APPENDIX 39
Memorandum from Dr Stephen Sterling
The following responds to the seven questions
put by the EAC press release, with the exception of q6, which
is omitted here. Also, a section of Additional Comments is appended.
1. THE TERM
"ESD"
People interpreting this term tend to fall into
three groups. The first two interpretations carry problems. The
first group tends to emphasise "the environment" at
the expense of attention to the social and economic dimensions—(for
example, the issue of sustainable livelihoods and healthy economies
is not one which environmental educators are often particularly
good at incorporating into their work). The second group interprets
ESD more broadly, but in this group, the environmental and ecological
dimension tends to get diluted. The third group interprets ESD
in a more integrative way where environmental dimension gets full
but not exclusive weighting. These differences very much parallel
the interpretation of the term "sustainable development"
in wider society.
The third is the most desirable interpretation,
but it seems that most people—including educators—struggle
towards understanding it, even where they assert it. This is partly
because of the dominant reductionist mindset (which is reflected
in most education), and partly because—wrongly—the
environment, society and economy are often quoted as equal emphases.
By contrast, a "strong sustainability" interpretation
of ESD asserts that economy and society are subsystems of the
ecosphere (see diagram). This understanding, which is the basis
of all ecological economics, is vital.
However, the "development" part of
the term "ESD' tends to play into the hands of those who
assert the primacy of economic growth above environmental limits.
I agree with the EAC's "Illusion or Reality" report
on the UK Government's Sustainable Development Strategy, that
the concept of environmental limits is fundamental.
When a subgroup from the Sustainable Development
Education Panel was working on its report for the national curriculum
review (Sterling (ed) 1988), one of the original "seven concepts"
we proposed referred to "Limits to growth" but we were
advised against this and the concept became "sustainable
change" which, some of us hoped, would suggest "limits"
to readers.
It is for these sorts of reasons that many in
the field prefer the term "education for sustainability"
or "sustainability education". These terms help those
involved to see things in terms of a fresh approach to education
as a whole, rather than be tempted to pigeon-hole "ESD"
into some curriculum corner.
I have used the term "sustainable education"
(Sterling 2001) to indicate the vital need for a change of educational
culture, rather than a simple addition of "ESD" to an
otherwise unaltered educational landscape.
2. DFES ACTION
PLAN AND
PROCESS OF
CHANGE
Progress seems very slow. We are still waiting
to see the strategies from the LSC and HEFCE for example, let
alone their implementation.
3. THE DFES
SD ACTION PLAN
The whole sustainability transition involves
a learning process by all those involved. his is because, in the
words of the New Zealand report on learning and sustainability,
it necessitates "a metamorphosis of many of our current education
and learning constructs" (Williams, 2004).
Thus, it is not a simple matter of requesting
educational providers to do more on ESD. Rather it involves learning
on the part of policymakers and decision-makers, civil servants
and administrators, central and local government, institutions
and their staffs, so that a more fundamental reorientation of
educational systems towards sustainable development is made possible.
In other words, there is a double learning process involved, whereby
the education providers need to be involved in re-thinking purposes
and provision, (stage 1) so that provision is much improved—so
that, in turn, the adult and younger student bodies can better
learn about and for sustainable development (stage 2). Therefore,
the government's SD strategy needs to recognise and grasp the
size and importance of the challenge.
I would agree with those that suggest the need
for much better indicators for education and learning for sustainability,
as long as any performance indicators are balanced with process
indicators, and that they do not become burdensome and allow scope
for creativity and innovation at local level.
4. THE 14-19
CURRICULUM AND
QUALIFICATIONS REFORM
At present there is no consideration of ESD
in the Working Group's paper. This kind of omission is a common
pattern, which bears out the validity of the need for learning
amongst policymakers (point 3. above).
5. DFES' COMMITMENT
There is some evidence of progress, but often
this has not reached the awareness of schools and teachers, let
alone their practice. ESD needs to be much better linked to other
educational interests such as school improvement and management.
The TTA needs to require pre-service providers to raise the profile
of ESD in their training, and OFSTED needs to be required to inspect
and encourage ESD good practice, not as an isolated phenomenon
but as a visible part of good educational policy and practice
in schools.
However, there is some quality thinking taking
place and this is most encouraging. Tony Blair's statement (14/11/04)
which currently applies to new schools needs to become a guiding
ethos of all schools and indeed, further and higher education
establishments:
"Sustainable development" will be in
its bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and 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".
(Guardian 15/11/04).
It would be good to see this sort of thinking
encapsulated in a major statement by the minister that ESD will
be one of the fundamental guiding purposes of education. With
the UN Decade in sight, this would be timely and a very important
statement of intent. Note that 11 Baltic states adopted ESD as
major purpose in their educational systems back in 2002 as part
of the international Baltic 21 initiative (see www.baltic21.org).
7. STRATEGIC
APPROACH TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MESSAGE
Despite Tony Blair's statement above, there
is evidence that, largely, the DfES still sees ESD as meaning
"the environment", and further, "the environment"
as somehow separate from its other concerns, be it with Literacy,
Numeracy, Citizenship, or Health Education, or Thinking Skills
for example.
In other words, policymakers in the DfES need
to learn the need for and how to do the "joined-up policy"
that ESD requires.
There is little support for regional networks,
and those few that do exist should be supported and their experience
used as a basis for establishing other regional networks.
8. AVAILABLE
RESOURCES
The simple answer is that there are insufficient
funds to support ESD. Compare for example, with the Dutch experience,
where a number of programmes in environmental and sustainability
education have been significantly funded by some five different
ministries working in partnership for over 15 years. The latest
programme is "Learning for Sustainable Development—from
the margins to the mainstream" and runs from 2004-07. By
comparison, the UK effort appears piecemeal and poorly funded.
In higher education, both HEFCE and the major
funding councils need to put significant funds into research into
all aspects of ESD and support those few academic centres which
have some expertise in this area.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Curriculum
I was involved in the preparation of the influential
Sustainable Development Education Panel report (1998), Education
for Sustainable Development in the Schools Sector which suggested
seven content principles for ESD. These were scattered, rather
than kept coherent, in the subsequent revision of the national
curriculum.
While these principles are a start, I now think
them to be insufficient. New work needs to be undertaken on a
core sustainability curriculum. As well as the "seven principles'
this curriculum might include areas such as climate change, sustainable
consumption and production, ecological footprints and environmental
limits, ecological design, ecological economics, sustainable communities,
futures studies etc, translated to local needs, issues and conditions.
Ideally, there would also be some time for a "fluid curriculum",
able to respond to topical sustainability issues which might arise
(for example, fish stocks and wind energy masts are current issues).
Not least there needs to be a much better link between ESD and
current sustainable development concerns.
Although I don't really favour the term itself,
it may be necessary to label this as "ecoliteracy" and
identify it as an essential sustainability skill.
ESD in parallel to SD in wider society
If we take the EAC's recent report "The
Sustainable Development Strategy: Illusion or Reality?",
it is clear that the EAC consider that sustainable development
is not yet central to government policy. If sustainable development
cannot—logically—be a sectoral concern, but a part
of virtually all areas of policy, then neither can ESD be a sectoral
concern. In other word, ESD has to affect virtually all areas
of educational policy, purpose, provision and practice. Clearly,
ESD can be taught as a subject, and/or within existing subjects,
and in some situations this may be desirable. This might be thought
of as "focussed" ESD. At the same time however, other
subjects, pedagogy, estate management, resource use, community
links etc—ie all other aspects of educational provision—need
to reflect ESD values, concepts and practices. This might be thought
of as "contextual" ESD. Identifying these two levels
of manifestation of ESD might be helpful to policymakers.
Educational reorientation
Ultimately, it is not a matter of "integrating
sustainability into education", which is a limited and accommodative
response. Sustainability is not just another issue to be added
to an overcrowded curriculum, but a gateway to a different view
of curriculum, of pedagogy, of organisational change, of policy
and particularly of ethos.
In sum, the overriding context of learning should
be sustainable development—that is, all our futures—while
the process of sustainable development is, essentially, learning.
The effect of patterns of unsustainability on
our current and future prospects is so pressing (as the EAC recognises),
that it requires the reorientation of whole educational systems
and institutions towards sustainability. This need was identified
at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, reiterated at the Johannesburg
Summit of 2002, and in the UNECE Strategy for ESD, and will be
a key concern of the imminent UN Decade of ESD.
The key issue is one of "response-ability":
that is, how far institutions and higher education as a whole
are able to respond sufficiently to the wider context of the crisis
of unsustainability and the opportunities of sustainability. Clearly,
this is a difficult challenge, and it involves—as suggested
under point 1 above—a learning process on the part of all
actors involved in educational planning, policy and practice.
This reorientation requires some serious thinking
about staged learning, and about systemic change.
Staged learning
Learning theory suggests that "not all
learning is the same". Functional or simple learning, for
example "learning about sustainability" occurs at the
level of information and content—an accommodative response.
Deeper "second-order" learning involves critical examination
of our own and others' assumptions—a reformative response.
Third-order learning involves a change of culture or paradigm—a
transformative response. Sustainability requires at least second-order
learning on the part of policy makers and practitioners. This
is challenging and difficult, and this—in a nutshell—is
why it is difficult to get ESD really understood and properly
embedded. However, a theory of staged learning allows us to develop
models of change which relate both to individuals and institutions,
and identify and clarify stages through which learning and change
can take place over time within educational systems.
Systemic change
Sustainability requires systemic change rather
than piecemeal change in education. Because of our reductionist
legacy, the conventional response to a new challenge such as ESD
is essentially piecemeal—it is seen as a discrete and additional
area which needs to be placed somewhere. But as sustainability
is systemic, it requires a systemic or integrative response. If
the DfES were serious about ESD, it would look at the nature of
systemic change and systemic change strategies, and look at areas
such as organisational and culture change and organisational learning.
Systemic thinking
I would strongly urge the EAC to press the DfES
for the recognition of systemic thinking as a highly relevant
and necessary skill in education. Whilst such skills as logical
thinking, critical thinking and creative thinking are widely recognised
and supported, it is extremely rare to find any reference to systemic
or relational thinking in any curriculum document at any level.
Arguably, sustainability issues cannot be understood without an
ability to think more holistically and systemically (what is sometimes
termed "joined-up thinking'). As the recent LSDA report Opportunities
for sustainable development in the learning and skills sector
(Martin et al 2004) notes, "There is an increasing recognition
that systems thinking and practice are core to the new skills
required for engaging with the SD agenda'. Not least, employers
are increasingly needing people who can think relationally, flexibly
and "out of the box'.
The soon to be published WWF Linking Thinking
project is one major resource through which systemic thinking
could be encouraged among educators and their students, and it
would be good to see this officially endorsed.
The ecological design of education and learning
as a key part of the sustainability transition
Ultimately, the sustainability transition implies
and requires a shift of culture from one which is essentially
mechanistic and reductionist towards one which is more ecological
and holistic. This challenge applies to virtually all areas of
endeavour and is evidenced in growing interest in such areas as
sustainable agriculture, sustainable construction and green architecture,
green chemistry, industrial ecology, sustainable design, renewable
energy, sustainable communities, corporate and social responsibility
etc. Working towards these changes involves questions of learning,
skills and design—and this has to involve educational systems:
"Our machines, our value systems, our educational
systems will all have to be informed by this switch, from the
machine age when we tried to design schools to be like factories,
to an ecological age, when we want to design schools, and families
and social institutions in terms of maintaining the quality of
life not just for our species, but for the whole planet."
(M C Bateson, 1997, 84)
November 2004
References
Bateson, M C (1997) "Understanding Natural
Systems", in Zelov, C and Cousineau, P Design Outlaws
on the Ecological Frontier, Knossus Publishing, Philadelphia.
Martin, S, Martin, M and Cohen, J (2004) Opportunities
for sustainable development in the learning and skills sector,
LSDA.
Sterling, S (ed) (1998), Education for Sustainable
Development in the Schools Sector, A report to DfEE/QCA, Panel
for Education for Sustainable Development, September. ISBN
0 906711 37 1.
Sterling, S (2001) Sustainable Education—Re-visioning
learning and change, Schumacher Briefing no 6. Schumacher
Society/Green Books, Dartington.
Williams, M (2004) Preface, in Potter, N et
al See Change—Learning and Education for Sustainability,
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington.
Dr Stephen Sterling is a co-director of the
Bureau for Environmental Education and Training (BEET), and an
independent consultant in environmental and sustainability education.
He is an Associate Fellow of the Centre for Cross-Curriculum Studies
and an academic tutor for Education for Sustainability Programme
at London South Bank University (LSBU). He is also an associate
of the Centre for Research in Education and the Environment at
the University of Bath, and a member of the IUCN Commission on
Education and Communication. His publications include: Good
Earth-Keeping: Education, Training and Awareness for a Sustainable
Future (UNEP UK 1992), Education for Sustainability (Earthscan
1996) (with John Huckle), and Sustainable Education—Re-visioning
Learning and Change, (Green Books/Schumacher Society, 2001).
| 
