1
The Place of Science Education in Education for Sustainable Development.
(John Parry)
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2-5 1999
In early July 1998, an internet debate between thirty academics, non-governmental organisation officers and teachers was held to scope sustainable development draft learning outcomes. This paper traced the main elements of the debate and subsequent publication with particular reference to Science education. In particular, it explored the role that science education can contribute to the 7 key concepts of sustainable development education. Namely, interdependence: citizenship and stewardship; needs and rights of future generations; diversity - cultural, social, economic and biological; quality of life, equity and justice; sustainable change - development and carrying capacity; uncertainty and precaution in action.
Education for sustainable development is about the learning needed to maintain and improve our quality of life and the quality of life of generations to come. It is about equipping individuals, communities, groups, businesses and government to live and act sustainably; as well as giving them an understanding of the environmental, social and economic issues involved. It is about preparing for the world in which we will live in the next century, and making sure that we are not found wanting.
Environmental education has been around for some time but not defined in quite this way which is the latest and fullest version adopted by Sir Geoffrey Holland's Panel for Education for Sustainable Development.
There is a long history to environmental education, such as the fight for open spaces in cities by Victorians such as Octavia Hill, one of the founders of the National Trust or the 1892 opening by Sir Patrick Geddes of the Edinburgh Outlook Tower - one of the first urban studies centres. The Victorian's interest in nature led to a tradition of nature studies which developed into rural studies but in the 1960s this became a bitter battle between those who resisted moves towards examinations in environmental education and specialists within Geography and Science who did not view the subject as worthy enough for establishing new intellectual and occupational identities.
An injection of impetus in schools came in 1989 with the publication by HMI's Curriculum Matters No.13 on Environmental Education which resulted from the May 1988 Council of Education ministers of the European Community agreeing 'to take concrete steps for the promotion of environmental education throughout the community.'
With the introduction of the original National Curriculum came Guidance booklet no. 7 on environmental education as a cross curricular theme, followed in 1996 by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's 'Teaching Environmental Matters through the National Curriculum'.
All these initiatives were presented only as guidance to teachers and what was missing was a coherent strategy not just directed at teachers but across the board from a national perspective and business partnerships, to local authority co-ordination, as well as education in schools and within the community.
In February 1998, the Government set up the Sustainable Development Education Panel, to run for 10 years and chaired currently by Sir Geoffrey Holland, Vice Chancellor of Exeter University. It has been charged with producing aims and objectives for the country as a whole over ten years in relation to sustainable development and its first report at the end of last year commented on the lack of a proper definition, as well as an incoherence of overlap, enthusiasm and energy by various bodies working separately.
The Panel highlighted the fact that local authorities needed a much greater understanding of the issues with regard to planning and development; employers needed to engage much more; government had to play its part; pressure within the school curriculum needed to be maintained and integration of sustainable development into all aspects of life needed to become a keystone of policy rather than a special pleading or a bolt-on, optional extra.
And so in July of last year, the Panel initiated a two week Internet debate between 30 academics, non-government organisations and teachers to thrash out draft learning outcomes for the revised National Curriculum. This in itself was an extraordinarily powerful exercise which generated 200 pages of text and debate and laid the foundations for what has become known as the environmental brown paper.
Right from the outset there was a concern by the debaters that simply tinkering with the curriculum, slicing up sustainability like salami, was felt to be disastrous and yet this was our perception of what the QCA were probably wanting, arguing that sustainable development education would be adequately dealt with by Citizenship, PSHE and by changing a couple of words in the Science and Geography orders. To some extent this is what has happened as I will explain.
The consensus that emerged from the debate was a wish to produce some well crafted outcomes that would stimulate teachers into pedagogical approaches well suited to sustainable development education. This then begged the question of what exactly distinguished sustainable development education. The main points that emerged were:
Sustainability itself is not a static state and it is the process towards sustainability behind a constant background of change that is important.
Sustainability is not a British notion and there is much to be learned from the South and other countries and cultures - here ICT has a powerful role to play.
Sustainability is value-laden and so there is a need for encouraging a process that helps young people question and determine their own values in relation to the environment, resources and wealth.
Other points were that although schools themselves could become beacons of excellence there are dangers in such a notion as a school does not become 'green' by simply conserving energy, collecting batteries or sorting waste. The crucial factor must be what students learn from participating in such activities, or from deciding something else. Schools need to have a voice which tells government, 'we're working on how to do our bit, but we're only a small part of the story - stop telling us that the next generation is where it will all happen and show us what else needs to happen in society, business, government etc. to make sustainability this generation's responsibility. There was also a strong feeling that we needed to get away from the bland 'recycling, plant a tree' mantras and instead look moe critically at society, government and business.
This point that sustainability must involve more than just the curriculum is both its strength and weakness and the debate tried to grapple with this in terms of outcomes that threw light on school management and practice; pedagogical approaches and internal and external communication and involvement both within schools as well as in the wider community.
This resulted in 14 generic outcomes prepared in July 1998.
1. To understand that the quality of life and standard of living are not the same.
2. To appreciate that knowledge about our environment is forever changing and is the result of many different experiences, observations and thoughts by people from all walks of life.
3. To understand that different cultures promote different attitudes to the environment.
4. To appreciate that no single subject or area of knowledge can provide us with all the answers to environmental problems or ways of living sustainably.
5. To understand that access to increasing amounts of knowledge about the environment and sustainability requires an ability to think critically about its validity and use.
6. To value the role a school can play as a sustainable enterprise and to contribute to it.
7. To appreciate that many of the connections between social issues, justice, environmental quality and rights are unfair and unjust.
8. To appreciate the value of built and natural environments existing side by side.
9. To value the diversity of species both locally and globally.
10. To appreciate that sustainable communities can only come about through working partnerships.
11. To have a clear idea of the notion of systems and cycles, different points of human intervention and their likely consequences.
12. To have a sense of the future direction of society as well as personal points of intervention and contribution to it.
13. To appreciate the roles of key individuals, both now and in the past, in shaping our attitude to the environment and the way we live.
14. To accept a degree of urgency regarding the carrying capacity of the Earth and the demands we are making on it.
I then applied to the existing curriculum at the four key stages to each of the outcomes and demonstrated this with just two of the outcomes, numbers 1 & 9.
1. To understand that the quality of life and standard of living are not the same.
KSSpecific outcomeExists Modified New
1.Relate their understanding
of science to domestic *
and environmental contexts.
2. Explore the differences between
quality of life and standard of *
living in relation to domestic and
environmental contexts.
3.Consider how applications of
science, including those related to *
health, influence both the standard
of living as well as the quality of life.
4.Be aware of the role of advertising,
product innovation and scientific
advances in promoting consumer
lifestyles and material wealth while *
reflecting on its limitations and
disruptive effects with particular
reference to the quality of life.
This grid provided the drafting group with a base on which to consolidate the final report which was sent to the DfEE and the QCA on 14th September 1998.
7 key concepts were articulated:
Interdependence - of society, economy and the natural environment, from local to global.
Citizenship and stewardship - rights and responsibilities, participation and co-operation.
Needs and rights of future generations.
Diversity - cultural, social, economic and biological.
Quality of life, equity and justice.
Sustainable change - development and carrying capacity.
Uncertainty, and precaution in action.
Each of the 7 concepts carries three aspects: Values and dispositions in which pupils should reflect and enact; skills and aptitudes; and knowledge and understanding. Specific learning outcomes for each concept are suggested for each key stage and the report is available from the Council for Environmental Education in Reading.
Arguably, the overriding thread that runs throughout this is that of values within education for sustainable development. Current assumptions in the industrial world include the notion that greater prosperity and material welfare are good in themselves; that higher standards of living mean a higher quality of life. Technology is the universal fixer of problems and a culture of rising expectations is nourished by television and information technology. This assemblage of assumptions, practices and aspirations, is in the words of Sir Crispin Tickell at a workshop at Dartington Hall in April 1998, 'a treadmill to nowhere which is difficult to get off.'
The methodology used in valuing things is also a concern - balancing fossil fuel reserves and the costs to society of pollution. For example, in 1993 electricity generation contributed 1.5% to gross domestic product but produced 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. And how can we place a value on the beauty of the earth, clean soil, water and air which we regard as our rightful inheritance?
Somehow we need to bring the long term into the short term at all levels within financial markets, government policies, local communities and the school curriculum.
So what response has there been to the brown paper? My understanding is that while the DfEE were keen on its suggestions, there was less enthusiasm from the QCA and we await the outcome of their deliberations when the final curriculum is published later this month.
However, the brown paper was mentioned favourably by Charles Clarke ( the former under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment) in an adjournment debate by Peter Luff for Mid Worcestershire on sustainable development in the National Curriculum in the House of Commons on 20th July. It was also mentioned in answer to a question by a 10 year old in the Children's Parliament on the Environment on 25th May on whether the government would make the study of sustainable development a top priority in schools and insist that it is taught.
The National Curriculum consultation materials have produced a few modest gains though and it is hoped that more will emerge in the final version.
For example, page 5 of the Introduction states that the school curriculum should develop pupils' awareness, understanding and respect for the environments in which they live, and secure their commitment to sustainable development at a personal, local and global level.
As expected, concepts such as global citizenship, environmental change and values and attitudes are well represented within the Geography draft orders.
However, within the distinctive contribution statement of Science within the curriculum - although there is reference to 'Pupils engaging in questioning and discussion about science-based issues which affect their lives, the society in which they live and the world as a whole', there is no specific reference to sustainable development.
At Key Stage 2 there is a gain in the introduction which states that, 'pupils should begin to think about the advantages and drawbacks of scientific and technological developments in environmental and other contexts.'
At Key Stage 3 under scientific enquiry d) there is reference to 'some examples of the technological uses of science in the development of products used in everyday life and in the maintenance of the environment, and impact of these.'
And under Living Things it states that pupils should, 'learn about ways in which living things can be protected within the demands of society, including the idea of sustainable development.'
At Key Stage 4 under scientific enquiry (d) a general statement on the power and limitations of science now includes a comment on 'the uncertainties in scientific knowledge..'
Within living things under (b) population size and industrial processes as examples of human impact on the environment have been strengthened by the inclusion of 'levels of consumption and waste.'
And under energy resources and transfer (b) the meaning of energy efficiency and the need for economical use of energy resources has also been strengthened by the inclusion of 'the environmental implications of generating energy.'
Within the House of Commons adjournment debate, mentioned previously, Peter Luff spoke of lost opportunities of detail within some of the statements such as pupils being taught the basic principles of cloning and genetic engineering but with no reference of any environmental or ethical implications.
In answer, Charles Clarke stated first and foremost that the science curriculum taught children that actions have consequences and that some of those consequences are irreversible. At Key Stage 3, he emphasised the focus on renewable and non renewable resources and how living things and the environment can be protected in a way that is consistent with the demands of society - which misses the point rather, falling into Sir Crispin Tickell's treadmill to nowhere. In other words there is not enough emphasis on values and the notion perhaps that society may need to think about making less demands in terms of rising expectations, for example.
However, Charles Clarke concluded by reinforcing the Government's determination to, and I quote, 'place sustainable development at the core of the National Curriculum because it is so important for the future'.
We wait to see how this manifests itself when the new curriculum is finally published.
BERA - Talk on sustainable development by John Parry, University of Sussex