Education for sustainable human development

Download PDF
3 downloads 3865 Views 95KB Size Report
Comment
Florida International University, USA abstract. Three years into the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, there has been considerable ..... tion technology? Or does the issue .... Since Brundtland, continued emphasis has been placed ..... Intercultural Education, and the Director of the Intercultural Institute for.
091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 221

. .E TR

Education for sustainable human development Towards a definition h i l a r y l a n d o r f, s t e p h a n i e d o s c h e r a n d tonet te rocco Florida International University, USA a b s t rac t Three years into the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, there has been considerable discussion regarding education for sustainable development (ESD) at a policy level, yet very few countries and communities have moved to integrate ESD into their educational curriculum. In this article we argue that the conceptualization and implementation of ESD can be advanced by grounding it in the human capability approach.We define education for sustainable human development as educational practice that results in the enhancement of human well-being, conceived in terms of the expansion of individuals’ agency, capabilities and participation in democratic dialogue, both for now and for future generations.We conclude that incorporating Amartya Sen’s human capability approach as the basis of ESD will provide the clarity of direction and purpose needed for the transformation of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. k e y w o r d s agency-driven education, education for sustainable development, education for sustainable human development, human capability

The decade of education for sustainable development (DESD) initiative is almost three years old. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the lead agency for the DESD, describes the goal for the decade as follows on its website:‘to integrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning’, and, further, that ‘this educational effort will encourage changes in behavior that will create a more sustainable future in terms of environmental Theory and Research in Education Copyright © 2008, sage publications, www.sagepublications.com vol 6(2) 221–236 ISSN 1477-8785 DOI: 10.1177/1477878508091114

[221]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 222

Theory and Research in Education 6(2) integrity, economic viability, and a just society for present and future generations’ (UNESCO, 2005). If media coverage is any indication, the world at large is seriously concerned about our environment, population growth and climate change.There has been little improvement of the well-being of the average person living on earth, and in many countries the gap between rich and poor has grown considerably.Yet, despite the fact that education is seen as a key transformative factor in the improvement of the environment and our future sustainability, and the fact that there has been considerable discussion regarding education for sustainable development (ESD) at a policy level, very few countries and communities have moved to integrate ESD into their educational curriculum, let alone implemented it as the basis of a reorienting or transforming education. We contend that there are three important missing factors that contribute to this apparent lack of action: consensus as to what constitutes ESD, an adequate conceptualization of the role of human agency in sustainable development, and a basis for direct practical application of a well-defined concept of ESD in education systems. In order to develop coherent policies and practice for ESD, educators everywhere must be able to understand the meaning of ESD and its component concepts, articulate the values inherent in those concepts and identify consequent, progressive educational practices. Educators must be able to understand and articulate the meaning of sustainable development (SD), and thus ESD, in order to implement these concepts and use them as a framework for education.The purpose of this article is to stimulate conversation on ESD by setting forth a definition based on the human capability approach to development. Incorporating Amartya Sen’s human capability approach as the basis of ESD will provide the clarity of direction and purpose needed for the transformation of education systems and policy.We build our argument by addressing the following critical questions: (1) Why do we need to define ESD and how is it defined? (2) How can a definition of ESD be grounded in the human capability approach? (3) What are the components of a grounded definition of ESD? (4) What are the educational implications of this grounded definition of ESD?

Th e n e e d t o d e f i n e E d u cat i o n f o r S u s ta i na b l e D eve lop m e nt ESD is a complex, contested and constantly evolving concept. Definitions of SD and ESD abound. As early as 1996, Dobson found over 300 definitions of SD, ranging from equating it with environmentalism to basing implementation upon the overthrow of existing social, political and economic structures. We contend that a problem with presently available definitions of SD and [222]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 223

Landorf et al.: Education for sustainable human development ESD is that they are not agency-driven, i.e. they do not allow for a multiplicity of goals and values that people have reason to pursue (Sen, 1987). Before entering a discussion concerning how to build an agency-driven, educationally useful definition of ESD, however, a brief overview of the controversies over the terms SD and ESD will be helpful. Sustainable development Despite widespread use of the term ‘sustainable development’, its meaning provokes controversy and disagreement. The main debates concern both the denotation of the component concepts,‘sustainability’ and ‘development’, and their relationship to one another. The most widely used definition of SD is in the Brundtland Commission report, Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). SD is defined there as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987: 8). Despite the widespread use of the Brundtland Commission’s definition of SD, there is much debate over the concept’s scope. Some have labeled SD a policy slogan, much like ‘global citizenship’ and ‘equal opportunity’. Many see the accepted Brundtland definition as too broad, while others argue that the concept should be restricted to scientific and environmental concerns. The oxymoronic nature of the term ‘sustainable development’ has prompted critics to decry any agenda that uses it. John Livingstone (1995), in his award-winning book Rogue Primate, called SD a slogan that seems to say we can ‘plunder Nature and get away with it’ (Livingstone, 1995: 60). Harper (2004) points out that while ‘sustainable’ means that we can continue activity without fatigue or destruction,‘development’ implies a dynamic and ongoing process of change.Among various groups utilizing the term, Kates et al. (2005) identify a spectrum of views attaching different relative importance to its components:‘Sustainable development implies linking what is to be sustained with what is to be developed, but here, too, the emphasis has often differed from extremes of “sustain only” to “develop mostly” to various forms of “and/or”’ (Harper, 2004: 12). Many consider the range of meanings and contextual nature of SD to be the source of its prevailing power and potency.When referring to SD, Rauch (2002) discusses the term’s ‘universal spell’ and argues that the arrangement of words in the term allows for both ‘preservation and development’ (Rauch, 2002: 47). Bonnett (2002) describes SD as an idea that everyone can embrace. Sauvé (1996) values what she views as the ambiguity of the term and credits it for ‘starting a dialogue between economic and environmental worlds’ (Sauvé, 1996: 9). [223]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 224

Theory and Research in Education 6(2) Questions arise concerning the focus of SD; in and of itself, the term stipulates neither what is to be sustained nor what is to be developed. Wheeler (cited in Wheeler and Bijur, 2000) identifies three systems involved in SD: environmental, economic and social. These systems interact and have many subsystems, all of which interconnect and give rise to multiple perspectives. According to Wheeler,‘environmental sustainability’ refers to the regeneration of natural resources, ‘economic sustainability’ means maintaining current levels of consumption to meet but not exceed current needs, and ‘social sustainability’ is social equity based on resource allocation.Wheeler further argues that the objectives of SD underscore democracy, equity and participation as equally vital components. Using the three systems of SD described by Wheeler,William Boyer (2002) suggests that the terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘development’ are compatible, provided there is a change in priorities. Boyer argues that we currently have an ‘upside-down society’, in which we most value economics, then social needs and then ecology (Boyer, 2002: 14). Boyer contends that in order to shift from a ‘nonsustainable present’ to a sustainable future, these values must be changed to first take into account ecology, then social needs and finally economics. By reordering our priorities, Boyer contends we can both pursue market expansion and offer a sustainable future that serves the needs of present and future generations. Downes (1996) also argues that the development process should be redirected to an ‘“environmentally sound” path’ that guarantees the environmental conditions necessary for future generations to support their socioeconomic requirements and desires (Downes, 1996: 1). Many proponents of SD believe that it cannot be confined to addressing environmental health and economic growth alone; SD must also encompass human rights or social justice issues of poverty, racism, inequity, democracy and peace. This broadening of the concept of SD exemplifies the many different visions of a sustainable society: what is needed to sustain it, how growth is managed and how it functions. Education for sustainable development As with the term ‘sustainable development’, the meaning of ‘education for sustainable development’ is complicated first by controversy over the nature of its primary component concept, sustainable development, secondly over the actual role of education, and finally over the broad and inclusive social issues it seeks to address. Despite the prevalence of the term and discussion surrounding ESD, and perhaps because of it, a widely used or accepted definition does not exist. ESD entered the world stage with the enactment of Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It was defined as follows: ‘Education for Sustainable Development is an emerging but dynamic concept [224]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 225

Landorf et al.: Education for sustainable human development that encompasses a new vision of education that seeks to empower people of all ages to assume responsibility for creating a sustainable future’ (UNESCO, 2002: 1). This chapter set out broad objectives for ESD: to improve basic education, reorient existing education to address SD, develop and implement training in ESD, and promote a public understanding and awareness of the need for SD (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2005). It is clear from these objectives that education as used in ESD not only includes formal education but extends to public awareness, community education and training. A good example of a basic definition for ESD comes from The United Kingdom Council for Environmental Education (CEE), which takes the Brundtland Commission definition of SD and makes it the goal of education. ‘Education for sustainable development enables people to develop the knowledge, values and skills to participate in decisions about the way we do things individually and collectively, both locally and globally, that will improve the quality of life now without damaging the planet for the future’ (CEE, 1998). Known alternately as ‘Education for Sustainability’ and ‘Education for a Sustainable Future’, the naming and defining of ESD is further complicated by the fact that many perceive it not so much as a means of achieving sustainable development, but as an outgrowth of environmental education or, more commonly, as environmental education per se. Fien (2004) criticizes the embedding of sustainability concepts within the field of environmental education and the tendency to focus on nature conservation through geography and science as opposed to a holistic approach, which he argues is the basis of sustainable development and educating for a sustainable future. Furthermore, he argues that part of the problem with this approach is the lack of government and student interest in matters of sustainability. Despite this narrow application of ESD, most discussions of ESD recognize the widely held view that ESD involves using education to achieve sustainable development as opposed to learning about or being aware of sustainable development. Research shows that basic education is essential to a community’s ability to improve its economy and environment, both of which are important to achieving sustainable development. So for example, giving numeracy and literacy to an uneducated population provides a basis for more skilled work and the ability to learn and absorb information that will help people understand and learn methods to protect their environment, such as sustainable farming methods. However, this discussion is not directed only at providing access to education or the inclusion of learning about sustainable development in the curriculum. Many of those involved in this dialogue see ESD as providing the impetus and reason for a transforming paradigm shift in education theory and practice. In his text Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect (1994), David Orr takes issue with the very idea that knowledge will provide [225]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 226

Theory and Research in Education 6(2) us with the necessary skills and tools to survive our own unsustainable future. He states, ‘A second myth [of education] is that with enough knowledge and technology, we can, in the words of Scientific American (1989), “manage planet earth”’ (Orr, 1994: 9). Orr believes the purpose of education is to develop individuals with the capacity to think and understand; therefore, he focuses on the characteristics of an education that will cause individuals to value sustainability. He criticizes the modern university for thinking that its responsibilities are to add to the ‘“fund of human knowledge” through research’ (Orr, 1994: 10) and that through such learning and research we will be better humans. Orr argues that while education can teach us to emphasize the whole system and develop our cleverness, it also fools us into believing that we are smarter than we truly are. In Orr’s view, education for sustainable development will simply not do as a concept; for all education, according to Orr, should lead to sustainable behaviors. Sterling (1996) points out that ‘Education is proclaimed at high levels as the key to a more sustainable society and yet it daily plays a part in reproducing an unsustainable society. If it is to fulfill its potential as an agent of change towards a more sustainable society sufficient attention must be given to education as the subject of change itself ’ (Sterling, 1996: 18). He suggests that ESD could be the basis of a new paradigm for education. However, in order for that to happen he argues that educators have to ‘clarify the meaning and significance’ of ESD (Sterling, 1996: 19). Fien (2004) defines education for sustainability as an educational paradigm that incorporates social and economic contexts and develops ‘citizen and institutional roles to facilitate in the transition to sustainability’ (Fein, 2004: 1). Fien argues, as others do, for a comprehensive approach to education that encompasses ecological, economic, social and political sustainability as well. In the effort to promote ESD as an agent of change, ESD has come to incorporate everything that could be associated with quality of life and every imaginable societal goal. For example, Learning for a Sustainable Future, the non-governmental organization (NGO) responsible for promoting ESD in Canadian schools, describes ESD as follows: ESD is about respecting and preserving our histories, valuing culture and community, caring for others and the environment, and taking action to create a fair, healthy, and safe world for all beings. ESD also supports flexibility, creativity, critical reflection, and fosters a sense of personal responsibility for the economy, society, and environment. (Learning for a Sustainable Future, n.d.)

A more inclusive and later definition of ESD from UNESCO states the following: Education for sustainable development has come to be seen as a process of learning how to make decisions that consider the long-term future of the economy, ecology and equity

[226]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 227

Landorf et al.: Education for sustainable human development of all communities . . . This represents a new vision of education, a vision that helps people of all ages better understand the world in which they live, addressing the complexity and interconnectedness of problems such as poverty, wasteful consumption, environmental degradation, urban decay, population growth, health, conflict and the violation of human rights that threaten our future.This vision of education emphasizes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to developing the knowledge and skills needed for a sustainable future as well as changes in values, behavior, and lifestyles. (UNESCO, 2003: 4)

Education for sustainable development grounded in the human capability approach We contend that existing definitions and dialogue concerning ESD are neither agency-driven nor educationally useful. By ‘agency-driven’ we mean that a definition supports promoting the individual’s capability to make choices and changes to his or her own environment. How will people agree upon what is to be preserved in the present (‘improving the quality of life now’), what should be preserved for the future (‘not damaging the planet for the future’), and what should be taught to reach these goals (‘education for sustainable development enables people’)? By ‘educationally useful’ we mean a definition that guides coherent educational policy and practice. Some definitions are so broad, encompassing everything from poverty reduction to species preservation, that they provide little guidance for educational practice with regard to curriculum, instruction and assessment. A useful definition of ESD – one that provides clear guidance for the multiplicity of educational stakeholders and learners working towards sustainable development – must have two components that are lacking in existing definitions, namely agency and educational applicability. We believe that Amartya Sen’s human capability approach to development offers a new perspective on sustainable development, one that puts people – rather than the environment, society or the economy in which they function – at the center. We believe that Sen’s approach can provide the necessary underlying conceptual framework and practical guidelines for the needed reorientation of educational systems. We will now present a basic outline of the human capability approach and its application to SD and ESD. The human capability approach to development The human capability approach was first conceived by Amartya Sen as a broad paradigm for evaluating the effects of social change policies on human wellbeing. It provides the framework for the Human Development Index (HDI), a comparative measure of the standard of living, life expectancy, literacy, and education for countries worldwide [227]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 228

Theory and Research in Education 6(2) Sen’s approach is based on ‘capabilities’, i.e. freedoms to achieve ‘functionings’, or the ‘beings and doings’ constitutive of well-being. Under this view, well-being is an ongoing process, rather than a product, of human development through the expansion of ‘the real freedoms that people enjoy’ (Sen 1999: 3).The approach lays out the basic components for analyzing and measuring well-being, but is normative only insofar as it prescribes a conceptual framework through which freedoms can be identified and understood. The core components of the approach are functionings, capabilities and agency. Functionings are defined as ‘the various things a person may value doing or being’ (Sen 1999: 75). Sen distinguishes between basic functionings, such as good health stemming from proper nutrition and proper treatment for avoidable disease, and those functionings that represent more complex activities such as civic and social involvement. Capabilities are real opportunities for a person to achieve valued functionings, or the ‘substantive freedom to achieve alternative functioning combinations (or, less formally put, the freedom to achieve various lifestyles)’ (p. 75).To illustrate this, Sen compares the rich man who chooses to fast with the poor man forced to starve; the rich man, who can decide to eat if he likes, possesses a substantively different capability set than the poor man who cannot make the same choice. Although both men arrive at the same achieved functioning – undernourishment – the differences between their two ways of doing so are fundamentally important. The capability approach elucidates the insufficiency of traditional outcome-based measures of well-being. In this example, an economic and ‘outcome-based’ measurement of each individual’s achieved functioning reveals his actualized state of being, but little about his relative well-being. Although the two men are both undernourished, they differ in their states of well-being, in that the rich man has freedoms to make changes to this state (by obtaining food and eating) that the poor man does not. The third core concept of the human capability approach is agency. The agent is described as one who has the power to bring change on a level that is of value to him or her.The rich man in the example above can be termed an agent because his choice to become undernourished is unconstrained by the economic opportunities available to him.Although starving, the rich man’s relative well-being is greater than that of the starving poor man who lacks the capability to purchase food and thus freedom of agency to become nourished. The obvious question arises: how can the poor man’s relative well-being be improved? From a human capability point of view, the answer is not as simple as either ‘giving the man a fish’ or ‘teaching him to fish’. There are more factors at work than simply the man’s ability to obtain food. Our understanding of the poor man’s lack of well-being must include an analysis of the capability inputs that determine his substantive freedoms to act.Why is this man [228]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 229

Landorf et al.: Education for sustainable human development unable to obtain food? Does he possess the basic literacy and numeracy necessary to obtain a job? Perhaps he does. Is he home-bound due to ill health caused by man-made environmental hazards? Does he live in a society in which racial bias hinders his employability or purchasing power? Do social structures block his access to credit, transportation, electricity or communication technology? Or does the issue concern intra-family income distribution? The human capability approach both adds to the analysis of well-being outcomes and directs us towards understanding inputs, namely valued functionings, capabilities and human agency. Particularly in terms of education, we see that it is not enough to teach the skills necessary to earn a living or find food; we must also equip people to be agents of their own well-being. Depending on their existing capabilities, people need to learn ways to navigate – sometimes even circumnavigate – and shape the conditions of their context, in order to develop their own well-being, as well as that of their offspring. Many of those working to operationalize Sen’s development approach have called for and are currently debating a fundamental set of unequivocal, irreducible and nonhierarchical dimensions of human capability (Alkire, 2002). Sabina Alkire calls these universally agreed-upon dimensions the ‘primary colors’ (Alkire, 2002: 186) of culturally valued capability sets. However, Sen himself is unwilling to define such a list, specifying only the need to identify a subset of basic capabilities as ‘a cut-off point for the purpose of assessing poverty and deprivation’ (Sen, 1987: 109). We see a definite need for a list of basic capabilities to ground discussion of curriculum and pedagogy for development of human well-being. Martha Nussbaum (2001), who has developed her own version of the human capability approach, enumerates ten basic capabilities that provide such a starting point.These are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Life Bodily health Bodily integrity Senses, imagination and thought Emotions Affiliations Practical reason Other species Play Control over one’s environment.

Nussbaum’s list is widely accepted as being inclusive, without being fully determinate. In the spirit of Sen’s approach, it should remain open to reconsideration and reevaluation by community stakeholders. The determination of needed capabilities must always be contextual, so as to fit the needs of the particular [229]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 230

Theory and Research in Education 6(2) community at any particular time. The ongoing reevaluation comes about through democratic dialogue which plays a crucial, generative role in the human capability approach. Central to the human capability approach is the cyclical relationship between governments and individuals in the provision of capabilities.While public policy plays a definite role in support of capabilities, the public’s influence over that policy is equally important. According to Sen, fundamental public policies include those designed to strengthen democratic dialogue, to which he assigns three levels of importance: (a) direct importance – freedom of choice has value in and of itself, regardless of results; (b) instrumental importance – liberty of thought and action can lead to secondary positive results; and (c) constructive importance – freedom is an educative process that plays a critical role in public dialogue and the assemblage of community consensus on values, goals and priorities (Gasper, 2000; Sen, 1999). Sen views the expansion of capabilities as both the means and ends of development. Democratic dialogue and human agency are central to the process of achieving those capabilities. Human capability and education Although Sen (1999) is unwilling to define a fundamental list of operational capabilities, he does suggest five categories of instrumental freedoms which have direct and indirect importance: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security. For Sen, public education lies within the realm of social opportunities, because public education helps shape people’s substantive freedoms to act by giving them literacy, numeracy, and the ability to seek work and participate in society at different levels. For Sen, public education is directly important in and of itself through its effect on people’s personal lives. Its indirect significance lies in its effects upon the relationship between the individual and society. Within the realm of basic education, closing educational gaps in access, inclusion and achievement are goals that Sen fervently advocates. In a lecture he gave at the Commonwealth Education conference at the University of Edinburgh in 2003, Sen talked about the nature and manifestations of human insecurity. In order to make the world more secure, we must address human insecurity, which comes in many forms and is manifested in diverse ways. As ‘illiteracy and innumeracy are forms of insecurity in themselves’, it follows that ‘Widening the coverage and effectiveness of basic education can have a powerfully preventive role in reducing human insecurity of nearly every kind’ (Sen, 2003). Sen has proven his belief in the power of basic education to reduce human security by using some of his Nobel Prize earnings in 1998 to create an educational foundation, the Pratichi Trust.The Trust’s studies of perceptions [230]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 231

Landorf et al.: Education for sustainable human development of the value of basic education among the poorest of India show that parents have faith that basic education can pull their children out of the poverty that they themselves suffer. Human capability and sustainable development Although Sen does not define SD, he does address its underlying values: ‘the growing concern with “sustainable development” reflects a basic belief that the interests of future generations should receive the same kind of attention that those in the present generation get’ (Anand and Sen, 2000: 2030).‘But this goal of sustainability – increasingly recognized to be legitimate – would make little sense if the present life opportunities that are to be “sustained” in the future were miserable and indigent’ (Anand and Sen, 2000: 2030). In other words, the moral significance of sustainability depends as much on the quality of what we have now as what will be available in the future. Sen argues that the fundamental value underlying sustainability is ethical universalism – a basic mandate for impartiality – both between and within generations. This conception of human development can easily be expanded ‘to accommodate the claims of the future generations and the urgency of environmental protection’ (Anand and Sen, 2000: 2030). SD therefore denotes quality of life for both present and future generations. Its underlying value, ethical universalism, commands improvement of present-day living conditions as a basis for those of future generations. This value is of course also the basis for the oft-cited Brundtland Commission definition of SD.While the Bruntland statement ‘implies something about what “sustainable” means . . . it does not even try to define “development”’ (Daly, 1996: 2). Purposefully broad, the Brundtland definition provides little direction as to what development is appropriate and how it should be measured. Since Brundtland, continued emphasis has been placed on the measurement of traditional development’s aggregate effects on the economy, while little attention has been paid to its long-term effects on such things as human health and natural resources. In contrast, development policies generated from the human capability approach necessarily rise from the ground up, beginning with the development of present-day, individual human well-being. The approach stands apart and redirects interest away from traditional development of aggregate trends in the global marketplace. Further, because it looks at things holistically, it precludes a narrow focus on only one or another dimension of human capability, such as bodily or environmental health. Human well-being is a holistic concept, in that it involves multiple capabilities and the agency necessary to transform these capabilities into personally valued functionings. [231]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 232

Theory and Research in Education 6(2) When the ethical universalism inherent in sustainability is coupled with the human capability approach to development, we are led to a unique interpretation of SD as the enhancement of present and future human well-being as it is understood through the dimensions of human capability.This definition has significant implications for ESD. Education for sustainable human development We have seen that ESD lacks a clear definition, without which the reorientation of educational systems is impossible. By incorporating Sen’s human capability approach, we achieve greater clarity of definition, purpose and values in conceptualizing ESD.The core components of the capability approach, namely functioning, capabilities and agency can form the conceptual framework for guiding curricular, pedagogical and assessment decisions for ESD.We propose that ESD be reframed as ESHD or education for sustainable human development: educational practice that results in the enhancement of human well-being, conceived in terms of the expansion of individuals’ agency, capabilities and participation in democratic dialogue, both for now and for future generations.

e d u cat i n g f o r s u s ta i na b l e h u ma n d e v e l o p m e n t : i m p l i cat i o n s f o r p rac t i c e By incorporating Sen’s human capability approach the primary unit of analysis of education for sustainable human development is individual human wellbeing. According to Sen, everyone is entitled to well-being, both now and in the future. Educators must therefore evaluate the contextual circumstances determining people’s abilities to achieve well-being and measure results and future possibilities accordingly. But it is the educators’ responsibility to cultivate democratic dialogue among multiple stakeholders to identify basic capabilities and culturally valued functionings in the communities in which they practice.This process forms the basis from which locally relevant curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in all forms of education will emerge. The human capability approach has practical and far-reaching implications in all aspects of knowledge acquisition, content, curriculum and pedagogy. In terms of curriculum, educating for sustainable human development does not focus solely on human capital development, nor does it simply add on environmental education. Instead, it directs educators to examine people’s abilities to achieve locally determined basic capabilities. From there, educators and community stakeholders through democratic dialogue construct a curriculum that addresses what students must know and be able to do to achieve valued functionings. Such a curriculum does not negate concern for the effects of the

[232]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 233

Landorf et al.: Education for sustainable human development environment on people’s well-being, nor people’s effects on the well-being of the environment. In terms of pedagogy, educating for sustainable human development is centered on democratic dialogue.As we noted above, Sen regards democratic dialogue as important on three levels: directly, instrumentally and constructively. Educators have the responsibility to model and facilitate democratic dialogue in order for students to learn its direct importance – the fact that freedom of choice has value in and of itself, regardless of results. In pedagogy centered on democratic dialogue, the teacher does not abdicate from her planning and content knowledge responsibilities and become ‘one of the students’. In fact, she must have a true command of content, plan thematically and sequentially, and be attuned to her students’ needs in order to facilitate meaningful discussion that allows students to understand their capabilities and what they must know and do in order to become whom they want to be. By engaging in democratic dialogue, the educator and her students will come to its instrumental importance – that liberty of thought and action can lead to secondary positive results. The constructive importance of democratic dialogue – freedom as an educative process that plays a critical role in public discourse and the assemblage of community consensus on values, goals and priorities – must be recognized as vital to sustainable human development. In educating for sustainable human development, assessment goes hand in hand with democratic dialogue. From the beginning of the year, the educator and students should together assess the students’ capabilities, and what they must know and learn in order to achieve locally valued functionings. Assessment is then integrated into all stages of the teaching and learning process, and lays the foundation for continuous learning. Rather than serving as an end product, assessment in this new paradigm is a recursive process, in which continuous monitoring of progress towards mutually agreed upon capabilities becomes an intrinsic element for both the educator and her students. Assessment is also a key to the sustainability of human development. The 21st century has been dubbed the Information Age; new kinds of data, distributed in new ways and accessible to new groups of people every day, are making holistic, long-term decision-making more possible than ever. Educating for sustainable human development requires that students learn to assess not only the achievement of their own personal goals, but the interconnection between their individual well-being and that of their environment, culture, community and nation. Assessment – awareness of and reflection upon the changing conditions of our times – is a critical component of educating for the well-being of present and future generations.

[233]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 234

Theory and Research in Education 6(2)

c o n c lu d i n g r e ma r k s In April 2007 UNESCO published a progress report on efforts, activities, networks and events in support of the DESD (UNESCO, 2007). One highlight of this report is a further delineation of the goal of the UN DESD. During this decade, education for sustainable development will contribute to making citizens better prepared to face the challenges of the present and the future, and educating decision-makers who will act responsibly to create a viable world. Thus, five kinds of fundamental learning will be enhanced: learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, learning to live together, and learning to transform oneself and society (UNESCO, 2007: 2). We appreciate this articulation of the goal of the DESD, and heartily endorse the five kinds of learning described. Particularly, we endorse the fact that the learner in this description of ESD is an active participant in her learning the knowledge, skills and attitudes of self-development, sustainable development and social justice. In this article we have argued for the need for an agency-driven, educationally useful definition of ESD, and have posited such a definition.We hope that our definition of education for sustainable human development will spark public discussion of the centrality of human capability in our efforts to redirect education towards the fulfillment of both humanity’s and earth’s peaceful potential. ac k n ow l e d g e m e n t s We would like to thank Michelle Tenam-Zemach for her valuable contributions on the literature of sustainable development and education for sustainable development. We would also like to thank Catherine Wadley and Randall Curren for their expert and efficient editing.

re ferences Alkire, S. (2002) ‘Dimensions of human development’, World Development 30(2): 181–205. Anand, S. and Sen, A.K. (2000) ‘Human development and economic sustainability’, World Development 2(12): 2029–49. Bonnett, M. (2002) ‘Education for sustainability as a frame of mind’, Environmental Education Research 8: 9–20. Boyer,W.H. (2002) Education for the Twenty-first Century. San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap Press. Bruntland, G., ed. (1987) Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Council for Environmental Education (1998) Council for Environmental Education Agenda for action 1998–2001: Shaping education for the 21st Century. London: Council for Environmental Education. Daly, H.E. (1996) Beyond Growth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

[234]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 235

Landorf et al.: Education for sustainable human development Downes, A. (1996) ‘Education and sustainable development: Historical perspectives and projections for Barbados’. Available at http://www.iacd.oas.org/La% 20Educa%20120/downes.htm (accessed 10 September 2007). Fien, J. (2004) ‘Educational policy and practice for sustainable development’, in Education for Sustainability, ed. V. Farrell, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Developed under the auspices of UNESCO, Oxford, UK. Available at http://www.eolss.net (accessed 1 October 2007). Gasper, D. (2000) ‘Development as freedom: taking economics beyond commodities – the cautious boldness of Amartya Sen, Journal of International Development 12: 989–1001. Harper, C.L. (2004) Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues, 3d edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Kates, R., Parris, T. and Leiserowitz, A. (2005) ‘What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values and practice’, Environment 47(3): 8–21. Learning for a Sustainable Future (n.d.) ‘About LSF:What is education for sustainable development?’Available at http://www.lsf-lst.ca/ (accessed 15 January 2008). Livingstone, J. (1995) Rogue Primate: An Exploration of Human Domestication. Lanham, MD: Roberts Rinehart. Nussbaum, M.C. (1999) Sex and Social Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Orr, D. (1994) Earth in Mind: on Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press. Rauch, F. (2002) ‘The potential of education for sustainable development for reform in schools’, Environmental Education 8: 43–51. Sauvé, L. (1996) ‘Environmental education and sustainable development:A further appraisal’, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 1: 7–31. Sen, A.K. (1987) ‘The Standard of Living I and II’, in G. Hawthorn (ed)., The Standard of Living, pp. 1–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sen, A.K. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press. Sen, A.K. (2003) ‘Amartya Sen: The Importance of Basic Education’, The Guardian, 28 October. Available at http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~ab/Miscellany/ basiced.html (accessed 15 January 2008). Sterling, S. (1996) ‘Education in change’, in J. Huckle and S. Sterling (eds), Education for Sustainability, pp. 18–39. London: Earthscan. UNESCO (2002) ‘Education for sustainability. From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons learnt from a decade of commitment’. Paris:UNESCO. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127100e.pdf (accessed 24 March 2008). UNESCO (2003) ‘Framework for the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development’. Paris: UNESCO. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0013/00131163e.pdf (accessed 24 March 2008). UNESCO (2005) ‘UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014)’, Paris: UNESCO. Available at http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID23279&URL_DODO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION201.html (accessed 2 February 2008). UNESCO (2007) ‘Highlights on DESD progress to date, April 2007’. Paris. Available at portal.unesco.org/…/en/files/51172/11779357975 Progress_to_Date_APRIL07.pdf/ProgresstoDateAPRIL07.pdf (accessed 2 February 2008).

[235]

091114_TRE_221-236.qxd

9/4/08

04:18 PM

Page 236

Theory and Research in Education 6(2) United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Division for Sustainable Development (2005) ‘Agenda 21’. Available at http:// www.un.org/esa/ sustdev/agenda21text.htm (accessed 1 February 2008). Wheeler, K.A. and Bijur, A.P., eds (2000) Education for a Sustainable Future: A Paradigm of Hope for the 21st Century. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

b i o g ra p h i ca l n o t e s h i l a ry l a n d o r f is an Assistant Professor of Social Studies and International/ Intercultural Education, and the Director of the Intercultural Institute for Educational Initiatives at Florida International University. Her research interests include the intersection of global and inclusive education, human rights education, and the use of the human capability approach as a framework for education. [email: [email protected]] s t e p h a n i e d o s c h e r is completing her EdD in Educational Leadership, with a specialization in International/Intercultural Education, at Florida International University. She is a middle grade chairperson and teaches English and Social Studies in Miami Dade County Public Schools. [email: [email protected]] t o n e t t e r o c c o is an Associate Professor of Adult Education and Human Resource Development at Florida International University. She is the editor of New Horizons in Adult Resource and Human Resource Development. Her research interests include continuing professional education, qualitative research methods, and equity and privilege, specifically in terms of race, sexual orientation, age and disability. [email: [email protected]]

[236]