I know that what the world really needs is "love, sweet love", whether sung by Dionne Warwick or others, but what we've finished up is the Lucerne Declaration. As IRGEE 18.4 reports, this is actually the Lucerne Declaration on Geographical Education for Sustainable Development [ LDGESD ]. As the declaration notes:
"The International Geographical Union Commission on Geographical Education proclaims this Declaration and recommends the principles presented in this document as a basis for a sound Geographical Education for sustainable development to all geographers and governments in the world."
I suppose what I really want to know is why this isn't just a basis for a sound, mainstream geographical education that everybody does [full stop] If geographical education isn'tnow focused on sustainability, does it really deserve the name?
Nick Jones reminds me that John Westaway (QCA Geography officer) said in about 1998 that Sustainable Development would likely be the "saviour" of Geography. But Ofsted's gloomy 2008 report on Geography in schools seems to indicate the opposite:
"At a time when geographical issues such as floods, rising sea levels,
conflict resolution, famines and trade disputes constantly make the
headlines, there is some evidence that the provision of geography is
declining."
10 years on, and it's citizenship which seems to be some bookies new favourite in the Saviour Stakes.
Not sure if all this 'makes me break down and cry' or simply want to 'walk on by', to paraphrase the informative Ms Warwick. There seems plenty of valuable stuff going on in schools, however [and despite], so maybe these declarations and the claims of competing subjects are in effect a side show. In which case, walking on by seems the most sensible strategy.