As I have noted already, the expert panel set up by government to think about revisions to the national curriculum, has proposed that one of the high-level curriculum aim statement is this …
The school curriculum should develop pupils’ knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes to satisfy economic, cultural, social, personal and environmental goals. More specifically, provision should be developed to: … promote understanding of sustainability in the stewardship of resources locally, nationally and globally.
Clearly, not everyone is happy with this wording, but anyone wanting to change this is hamstrung by two factors.
The first is that it's not our statement to change. The second is that, even if we could, it cannot be more than a few extra words as all these 5 statements are high-level aims, and necessarily pithy.
However, if we were to change it, what would we do? What follows are a few words on this taken from comments to the blog and from a note by Paul Vare.
It’s probably fair to say that few of those who think a lot about sustainability, schools and learning would have come up with this as a preferred phrasing for a high-level curriculum aim featuring sustainability. In particular, the concept of stewardship would probably not have been proposed as some see it as associated with an “anthropocentric mindset” to the exclusion of the rest of the biosphere.
However, stewardship conveys a sense of responsibility (towards our environment and living things) that grows from within. Thus, including it as a high-level curriculum aim would lead to a range of pedagogical approaches from direct contact with nature, to core science skills, to critical enquiry, and to conceptual knowledge of thermodynamics in the context of a finite planet.
It follows that, while stewardship may be broadly seen as helping to 'save the world', it's usefulness educationally (i.e. why it may lead to higher achievement) is that it provides a connection between the outside world and what is taught. There is also evidence that the environment (viewed broadly) is motivational for young people, and learning focused on this may well engage learners more effectively than the more instrumental: "Learning this will help you get a job."
Many would probably also not have placed a prime focus in such an aim on resources, as these might well be seen as excluding human social and global justice, and well-being, and as probably representing a ‘consumption as usual’ approach.
However, were resource distribution (in terms of equity and ethics, and in terms of meeting local needs locally as far as is possible) to be included, this would probably make for a more acceptable phrasing. Taking these points in mind, a possible re-phrasing might be this:
Promote understanding of sustainability in the ethical stewardship of resources locally, nationally and globally.
Unless, of course, stewardship is seen to include ethics anyway.
Although, as Paul Vare notes, schools cannot make pupils stewards, any more than they can make them nice, introducing the concept gives the curriculum a positive and meaningful sense of purpose beyond individual and social betterment, and that can only increase the chances of pupils seeing the point and sticking with it.
In terms of understanding sustainability, systems thinking has to be a core principle. Whilst it's not mentioned in the aim statement, a 'sense of connection' provides an example of systemic thought. Thus, another version of the aim statement, adding this point, might be:
Promote understanding of sustainability in the ethical stewardship of resources across local, national and global contexts.
…………………………..
However, I wonder if those three extra words [ from 13 to 16 ] and a bit of juggling, will make much difference.
Much more importantly, however, is what Mr Gove, and his more fundamentalist advisors, will make of the original 13.
Respond