Rosalyn McKeown

Moving Beyond the EE and ESD Disciplinary Debate in Formal Education

Many educators think of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) on a disciplinary level—what is Environmental Educations (EE) contribution to a more sustainable future? Briefly, we describe differences and similarities between EE and ESD. Next, we examine four levels of activity—disciplinary, whole school, educational system, and international—that are necessary for progress in ESD. At the disciplinary level we outline some of the contributions of geography and workplace education to ESD. At the international level, we describe three transboundary educational issues—HIV/AIDS, education of girls and women, and education for and about refugees—which require multinational responses. It is apparent that more than a disciplinary approach to ESD is needed in the formal sector. Effort on all four levels and cooperation between levels is important for education to fulfil its role of moving communities and nations toward a more sustainable future.

EE and ESD: Two Paradigms, One Crucial Goal

The launch of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD) gives the education community opportunity to reflect on and discuss major issues that will affect the future well-being of our world. Discussions should include questions such as, “What is my discipline’s contribution to a more sustainable future?” and “What are the ties and linkages between my discipline and ESD?” In this article we look at the similarities between environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD). We also describe some lessons learned from more than 35 years of EE history. These lessons could help ESD avoid pitfalls common to nascent disciplines and to advance its efforts and chance of success.

Using Rubrics to Assess Student Knowledge Related to Sustainability: A Practitioner’s View

As institutions of higher education reorient curriculum to address sustainability, the first step is usually to weave sustainability into the curriculum. Changes in pedagogy, including assignments and assessment of student learning, follow. Complex learning related to sustainability requires assessment techniques that mirror such complexity. This article describes an assignment for graduate students in a school of education—designing a sustainability implementation plan—and the 16-dimension rubric with three levels of performance used for assignment assessment. The 16 dimensions assess three components of the assignment: (1) description of elements of the basic plan, (2) description of the context of implementation and (3) application of principles of sustainability. An additional rubric assesses writing skills. Rubrics are useful beyond grading; they also help students conceptualise the assignment.

Progress Has Been Made in Education for Sustainable Development

People complain that education for sustainable development1 (ESD) has not made progress and that education is the forgotten priority of the Rio Earth Summit. They say there is not enough funding for ESD, there is not enough coordination, there is not enough direction, and United Nations (UN) agencies have spent too little to promote and implement ESD. In short, I hear two messages: “It’s someone else’s fault,” and “I want money.” Who, after all, is responsible for ESD? Although the UN sponsored the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, national governments— specifically, the 179 governments that participated in Rio—are responsible for implementing all 40 chapters in Agenda 21, including Chapter 36, “Education, Public Awareness, and Training.” The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the Task Manager for ESD within the UN system. That means UNESCO serves as a facilitator and mobilizer within the UN family and, as appropriate, attempts to play a similar role with national governments and with civil society. This designation does not mean that UNESCO is responsible for implementing all of ESD within the UN. UNESCO is not a funding agency. At best, it can provide seed money here and there, mostly in the developing world. This is true not only for ESD but for all other programmatic areas of UNESCO’s work and for virtually all of the UN system.2 The Commission on Sustainable Development’s Work Program for Education, Public Awareness, and Training for Sustainability designated governments as key actors for 10 of the 23 action items, and UNESCO serves as the principal actor for only 3 items (clarifying and communicating concepts and key messages, working on an electronic registry, and developing guidelines for reorienting teacher training). Governments are responsible for such action items as task B1: “Develop policies and strategies for reorienting formal education toward sustainable development.” If governments are responsible, then we must work with them— from the national to local levels—to implement ESD. We must fundraise at home rather than going to UN and UNESCO headquarters in New York or Paris. Some people claim that ESD has not made progress. But it is important to examine and recognize which components of ESD have progressed. According to Chapter 36 of Agenda 21, ESD has four major components: improving basic education, reorienting existing education, increasing public awareness, and developing specific training programs. None of these four areas is devoid of progress.

Education for Sustainable Development: past experience., present action and future prospects

In his address to the American Council on Education, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has identified education as ‘a global priority’. He speaks of sustainability in terms of human security. ‘Our definition of security must encompass economic well-being, social justice, environmental protection, good governance and the rule of law.’ Annan goes on to say, ‘Education is the principal agent in efforts to build the pillars of human security’ (United Nations, 1997). In the early 1990s, the province of Ontario, Canada, mandated every school board to create ‘outcomes based’ curricula. The mandate essentially required the entire curriculum of the Board of Education for the City of Toronto to be rewritten. The following account is an example of revision of a formal curriculum and the accompanying school board reform that covered many of the attributes that theoreticians of education for sustainable development (ESD) describe as essential assets in re-orientating education systems to address sustainability. Five of these essential assets of re-orientation include:

Teacher Education 1992 and 2012

Over the past 20 years education for sustainable development (ESD) has become part of the discourse in teacher education and the teaching community has a better grasp of ESD’s action-oriented and participatory pedagogies. The International Network of Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) associated with the UNESCO Chair on Reorienting Teacher Education to Address Sustainability at York University in Canada began meeting in 2000. It has expanded to more than 65 countries where teachers have woven sustainability into existing courses as well as created courses, certificate programs and graduate degrees in ESD. They have created professional development opportunities for colleagues as well as local, national and international networks to advance ESD. They have started academic journals. Education ministries can now write policy requiring ESD as part of initial teacher preparation because there is on-the-ground practice to support such policies as well as TEIs that can provide professional development.

International Network of Teacher Education Institutions: past, present and future

This paper examines the history, activities and future interests of the UNITWIN/UNESCO Chair on Reorienting Teacher Education to Address Sustainability and the associated International Network (IN) of Teacher Education Institutions. In 1998, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development work programme on education for sustainable development (ESD) requested UNESCO to develop guidelines for reorienting teacher training to address sustainability. This responsibility was passed to the UNITWIN/NESCO Chair who established the IN. Participants recorded their efforts in journals, chronicling successes and failures. In 2004, IN members were sent a survey requesting information about what worked, what did not work and insights and recommendations for other institutions of teacher education. The responses were synthesized in Guidelines and recommendations for reorienting teacher education to address sustainability. Several UN agencies and regional offices have incorporated these Guidelines into their efforts. Members of the IN are now engaging other institutions of teacher education through workshops and mentoring to reorient teacher education.

Energy Myth Two – The Public is Well Informed About Energy

The American public is highly educated. About 25% of Americans have bachelor’s degrees (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005a). In some cities like Seattle and San Francisco 51% of the population over the age of 25 have bachelor’s degrees (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005b). Additionally, more than 80% of American youth enroll in some form of tertiary education within 5 years of leaving high school (UNESCO, 1998). As an educated nation, we expect people to be well informed about current events and issues facing their communities, especially since information arrives easily into households and businesses via the Internet. Unfortunately, the public is not well informed about a number of issues that face contemporary society like energy and the environment (NEETF and Roper, 2002; NEETF, 2005). Yet because information is so readily available and accessible via search engines and because we are an educated nation, it is tempting to assume that the public is well-informed. Unfortunately, availability of information does not directly translate into increased public understanding. Other factors such as personal motivation greatly affect individuals’ willingness to learn and their awareness and knowledge (Bigge and Hunt, 1980). Furthermore, the sheer quantity of information available to the public is growing so rapidly that no one can be a global scholar. Lyman and Varian published a study How Much Information? 2000 that concluded:

Interpreting Survey Data to Inform Solid-Waste Education Programs

Few examples exist on how to use survey data to inform public environmental education programs. I suggest a process for interpreting statewide survey data with the four questions that give insights into local context and make it possible to gain insight into potential target audiences and community priorities. The four questions are: What percentage of the problem is the target audience causing? What is the probability of change? What are the communitys priorities? Is it more advantageous to use educational funds to educate about other important solid-waste issues or community priorities? Survey data combined with the answers to these four questions form the basis for creating local environmental education programs. Examples from solid-waste management are used to illustrate the process.