Sustainability: One school’s search for next steps

Looking towards the future

Victoria Lewis Education Studies May 2012

Abstract

The main remit of this study was to investigate what possibilities were

available for the case study school to use as next steps towards

sustainability, and education for sustainable development (ESD). The

researcher identified that many schools in the UK are currently finding official

guidance or directives about issues of best practice around ESD provision, to

be sparse, and as such aimed to occupy part of this niche by establishing

what evidence surrounding best practice, would be pertinent to consider

when formulating plans regarding the next steps for this school.

This study was conducted in the spring of 2012, and a small (122

students) rural Gloucestershire primary school was chosen to be the case

study school. The case study for the most part took the form of an audit, and

in general was concerned with what steps the school had already taken

towards sustainability and ESD. In addition to the case study and to aid

reliability and validity and add an element of triangulation a focus group was

established comprising fourteen members, four of whom were children and

three of which were representatives from schools within the same cluster.

The literature review gave the researcher a comprehensive understanding of

ESD in a historical perspective, and as such made it possible to make an

approximation of where and how schools should make their next steps.

ii

The main findings of the study indicated that ESD needed to be

embedded within the culture and ethos of a school, in order for it to produce

students who could grow into informed and competent agents of change, and

that it was unreasonable to expect a single new initiative to comprehensively

embed sustainability within this school.

The primary implications for future practice involve shifts in pedagogy,

perspectives and thinking. It is paramount that the interactionist model of

learning is utilised more commonly in order that staff and students may

discover new knowledge, about their local communities together, so that in

the future this knowledge can add a global dimension to students

understanding of the environment, and the interconnectivity of all people,

places and times. In real terms however short, medium and long term plans

have been proposed as a way forward for this school.

Further research could include more empirical evidence regarding the

impacts of interactionist teaching and learning on other areas of school life,

for instance attendance, behaviour, pupil attainment, and morale within

schools. It would also be pertinent to establish whether sustainability that

involves older school buildings, can be contrived in a way that is more

positive and fulfilling for those involved.

Contents

iii

Introduction...................................................................................................11

Contextualising ESD, why do we need it?.....................................................12

Literature review: The government’s educational response to sustainability..................................................................................................19

Ethical Considerations..................................................................................34

Analysis of findings and discussion...............................................................37

Next Steps: How should this school move forward into the future? Implications for practice................................................................................43

Conclusion....................................................................................................50

iv

Introduction

The focus of this study is to consider how schools should deliver

education for sustainable development (ESD) The main aim of the study is to

examine one schools route (using case study methodology) towards

sustainability, and consider the options available as vehicles for the next

steps towards the delivery of sustainable development education. In order to

do this we will need to consider examples of best practice. This is an

important, central and relevant topic for the educationalists of today,

especially when we consider that all state schools are expected to be

sustainable by 2020. It appears there is very little empirical evidence of best

practice within this field, and even less guidance from governmental bodies.

This is proving to be a major concern for many schools and this research will

contribute to a growing bulk of knowledge, which aims to help schools

navigate the confusing options regarding ESD.

Here we must note that sustainability means more than children

merely learning to know and care for their home environments, but help them

to understand the intergenerational responsibilities that they have, not just

locally but nationally and globally.

We cannot consider a search for next steps towards sustainability

commonly termed education for sustainable development (ESD) without first

understanding where the need for this discourse began. So we will consider

next the events and decisions that formed the basis of ESD as we know it

today. It is important to note that any elements of desk based research that

form part of this study are sourced from published books, articles, papers,

and online publications by relevant bodies. Jesson and Metheson (2011)

propose this should involve the researcher “critically describing and

appraising what is already known” by analysing secondary sources. It seems

vital that such a study should evaluate and synthesise the literature and data

in order to create new understanding about this topic.

Contextualising ESD, why do we need it?

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)

commissioned the Brundtland report, the remit of the commission was to find

ways to increase economic growth and social equity whilst minimising the

impacts on the environment. This report commonly referred to as “Our

common future”. (WCED, 1987) was published following a world commission

conducted in 1983 to investigate the impact of development on the

environment. Development has been defined as what happens in the world

“as societies, environments and economies change.” (Adams, 2001, pp7)

The report highlighted three fundamental components, environmental

protection, economic growth and social equity. This seminal report introduced

the concept of intergenerational equity by stating that:

6

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the

present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs” (WCED, 1987, pp49)

After publication the WCED called for an international conference to

enlist the cooperation and collaboration of other United Nation States (U.N).

The UN conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in

Rio De Janeiro in 1992. An action plan, known collectively as Agenda

21(1992) was drawn up and signed by 178 member states. The aim of

Agenda 21 was to combat globally, nationally and locally every area in which

humans impacted on the environment. To ensure effective follow up on this

plan the Commission for sustainable development was created in 1992.

In response to Agenda 21 the World Resource Institute (WRI) invited

scientists from ninety five countries to conduct a comprehensive review of the

planet’s resources. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (WRI,

2003) which included the contributions of over one thousand, three hundred

and sixty experts concluded that:

“The ability of the earth to sustain future generations can no longer be

taken for granted.” (WRI, 2003,)

The WRI went on to formulate the MEA conceptual framework, a

framework of ecosystem services; these are the means by which we, as

humans benefit from ecosystems. They categorised these services into four

types. Provisioning services refers to products like fuel, food, genetic

material and fresh water. Regulating services could include the

7

maintenance of air quality, regulation of climate, the maintenance of a fresh

water supply, and the ability of the soil to avoid erosion. Cultural services

could include cognitive development, recreation, arts and spiritualism, whilst

supporting services are those that are required for all the other services to

exist, for instance production of oxygen and soil. (WRI, 2003, pp29) The WRI

concluded that protecting these ecosystems could no longer be postponed

whilst other matters like economic growth or national security were being

addressed, (WRI, 2003, pp38) but what does this really mean?

Stibbe (2009) extemporises on the prospect for future generations he

proposes that:

“We overfish oceans, clear cut rainforests, and poison land with

chemical fertilisers.....we are prepared to let the natural systems that

life depends on to suffer, but we are not prepared to slow down the

pace of monetary growth” (Stibbe, 2009, pp30)

This opinion is supported by Adams & Jeanreauld (2008) who on

behalf of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

interpreted the data from the MEA to evaluate the change in human

enterprise from 1750 to 2000. They did this by evaluating ecosystem

services, and reported that in the last fifty years humans have changed the

planet in ways that were “fundamentally different” from anything that had

happened before, and concluded that in 2005 approximately sixty percent of

the earth’s resources were already being degraded or used in an

unsustainable way. Adams & Jeanreauld (2008, pp15) This trend is

8

supported by the Living Planet Report (2010) conducted by the World Wildlife

Fund, (WWF) it reported that:

“Between 1970 and 1995, the world lost thirty percent of its natural

wealth based on measuring the state of forest, fresh water and marine

environments” (WWF, 2010, pp7)

Data from the International Union For Conservation, Nature and

natural resources (IUCN) was used to identify contaminated drinking water

as the “greatest environmental cause of sickness and death among humans”,

(Adams & Jeanrenauld, 2008, pp14) which is concerning when you consider

that simultaneously fresh water available per capita is declining globally and

measures of population, water use, and fertiliser consumption, along with a

host of other measures have accelerated greatly since 1950.

But the IUCN believe the impacts on the climate, not the environment

may be the biggest threat to future generations. (Adams & Jeanrenauld,

2008, pp17) This is supported by many experts including Chamberlin (2009)

who explains that pre industrial levels of CO2, measured in parts per million

(ppm) remained at 7ppm between the years 1000 and 1800, but that by mid

2008 this had risen to 385ppm.(Chamberlin, 2009, pp18)

Observations about climate change were also made by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who reported in

September 2007, that the planet must not be allowed to warm by more than

two degrees centigrade. They predict that if this is not achieved then:

9

“Substantial global impacts will occur, such as: species extinctions and

millions of people at risk from drought, hunger and flooding.” (Parry,

Palutikof, & Van Der Linden et al. 2007, pp7-22)

In 2006 Adams representing the IUCN urged world leaders to consider

what they classed as the three fundamental pillars of sustainability, economy,

society, and environment. It was their concern though that too often “trade

off’s” were made at the expense of the environment. This Venn diagram

(Figure 2) illustrates how the environment may be degraded in order that

social and economic systems can be developed.

Figure 2

It has also been suggested that the pillars are not equivalent; Adams

in a report from the IUCN renowned thinkers meeting in 2006 suggested that

a hierarchical view of development would be more appropriate. (Figure 3)

With the environment underpinning the emergence of society, which in turn

defines the economy. (Adams, 2006, p4)

10

. Figure 3

A criticism of figures 2, and 3 could be that they do nothing to

demonstrate the ways these three fundamentals interconnect with each other

and with us, to affect our well being as humans. The WRI produced a

conceptual framework (Figure 4) to exemplify the interaction between

humans and ecosystem services. (WRI, 2003, pp30)

Figure 4

11

Economy

Society

Environment

This framework is the first to exemplify a more global perspective and

demonstrates how factors that indirectly effect ecosystems like population

and lifestyle, can lead to changes that directly influence ecosystems. For

example the use of fertilisers to increase food production, which can cause

changes to the ecosystem services and have direct impacts on human well-

being. It also highlights how these indirect factors can have local, regional

and global, consequences spanning short and long term time frames.

12

Literature Review

The government’s educational response to sustainability.

In response to Agenda 21(1992) and in recognition that the UK was

not meeting the requirements of the agenda, in 1999 the labour government

replaced the UK round table on sustainable development, and the British

governmental panel on sustainable development with the Sustainable

Development Commission (SDC). This was a non departmental public body

(Quango) whose remit was to audit green ministers within government. As a

result they went on to produce the white paper “a better quality of life”. (SDC,

1999) This paper provided a national focus on which to build regional and

local policy. The goal was for all local authorities (LA’s) to prepare a local

Agenda 21 by the year 2000. Adams (2001) suggested four main aims of the

strategy, these four aims relate directly to the global dimensions exemplified

by the WRI in the MEA conceptual framework and are,

1) Social progress which recognised the needs of everyone.

2) Effective protection of the environment.

3) Prudent use of natural resources.

4) Maintain high, stable levels of economic growth and development.

(Adams, 2001, pp7)

13

It is interesting to note that maintaining stable levels of economic

growth is within the remit of the local agenda 21 policies, when we remember

that the WRI concluded that;

“Protecting these ecosystems can no longer be postponed whilst other

matters like economic growth or national security are being

addressed.” (WRI, 2003, pp38)

In 2000 the government revised the national curriculum and in

response to Agenda 21 and the rising profile of ESD, elements of

sustainability were made a state requirement in science, (Mandatory) and

geography, design and technology and citizenship.(guidance only) The aim

was for students to develop,

“Awareness and understanding of, and respect for, the environments

in which they live, and to secure their commitment to sustainable

development on a personal, national and global level.” (Sustainable

developmental education panel, 2000)

The complex underlying theory of ESD was broken down into seven

interrelated parts (so that these parts could form discreet elements of the

subjects they were included in). These included interdependence, citizenship

and stewardship, needs and rights of future generations, diversity, quality of

life, sustainable change and uncertainty and precaution.

In April 2004 the SDC published a report “Show’s promise but must try

harder” in which they praised elements of the UK governments progress, but

went on to state that,

14

“Far more effort needs to be made to differentiate between 'smart

growth' (that generates wealth and social benefits without damaging

the environment) and today's wholly unsustainable growth that

inevitably ends up damaging people's real quality of life.” (SDC, 2004)

In response to this report the government stepped up its efforts and in

2005 the Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a new sustainable

development strategy, which built on the previous one “Securing the Future”

identified 68 indicators that could be used to review progress across four

priority areas.

1) Sustainable consumption and production.

2) Climate change and energy.

3) Natural resource protection and enhancing the environment.

4) Creating sustainable communities and a fairer world.

(SDC, 2005, pp168)

Once again these priority areas can be directly linked to the MEA conceptual

framework. The SDC re-set the over-arching goals of sustainable

development to be,

“Enabling all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs,

without compromising the quality of life for future generations” (SDC,

2005, pp139)

This appears to mirror the concept of intergenerational equality that

was endorsed by the original Brundtland report. (WCED, 1987) it also puts

15

sustainability before the maintenance of economic growth, which had been a

criticism of the “better quality of life” strategy.

This shift coincided with the United Nation’s decade for education in

sustainable development (UNDESD) which ran from 2000 to 2010. The UN

identified five key objectives (these can almost be viewed as an action plan

to address the issues raised by the millennium ecosystem assessment)

endorsed by the SDC in 1999. The first of these key objectives emphasizes

how transformatory they believed education about sustainability to be, and

seeks to raise the profile of education as such. Other objectives included the

facilitation of better links and networking between agencies, the refining and

promotion of a vision that transforms sustainable education into sustainable

development, and the increased quality of teaching and learning in

sustainable development, all of which they hoped would strengthen the

strategies to enhance the capacity of education to boost sustainable

development.

The importance of education had previously been highlighted in

chapter 36 of Agenda 21 where the authors advocated the “pivotal role of

education in the achievement of sustainable development”. (Agenda 21,

1992) The salient thinking here was that people needed to be taught how to

explore and investigate the connections between their lives, the environment,

and their social systems. In order that they should become “active

participants and decision makers in the process of change” (Tilbury &

Wortman, 2004, pp9)

16

This change in focus was taken on board by the SDC, and the

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) when it introduced

the first Health for schools intervention which ran from 2004-2008. It was

conceived as a regional intervention which was dependant on partners from

regional industry for support. In Gloucestershire Kraft Plc, Gloucestershire

county council and Gloucestershire NHS became the foremost advocates for

Health for Schools. This coincided with the DCSF’s publication of the

Children’s Plan: Building brighter futures in 2007 which aimed to make

England, “The best place in the world for children to grow up” and stated that

“Sustainable development is non- negotiable for children’s well being.”

(DCSF, 2007)

The children’s plan was followed in 2008 by the DCSF publication

Bright Futures: Greener Lives which stated,

“Children cannot grow up in a stable, secure world unless we as a

country and as an international partner find ways to improve our well

being, whilst conserving our most precious resource, the planet”

(DCSF, 2008)

The focus of Health for Schools was to help children make

connections between their lifestyles and well-being, by providing more

opportunities for children to increase their knowledge and participate in

activities that contribute to a healthy lifestyle. With the view that before

children can appreciate the impact on the environment and the inter-

17

connectivity of people around the world they must first be aware of

fundamental personal choices that impact upon their well-being.

The subsequently endorsed programme Health for schools futures

was adopted in 2008, in response to regional industry partnership requests

and the school’s eagerness to continue working with the partners of industry;

it also broadened its goals to include education about sustainability.

The health for schools futures framework comprises of two interlocking

philosophies for schools to consider. The first is a commitment to care, and

encompasses the energy and water consumed, the waste produced, the

traffic attracted and the difficulties faced by communities both there and in

other parts of the world. While the second suggested by the qualification and

curriculum development agency, encourages an integrated approach, which

explores sustainable development through the curriculum, values different

ways of working and engages with local people and communities. (QCA,

2009, pp1) Parallels can be drawn between this and the securing the future

programme, as both philosophies echo the strategy that was set out in 2005.

The DCSF continued their work and in 2009 endorsed suggestions by

the Qualifications and curriculum authority (QCA) that a national framework

to connect the two philosophies should be adopted. Eight doorways were

suggested as national vehicles within schools, these were: Food and drink,

energy and water, travel and traffic, purchasing and waste, buildings and

grounds, inclusion and participation, local well being and global dimension. It

is not surprising that these doorways can be clearly linked to the concept of

18

provisioning, regulating, cultural and support services that the WRI proposed

and we discussed earlier.

The DCSF concluded that it would like every school to be a

sustainable school by 2020, and that

“Empowering young people to take responsibility for their own future is

not only desirable: it is a crucial feature of their education.” (DCSF,

2008,)

But this governmental push for ESD changed dramatically in May

2010 when Michael Gove minister for education in the new coalition

government, rebranded the DCSF the Department for Education (DFE). In

the sustainability vacuum that followed educationalists had to wait many

months to discover whether the new government would adopt the previous

national framework of eight doorways, or whether it would adopt new polices.

This meant that for many schools (the subject of this case study included)

that the ability to make choices about the possible vehicles for sustainability

was severely atrophied as schools were unwilling to join schemes they

believed may become defunct over time.

In Feb 2010 the department for education stated in an online post that,

“We are fully committed to sustainable development but believe

schools perform better when they take responsibility for their own

19

improvement. Schools should make their own judgments based on

sound knowledge and local needs.” (DFE, 2012)

This article posted online, by the DFE (top tips for sustainability in

schools) signposts readers to the coalition agreement, but it appears there is

little reference to sustainability education. The agreement simply states

“We need to protect the environment for future” (DFE, 2012))

The DFE goes on to state that energy use should be the most

important element for schools to concentrate on, we can speculate that this is

because the climate change act of 2008 requires the UK to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions by thirty four percent by 2020. In is important to

note that each tip suggested by the DFE and each of the eight doorways in

the national framework (which to some extent the DFE are still endorsing) all

contribute to the reducing the size of the UK’s carbon footprint. Carbon

footprint can be defined as the total set of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)

caused directly/indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product.

In addition the present government also holds a seat at United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization (UNESCO) This being the

case they support the four fundamental objectives proposed by UNESCO,

and endorsed by the DFE these are

a) To increase networking and collaboration of education for

sustainability stakeholders.

b) To provide a greater quality teaching and learning regarding

environmental topics.

20

c) To support countries in order that they can achieve the

millennium development goals.

d) d) To provide countries with new opportunities and tools to

reform education. (DFE, 2012)

These objectives have clear links to the UNDESD decade for ESD, but it

appears the promotion of ESD and the development of an ESD vision have

been replaced by remits c and d. However the last objective seems to be little

dichotomous, when we consider that the current policy for schools in the UK

provides a single solution to the problem, of how to deliver ESD which is

according to Lord Hill is a smaller national curriculum that will

“Allow schools more freedom…to provide a rich learning environment

and to use their professional judgment to organize learning.” (Hill,

2010)

The current coalition thinking is that by slimming down the national

curriculum, schools will have greater freedom to construct their own

programmes of study in subjects outside the mandatory national curriculum.

The coalition also proposes that a new curriculum will be introduced to UK

primary schools in 2014, and that this new curriculum will no longer be “over

prescriptive” and will not seek to direct teachers in their teaching methods,

only in the content of the curriculum. As we will see when we consider best

practice in schools later, teaching methods is an important paradigm when

we consider ESD.

21

In place of endorsing only the national framework with its eight

doorways and in light of the fact that the government want schools to take

more responsibility and initiative, the DFE is simultaneously signposting

schools towards the national framework and Sustainability and environment

education (SEEd)

SEEd has charitable status and aims to promote learning, develop

partnerships and promote wider stake holder engagement for those involved

in sustainable education. It has cross sectional memberships which includes

teachers, further education colleges, local authorities and non government

organizations. Lord Hill believes SEEd to be a demonstration of big society

in action, and that by creating partnerships that are community driven, Hill

recognizes that,

“Local people want solutions that reflect local needs, not central

government pronouncements.” (Hill, 2010)

At present the main focus of SEEd is to build upon the sustainable

school alliance (SSA) launched in March 2011, the purpose of which is to

drive educational change, so that all schools are in a position to

“Put sustainability at the heart of their curriculum, campus and

community.” (SEEd 2010)

Again a parallel can be drawn here with regard to UNESCO’s four

fundamental objectives. Specifically to increase networking and collaboration

within ESD and to provide greater quality teaching and learning about

environmental topics.

22

SEEd and the SSA aim to provide support and resources that help

schools to link the various agendas about education for sustainable

development, the changing face in education including shifts in paradigm and

the promotion of health and well being. The SSA was designed so existing

organizations can work more efficiently together, and provides an opportunity

for schools to navigate a difficult area. This mean that the SSA are directly

addressing the UNDESD decade of education for sustainability, which we

discussed earlier, the goal of which was to promote the

“Facilitation of better links and networking between agencies, and the

refining and promotion of a vision of transformative ESD” (SSA, 2011)

Incorporating sustainability into an already strained curriculum has

been difficult for many schools and as such most have turned to stand alone

interventions like health for schools to demonstrate a willingness to comply

with elements of sustainability education, but as we will discuss later this

piecemeal approach is not sufficient to change the behaviors of those

involved in a way that will effect lasting change.

So what are the gatekeepers of education OFSTED doing to monitor

this shift in expectation? In 2010 OFSTED redefined sustainable

development stating that,

“It is now accepted that true sustainable development focuses on

maximizing social and economic outcomes as well as environmental

ones “ (OFSTED, 2010, p4)

23

This can be paralleled with the concept we discussed in figure 3 when

we considered instead of three pillars, a hierarchy of elements that are

accepted to be the fundamental basis for development of any kind.

The coalition government as a whole identified four key areas for

improvement and these were adopted by all governmental departments

including OFSTED, who are expected to comply with them, and inspect them

in the nation’s schools. They are,

a) Sustainable consumption and production. All departments should

use fewer material goods, use locally produced goods and services,

minimize waste and maximize energy efficiency.

b) Climate change and energy. All departments should encourage

reduced carbon lifestyles and travel habits, invest in sustainable

energy sources, and use the most energy efficient goods and

services.

c) Protecting natural resources and the environment. All departments

should consider careful conservation of air, water, soil and biological

resources.

d) Creating sustainable communities. All departments should consider

green spaces with access to nature, good planning of land use and

public spaces, better transport and social support networks,

accessible low cost food, a fairer world, reducing health and other in

equalities. (OFSTED, 2010)

24

All of these areas for improvement mirror the aim of Tony Blair when in 2005

he announced the Secure the Future programme, but this time it seems that

more attention has been paid to inspecting and monitoring the progress in

these four areas in order to measure and assess improvements. But in reality

how likely is this? Many of these aims realistically are referring to the way

government departments should be run, in order to save money and have an

impact on the carbon footprint of the UK, but the final aim seems too

immense for single departments to have an effect upon and too small to act

as a catalyst, with which to form such sustainable communities. Especially

when we consider the economic climate in the UK at this time, most ministers

are concentrating on how to increase the well being of residents in their

constituencies, whilst very few are viewing sustainable communities as a

solution to the problem the UK face despite professional experts (Tilbury &

Wortman 2004, Stibbe, 2009) suggesting otherwise.

Next Steps: To find a way forward- methodology

This research takes the form of a case study with the addition of a

focus group; this means that the researcher chose an ethnographic

approach, the study falls within this remit because it required a blend of

observation (in terms of the case study) and interviews (in the form of the

focus group conversations.)

25

The case study is primarily comprised of an audit (Appendix 1) to

consider how much progress this school has made towards ESD, as well as

demonstrating which vehicles this school has chosen to use to get where it is

today. It is believed that case studies can be of particular use when

researchers wish to “analyse a problem and make recommendations”.

(Cottrell, 2008, p. 272)

In carrying out this study, researchers have identified qualitative data

that brings the subject of ESD vividly to life. By their nature case studies tend

to be difficult to generalize the findings from, but for rural schools like this one

set in an area of low socio economic status, it may be suitable to draw some

parallels. Considerations regarding the validity and reliability of case studies

can also be difficult to ensure but the inclusion of the focus group means that

some triangulation occurred which minimised the affect of researcher bias. It

has been suggested that focus groups work particularly well when

researchers wish to determine the perceptions, thinking and feelings of

participants, and that the data can then be used to gain understanding about

a topic, so that decision makers can make informed choices. (Krueger, 2009.

P.8) In this case the researcher intended to use the data for summative

assessment, in order to aid decision making about the next steps the case

study school should take.

The focus group comprised of fourteen members in total, the

members from the case study school included the head teacher, a

community governor, an adult member of the eco team, two child

representatives of the eco team, two children who were not eco team

26

members, two allotment owners, and two adult members of the local

community. The three remaining members of the focus group were adult

representatives from three separate schools, (within the same cluster as the

case study school.) These schools were chosen as appropriate because

they are all primary schools, of similar size, have similar geographical

features and a similar socio economic status to the case study school, as

such the researcher considered them to be comparable with the case study

school.

The focus group conversations took place in a variety of ways, with

fourteen members in total the researcher felt this was too large a group to

operate efficiently. This is approach has support by some who propose that

“smaller groups allow sufficient time, and considerable input from each

participant” (Bloom, Frankland and Thomas et al, 2001) as such the decision

was made to divide the participants into sub groups. The first group

comprised of the head teacher, the community governor, the two

allotmenteers and the two community members, these participants met after

school in the staff room. The second group consisted of the child participants

two of whom were members of the school eco team and two who were not.

This group met twice at lunchtime to discuss the topic at hand. The third

group comprised the adult eco team leader at the case study school, and the

three adult representatives from the cluster schools. In this case

conversations were conducted via Skype, using the non video conference

calling facility. This method was chosen partially due to the difficulty

arranging a time and venue that was suitable to all the sub group members,

27

but also in order to protect the identities of those members. Only the

researcher knew the identities of all the sub group members, and only first

names were used during conversations. This meant “that participants could

talk openly and honestly” (Liamputtong,2011) using specific examples from

their settings including information about individuals or industry partners they

had experience with, safe in the knowledge that neither they or their settings

could be identified. In reality it also meant that turn taking during the

conversation was explicit, as only one participant can be heard at any one

time. With only four members in the sub group it also seemed that everyone

had a chance to voice their opinions and experiences, with all participants

making similar levels of contribution to the discussion.

In order to provide some structure to the conversations the researcher

opted to use the barriers and enablers to ESD identified by SEEd (2008) as a

spring board to illicit conversations. But these subject starters were only ever

designed to initiate conversations and recognised that

“The most productive groups move away from the sequential question

and answer model” Littosseliti (2003, p. 26)

These barriers and enablers were made available to all participants in

all sub groups before the groups met, in order that participants were provided

some opportunity for formulation of ideas in advance.

Ethical Considerations

28

In order to ensure that the physical, psychological and social well

being of focus group members was protected, several ethical steps were

taken. Firstly in no way would they as individuals or their settings be

identifiable. All participants were made aware of the remit of this study and

were advised that participation was wholly voluntary and could be withdrawn

at any time. Full disclosure occurred regarding the aims of the study and

what the expectations regarding focus group members would be. The final

draft of the study was also made available for all focus group members to

read if they wished to do so.

It is important to note that informal interviews both in person and by

telephone make up the bulk of the evidence. Members of the focus group

were consulted in small groups in order to gauge opinion, and all

conversations were recorded with the permission of those involved. (On the

understanding that recordings were for the sole use of the researcher in this

research only and should not be disclosed to third parties, and subsequently

destroyed)

It is important to recognise here the extra ethical considerations that

any research including children must adhere to. Even though this was within

the remit of activities that are standard, every day practice for the researcher,

and as such only the permission of the head teacher was sought, (Appendix

2) it was still felt that to minimise the power imbalance (acknowledged

between children and adults) and to encourage the child members of the

focus group to be more open in their responses, that the right to withdraw at

29

any time was extended to them, just as it had been to the adult focus group

members.

Where has this school come from- where can it go? An audit

to establish parameters.

In order to establish the progress that this school has already made

towards ESD, it will be necessary to consider the audit in terms of the vehicle

that was used to get there. In this schools case the health for schools and

health for schools futures was chosen originally as the major way in which

sustainability would be addressed. Following discussions with the eco team

at this setting it seems that this initiative was chosen for the most part

because additional funding for sustainability was provided as part of the remit

of both health for schools and subsequently health for schools futures. This

setting was required to demonstrate progress in each of the eight doorways

in order to be able to claim this funding. Appendix 1 outlines the steps this

school has taken in each of the eight doorways in order to produce a

comprehensive, current audit of progress towards sustainability, and ESD

provision. As we can see much has been done to comply with the

requirements for the achievement of healthy school status which this setting

achieved in 2010, but like so many audits it also serves to highlight the

doorways that have received least attention so far, which in this case seems

30

to be the global dimension of ESD. This seems to be a common trend in

many schools, indeed conversations with the focus group included comments

about the difficulty of addressing the global dimension, and the commonly

held belief that at present not enough support or guidance is available to help

schools decide what next steps they should be taking in order to promote this

global dimension. This anomaly will be examined in more detail during the

discussion and analysis of findings.

Analysis of findings and discussion

In order to provide some structure and a starting place to encourage

useful conversations the researcher chose to use the barriers and enablers

identified by SEEd (2008) as a way to start dialogue. We will now consider

what these are and how the focus group responded to them.

First we will consider the barriers identified by SEEd (2008) which it

transpired many schools face when embarking upon the journey towards

sustainability.

The four most common barriers that SEEd (2008) identified are

certainly ones that have been experienced in this setting, SEEd suggested

that time and money were almost universal barriers, and evidence from the

six leadership team members of the focus group confirm that the initiatives

chosen by this school and others within the cluster tend to be the ones that

31

have financial incentives. This is particularly important for schools like the

one chosen for this study, situated in areas of low socio-economic status. But

this means that initiatives are not chosen on how well they fit in with the

ethos, or overall plan for the school, but on how they can contribute to it

financially. This is an important consideration for many of the leadership team

focus group members. Especially the single member within this focus group

that has successfully embedded sustainability within their school culture, he

suggested that at times the necessity for financial incentives has forced the

school to deviate from original “child led” decision making, in order to

incorporate new initiatives. He claims this can negatively affect the

“ownership” and “participation” of school members, but goes on to point out

that without funding from these initiatives many schools would have made

little or no progress towards sustainability.

The second barrier identified by SEEd (2008) Despite UNESCO’s last

fundamental objective (To provide greater quality teaching and learning

opportunities regarding environmental topics) was a lack of priority, many

schools (this one included) feel there are no real drivers from DFE or

OFSTED, and that much is being expected with little formal guidance.

Indeed the premise for this study was the lack of guidance regarding suitable

routes to achieve sustainable school status by 2020. This was a major topic

with the adult members of the focus group, with many voicing concerns over

how schools are expected to make this shift in the time frame given.

Conversations about this included possible changes to the curriculum,

especially with regard to the recommendations of the Cambridge Primary

32

Review 2009 , the role of SEEd, the lack of empirical research into best

practice, and the lack of funding to make sustainability improvements to

buildings and grounds.

The third barrier SEEd identified was lack of training, culminating in a

knowledge gap in educationalists that are expected to embark on

investigations with students. Although these investigations aim to allow

teachers and students to grow knowledge together many teachers feel ill-

equipped to conduct studies when they have little or no experience of the

interactionist model of teaching or the pedagogy comprising ESD. The

leadership team members that formed the focus group both from this school

and others within the cluster, acknowledged that lack of training and

pedagogical understanding regarding ESD was a significant inhibitor to

increased sustainability within schools. This raises the question of, how

educationalists can be expected to increase the quality of teaching and

learning with so few training opportunities available.

The forth barrier was identified as the overlap between initiatives and

the perceived competition between them, this has certainly occurred in the

school chosen for this study, as staff members champion different initiatives,

the voice of the children can go unheard. The focus group particularly the

local community members and the children both eco team members and non

eco team members, volunteered that overlap of initiatives hindered progress,

and that perceived competition between the initiatives added to this

confusion. Most of the schools within this cluster had some experience of

this and expressed concern over the effect this had on decision making. But

33

if the SDC had had more success promoting the networking and

collaboration within the field of ESD would this still have been the case?

The fifth and final barrier seems to be a concern over the age of

school buildings, this was identified by all the members of the focus group

who had experience of entering “green” competitions where schools

complete occasionally for money but generally for the kudos and recognition

of their hard work. However for some schools in a sustainability competition it

can be demoralising, when the schools who win the green flag or the

thousand pounds of prize money have state of the art new buildings that

were designed and built to be the model of sustainability. The perception

amongst many schools is that limitations of buildings and grounds negate the

possibility of ever being sustainable even by 2020. This is supported by

evidence from the focus group, (with the exception of the two community link

members and one allotmenteer )whom expressed frustration at the limitations

set by their buildings and grounds, and helplessness at their inability to

compete with newer schools despite their continued hard work towards

sustainability.

Now we have considered the barriers suggested by SEEd (2008) and

discussed by the focus group we will consider the enablers.

SEEd (2008) suggested that schools reaping the benefits of

sustainability integration had several fundamental provisos for success.

34

Firstly, time is required to create a shared vision as a whole school

community. Unfortunately this paradigm of ESD was unendorsed by the

SDC when it ceased to promote the vision and future imagining elements of

ESD.

The importance of this should not be underestimated it was

recognised in by UNICEF in1989 at the UN convention on the rights of the

child, this convention agreed that schools should do more to foster children’s

sense of responsibility and self respect. The Cambridge Primary review went

further to highlight the conclusions of the convention; it suggested that

schools should,

“Respect children’s experience, voices and rights, and engage them

actively and directly in decisions affecting their learning, because they

are children as agents of change, valuable citizens in their own right”

(Alexander, 2009)

The focus group almost unanimously (thirteen of the fifteen members)

suggested that time was of major concern in terms of sustainability as a

whole; whilst only two members from other schools within this cluster

recognised that this time was required to create a whole school vision of what

sustainability should look like within their settings.

Secondly SEEd (2008) highlighted a joined up approach was needed

to make clear links between initiatives, this is lacking in many schools but

especially this one. The lack of “joined up” thinking prohibits this setting from

adopting a whole school approach. The audit conducted as part of the case

35

study demonstrates their commitment, but they still fail to communicate this

effectively because the initiatives are not linked together in a cohesive

manner. Six of the focus group members (all those classed as members of

the leadership teams) suggested that more could be made of the initiatives

already undertaken if more “care” was taken to make clear links between

other initiatives, drives to reduce, re-use and recycle and the curriculum

experiences of children within their settings.

Thirdly SEEd identified distributed leadership as an enabler, many

successful schools find that not only does this share the workload; it also

increases participation which helps to embed sustainability into the policy,

curriculum, budgets and staffing considerations of the members involved.

But this is not so easy to achieve with many staff, and members of the

community already over committed it can be hard to engage new members.

This was evidenced by the comments of several focus group members,

particularly the eco-team leader, the allotmenteers and the children who

belong to the eco team. Who all commented on the difficulty of attracting new

members, and how the majority of the work tends to be completed by a small

minority of people.

The same can be said of the fourth enabler, fostering external

partnerships with local businesses, many of whom have been hard hit by the

economic down turn. Most of the focus group (ten of the fourteen) believed

that some successes had been achieved through partnerships with local

businesses, and recognised that they were fortunate that in this difficult

36

economic period businesses still prioritised local schools and their goals of

increased sustainability.

Although some national companies (particularly in the energy sector)

do offer programmes and consultation for schools, initiated by health for

schools and continued with health for schools futures, such partnerships are

in high demand at present, and as such can be difficult to access. Three of

the leadership team members of the focus group commented on how these

programmes and consultations appear to be relatively prescriptive, with a

“one size fits all” approach. They recognise that these providers are under

pressure to deliver and consult with many schools but feel that more

individualised programmes could be more beneficial to schools, and more

inspiring to the people who receive them.

Next we will consider some of the measures best practice schools

have incorporated in order to overcome these barriers, and enhance the

enablers to consider if they are appropriate for use in this setting.

Next Steps: How should this school move forward into the future?

In many aspects of education the focus is shifting towards a more

child centered approach to education, and in many texts reference will now

be found to the importance of child guided activities, and the benefits of

teachers and students discovering new knowledge together as a means of

37

engagement and enhanced achievement. But it has been recognised that

there is very little empirically based evidence on how to mould an entire

school community into ESD (Higgins and McMillan, 2006, pp39-53)

In this case study school a marginal culture of sustainability exists, but

neither children nor staff recognises this as an underpinning principle. Most

of the activities undertaken are done so by the eco-team, and although

issues are debated and decisions made by the school council, most of the

school community recognise that this is mostly a contrived and cost cutting

exercise. Although students also undertake local environmental studies in

science or geography there is not much effort to link these initiatives with the

eco team, the school council, the gardening club, allotmenteers, or the

community. Although we can see from the sustainability audit (Appendix 1)

this school has made many advances towards sustainability, yet it still fails to

embed sustainability into the ethos of the school and as such will probably

not enable its students to see the interconnectivity of places and times in

order to make them responsible global citizens.

There is a swiftly growing body of evidence and literary discourse

which is beginning to define and contextualise the correct manner in which to

encourage a culture of sustainability within schools. It is suggested that

culture is,

“A pattern of shared assumptions, values, beliefs and norms, that is

considered valid and as such is taught to new group members”

(Higgs and McMillan 2006, p 39)

38

and that in respect to school culture, this can be interpreted as the “rituals,

traditions, buildings, clubs and teaching methods” that are fundamental to

students ability to connect with sustainability.

Scrivener (2003) suggests that to facilitate this cultural shift we should

replace the notion of curriculum delivery with the interactionist model of

learning. This involves both the teacher and the students creating new

knowledge, which Scrivener suggests should have meaning and value to the

wider community. (This could contribute to the development of sustainable

communities, a priority area as set out in 2005 by the SDC in ‘securing the

future’) An investigation of the local environment which many students

undertake as part of the science or geography national curriculum at present,

is important because,

“A movement from close and familiar, to far and strange mirrors the

development of children’s minds” (Stone, 2009. P.15)

This recognises current cognitive development theory that proposes that

children begin to learn through the experience of their own bodies long

before they begin to assimilate information about their environment and that

as children grow their experience and ability to construct knowledge about

the world radiates outward from them, incorporating more abstract

information over time. (Bee & Boyd, 2007,p.79)

It has been suggested that these investigations of local environments

can make a major contribution to the aims and values of interactionist

learning, and that

39

“An acquisition of knowledge through issue based studies that are

linked to lifestyle decisions and choices. A development of critical

thinking skills that use an enquiry framework (who, what, where, why)

An analysis and evaluation of substantive values about economic

growth and sustainability and an involvement in the decision making

processes linked to taking responsible action.” Scrivener (2003)

Ward (2008) suggests a complete paradigm shift; he believes that we should

move towards global education. The DFES agree and stated that global

education should,

“Help children recognise their contributions and responsibilities as

global citizens, and teach them to make informed decisions leading to

responsible actions.” (DFES, 2005)

Ward (2008) suggests not just a vision but a plan of action, an

initiative much more complex than the eight doorways previously proposed

by the DCFS, which should encourage deep seated pedagogical change. To

accomplish this Ward purports we should consider four dimensions. In an

issues dimension, students should evaluate a range of “examples of and

solutions to” sustainability issues such as poverty/wealth, war/peace, and the

environment. The second dimension is the spatial dimension; this explores

the connections between all the people living on the earth, and the

“interdependence of issues, peoples and places”. The temporal dimension

refers to the connectivity of “past, present and future” and introduces the

concept of futures imagining. Whilst the final dimension is concerned with

40

how these experiences of the dimensions will lead to “personal growth” within

students, as they learn to communicate with others and develop critical

reasoning skills to make sense of the dimensions. This final dimension is

primarily concerned with a shift in focus from information retrieval regarding

ESD to the critical skills required to form opinions and make informed

decisions based on a sound knowledge base that has been assimilated.

(Ward, 2008.p.70)

But not everyone is convinced by the concept of global education, just

as Stone (2009) exemplified the need for the “near” in order to gain

understanding about the “far” some wonder how students can be expected to

function in the “global village” if they are unable to develop suitable

relationships in the community to which they naturally belong. (Delores,

1996. p.14)

It has been suggested that to facilitate students within their natural

communities we should model human societies on nature’s ecosystems, and

that using this framework of eco-systems could exemplify to students the

types of relationships that form this interconnectivity. (Capra, 1996, p.298)

This echoes the WRI 2003 report we considered earlier which uses the

concept of eco-logical services to extrapolate the interconnectivity of our

actions and natural eco-systems, which seems such a fundamental element

of community cohesion, global education and ESD.

It has been proposed that the fundamental problem with this approach

for educationalists is that nature’s ecosystems are non-linear, in direct

41

opposition to our academic tradition in which we tend to consider everything

in small parts, and build them in a linear fashion to construct the whole.

(Stone & Barlow, 2005, p. xiii) In order to utilise this framework teachers and

students must shift perception to consider relationships, connectedness and

context simultaneously, in four fundamental ways.

a) From parts to the whole: Living systems are not, and cannot be

reduced to the sum of their parts.

b) From objects to relationships: An ecosystem is not just a collection

of species but a community.

c) From quantity to quality: It is impossible to scientifically measure the

relationships and context within an ecosystem or a community.

d) From content to patterns: Certain configurations of patterns occur

time and time again, instead of analyzing the individual parts we

should evaluate the patterns. (Stone & Barlow, 2005, p.23)

Stone (2005) suggests that this is the next natural step, once we have

learned to recognise the parallels between nature’s ecosystems and human

societies as ecosystems. It provides a paradigm for us to change how we

consider ESD in order to make the required changes in perceptions and thus

attitudes and ultimately behaviors.

This shift towards nature in the ESD paradigm is not new, for decades

educationalists have been predicting that the way to avoid “scaremongering

children about environmental issues, making them feel overwhelmed and

42

ineffective” (Peacock,2004, pp8) While, Sobel is to carefully create the

opportunity for children to discover the joy and wonder of nature. He believes

that once children experience this pleasure it can help them to know and

understand their “home places”, which in time will develop into a active

engagement making these children “agents of change” committed to the

preservation of those “home places.” (Sobel, 1996. P.39)

This again links with the concept of caring for, and understanding the “near”,

children can conceive that people in other places and time may feel the same

about their “home places”, and that as such a responsibility to preserve all of

nature’s resources falls to them.

But why should schools go to the extreme extent of shifting paradigms and

school cultures in order to promote ESD. To consider the interactionist model

of learning once more SEEd (2010) propose that a strong evidence base is

beginning to develop that shows learning outcomes and motivation in

children, is being improved by practical application of academic knowledge.

While Lawson chair of the SSA stated that,

“Evidence shows that putting sustainability at the heart of teaching and

learning helps schools to meet their priorities, whether that’s

educational attainment, nurturing interest in learning, improving

students well being and behaviour, promoting healthy lifestyles or

saving costs.” (Lawson, 2010)

It would appear that this shift in focus and embedding sustainability

throughout the whole school as part of the schools ethos and values can

43

have beneficial effects in both mandatory and non mandatory curriculum

subjects, as well as raising children’s awareness about their responsibilities

as global citizens.

So in real terms it will be necessary to implement short, medium and

long term plans (Appendix 3) which encompass these implications for

practice in order that this case study school received clear, evidence based

guidance regarding its next steps towards sustainability and ESD.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to determine which next steps this school

should take in order to better establish ESD. In order to do this we conducted

a comprehensive revision of the policies, legislation and pedagogy that has

occurred throughout the history of ESD, in order to gain perspective on the

best route forwards. The concept for the study began with the simple remit of

choosing between available initiatives, but has over time begun to take into

account the changes in perspectives that some environmental

educationalists are purporting as best practice (Scrivener, 2003; Ward, 2008;

Delores, 1996; Capra, 1996; Stone and Barlow, 2005) in terms of embedding

sustainability into the culture and ethos of schools. We have also spent

some time assessing the positives impacts that such a paradigm shift could

produce. But this study is not without limitations. Case studies by their very

nature are impossible to generalise from, but as the remit for this study was

44

to find a way forward for this single setting then such considerations may be

unnecessary. Focus groups can be a little more contentious, although

common sense tells us there is a higher probability of triangulation when

participants agree with each other, Littosseliti (2003) suggests four main

limitations. Firstly bias and manipulation, this refers to the danger that

researchers could sway participant’s responses with leading questions or

omit information that prudently should be included. This was reduced by the

researcher using the enablers and barriers identified by SEEd as

conversation starters, after which little interference from the researcher

occurred. Secondly false consensus, this could occur if strong personalities

or similar views are allowed to dominate discussions. Fortunately this risk

was minimised by the small number of participants in the sub groups. Thirdly

a difficulty in generalization, due to the small participant numbers and the

difficulty of achieving a representative sample, the generalisation of data has

already been discussed here but an approximation of a representative

sample was achieved by including participants from cluster schools. The final

limitation was suggested to be a difficulty in analysing and interpreting the

results. In this case the researcher took great lengths to try and capture the

salient points and the essence of conversations in the way in which they

were meant to be understood, the conversations provided the bedrock for the

researcher to gain a greater understanding, from a range of perspectives

about the topic of ESD, and as such greatly increased the body of knowledge

available for dissemination in order to make recommendations regarding the

next steps for this school.

45

Findings suggests that simply choosing a new initiative as the vehicle

to move this school forward will not be sufficient to embed sustainability into

the ethos and culture of the school. It is now suggested that

“Our purpose should be to grow academically empowered, successful

young people who integrate sustainability into their lives” Stone (2009)

and that this can be achieved

“When teachers, students and parents decide to act collaboratively,

students acquire the leadership and decision making skills that are

required in order for them to be active agents of change” Stone (2009)

It would seem that although this school had made a prodigious start in

sustainable practices it has some way to go in order to embed ESD deep

within in culture and ethos, a change which increasingly appears will need to

involve fundamental changes to pedagogy and the current perception of

ESD.

46

References

Adams, W, M. (2001) Green Development: environment and sustainability 2nd

edn. Oxford: Routledge Press.

Adams, W, M. (2006) The future of sustainability: Re-thinking environment

and development in the 21st century. Report of the IUCN renowned thinkers

meeting held 29-31 January [online] available from

<http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads /iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf> [16th

February 2012]

Adams W.M & Jeanrenauld S, J. (2008) Transition to sustainability: Towards

a humane and diverse world. Switzerland: International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (IUCN)

Alexander, R. (2009) Children - Their world, Their education: the final report

and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. Oxford: Routledge.

Bee H. & Boyd D. (2007) The Developing Child. 11th edn. Needham MA:

Pearson

Bloom, M,. Frankland, J,. Thomas, M. & Robson, K. (2001) Focus groups in

social research. London: Sage.

Chamberlain, S. (2009) Transition Timeline for a Local Resilient Future.

Totnes: Green Books Limited.

Capra, F. (1996) The Web of Life. USA: Anchor Books

Cottrell, S. (2008) The Study Skills Handbook (3rd edn). Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Delors, J. (2009) Learning the Treasure Within: report to UNESCO of the

International Commission on Education for the Twenty First Century.

Norwich: The Stationary Office

DCSF (2004) Health for schools [online] available from <http://www.health

4schools.org/page/default.asp?title=Home&pid=1> [2nd February 2012]

DCSF (2007) The Children’s Plan: building brighter futures. Norwich: The

Stationary Office.

48

DCSF (2008) Health for schools futures [online] available from

<http://www.health4schools.org/page/default.asp?title=Home&pid=1> [2nd

February 2010]

DSCF (2008) Sustainable Schools: a brief introduction. London: DCSF

DCSF (2008) Brighter futures – greener lives: sustainable development

action plan 2008–10, [online] available from

<http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/default. aspx?

PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DCSF-

00339-2008& > [2nd February 2012]

DFE (2012) Top tips for sustainability in schools [online] available from

<http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/t/top%20tips%20for

%20sustainability%20in%20schools%20feb%202012.pdf> [3rd April 2012]

DFES (2005) Developing the Global Dimension in School Curriculum [online]

available from <https://www.education.gov.uk/publications /standard/public

ationdetail /page1/DFES-1409-2005> [3rd March 2012]

49

Higgs, A.L. & McMillan V.M. (2006). “Teaching Through Modelling: Four

schools experience in sustainable education”. The Journal of Environment

Education 38(1): 39-53.

Jesson, J. & Matheson, L. (2011) Doing your Literature Review: traditional

and systematic techniques. London: Sage.

Kruegar, R. A. & Casey, M.A. (2009) Focus groups: A practical guide for

applied research. London: Sage.

Lawson, J. (2010) Sustainability and Environment education (SEEd)[online]

available from <http://www.se-ed.co.uk/sustainable-schools-alliance> [3rd

April 2012]

Liamputtong, P. (2011) Focus group methodology principles and practice.

London: Sage.

Littosseliti, L. (2003) Using focus groups in research. London: Continuum.

50

Lord Hill (2012) Lord hill responding to SEED [letter] to SEED [20 th December

2012] available from <http://www.se-ed.co.uk/sites/default /files/resources/

sustainable-schools/Secretary_of_State_Response.pdf > [3rd April 2012]

Morgan, D.L. (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.

OFSTED (2010) To Sustainability and Beyond: inspecting and reporting on

progress in sustainable development [online] available from

<http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/sustainability-and-beyond-inspecting-

and-reporting-progress-sustainable-development> [ 5th April 2012]

Parry M.L., Palutikof, J.P., Van DER linden, P.J., & Hansen C.E. (eds) (2007)

Climate change 2007: impacts, adaption’s and vulnerabilities. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Peacock A. (2004) ECO-literacy for Primary Schools. Stoke on Trent:

Trantham Books.

Qualifications and curriculum authority (QCA) (2009) Sustainable

Development in Action: a curriculum planning guide [online] available from

51

<http://www.dep.org.uk/silo/files/sustainable-development-in-action.pdf> [3rd

March 2012]

Scrivener, C. (2003). Getting your Voice Heard and Making a Difference:

using local environmental issues in a primary school as a context for action

oriented learning. Support for Learning 18 (1),100-106

SEEd (2008) Practice, Barriers and Enablers in ESD and EE: a review of

research. [online] available from

<

http://www.se-ed.co.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Practice_Barriers_Enable

rs_Report_Full.pdf> [3rd April 2012]

SEEd (2010) Health for schools futures [online] available from

<http://www.se-ed.co.uk/sustainable-schools> [16th February 2012]

Sobel, D.(1996) Beyond Ecophobia: reclaiming the heart of nature education.

Barrington MA: The Orion Society

52

Stibbe, A. (ed)(2009). The Handbook of Sustainable Literacy: skills for a

changing world. Totnes: Green Books Limited.

Stone, M.K. and Barlow, Z.(eds) (2005) Eco-Logical Literacy: educating our

children for a sustainable world. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books Stone,

M.K. (2009) Smart by Nature. London: University of California Press.

Sustainable Development Commission (1999) A better Quality of Life [white

paper] London: London Stationary Office.

Sustainable Development Commission (2004) Shows promise but must try

harder [press release] [online] available from Sustainable Development

Commission. <http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/presslist. php/13/shows-

promise-but-must-try-harder> [2nd February 2012]

Sustainability Development Council (2005) Securing the Future: Developing

a UK sustainable development strategy. Norwich: The Stationary Office.

53

Sustainable Development Education Panel (2000) Education for Sustainable

Development and the National Curriculum [online] available from

<http://www.esd.rgs.org/link9.html> [5th April 2012]

Sustainable Schools Alliance (2011) The Alliance Mission [online] available

from <http://sustainable-schools-alliance.org.uk/about.html> [3rd April 2012]

Tilbury D., & Wortman, D. (2004) Engaging People in Sustainability.

Cambridge: International Union for Conservation and Nature

UNCED: Agenda 21 (1992) UN conference on Environment and

Development [online] available from <http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/>

[14th February 2010]

UNICEF (1989) The Rights of the Child [online] available from

<http://www.unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/Our-mission/UN-Convention/ > [5th

April 2012]

Ward, S. (ed) (2008) A Student’s Guide to Education Studies. Oxford:

Routledge

54

World Commission on the Environment and Development (1987) The

Brundland Report: our commons future, Oxford: Oxford University Press

World Resource Institute (2003) Millennium Ecosystems Assessment:

ecosystems and human well being - a framework for assessment. MA: Island

Press.

WWF (2010) The living planet report, biodiversity, bio-capacity and

development. WWF: Switzerland

55

Appendices

Appendix 1 Case study audit.

Appendix 2 Permission from head teacher.

Appendix 3 Short, medium, and long term plans for the case study school.

56

Appendix 1

Case study audit.

Food and Drink Planted a fruit orchard

Erected a gardening shed, well resourced with tools

Installed one large raised bed per class

Built five large allotments available for community

use

Erected a poly tunnel

Gardening club

Seed and produce share

Only fruit at break time provided by local organic

farmer

No fizzy drinks

Water available throughout the day for all students

Lunch box monitors

Cooking lessons with seasonal produce grown on

site

Off curriculum healthy school day (yearly)

57

Harvest festival with produce grown on site

Energy and

Water

Six monthly audit of electricity and water

consumption

Maximised use of emails to reduce paper use

Photocopier set to double sided printing to reduce

paper use

Photocopier set to black to reduce color printing

Smart light switches in ICT suite and new build

reception/ staff room building

Automatic water heater in staff room

Six water butts to capture and store water for onsite

produce

Composting of all fruit waste from break time

snacks

Recycling of all paper/cardboard/ batteries/

telephones and printer cartridges

Thermostats on all radiators and heaters

Planned replacement of oil boiler

Traffic and

Travel

Most children walk to school as live within the

village

Secure, modern bike racks

Cycle proficiency for year 6 students

Crossing lady

58

Purchasing and

Waste

Monthly use of the scrap store, for arts/crafts

materials and paper stock

Reuse of spent display backing paper

Green cones x2 and cooked waste digesters x2 for

disposal of food items.

Regular waste management assemblies

A waste audit conducted each term

Buildings and

Grounds

New windows in two classrooms and ICT suite

Light and air vents in ICT suite

School is situated next to a working livestock farm

Designated nature area with pond and staging for

outside lessons

Numerous bug hotels and bird boxes

Willow structures throughout grounds

Recycled tractor tyres for climbing over

Two separate trim trails

Transverse wall

Global

Dimension

Assemblies regarding recent global events

Global research as topic work within classes

Spanish pen pals for the students in year 6

Google earth sessions in class

Inclusion/

Participation

School council with members elected by the

students

All students participate in class topic work

59

All practice reduce, re use and recycle ethos

All attend pertinent assemblies

All enjoy the use of the outdoor spaces, and all KS1

children have wet weather wear in school to

facilitate outside learning in any weather

Local Well

Being

The allotments are run by community members

Partnership with the local butcher, post office

School grounds often used by local families and

community members

Harvest festival and other events well attended and

supported

Local businesses are used to maintain and enhance

the school

A local building supplies firm is used to provide

necessary goods

Local people are employed by the school in a

variety of roles

Good links with two of the local churches

Yearly carol concert performed at two of the local

nursing homes

Good links with the local senior school, specifically

with sports and dance events

60

Appendix 2

61

62

Appendix 3

Short term plans

Medium term plans

Long term plans

63

Short term plan 7/5/2012

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE GOALS:

Ref OBJECTIVE ACTION TIME -SCALE

WHO

A1 Share futures imagining concept, resources and ideas.

Conduct small scale staff training regarding the purpose and possible vehicles for futures imagining in school with all key stage teachers and ta’s.

Provide examples of how this can be achieved. Allow time for consensus to be made regarding which futures

imagining activity could be of most value in KS1 and KS2.

Inset in June, classes to contribute to whole school display

Training by VL, all staff to attend.

A.2 Arrange for KS2 children to have the same access to outdoor learning as KS1 children do.

Organise for KS2 children to bring in wet weather wear. (for the autumn term)

Encourage KS2 teachers to undertake more outdoor learning. Provide more opportunities for all children to experience the joy of the

outdoors. Discuss with SMT the possibility of using ‘forest schools’ as a way to

encourage this.

The summer term. Wet wear needed by autumn term.

All KS2 teachers.

64

A.1 Futures imagining A.4 New dimensions thinking

A.2 Joy of nature

A.3 Explicit linking of initiatives

The summer term should make it easier for KS1 children to learn outside more often, negating immediate need for wet weather wear.

A.3 Explicit linking of all initiatives that can feed ESD.

Ask the school council to conduct their own audit of what the school already does.

Use the case study audit as a guide. Create large hall display to exemplify what has already taken place,

make links obvious. Use and ecosystem web as the basis for the display.

Summer term School Council

A.4 Introduce the concept of new dimensions thinking

Introduce the concept of issue dimensions, spatial dimensions, temporal dimensions and experience dimensions to staff. At the next inset.

Encourage them to add these elements into their short term planning of lessons.

Inset in June All teaching staff

65

Medium Term Plan 7/5/201

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE GOALS:

Ref OBJECTIVE ACTION TIME -SCALE

WHO

A.1 Carry out futures imagining tasks with all classes.

Consult with teaching staff regarding consensus about suitable activity

Conduct activity with all students. Place outcome of activity in a prominent position. Refer to outcome of activity as often as able

To begin in September 2012

All staff and students.

A.2 Promote the use of investigations.

Provide some exemplars of outside learning investigations. Share with teaching staff that the aim is to discover alongside the

students. Provide support for teaching staff, by sharing plans for investigations

that have taken place elsewhere. Focus on local community investigations.

June 2012 so that staff have the summer to plan.

SA/ BH to disseminate all teaching staff to plan

A.3 A working wall to link initiatives explicitly

Build upon the previous display but make it a working wall, add new initiatives and keep the display neat and current. Add elements of futures thinking activities and investigations conducted.

September 2012

AR/ JH to oversee display all classes to

66

A.1 Futures imagining A.4 New dimensions thinking

A.2 Joy of nature

A.3 Explicit linking of initiatives

contribute.A.4 Dimensions thinking Encourage staff to broaden the use of dimensions thinking, (now staff

have embedded this within their planning) Encouraging the students to ask critical questions regarding the

different dimensions. Encourage students to view topics as interconnected and whole

rather than as small parts to re construct.

November 2012

SA to monitor.

67

Long Term Plan 7/5/2012

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE GOALS:

Ref OBJECTIVE ACTION TIME -SCALE

WHO

A.1 Revisit futures imagining

School council to conduct survey to assess whether futures imagining activity is still valid.

Students to investigate options for alternatives if necessary

September 2013

School council

A.2 Interactionist model of learning

Use inset training to exemplify interactionist teaching. Disseminate the positive outcomes for students and teachers. Draw parallels with the teaching that already takes place. Identify small shifts in teaching practices that could lead to more

interactionist teaching. Provide resources for teachers to use.

March inset 2012

All teaching staff.

A.3 Website design/global dimension

Students to research web design of eco sites, both in the UK and abroad.

This should include some knowledge regarding the initiatives other schools are working on.

Students to design an eco page on the existing school website. This should publicise the contents of the working wall, clearly illustrating

February 2013

EM/ Elected students.

68

A.1 Futures imagining A.4 New dimensions thinking

A.2 Joy of nature

A.3 Explicit linking of initiatives

how all the ESD and sustainability initiatives act together to promote change.

This website should be published on line in order to add to the growing body of knowledge about good practice.

Students should be responsible for the upkeep, and updating of these pages.

A.4 Students to identify in their own work dimensions thinking.

Teaching staff to encourage students to recognise when they have correctly undertaken dimensions thinking.

Marking of students work should emphasize the use of dimensions thinking.

February 2013

SA/Teaching staff

69