I noted the other day that the GLP management group is not exactly balanced. It comprises: Pearson, the Geographical Association, UCL Institute of Education, Oxfam UK, the Royal Geographical Society, the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT), and Think Global. This is two sets of geographers, two global-focused charities, a university development / global research outfit, the SSAT (which can't even manage to admit to being a member), and the ubiquitous Pearson – and DfID, of course, the government's global development ministry.
No wonder, then, there is a biased focus towards social justice and towards a worldview that sees the smoothing out of conflicts ** as the way forward. This is a value, apparently.
Thus, given that the sustainable development goals deal with all aspects of sustainability (more or less), where are the NGOs that are concerned with the biosphere? Why isn't WWF involved in the GLP, or the Wildlife Trusts, RSPB, WWT? Did they all turn down the chance? Or were they just not invited to the party? Does anyone know?
...................................................
** The GLP says: "By using global learning to enrich the curriculum, GLP schools are finding that global learning is helping to ... foster values such as respect and empathy." This seems just a quasi-Jungian reconciliation and accommodation of opposites. There will surely have to be more to sustainability than respect and empathy.
Respond