MRV 2015-16 30 Discusión

SD in the Pacific, like elsewhere, requires a simultaneous reconciliation of the social, economic and environmental elements of sustainability (Robinson, 2004). The difference however, is that Pacific island students should not be indoctrinated with Eurocentric versions of SD. Instead, they should ideally have the freedom to immerse themselves in their own IK, and culture, using their own language to formulate contextually sound models of development based on a “uniquely Pacific world view” (Taufe'ulungaki, 2001, p. 5). In this research I will argue that Sterling’s (2001) concept of an ‘Education as’ approach to SD, as distinct from ‘Education about’ or ‘Education for’ SD, when aligned to

indigenous knowledge and epistemologies could support the beginnings of a framework in which students are given the chance to do precisely this. It is therefore timely that these three concepts of Sterling’s are now explained and the effect they have on student learning. 3.4.1 Education about SD

Taking an ‘Education about’ SD methodology, dominant development and educational paradigms remain unchallenged. The belief is in an instrumental, technocentric,

managerlistic view of education, encouraging a neoliberal mind-set and supporting entry into global labour markets. Environmental issues such as pollution and threats to biodiversity are taught as concerns but in isolation to prevailing ideologies and do not challenge them. Learning about sustainability is adapted to the status quo. Many ESD projects promoted by UNESCO and delivered across the Pacific fit this model. Such projects are often delivered as time bound themed projects with defined budgets and are not integrated into the curriculum. McKeown(2002) believes, “Teaching about sustainable development is like teaching the theory behind an abstract concept or teaching the principles of sustainability by rote memorization”(p. 28). Students are only taught models of SD underpinned by western ideology. Students do not get the chance to explore what sustainability might mean to them from their own worldview.

3.4.2 Education for SD

Sterling (2001) views the second educational approach as ‘Education for’ SD. Critical and reflective thinking are encouraged and aspects of the existing paradigm can be questioned but only within bounds. “Espoused or hidden values” (ibid, p. 60), for example, neoliberal ideology and the concept of limitless economic growth are not. Classroom social science units, which investigate social or environmental issues from a problem solving point of

view, fit this model. Detrimental impacts of rapid economic growth on the environment are investigated and temporary fixes sought but long lasting paradigm shifts are not envisioned, as the overriding ideology itself is not challenged.

3.4.3 Moving beyond Education ‘about’ and ‘for’ SD to EasSD

ESD adopted from Global North countries is likely to favour western ideology and overlook cultural or contextual aspirations (Hiebert, 2014). Even the UNESCO media manual (2008) on ESD fails to mention culture. The manual never addresses the “need to go beyond Western-based knowledge systems or educational discourses for a more sustainable earth” (Breidlid, 2009, p. 143). Gegeo and Watson-Gegeo (2001) argue, education in the Global South has tended to mirror western development ideology that progress is best achieved through modernisation at the expense of culture. Students are provided with opinions on what development progress ought to represent (B. Jickling, 2005). The almost exclusive use of western knowledge within SD frameworks promotes anthropocentric and technocentric perspectives over ecocentric and indigenous viewpoints. Nurse (2006) argues SD “is largely informed by Western notions ... (raising) ... concerns about whose agenda is being served” (p. 36). Preparing students for the possibility of traditional, sustainable livelihoods is ignored, as the promotion of western knowledge is “inextricably linked to the spread of colonialism and capitalism and to the dislocation of other epistemologies” (Breidlid, 2013, p. 5).

Galtung (1996) describes how education has long been stuck in a neoliberal paradigm and there is a reluctance, and/or fear to challenge the status quo. Education promotes

development as:

(A) Development = Western development = Modernization, and

(B) Development = Growth = Economic growth = GNP growth. (p. 131)

Sterling (2001) explains how Education ‘about’ and ‘for’ SD focuses on environmental degradation and cultural loss concerns in non-critical ways. Strategies to tackle these concerns are only debated within western development ideology. Neoliberalism and limits to economic growth are not in themselves challenged. ESD captured by a western

development framework, determines “what we see and how we act in the world” (Nurse, 2006, p. 37).

Western thinking pervades Global South educational policy and practice with education promoted primarily as a tool to increase human capital to support economic growth

strategies (Alexiadou, 2001; C. Cooper, 2002; Ozga & Deem, 2000; Tomlinson, 2001). Supporting this role, the liberal function of education is used to promote individualism and the benefits of competition. Students are encouraged to compete for qualifications and careers that maximise their share of the economic rewards on offer. The westernisation, especially of urban areas of the Global South, a result of pursuing neoliberal and capitalist policies, has resulted in the social function of education emerging to support students who are at risk of becoming victims of lack of opportunity, unemployment and growing societal inequity (Sterling, 2001).

Place-based ESD

Sterling (2001) believes Education ‘about’ or ‘for’ SD by designation, promote western worldviews of SD. The result is a politicised ESD that could be complicit in promoting SD as a “term of political convenience used to mask and/or legitimate vested interests” (p. 318) that are western in origin. Local people would not then be given the opportunity to explore and define their own local, usually indigenous, notions of what SD ought to mean and represent. As Jickling (2005) argues, ‘‘it is an anathema to think that education should serve predetermined ends’’ (p. 252). A place-based ESD could challenge the status quo of Education ‘about’ and ‘for’ approaches to ESD by providing a space for students, as future citizens and leaders, to think about and positively influence the “well-being of the social and ecological places” (Gruenewald, 2003, p. 4), they inhabit. This does not imply ESD would neglect the issues that surround global sustainability and an understanding of the dynamics of the biosphere; it simply means ESD programmes would centre, initially at least, on building local understandings of sustainability and SD. The Rural School and Community Trust (Rural School and Community Trust, 2005) provides the most commonly used definition of Place-based Education (PBE)46 _{as follows:}

Learning that is rooted in what is local - the unique history, environment, culture, economy, literature, and art of a particular place. The community provides the context for learning, student work focuses on community needs and interests, and community members serve as resources and partners in every aspect of teaching and learning. (G. A. Smith & Sobel, 2014, p. 23)

Smith (2002) provides five key advantages, of a place-based education:

x Students learn about local culture;

x Students learn about nature and the ecosystem dynamics of local environments;

x Students immerse themselves in real world leaning by problem solve community issues;

x Students explore local “internships and entrepreneurial opportunities” (p. 590); and

x Students build the skills to contribute to community decision making by inducting themselves into “community processes” (p. 591).

These foci could be invaluable for students exploring localised notions of SD. As Gruenewald, quoting Freire reminds:

Human beings are because they are in a situation. And they will be more the more they not only critically reflect upon their existence but critically act upon it. (Freire 1970/1995, p90 as quoted inGruenewald, 2003, p. 4)

Gruenewald (2003) believes place-based education, which would include a place-based ESD, could benefit from a critical pedagogy of place where students “examine the place- specific nexus between environment, culture, and education” (p. 10). As Penetito (2009) points out, any indigenous place-based pedagogy should be based on three key intentions:

x “A sense of place … (as) … a fundamental need” (p. 20) for indigenous peoples;

x “An ecological consciousness and the understanding required to maintain sustainable communities” (p. 17); and

x The right of indigenous peoples to explore their own “indigenous ways of knowing and doing” (p. 18).

A PBE approach to ESD would ensure as Penetito describes Alaskan elder Oscar

Kawagley’s thinking, an emphasis “on teaching through culture rather than about culture” (p. 18). This approach does not reject the utilisation of western development ideology, knowledge and/or technology when formulating solutions to localised SD. However, western hegemony no longer defines local indigenous notions of sustainability and SD. A place-based EasSD could broaden students’ perceptions of SD beyond narrow, western, anthropocentric viewpoints that aim simply to justify more economic growth in the face of increasing environmental concerns and loss of culture. Students imbued with a critical pedagogy of place could now draw on ecocentric thinking alongside techno and anthropocentric ideas and importantly, indigenous worldviews, knowledge and epistemologies as well as western knowledge, ideology and technology.