and approximately eleven sub-groups which looked at a variety of related issues. Sir Mike Tomlinson, introducing the Report, said that the Working Group had been asked to make reforms to achieve:

• greater coherence in 14-19 learning programmes and strengthened structure and content of full-time vocational programmes:
• suitable 14-19 assessment arrangements; and
• a unified framework of qualifications.

55. Announcing the Tomlinson Report in the House of Commons on 18^th October 2004, the then Education Secretary the Rt. Hon Charles Clarke MP said that his Department would take into account the Report and its conclusions when preparing the Department's then anticipated education White Paper. Whilst clearly this does not constitute a commitment to accept or adopt any or all of the Reports recommendations, it does suggest that the Report would be considered as a basis for some of the White Paper. We were keen, therefore, to see what consideration and weight had been given to ESD in the Report. 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. [41]

56. In fact, almost everyone we spoke to, and the vast majority of the memoranda we received, expressed the view that the Tomlinson Report represented a lost opportunity as far as ESD was concerned. In its written evidence, RSPB said:

"The 14-19 report represented a real opportunity to integrate education for sustainable development into the heart of the Government strategy […] RSPB is particularly disappointed that no consideration of ESD appeared in the report and the significance of sustainable development has been substantially ignored. If the Government is to live up to its commitment to sustainable development it is difficult to understand why such an opportunity was missed." [42]

57. This view was repeated again and again throughout the evidence. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said that ESD would "not be adequately represented in any forthcoming White Paper based on the report [Tomlinson] as it did not figure here and is clearly not on the agenda of the 14-19 Working Group."[43] WWF went on to say ESD needed to be "embedded in to the heart of the 14-19 Curriculum and Qualifications Reform and not placed as a post-publication add-on".[44]

58. The Development Education Association (DEA) went further, referring to the Tomlinson Report, not only as a missed opportunity, but also as evidence of the lack of strategic thinking across the Department. It went on to say that, "by concentrating on short-term and specific initiatives, the Department has lost sight of the bigger picture and where, for example, sustainable development needs to be located within the learning for 14-19 year olds".[45]

59. A few witnesses took a more positive view of the Tomlinson Report. Forum for the Future, for example, was optimistic about the value of the Tomlinson Report, saying that "the general blending, the more holistic approach of Tomlinson is something which we could applaud […]its overall direction and the fact that it is so radical […] means that whoever is affected by it will be going through a change process and that is an opportunity to intervene and get sustainable development on to the agenda"[46] Ofsted too was able to be more optimistic about the possibilities falling out of the Report. During oral evidence, Mr Peter Daw, Divisional, Curriculum and Dissemination Division (Ofsted) responding to the suggestion that Tomlinson was a wasted opportunity, said:

"Clearly the view was that perhaps more could have been done to explicitly raise this part of the agenda. There are clearly opportunities in the Tomlinson recommendations for the development of core studies […] there are opportunities that can be taken for elements of the ESD agenda to be pushed forward."[47]

60. 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.

Unrealistic expectations

61. Not all of those we spoke to in the course of this inquiry shared the view that the Tomlinson Working Group had failed to recognise and incorporate ESD into its final Report or that the White Paper should necessarily contain any greater reference to ESD than any other subject. Of particular interest was the evidence we took from Mr Brian Stevens, of the Finance and Education Services (FEdS). Mr Stevens had been directly involved in two of the Tomlinson sub-groups. In his written evidence, Mr Stevens, was quite clear about the lack of priority attached to ESD when he stated:

"The point has not been made that Education for Sustainable Development is a key central lever. If it were, it would have been mentioned in the report and its effect would have been seen to be driving through both main and core learning. It formed no part of the discussions that I was party to as a member of the United Qualifications Framework Group and as Chairman of the Employers' Group. Education for Sustainable Development forms one of those large rather shadowy issues like financial literacy, which everyone is aware of, which everyone agrees is somehow important but which very few get to grips with. It is not seen in the first order of importance and will not be so seen if the business case for it is not made more precisely and forcefully."[48]

62. Mr Stevens' assessment that ESD has not been identified as a key lever reflects the view expressed in many of the memoranda we received and so was not surprising. However, Mr Stevens also offers a very revealing insight into the inner-workings of the Tomlinson Working Group and goes a long way to explaining why ESD did not figure in the final Report. During oral evidence Mr Stevens explained further. He told us that the Tomlinson Group had not been looking "at this sort of detail, it was setting a learning framework" and he went on to say that it was "wrong to think of it as a specific opportunity for sustainable development. It was no more specifically for financial literacy either. It was setting up a much, much broader framework."[49]

63. It would seem that we, and the majority of those who contributed to this inquiry, may have been labouring under a false impression if Mr Stevens' assessment of the remit of the Tomlinson Working Group is accurate; and given his membership of two of the sub-groups we have no reason to disbelieve him. 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.

The 14-19 Education and Skills White Paper

64. DfES published its 14-19 Education and Skills White Paper on 23^rd February 2005. [50] It is fair to say that, by the end of this inquiry, we had little hope left that ESD would figure to any significant degree in the White Paper. The Tomlinson Report, said to be one of the key documents which would feed into the White Paper, was silent on the subject of ESD. In its original written evidence, DfES offered no reassurance either, again consigning ESD to being a "bureaucratic add-on". It said simply:

"DfES will publish a White Paper to respond to the final Report of the Working Group in the New Year. If proposals are accepted implications for sustainable development will be one aspect to be considered as implementation and development work is carried out."[51]

65. In the event, we could find nothing meaningful or substantive in the one reference to ESD to be found in Chapter Five of the White Paper where it refers to "Preparation for society".[52] It says,

"The KS4 requirements in RE, PE, sex education, citizenship and the non-statutory framework for personal, social and health education (PSHE) provide a foundation of knowledge and skills crucial to living, learning and working in modern society. Education about sustainable development, for example, can help young people to understand the consequences of their actions for themselves and others, both in their own communities and globally."[53]

66. 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.

ESD and the National Curriculum

---

67. The Education Act 2002, which incorporates the Education Act 1996, requires that Programmes of Study should be taught. The law also requires that pupils between the ages of 5-16 should be taught about "sustainable development" in the National Curriculum Programmes of Study in Geography, Science and Citizenship and that "economic, social, cultural and environmental considerations" should be taught as part of Design and Technology. The revision of the National Curriculum in 2000 was supposed to raise the profile of ESD, asking schools to promote pupils' commitment to sustainable development. The DfES publication, National Curriculum Handbook for Teachers ,defines this commitment as enabling pupils to, "develop the knowledge, values and skills to participate in decisions about the way that we do things individually and collectively, both locally and globally, that will improve the quality of life now without damaging the planet for the future". [54]

68. In response to our original inquiry DfES conceded that more could be done to embed ESD in the school curriculum and said that it would lead on strengthening ESD links within geography, design and technology, science and citizenship. When we announced the follow-up inquiry therefore, we were particularly interested to see what progress had been made towards strengthening ESD in those four subject areas.

69. DfES provided us with examples of the progress it said had been made so far. Referring to the QCA Schemes of Work for National Curriculum Subjects, DfES said it had been working with a number of partners, namely, QCA, the Council for Environmental Education, the Design and Technology Association, the Association for Science Education, the Royal Geographical Society, the Association for Citizenship Teaching and the Geographical Association, to develop a suite of primary and secondary units for the four subjects (Design and Technology, Science, Citizenship and Geography). The remaining examples referred again to the Building Schools for the Future programme and various websites DfES is developing to support teachers and help them, and schools in general, to learn more about sustainable development.

70. In its written evidence, DfES also used part of the Prime Minister's speech in London in September 2004 to illustrate its response. It is worth reproducing all of this part of the speech in this report. The Prime Minister said:

"There is a huge school building programme underway. All new schools and City Academies should be models for sustainable development: showing every child in the classroom and the playground how smart building and energy use can help tackle global warming. The government is now developing a school specific method of environmental assessment that will apply to all new school buildings. Sustainable development will not just be a subject in the classroom: it will be in the bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and even generates its own power. Our students won't just be told about sustainable development, they will see and work within it: a living, learning place in which to explore what a sustainable lifestyle means."[55]

71. The focus of the Prime Minister's speech with regard to schools is on non-Curriculum activity and this is clearly reflected in the DfES response to this part of our inquiry. We have already heard that this area of DfES work is moving forward and it has been the subject of positive comment from some of those who have contributed to this inquiry. However, for us, the key words in this part of the Prime Minister's speech are, "sustainable development will not just be a subject in the classroom" and "our students won't just be told about sustainable development". The assumption is that ESD is a fully-fledged subject and that children are being taught it. On the basis of the evidence we have seen and heard we believe this assumption to be wrong.

72. 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. In its written evidence Ofsted referred us to its report, "Taking the first step forward…towards an education for sustainable development", which it said concluded more than a year ago that, "while good practice exists there is still much to do, even in those successful schools, before they can claim to have met their own aspirations for ESD, or, indeed, implemented their policies in full".[56] Ofsted go on to say that this situation "remains unaltered today and in the majority of schools there is a genuine lack of understanding about what this concept actually means and how it can be used to promote a positive ethos to support learning and personal development".[57] In his oral evidence Mr Leszek Iwaskow, HM Inspector of Schools for Ofsted, told us:

"…the key issue that we are faced with in schools is a lack of understanding exactly as to what education for sustainable development is. I think it is this lack of understanding which means that schools are having difficulty in identifying where they are delivering it[…] a lot of schools do have school councils, but they do not see that as part of ESD, and I think there is a lack of understanding of ESD in general which is then seen to be compartmentalised perhaps in one or two subject areas. In those subject areas it is very much dependant on how the teachers have looked at their schemes of work and implemented it into their teaching programme."[58]

Has ESD been embedded in the National Curriculum?

73. QCA was unequivocal in its response to the question of whether there had been any improvement in the four subject areas we referred to when announcing our inquiry. In its written evidence it stated, "there is no evidence to suggest that there has been a discernible improvement in these areas in schools."[59] Ofsted also raised doubts about the strength of the foothold of ESD in the National Curriculum in its written evidence when it said:

"Despite the raising of the profile of education for sustainable development (ESD) through the revision of the National Curriculum in 2000 and the launch of the Sustainable Development Action Plan by Charles Clarke a year ago, ESD is not easily identifiable in the majority of schools in England. It is more evident and better organised in primary schools, where teachers are more used to working across a range of subjects. In secondary schools work on ESD is limited because individual departments have not fully explored the wide range of opportunities open to them […] Few schools, too, are aware of the ways in which ESD can support teaching and learning in geography, science, design and technology , citizenship, personal, social and health education and the wider school curriculum."[60]

74. We were also fortunate to be able to take oral evidence from Mr Hadrian Southorn, Secretary of the National Association of School Governors. In addition to his national role, Mr Southorn is also a Governor at a number of schools in Kent. We found Mr Southorn's evidence to be very interesting, even though it painted a less than encouraging picture of life at the sharp end. With regard to the DfES commitment to do more to embed ESD into the National Curriculum Mr Southorn said it had come as a surprise to him to see this in our original press release when we announced this inquiry. He told us:

"It did not appear to me, or to my colleagues, that I could see anything, having been involved since the National Curriculum started. I had no knowledge whatsoever that suddenly DfES had jumped on to this particular bandwagon and said, 'We want this to be at the forefront'."[61]

75. We have already expressed our concerns about the very limited achievements so far made against Objective One of the SDAP; the lack of progress in embedding ESD in the curriculum is symptomatic of this failing. 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. This focus on non-curriculum areas was the subject of comments from RSPB in its written evidence when it said:

"DfES has embarked on specific and worthy initiatives such as Growing Schools but has failed to address the fundamental lack of status of ESD in schools. In comparison with initiatives such as literacy, numeracy, citizenship and health there is a lamentable lack of commitment. It is unreasonable to expect teachers to knit together ESD in seven subjects to form a coherent whole. If DfES is to take ESD seriously, it must give a clear commitment to support the concept at all levels. This support must include teacher's professional development, head teachers training and the raising of governor awareness."[62]

76. Indeed, RSPB goes on to say that it believes the whole approach to ESD as a subject in schools "has been tackled from the wrong angle"[63] by DfES. It said:

"Rather than fragmented initiatives, the Department should have assessed and identified the key components to effective delivery in schools and built their actions around that framework. Our fear is that current practice is like expecting a dot-to-dot picture to yield a Rembrandt portrait."[64]

77. 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. However, the picture is not completely bleak, and we have seen evidence of some admittedly isolated examples of good practice and even excellence. Mr Iwaskow, of Ofsted, used a very apt description when he said, "if you were to look down on England from above you would probably see a relative desert for ESD. If you homed in there would be some oases of some excellent practice".[65] However, these oases of excellence identified by Ofsted, amongst them Crispin's School in Somerset and Farnborough Grange in Hampshire, have succeeded largely because they have committed individuals within the school who are prepared to go the extra mile and who have a personal interest in the subject.

Teachers' time and the reliance on Websites

78. Much of the work which has been highlighted by DfES during the course of this inquiry is towards web-based dissemination and communication tools. This is partly a sign of the times, of course, but also partly in response to the need to ensure that teaching staff are not buried under a deluge of paper which prevents them getting on with their core tasks. However, this very heavy reliance on websites has drawn some criticism from contributors to this inquiry, some of whom argue that teachers need more support than a website can offer and others who argue that websites are being used by DfES simply to allow them to tick the ESD box. When we spoke to Dr David Lambert, Chief Executive of the Geographical Association (GA), he told us that one of the results of the GA's recent needs analysis report, "Education for Sustainable Development, Specialist Teachers: a needs analysis", was that "teachers need to make sense of the area [ESD] themselves" and he went on to say:

"It really is not appropriate, I think, to put material on a website and hope that somehow it will have an impact across the system. Sustainable development itself is quite a complicated idea, it is also contested. If you are going to work with that in your subject, you have to converse and have a dialogue about how your subject contributes and where it can take you."[66]

79. The Development Education Association (DEA) was vociferous in its rejection of the reliance on websites to the exclusion of other means of communication. In its written evidence it stated:

"The evidence from the key stakeholders in ESD showed that the primary need was to support effective delivery at a local and regional level. By refusing to work in partnership to build on existing work and identify how best to work strategically, DfES have reduced their work on ESD to a series of minor initiatives, based primarily around a website […] producing a new website is the one thing that DfES should not have prioritised […] we are concerned that websites are sometimes perceived by DfES as something which are produced and then left."[67]

80. 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.

Ofsted Inspections and a comparison with Wales

81. It is with regard to the National Curriculum, and the role of Ofsted in particular, that we saw the value of making a comparison between how ESD is dealt with in England as opposed to Wales. We were very pleased to be able to take evidence from organisations and individuals, like Estyn and the Centre for Alternative Technologies (CAT), both of which are based in Wales. Wales is in a quite different position to that in England with regard to Sustainable Development and Education for Sustainable Development. The Government of Wales Act 1998 specifies that the statutory duty of the National Assembly of Wales is to promote sustainable development along with equal opportunities, tackling disadvantage and bilingualism. To this end, Estyn, which fulfils a similar role in Wales as that undertaken by Ofsted in England, has a duty to inspect and report on the teaching of ESD in Welsh schools. In fact, as Ms Susan Lewis, Chief Inspector of Education and Training at Estyn told us, their remit is much wider than that:

"we inspect virtually everything that there is to inspect in education and training—it is almost easier to tell you which bits we do not inspect. We do not inspect higher education other than teacher training, but everything else, from nursery education through to adult and community education, taking in various things like youth offending teams…"[68]

82. Estyn was certain that its statutory duty to inspect ESD performance gave it an advantage, saying that "if we inspect it, it tends to get done more than if we do not inspect it in terms of things in education and training [...] the fact that we inspect Sustainable Development and sustainability and what organisations are doing on those issues tends to get them more attention".[69] Whilst conceding that its lot is not an entirely easy one, with a similarly congested curriculum given as an example of some of the problems it faces, Estyn clearly gives ESD a high priority. It trains its inspectors in ESD, including those contracted as school inspectors, and actively looks for ways in which to keep their knowledge up to date. Estyn's annual conference last year, for example, was on Sustainable Development.

83. This is not the case in England, where Ofsted is not required to include ESD in its inspections. This position has not changed despite the greater commitment DfES said would be applied to embedding ESD into the National Curriculum. Ofsted has not been asked to inspect ESD. Ofsted does not train its inspectors in ESD. As a consequence, many of those who contributed to this inquiry, identified the role of Ofsted as a critical factor in the failure to embed ESD in the National Curriculum. The widely held and often expressed view was that, if Ofsted was required to inspect ESD in the same way it does many other subjects, the status of ESD in schools would be very different indeed. Whether intentionally or not, Ofsted illustrated this point very well when, during oral evidence, and comparing ESD with citizenship, Mr Peter Daw, Ofsted, told us that:

"if you look at the citizenship agenda that is very high profile; it is now an established subject in the national curriculum. It is taught in all secondary schools; it has a much higher profile as such because it is a distinct subject. ESD is less clear; it is not a subject, it is a sort of theme that is supposed to permeate various aspects of both curriculum and school life and, therefore, like many cross-curricular themes, it is more difficult […] to pin down."[70]

84. 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.

85. Ofsted is not convinced, however, that England could, or should, follow the example set by Estyn in Wales in terms of their Common Inspection Framework. Ofsted's preference, which was also reflected in the Education Bill is for a self-evaluation system, as it explained in its written evidence. It said:

"The proposed new inspection process […] has an increased emphasis on using a school's self-evaluation to shape the inspection process […] Inspectors will have to consider how a school is promoting healthy living, contribution to society and economic well-being. This process also allows schools to build into their self-evaluation any aspects they feel reflect the particular characteristics of the school […] schools are able to include an evaluation of how effectively they are promoting education for sustainable development. Where a school includes material on ESD, it will help shape the inspection for that school, although schools are not obliged to include this area in their self-evaluation."[71]

86. 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.

87. As it currently stands, and notwithstanding the self-evaluation process, Ofsted intends to return to look at ESD in more detail in its programme for 2007/08. This is part of a three year plan it has agreed with DfES. However, this detailed look will, in fact, only involve what Ofsted refers to as a "representative sample of schools".[72] We do not consider this to be sufficient, and once again it will fail to give any impetus to schools across England.

Out of Classroom learning

88. We are aware that out of classroom learning has been the subject of a separate inquiry by the Education and Skills Select Committee,[73] and we do not intend to encroach too far into this area. However, a number of the memoranda we received referred to this issue and the impact the decline on learning opportunities outside of the classroom has had on ESD. In its written evidence, RSPB was clear about the value of this form of learning, stating that "firsthand experience is the most effective form of generating commitment to the environment and [we] are disappointed that the DfES Action Plan contains no reference to the importance of firsthand experience".[74]

89. Mr David Lambert, Chief Executive of the Geographical Association spoke about the importance of field studies during his oral evidence. Having told us he believed a school garden was not a suitable replacement for a week of field study, he went on to say:

"Field work in this country is an absolute jewel which has built up over many years, many decades and has a long tradition, and it would be a great shame for it to wither any further. It is not just work outside school during the day locally but it is residential trips, where children can engage at a very deep level with each other and with teachers, with the real world."[75]

90. We are led to believe, however, that this previous mainstay of our education system is under threat largely because of increasing concerns about possible litigation should anything untoward happen during such a school outing.[76] There is no doubt that we live in an increasingly litigious society; nor is there any question that schools should take the utmost care when removing children from school, for whatever reason. And yet, many schools still manage to muster the courage to take children away on skiing and snowboarding trips, surely as dangerous a venture as any parent can imagine.

91. Furthermore, we have seen that out of classroom learning can be done, and is being done in some, albeit isolated, areas. We have already mentioned the very positive evidence we received from the National Museum of Science and Industry, in relation to getting the ESD message across to the general public. Mr Ben Gammon, Head of Learning and Audience Development, told us that the Museum reaches around 30,000 school children a year through outreach activities and it receives around 300,000 school visitors each year. Mr Gammon explained that the Museum found that teachers were "eager and very welcoming of any support that we can provide for them […] particularly subjects which they themselves were not taught at school are subjects which they feel they need extra resources, support and training to help them get that effectively across to their pupils".[77] He also gave us some insight into the way in which ESD can be sold to teachers who juggle the competing priorities of the National Curriculum. He told us that success had been as a result of:

"…linking subject areas such as sustainable development to science and to other subjects, primary schools particularly are very keen if they can tick off more than one curriculum area for their trip […] by very closely interweaving it [ESD] with the science programming that we do, the history programme that we do, it becomes a very much more attractive package for schools."[78]

92. We are not entirely convinced, therefore, that the fear of litigation is wholly to blame for the decline in enthusiasm for out of classroom learning. Rather, we would tend to agree with the view put forward by Groundwork in their oral evidence,[79] which is that 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.

Resources

---

93. Ask someone whether they have enough resources to do their job and the likelihood is that they will say that they do not. On that basis, when we asked whether there were sufficient resources available to deliver the Government's commitment to education for sustainable development, we fully expected to receive some negative responses, and we received many. In these circumstances it then falls to us to examine how valid these claims are and to make a judgement, based on all the evidence to hand, as to how important and realistic the additional funding needs are. However, during the course of this inquiry, we saw at first hand the impact of a significant reduction in funding for ESD.

94. A number of the witnesses we saw and the memoranda we received, have mentioned specifically the very important role played by the NGOs in the ESD sector, without whom, it was argued, there would be very little happening with regard to ESD. In his oral evidence, for example, Mr Leszek Iwaskow, HM Inspector, Ofsted, was unequivocal about his estimation of the value of the NGOs working in the ESD sector. He told us:

"I think the NGOs have played an extremely valuable role in raising awareness in a number of schools, and particularly some of the work in primary schools has been front-line. They have certainly had a strong impact. One of the richnesses about the system in England is that we have this vast richness of NGOs working across a number of areas within a wide range of schools, and I think that has been a strength […] The schools that I have visited which have been successful have often used the input of NGOs, but built on it and developed a whole-school approach"[80]

95. Similarly, RSPB also highlighted the role of NGOs and compared it to the role of DfES, an unfavourable comparison in fact. It stated:

"…the NGO sector is currently carrying most of the expenditure involved with the promotion of Education for Sustainable Development. DfES is involved in funding its own projects but there is currently no funding stream to develop new initiatives."[81]

96. These NGOs largely rely, however, on streaming funds from Government departments, supplemented for a lucky few by corporate or charitable funding. In the last few years the criteria by which funds are allocated from two major Government funding streams have been altered, cutting off funding to a number of NGOs and condemning them to live what some, like Groundwork, have called "a hand to mouth existence".[82] The funding streams which have been largely lost to the ESD sector are the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and the Environmental Action Fund, both are operated by Defra.

The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS)

97. The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS) was introduced with the landfill tax in October 1996. It enables landfill site operators to donate up to 6.8 % of their landfill tax liability to environmental projects in return for a 90% tax credit. The LTCS had been a source of funding for the ESD NGO sector for a number of years but on 1 April 2003 the criteria by which funds could be accessed was changed. Objects C and CC, 'The provision of education, information or research and development to encourage the use of sustainable waste management practices such as waste reduction and recycling', were removed from the eligibility criteria for funding. That left just one category within the LTCS community fund which recognises education but this is limited and limiting as Object DA (biodiversity) states that within this category, education 'cannot be the main intent of the project'. In addition to this stipulation, any project applying under this criteria must be within a ten mile radius of a landfill site.

98. It is no surprise, therefore, that we have heard evidence of significant loss of funding for many ESD NGOs. During oral evidence, Mr Trewin Restorick, (GAP), told us that GAP had been in receipt of £300,000 from the LTCS fund for its school work last year (2003) but that had been lost. [83] Indeed, in its written evidence, the Council for Environmental Education (CEE) said that, along with GAP and Waste Watch, it had conducted research which indicated "a loss of funding on the scale of more than £4 million a year".[84] However, this is at variance with estimated figures provided by Defra, in their supplementary evidence, where it referred to an estimated total of £1.8 million "spent on projects with a formal education basis - equivalent to about £0.4 million a year or 0.8% of the category C/CC funding stream".[85] It is possible that this discrepancy may be caused because Defra is referring to a slightly different time period and only in relation to formal education. The CEE figures also relate to informal education. On this basis, we have been unable to establish the true cost the loss of the LTCS represents to the ESD NGO sector but we have heard enough evidence to suggest that it is significant and will have a negative impact on the sector's ability to continue its work.

99. When we asked Mr Restorick how he was attempting to replace the funding lost through the LTCS, he told us:

"We have scoured high and low, as have most of the other organisations we talk to. We have managed to pick up a pittance from some charitable trusts and local authorities and some companies. There is no large source of funding to replace it. There is a new lottery fund aimed at young people and you could, at a really tight squeeze, get environmental education into that, but that is the only source."[86]

The Environmental Action Fund (EAF)

100. The Environmental Action Fund was launched in 1992 and was intended to help voluntary organisations in England to support government environmental objectives in the absence of more direct and obvious funding. The fund, which has a value of approximately £4 million per year, is managed by Defra and a funding round is held every three years. For the period 2002-05, the focus of the fund was to support understanding and awareness of sustainable development and biodiversity. A number of the NGOs who have contributed to this inquiry received money from the EAF for that period. However, for the funding round 2005-08, the focus of the fund was changed to "sustainable consumption and production" and to projects "that find ways of making sustainable living attractive to consumers and sustainable behaviour attractive to producers".[87] This change in focus has had a dramatic impact, as can be seen from the tables below, which have been taken from written evidence provided to this inquiry by the Council for Environmental Education (CEE).

Table 1: Comparison of 2002-2005 and 2005-2008 Defra Environmental Action Fund Grant Award of funding of education and related projects

2002-2005 grant scheme (estimates from project descriptions)

Total projects	58	Total awarded	£11.772 million
Education projects	13	Total awarded	£3.671 million (31%)
Community awareness projects	6	Total awarded	£0.874 million (7%)
Other	15	Total awarded	£7.227 million (62%)

2005-2008 grant scheme (estimates from project descriptions)

Total projects	36	Total awarded	£7.133 million
Education projects	3	Total awarded	£0.509 million (7%)
Community awareness projects	14	Total awarded	£2.847 million (40%)
Other	19	Total awarded	£3.777 million (53%)

A game of pass the parcel

101. It is not surprising that, once DfES assumed responsibility for ESD, Defra would take the opportunity to look at the focus of the funds it manages to ensure that they are going to deliver against its own revised objectives. In these circumstances it is entirely appropriate for Defra to decide to revise the criteria by which NGOs can access the funding streams it manages if it believes a change of focus is necessary. This is good financial management. However, this only works for any NGOs likely to be affected by the changed criteria if the new Department, the one under which their work now sits, picks up the baton and, always supposing the new Department considers the work important and of value, makes funding available so that their work might continue. This does not appear to have happened with regard to ESD and far too many ESD sector NGOs have fallen through the funding cracks.

102. Again, describing the funding crisis GAP had found itself in, Mr Restorick, of GAP, told us:

"It has been a fantastic game of pass the parcel. The fact that DfES have taken a lead on this particular issue has been a great opportunity for Defra to throw the ball to them and say, "You run with it". Defra have therefore taken out the environmental education aspect […] the Environmental Action Fund, which is one of the few grants that are available to environmental education. DfES have not caught the ball, basically. They have been highly specific in saying that they will not put more resources into these areas. They have been specific in what they wrote in the action plan and in conversations."[88]

Mr Restorick was speaking about a funding situation which, for GAP and a number of other organisations, related to the known loss of income from the LTCS, and the possible loss of funding through the EAF. Since giving evidence, both GAP, and others, associated with this inquiry, have failed to secure funding through the EAF.

103. In its original response to this inquiry, DfES said it thought ESD did have sufficient resources, in both manpower and funding, devoted to it.[89] Given the withdrawal of Defra funding streams to ESD sector NGOs, however, we asked DfES to provide us with additional information relating to its funding provision for ESD. We were particularly interested in how the funding for ESD compares with subjects like sport and music. We are grateful to DfES for the timeliness of its response.[90]

104. DfES does not have a separate budget for ESD but told us:

"It is DfES policy to embed funding for ESD within the different policies which have responsibility for some part of ESD. This is to enable ESD to be embedded within the relevant policy area and to spread ownership of the agenda within DfES. In 2004-2005, NGOs will be funded by about £1million for ESD projects. In addition, DfES will be spending £161,000 over the next two years for the Sustainable Development Commission to help us implement the Department's SD Action Plan, including the recruitment of Dr Jake Reynolds as Senior Adviser."[91]

105. 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.

106. 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.

107. In its further supplementary memorandum DfES said it was "difficult to draw comparisons between ESD and school sport, healthy living and citizenship" because "ESD is covered by most of DfES' work".[92] We find this statement astonishing, not least because, if that really is the case, on the basis of the evidence we have seen, it can only mean that a great deal of the DfES' work is failing. We asked DfES what it intended to do to ensure that the work of those NGOs who have lost out on funding through the LTCS and the EAF was continued in schools. The response we received was not encouraging. DfES told us:

"It would not be in line with the Department's overall policies to take on the specialized work of NGOs or to fund the many services available to schools. Rather, we are diverting as much funding as possible directly to schools so that they can make appropriate decisions locally as to which services they wish to buy in."[93]

108. DfES does not make it clear in their evidence whether the funds to be diverted to schools will be ring-fenced for ESD, or whether it is a general fund to be spent on a number of competing priorities identified by each individual school. If it is the latter, and given that we have been told that ESD has a profile which is patchy at best in far too many schools, and virtually unknown in some; and if, as we suspect, it remains a low priority until such time as it is made clear that DfES considers it a priority and has Ofsted inspect it as it does other subjects, what realistic hope is there that schools will use these funds for ESD? Similarly, 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.

ESD: a comparison with Sport and Music

109. It is in funding that the lack of priority and value attached to ESD becomes very obvious indeed. In the short period during which this inquiry has been running, DfES have made a number of high profile announcements, launching particular initiatives. For example, on 14 December 2004, the Prime Minister announced "a half-billion pound boost for PE and Sport in our schools".[94] This funding, some £519 million, was in addition to funding of £459 million announced in 2002. The Prime Minister said:

"This investment will give today's children new opportunities to take part in sport - inside and outside the school gate and before, during and after the school day. Sport is not only important in its own right; teaching kids how to win, lose and be part of a team. It is also important in tackling obesity in young people and can act as an antidote to the anti-social behaviour of a minority by channeling their energies."

110. Similarly, on 24 November DfES issued a press notice trumpeting the appointment of a Music Manifesto Champion and additional funding of £30million over three years. Announcing the funding, David Milliband, then School Standards Minister said:

"At the time of the Music Manifesto launch in the summer I announced that we were continuing with the ring-fenced Music Standards Fund until 2008 - almost £180 million between now and 2008. I am pleased today to announce a further £30million in 2007-08, which will be aimed primarily at giving every primary school pupil the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. This will be a key supplement to rising school budgets as we expand music provision in primary and secondary schools".[95]

111. When the Rt. Hon Charles Clarke MP launched the SDAP on 23 September 2003 there was no mention of what funding was attached to the Plan, quite the contrary in fact, as Mr Clarke said that "often it will not require extra funding - we simply need to use our existing resources more wisely".[96] The derisory level of funding for Education for Sustainable Development, when compared with that for Sport and Music, for example, is telling. It is clearly the case that Music and Sport form an important part of school life. However, the disparity of funding between these activities and ESD, when seen in the context of the Prime Minister's description of the "far reaching impact" and "irreversible destructive power" of climate change, is anomalous. 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.

A long-term strategy

112. There is a clear need for a commitment to long-term, strategic funding. It needs to be long-term, not only to avoid the "hand-to-mouth" existence of many NGOs, but also to guarantee that the work continues. Ms Jacky Ramsden of GirlGuiding UK told us that what was needed was "funding which is not a tap which opens and shuts, open, shuts; we want to set up projects that are really worthwhile so it needs to be long-term strategic ideas and funding".[97] However, whilst we entirely agree with the need for long-term funding we are also mindful of the comments made by Dr Andy Johnston, Head of Education and Learning at Forum for the Future. Talking about potential barriers to changing behaviours, Dr Johnston said:

"what we are referring to there is what you might call the 'project mindset', or the 'initiative mindset' within government and the feeling that if sustainable development comes along, that is something they may be able to put a little cash behind and run as a project […] this is not a great approach to any particular thinking that you want to achieve, but if there is one particular ambition that is completely scuppered by initiative and project thinking, it is sustainable development. Sustainable development is all about joining up things and it is all about doing things at the same time, and government joining up, as we all know, is a challenging agenda at the best of times, as is Civil Service joining up […] if sustainable development is going to happen, core funding streams need to be supporting it, core policy streams need to be supporting it, and the achievement of those core funding streams is very difficult within government as it stands at the moment."[98]

113. Although we have made comparisons with spending on Sports and Music to illustrate the total disparity between the funds made available for those subjects and ESD, we do not believe that simply increasing the funding for ESD is the answer. In their supplementary memorandum, DfES explained that there is a statutory requirement for Sport within the National Curriculum and that the reason the Government is investing £1.5 billion in PE and school sport between April 2002 and March 2008 is because there is a requirement to meet a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target. There is no PSA target attached to ESD. If we had needed any further indication of the lack of urgency and priority attached to ESD by DfES we need look no further than the oral evidence we took from Derek Twigg, MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools when, in response to the widespread concerns about funding for ESD, he told us:

"I appreciate the concern and the reasons for that. To be frank as well, we have got priorities within the budget as a whole, but within that we will look at the criteria to see whether we can actually find any way of helping. At the end of the day, I have got to look at the overall priorities I have got in this particular role that I have. I will come back to you when I have examined it and had time to think about it and reflect on the way we might be able to take this forward."[99]

114. 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.

115. A long-term strategy must also seek to resolve the issue of competition within the NGO sector and, in some cases, the negative impact that has had. We have already heard that RSPB consider that "the actions of DfES have led to a more divided, more competitive and less strategically engaged ESD NGO sector" and Ofsted too has concerns about this. Whilst it too agrees that NGOs are currently responsible for the majority of the work in the sector it attributes the "patchy and unstructured development across schools" to the fact that this work is not co-ordinated from the centre. 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.

UK Sustainable Development Strategy

---

116. When we launched this inquiry, the UK Sustainable Development Strategy was still under review. We were anxious, therefore, to canvass the ESD sector's opinion as to what the Strategy should contain best to serve the furtherance of ESD in the coming years. Whilst the review involved all departments across Government, it was led and championed by Defra. The launch of the new UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy occurred before we had completed our deliberations and has therefore allowed us to assess how the new Strategy now represents Education for Sustainable Development and whether it meets the hopes of those who have contributed to this inquiry.

117. In its original memorandum DfES, responding on behalf of the Government, said that the Government had "consulted on how it can help and encourage people to adopt more sustainable behaviour" and it confirmed that education, at all levels, was identified as a "key issue" by many of those responding to the consultation. In response, we were told that an interdepartmental group had been established to develop work on changing behaviours and ESD, which would be feeding its work into the final strategy. The group included representatives from DfES, Defra, DCMS and the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC).

118. A summary of the consultation responses received by Defra was published on 29 October 2004. We were pleased to see that one of the three key themes to have emerged during the consultation, to which 844 organisations or individuals responded, was the need for "improved education, provision of information and communication of sustainable development".[100] This was also reflected in the evidence we received. Most of those who contributed to our inquiry saw the review as an excellent opportunity to incorporate Education for Sustainable Development into the Strategy to a much greater degree than before. In its written evidence the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) said that "the new strategy should clearly state the key role of education for sustainable development in the delivery of the country's sustainable development agenda".[101]

119. Another very important addition which it was felt should be incorporated into the Strategy was the inclusion of ESD as a headline indicator. This was a need highlighted by many of those who contributed to this inquiry. Whilst there was already a headline indicator for education contained in the original Strategy, it was far too general and made no reference to ESD. We raised the need for ESD indicators in the Strategy with the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the Rt. Hon Charles Clarke MP, at the end of 2003. In his response, Mr Clarke said that his department was "working closely with Defra officials on the Review of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy to influence the inclusion of Education for Sustainable Development in the revised indicators". We confirmed that this was the case when we spoke to Defra officials during oral evidence where they were able to confirm that constructive discussions about ESD indicators had taken place.[102]

120. Given the assurance we received from the then Secretary of State the Rt. Hon Charles Clarke MP, the more recent confirmation from Defra that indicators for ESD had been discussed in connection with the new Strategy, and the fact that many of those who contributed to this inquiry, and who highlighted the need for indicators for ESD, also requested broadly similar outcomes in their response to the Government consultation on the Strategy, we looked forward to seeing a new UK Sustainable Development Strategy which would take full account of ESD.

121. The new Strategy entitled "Securing the Future", which was issued on Monday 7^th March 2005, and does appear to be giving greater priority to the very real need to get the ESD message across to the general public. For example, we are particularly interested to hear about new initiatives and programmes, such as "Community Action - Together We Can", which seems to have been given the challenge to "re-invigorate community action on sustainable development by promoting new and existing opportunities to get involved in action of this kind. It will set out what is to be done to enable, encourage, engage and exemplify community action to increase sustainability and contribute to the priorities set…"[103] 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.

122. Whilst we are pleased to see that there is now an indicator entitled "Sustainable development education", our pleasure is muted. Of the sixty eight indicators now contained within the Strategy, this is one of only five which remains stubbornly blank, with no "Related Public Service Agreement or other relevant policy statements" attached to it. Indeed, this omission is recognised in the Strategy where we are told that both Defra and DfES are "actively seeking to develop an indicator to show the impact of formal learning on knowledge and awareness of sustainable development." We are told that "further work is needed on this" but that "the Government hopes that a suitable indicator will be agreed later in 2005".[104] 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.

123. We are also compelled to comment on those parts of the new Strategy which relate directly to ESD in schools, the SDAP and the National Curriculum. The Strategy acknowledges the important place that formal education holds when it says,

"[it] has a crucial role to play in both raising the awareness among young people of sustainable development, giving them the skills they need to put sustainable development into practice in later life; but also in forming good habits at an early age. Sustainable development principles must lie at the core of the education system, such that schools, colleges and universities become showcases of sustainable development among the communities that they serve […]the Department for Education and Skills aims to ensure that sustainable development is embedded in the core education agenda across all education and skills sectors."[105]

124. We agree entirely with this view but we must also stress that this is just not happening. 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. When it refers to the role of DfES and the actions it will be taking to move ESD forward, the Strategy relies heavily on the SDAP, the many web-based information projects the Department seems to favour, and its belief that ESD is being embedded in the National Curriculum. We believe that this reliance is unwise and the progress made in those areas in particular does not justify such faith.

---

18   Ev119 Back

19   Ev120 Back

20   Ev120 Back

21   Ev120 Back

22   Q453-454 Back

23   Ev226 Back

24   Ev120 Back

25   Ev120 Back

26   Ev91 Back

27   Ev227 Back

28   Ev163 Back

29   Ev164 Back

30   Q478 Back

31   Q541 Back

32   www.teachernet.gov.uk Back

33   Q543 Back

34   Ev159 Back

35   Ev136 Back

36   Q371 Back

37   Q373 Back

38   Q183 Back

39   Ev159 Back

40   Q397 Back

41   Ev258 Back

42   EV227 Back

43   Ev262 Back

44   Ev262 Back

45   Ev162 Back

46   Q125 Back

47   Q381 Back

48   Ev101 Back

49   Q438 & Q440 Back

50   www.dfes.gov.uk Back

51   Ev121 Back

52   www.dfes.gov.uk Back

53   Ibid Back

54   Ibid Back

55   www.number10.gov.uk and EE49 page 5 Back

56   Ev91 Back

57   Ev91 Back

58   Q363 Back

59   Ev110 Back

60   Ev91 Back

61   Q613 Back

62   Ev227 Back

63   Ibid Back

64   Ibid Back

65   Q351 Back

66   Q623 Back

67   Ev160 Back

68   Q277 Back

69   Q278 Back

70   Q417 Back

71   Ev91 Back

72   Q408 Back

73   Education and Skills Committee, Second Report of Session 2004-05, Education Outside the Classroom, HC120 Back

74   Ev227 Back

75   Q647 Back

76   Q57 Back

77   Q56 Back

78   Q66 Back

79   Q21 Back

80   Q378 Back

81   E228 Back

82   Q41 Back

83   Q184 Back

84   Ev269 Back

85   Ev55 Back

86   Q185 Back

87   www.defra.gov.uk Back

88   Q186 Back

89   Ev123 Back

90   Ev277 (Appendix 52) Back

91   Ibid Back

92   Ibid Back

93   Ev278 Back

94   www.dfes.gov.uk/pns Back

95   Ibid Back

96   www.dfes.gov.uk Back

97   Q78 Back

98   Q130 Back

99   Q587 Back

100   www.sustainable_development.gov.uk/news Back

101   Ev209 Back

102   Q225 Back

103   The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, CM6467, page 29  Back

104   The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, CM6467, page22 Back

105   The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, CM 6467, page 37  Back

---

Prepared 5 April 2005