Reflection on Engaging People in Sustainability and ESD between Systemic Change and Bureaucratic Obfuscation: Some Reflections on Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development in Switzerland

Observation

It appears that both Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) are suggesting that the current education climate is a barrier to Sustainable Development (SD). Jucker (2011) believes that education as it currently operates promotes unsustainability while Tilbury and Wortman (2004) see that new learning approaches are being called for in education yet few educators are trained or experienced in new ways of teaching.

Through personal interpretation of these two articles, both Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) are calling for a revolution in education. One that does not follow a pattern of the traditional three R’s or a behaviourist perspective of learning that at times seems to fill current pedagogy. This revolution they are seeking, although not mentioned by Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) is already set up to happen. This can be seen through the New South Wales Quality Teaching Framework (Department of Education and Training, DET 2003). The Quality Teaching Framework sets out areas of learning that should be happening for quality teaching and learning to occur. The areas of learning that the Quality Teaching Framework describes is similar to the areas that both Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) suggest need to be apart of pedagogy for successful Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD). Jucker (2011) calls this a paradigm shift in education. It, therefore, appears that Jucker’s (2011) paradigm shift already has the necessary frameworks in education, like the NSW Quality Teaching Framework (2003), for this paradigm shift to occur. This then leads to two questions that need to be answered: If the Quality Teaching Framework is similar to the learning areas that need to be addressed in EfSD, then does this mean that quality teaching and learning should produce education that fosters sustainability? And if, as Jucker (2004) suggests, EfSD is not happening, does this mean quality teaching and learning is not happening?

Implication

There are two implications that are brought about when Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman’s (2004) articles are analysed. The first implication is that EfSD is not occurring successfully, the second is the implication this then has for the current pedagogical practices that are currently being used in education systems. As mentioned, the areas of learning that need to be addressed for EfSD to occur is similar to the areas that are suggested by the NSW Quality Teaching Framework for quality learning to occur(DET 2003). If EfSD is not occurring what is happening to learning in education? If the current education climate is not producing Critical Thinking, reflection, participation and systemic thinking which are both suggested by Jucker (2011), Tilbury and Wortman (2004) and the Quality Teaching Framework (DET 2003), what is happening in our education systems? These areas create autonomous thinking, informed decision makers and the ability to see beyond the ‘box’. These are necessary skills for a sustainable society as well as effective learning and effective life skills.

Does this mean the education system is producing an unsustainable and a non-autonomous society?

Action

Perhaps I am reading too much into the correlation between what makes quality learning and what makes a sustainable society. However, I do believe they are linked and if they are, what does this mean for the current education climate? Perhaps we do need Jucker’s (2011) paradigm shift. Yet if the framework is there in the education system already, why isn’t this paradigm shift occurring. Personally, I have not seen the Quality Teaching Framework (2003) being put into action in schools. It is still about standardised testing and getting good results in English and Mathematics.

This paradigm shift has been mentioned by Ken Robinson, a creativity expert, on a TED talk. According to Robinson, education is more about mass production of ‘educated’ individuals rather than quality learning. He suggests that the current education climate stifles autonomous thinking and thinking outside the ‘box’. Robinson suggests that the current education climate kills this type of thinking, something which he suggests children can do quite easily but as they move through the education system, they lose it. This is also suggested by Dr Stephen Sterling (2004) in Tilbury and Wortman (2004) when discussing systemic thinking- ‘children seem to think this way quite naturally, but maybe it’s knocked out of them later.’ (p.91).

 So what action do we take to create a sustainable society if our education system is not delivering quality teaching? Perhaps we offer better training in the quality teaching model as well as the elements that Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) suggest are needed for EfSD. Perhaps the action needed is bigger than this, maybe it needs to be a change of values within the education system, where autonomous thinking is regarded higher than the score an individual achieves in a test. How do we change this though? For, if we want a sustainable future and where decisions are made through self-reflection and critical thinking, what is considered to be an important ‘result’ in education needs to be changed.

Tilbury, D. & Wortman, D. (2004) Engaging People in Sustainability, Commission on Education and Communication IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK.

Jucker R 2011 ESD between Systemic Change and Bureaucratic Obfuscation: Some Reflections on Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development in Switzerland Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(1):39-60.

NSW DET 2003 Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools Department of Education and Training Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate, Sydney.

Robinson K 2010 Changing Education Paradigms TED Talk  http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html 5 Aug 2011