Rethinking curriculum in education for sustainability in private education Victoria Australia

Rethinking Curriculum in Education for Sustainability in Private Education in Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Research Project

"Sustainability" has become a veritable buzzword in recent years that has a wide range of connotations. Companies competing in extraction industries such as oil and gas, logging, and mining, for example, have all been exhorted to develop sustainable business practices to protect their industries for future generations. Calls for a comprehensive curriculum in education for sustainability started in earnest during the 1970s and the need has become more pronounced since that time. Unfortunately, despite a growing body of knowledge concerning the importance of education for sustainability, many educational institutions remain at a loss concerning how best to deliver these educational services and what content they should include. To determine the current state of affairs with regards to education for sustainability in general and in private educational settings in Victoria, Australia in particular, this study reviews the relevant literature to develop a background and overview of the issues, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Analysis

By most accounts, time is running out for the human race and the need for action is immediate. According to Siraj-Blatchford (2009), "It is now widely recognised that humanity faces urgent problems affecting local, regional and global environments, and social and economic development. The Earth's limited natural resources are being consumed more rapidly than they are being replaced, and the effects of global warming upon ecological balance and bio-diversity are well-known" (p. 9). Not surprisingly, in response to these well-documented environmental crises, the past 40 years or so have been characterized by increasing calls for environmental education initiatives by various governmental and international organizations. For example, Palmer (1999) emphasizes that, "In recent years, alongside world-wide acceptance of the need for sustainable development, and education for sustainability, there has been an ever-increasing focus in the environmental education literature on the crucial importance of education for the environment in particular" (p. 137). Indeed, Elliott and Davis (2009) cite a fundamental misperception that education for sustainability places a higher priority on conceptual knowledge than it does on important values and skills such as problem solving, creativity and collaboration in its curricular offerings, thereby diminishing its value in formulating complex solutions to these complex problems. According to Elliott and Davis, "This is an erroneously narrow view of education for sustainability as being simply about the acquisition of knowledge about environmental topics. We suggest that this is founded on outdated transmissive modes of learning which do not reflect current pedagogical thinking" (2009, p. 66). This erroneous view of education for sustainability has caused some educators to either undervalue its potential or misapply its precepts, making revisions to current curricula even more imperative. For example, Elliott and Davis (2009) stress that, "The long-term health and survival of human populations and the health of global natural systems are closely entwined. The need for fundamental changes in how we live has become impossible to ignore. Education has a key role and all sectors must be a part of re-imagining and transforming current unsustainable patterns of living" (p. 65).

These calls for education for sustainability curricular offerings are based in large part on the perceived benefits that accrue to the provision of such educational services, including the following:

1. Education for sustainability enables people to understand the inter-dependence of all life on this planet, and the repercussions that their actions and decisions may have both now and in the future on resources, on the global community as well as their local one, and on the total environment;

2. Education for sustainability increases people's awareness of the economic, political, social, cultural, technological and environmental forces which foster or impede sustainable development;

3. Education for sustainability develops people's awareness, competence, attitudes and values, enabling them to be effectively involved in sustainable development at local, national and international level, and helping them to work towards a more equitable and sustainable future. In particular, it enables people to integrate environmental and economic decision-making;

4. Education for sustainability affirms the validity of the different approaches contributed by environmental education, and development education and the need for the further development and integration of the concepts of sustainability in these and other related cross-disciplinary educational approaches, as well as other established disciplines (Palmer, 1999, p. 139)..

The increasing calls for such educational offerings to realize these benefits, though, have been characterized by different priorities being advanced and various solutions advocated with no clear direction emerging from the debate concerning which curricular offerings are best suited to achieve the overarching goals of providing effective education in sustainability (Moon, Ben-Peretz & Brown, 2000). Indeed, Kennelly and Taylor (2007) report that, "Although the need for education for sustainability in education is well recognised, little has been published to indicate how this might be incorporated into university courses in Australia" (p. 3). Therefore, it is important to national and local governments in this part of the world to refocus their efforts to rethink curricular offerings in education for sustainability in general and in private education in particular. According to Moon and his associates, the impact of these trends on educational institutions seeking to develop appropriate curricula for education in sustainability have been profoundly constraining: "Schools and teachers struggle to find their own path through a bewildering mixture of often contradictory advice and guidance, and amid doubts about their effectiveness and progress" (Moon et al., 2000, p. 489).

Because resources are by definition scarce, it is vitally important that the curricular offerings that are developed for education for sustainability programs are effective, timely and relevant. For instance, Palmer (1999) emphasizes that, "Successful examples of sustainable development should be built into the curriculum" (p. 139). There also remains a lack of comprehensive approaches in place, though, that can be used as a set of best practices by educational institutions seeking to implement or refine such programs. In this regard, Paris (2002) points out that, "There has been increasing recognition that environmental education as it has been traditionally taught is not enough to stem the current environmental crisis. It needs to embrace a more holistic paradigm, one that incorporates the ecological, economic, social, cultural, and personal dimensions of sustainable development and their inter-relationships" (p. 100). Other educators emphasize the need for additional research to help address these gaps. In this regard, Davies, Engdahl, Otieno, Pramling-Samuelson, Siraj-Blatchford and Vallab recently observed that, "As an emerging field of practice, Education for Sustainability is seriously under-researched. This must be remedied in order to build the field on an evidence-base of critique, reflection and creativity" (2009, p. 114).

Many of the initiatives that have been intended to encourage environmental education through the Asia-Pacific region in recent years have been promoted by ministries of environment, agriculture or natural resources instead of educational ministries (Yencken, Fien and Sykes, 2000). Although these efforts have been needed, the initiatives promoted by these non-educational ministries have largely been focused on specific environmental issues instead of a comprehensive governmental commitment to sustainability; moreover, many of these initiatives have assumed the form of public awareness campaigns focused on changing individual behaviors rather than on system-wide approaches to education in sustainability (Yencken et al., 2000).

The cumulative net effect of this dearth of action by ministries of education in countries such as Australia has been "to marginalize environmental education from mainstream education policy. As a result, it is often not a priority, especially where the curriculum is overcrowded. In addition, the low profile of environmental education and sustainable development in external examination subjects contributes to a lack of status for this area of learning" (2000, p. 253). Consequently, environmental education is not widely regarded as a curricular priority by teachers, students or parents in many parts of Australia. This paucity of awareness on the part of the important stakeholders in the educational process has made it even more difficult to provide a comprehensive program of instruction in sustainability. As Yencken and his colleagues emphasize, "This makes the introduction of both in-service and pre-service teacher education for sustainability difficult and, unfortunately, when in-service courses are provided, they tend to be attended by teachers who are already committed to environmental education" (2000, p. 253). Moreover, Kennelly and Taylor also cite the lack of pre-service sustainable educational opportunities for teachers in Australia. According to these authorities, while teachers require a thorough understanding of education for sustainability in order to communicate these concepts to their students, "Sustainability education is poorly represented in Australian teacher training courses at the present time" (Kennelly & Taylor, 2007, p. 4). Likewise, Ferreira, Ryan and Tilbury emphasize that, "Teacher education is widely recognised as a key strategy that is yet to be effectively utilised to embed environmental education and/or education for sustainability in schools" (2007, p. 45).

This "perfect storm" of constraining conditions has resulted in a situation where the introduction of education for sustainability has been even more challenging. In this regard, Yencken et al. conclude, "As a result, the official as well as the 'hidden curricula' of schools are often not sympathetic to the social vision of education for a sustainable future" (2000, p. 253). Based on their review of 20 existing education for sustainability initiatives, Ferreira and her associates identified three primary models that exist along a continuum from local to more broad-based approaches as follows:

1. Collaborative Resource Development and Adaptation model: This model seeks to bring about change through the development and adaptation of high quality curriculum and pedagogy resources. It does not usually seek to bring about change across a whole teacher education system;

2. Action Research model: This model aims to build capacity by engaging the initiative participants in a 'deep' process of reflective action. This model thus targets change at the practitioner and institutional level; and,

3. Whole-of-System model: This is a radically different model from the other two in that it seeks change in a multi-faceted and system-wide manner (2007, p. 46).

An analysis of these three models by Ferreira et al. showed that while each model provided a useful framework in which to promote education for sustainability initiatives, their effectiveness was mitigated by a number of factors, including the extent to which they actively engaged learners in developing the critical thinking skills they would need to formulate alternative and innovative solutions to issues of sustainability. The focus of some of the education for sustainability initiatives reviewed by Ferreira et al. related to widespread audiences using online media, while others were more focused on developing change at the local level with a smaller group. Although larger audiences might appear to be the more valuable target, Ferreira and her colleagues found that localized initiatives tended to produce longer-lasting results. In this regard, Ferreira et al. concluded that, "With a deep level of engagement over a longer period of time it appears participants are more likely to remain committed and to continue to seek ways in which to mainstream environmental education and/or education for sustainability ideas and approaches in their own teaching, and in the teaching of their colleagues" (2007, p. 46).

Providing this type of curricular offering for education in sustainability, though, requires a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach. For example, Ferreira et al. note that, "Recent education for sustainability literature advocates holistic integrated concepts of sustainability that include the social, economic, political, cultural and ecological dimensions of the environment and sustainability, along with teaching and learning pedagogies that are process-oriented and seek to develop critical thinking skills and actively engage learners" (p. 46). It is possible to gain some insights into what has worked best in the past so that more of this can be done today. In this regard, Ferreira et al. add that, "The most successful, widespread and long-lasting initiatives were those that reflected environmental education and/or education for sustainability 'best practice' in both program focus and pedagogy" (p. 46).

Although most of the educators reviewed for this study stress the need for additional research in this area, some best practices can be discerned from recent and ongoing education for sustainment initiatives. Typically, environmental education and education for sustainability initiatives also fall along a continuum of relevance and comprehensiveness as follows:

1. Education about the environment and education about sustainability;

2. Education through and in the environment and education for sustainability, and,

3. Education for the environment and sustainability (Paris, 2002, p. 101).

Although the third level is perhaps the most important with regards to addressing the looming ecological crisis facing humankind, it is also the most controversial (Paris, 2002). By contrast, the second level has been used to good effect in rethinking curricular offerings for education in sustainability based on the "belief that the most powerful learning happened out in the landscape" (Paris, 2002, p. 101). This observation is congruent with the assertion by Yencken and his associates that, "Science is not the only way of knowing about the environment. Local and traditional knowledge, intuition and feeling have their place alongside scientific rationalism. Attitudes, assumptions, discourses, institutions, practices and personal actions all therefore need to be studied in their cultural context" (2000, p. 35). According to Companion, Laurie and Shaw (2002), "The idea of using nature as a model of sustainability is currently revolutionizing the way we think about the design of our industries, housing, food production and waste-- treatment systems. It can also help to improve the way we teach about the environment" (p. 7). For this purpose, Whitehouse (2002) recommends landshaping to promote education in sustainability. "Landshaping," Whitehouse advises, "is one means for thinking about how researchers within the broad field of environmental education can pay attention to the relationships between powerful acts of human imagination and the expression of our imaginations in language, which continue to shape our understandings through time" (p. 58).