I've got out of the habit of writing about attempts to impose curriculum change on university teachers through the 'introduction' of ESD. \u00a0When I did, [*] I used to try to argue that reform ought to begin by looking at and learning from what universities were already doing, rather than by trying to force everyone to do what activists wanted. \u00a0It seemed a reasonable position given how much interesting work was going on by academics who were expert in their fields. \u00a0But the activists preferred the certainty of their narrow-minded certainties and so we find ourselves where we are today.<\/p>\n
I recall that ESD activists used to talk to each other in their echo chamber about how great it would be when venerable institutions (Cambridge was always mentioned) toed the line, and when the national media took ESD seriously. \u00a0Well, I don't know about Cambridge (though I suspect I actually do), but the media scrutiny has happened. \u00a0Although Mae West used to argue that being looked over was better than being overlooked, I'm not sure if the ESD cadres will be all that happy with what John Armstrong wrote in the The Spectator<\/a>\u00a0the other day (not that they'll have read The Spectator, of course).<\/p>\n Armstrong writes:<\/p>\n \"...\u00a0there remains scope for improvement in how we turn these good intentions into practical results. \u00a0One attempt to address this is Unesco\u2019s programme of \u2018Education for Sustainable Development\u2019 (ESD) which seeks to \u2018reorient education to address sustainable development\u2019, an objective enshrined in the UN\u2019s Agenda 21<\/a>. This has been adopted enthusiastically by UK educational quango the Quality Assurance Association for Higher Education (QAA) who now urge all UK university degree programmes to incorporate ESD.<\/a> But is ESD the answer to our climate woes, or might it be another case of misdirected good intentions? \u00a0One thing is certain: ESD is a radically ambitious programme. ESD abandons the traditional approach of higher education where academics develop modules and courses based on their own academic expertise. It replaces this with a top-down model where the UN sets the agenda and enforces it through national education bureaucracies.\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Just so, as I have already noted.<\/p>\n Armstrong continues: \"As the name \u2018Education for Sustainable Development\u2019 indicates<\/a>, it seeks to challenge the very purpose of education. It rejects traditional educational objectives, such as personal development and understanding, in favour of promoting the UN\u2019s vision of sustainable development.\"<\/p>\n