Somewhat to my surprise, I found myself contributing an article to the UK United Nation's Association [UNA-UK] publication on the SDGs. Here's what I sent them:
Education as the key to everything
In 2015, the United Nations resolved: [1]
“… between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources. … .”
Although you’d have to be an incurable optimist to think that all this – and the other targets embodied within the sustainable development goals (SDGs) – will all be fully met, it would be morally reprehensible not to take the goals seriously. Happily, there is growing evidence that this is already taking place with some countries at least putting monitoring mechanisms in place to gauge progress and stimulate further development.
Whether sufficient progress is being made sufficiently quickly is another matter; as is the question of whether the role of education and learning is sufficiently understood. The work of the UK Green Alliance [2] illustrates the issues. A joint paper [3] with Christian Aid, Greenpeace, RSPB and WWF under the Alliance's NGO engagement theme [4] set out four tests (they are really policy emphases) for environmental resilience, which the authors said were essential for the post-2015 development framework to eradicate poverty and deliver long-term sustainable development. These are:
- Support environmentally resilient poverty reduction, by building national and community capacity to respond to climate impacts and natural resource constraints.
- Deliver resource efficiency and security, by building good resource management and sustainable resource use into national growth models, as well as increased transparency, access and rights for local communities.
- Enable access to sustainable, secure, clean energy for all, through economic growth models built on low carbon, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.
- Reduce vulnerability to, and the impact of, disasters and, in turn, reduce the need for humanitarian aid, while protecting lives, livelihoods and economic investments.
The Alliance argues plausibly that this framework should apply to economically-developed and -developing countries, enabling all nations to live within the planetary and social boundaries which are essential to long term global sustainability.
It has less to say about education, however, but it seems hard to believe that the four tests will be effective without considerable education and learning. For example, if we are to build "national and community capacity to climate impacts and natural resource constraints" (as point 1 contends), this suggests education of one sort or another is required as 'build' implies learning. The word build also features in points 2 and 3, and is implied in 4. Thus, the Alliance seems to will the end without thinking too much about the means. It is not alone in this.
The sort of learning that will be required if the goals are to be realised and the Alliance’s tests met, won’t just be what goes on in schools, colleges and universities, important though that is as a foundation for further study, for employment and for life. It will be the sort of learning that goes on day-in and day-out in the community, in government, in business and in NGOs; in fact in every place where initiatives related to the goals are planned, developed, monitored and evaluated. This is the sort of informal learning that is usually not considered learning at all, although it is. And, helpfully it’s the kind of activity that isn’t hampered by top-down, expert-driven sets of pedagogical instruction or learning outcomes [5] or by large educational bureaucracies.
It’s not just NGOs such as the Alliance that are taking the SDGs seriously. Business is as well. This is, in part at least, because it knows that working towards the goals can be good for business, just as business can be good for development. A recent report [6] from the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership illustrates the issues and can be seen as making the case that taking the goals seriously constitutes the equivalent of a licence to operate in the 21st century. The report argues that there are robust commercial incentives to see the SDGs succeed and for business to help deliver them, and that a holistic approach is needed whereby the SDGs are presented as a vision for the future of business in society that is capable of inspiring interest and creativity, identifying opportunities for future growth, and framing strategy for difficult trade-offs and problem-solving.
Just like the Alliance report, this document also has little to say about education. It does, however, acknowledge the need for learning, although it spends little time exploring what the implications of this are for the practice of business, and there is much here which is implicit at best and subliminal at worst. That said, this is a rich document for anyone thinking about the goals in a real-world context, especially section 2.1 which sets out a ten-year plan to lay the foundations of a sustainable economy that is capable of delivering the SDGs. This outlines ten interconnected tasks that target the systemic changes required across government, finance and business, including businesses’ role in enabling the structural and cultural transformations needed. There are ideas in this which anyone wishing to focus on the goals will surely find of interest, especially if they compare it with Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics, [7] and the recent wedding cake model [8] of the SDGs from the Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Of course, the reason why NGOs and businesses find it hard to think and talk about learning is that it’s difficult to do this, and also because such discourse tends to default to a consideration of teaching on the assumption that teaching of some sort or another always precedes learning. But this is not a helpful calculus as learning accrues from all kinds of experiences and activities, and can go on all the time. That said, it would be unhelpful to end this short article without some consideration of the more formal foundational learning referred to above.
Schools, charged as they are with the initial education of the young, have a particular responsibility in nurturing thinking and learning about what might constitute appropriate futures, and in helping students begin to develop skills and competences by doing so. [9] But Andrew Stables argues that school students are only ever likely to pick up a general and diffuse sense of concern about and for the world’s problems. He says that such skills can only really be fully developed through practice in realistic contexts, and so it’s unhelpful to think of skills and competences ever being fully developed by a particular stage. [10] Because of all this, Stables says, the school curriculum should focus on the development of skills of critical thinking, dialogue and discussion / debate. [11] Through this, young people would be enabled, should they choose, to take an increasing role in society and transformative social change (of all kinds).
In emphasising this role for the school, Stables privileges the development of skills above content. He also stresses the iterative nature of learning, participation, and decision-making. But, schools are most successful, perhaps, when they combine these elements, and Vare & Scott have argued that it’s helpful to think of two complementary approaches:
[i] Building students’ capacity to think critically and develop abilities to make sound choices in the face of the inherent complexity and uncertainty. This will tend to be dialogue and debate-oriented, and focused on controversial issues.
[ii] Providing guidance about behaviours, shifts in habit, and ways of thinking about how we live. This will tend to be content-focused, data-based, and grounded in everyday practice.
Schools seem to find it easier to do [ii] than [i], but both are important.
Finally, in relation to the SDGs, it seems persuasive that schools should:
- help learners understand why the goals ought to be of concern to them
- enable learners to gain plural perspectives from a range of viewpoints
- provide opportunities for an active, critical exploration of issues
- encourage learners to come to their own views, and to get involved
Doing less than this seems neglectful, but doing much more always runs the risk of indoctrination.
This is, of course, a liberal educational view which prioritises student learning over institutional, behaviour or social change whilst making use of any change that’s happening to support and broaden that learning. In this sense, it’s fine for a school, to encourage its students to explore the SDGs and get involved, and if this enhances social justice, saves energy, creates less waste, promotes biodiversity, etc, that’s all to the good. But it can’t be the purpose of a school to solve the problems of society or to improve the world through students’ activities. The crucial factor must always be what students learn by participating in such activities, and this, because learners never learn what teachers teach, will not necessarily be what those in authority desire.
So, is education the key to everything? Well, probably not. But learning certainly is.
........................................................
Notes
[1] sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
[2] green-alliance.org.uk/about.php
[3] green-alliance.org.uk/page_38.php
[4] Eradicating poverty through environmentally resilient development.
[5] See UNESCO’s 255 learning outcomes for the SDGs: unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf
[6] Towards a sustainable economy: the commercial imperative for business to deliver the UN Sustainable Development Goals: cisl.cam.ac.uk/publications/sustainability-leadership/towards-a-sustainable-economy-the-commercial-imperative-for-business-to-deliver-the-un-sustainable-development-goals
[7] Kate Raworth’s doughnut; see: bath.ac.uk/edswahs/2017/05/25/the-problem-with-doughnut-economics/
[8] Wedding cake; see: stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-06-14-how-food-connects-all-the-sdgs.html
[9] It’s no surprise that international testing focuses on science, maths & reading not on sustainability skills or competence
[10] Despite this, we find endless lists of such skills and competences for school and HE students to develop
[11] These might be critical questions about [i] society (easy), [ii] their own learning (harder), or [iii] their school (risky)
Respond