Sustainability education in the 2011 Icelandic national curriculum guide for preschools, compulsory schools, and upper secondary schools: coherent or fragmentedideas?

Abstract

The idea of sustainable development appeared on the international, as well as the Icelandic, agenda in the late 20th century, and the so-called Brundtland (1987) report is commonly referred to as its burgeoning beginning. In Iceland these ideas were known to educators early (see an overview by Stefán Bergmann et al., 2008), although it was not until the publication of the 2011 national curriculum for pre-, compulsory, and upper secondary schools that sustainability education received a central place in the curriculum as one of six fundamental pillars of education. This article examines whether ideas relating to sustainability are similar or different in the various sections of the curricula; that is a) the fundamental pillar section, which is the same for all three school levels, b) the different school-level specific parts, and c) the larger section on subject areas for the compulsory school.

 

First, the fundamental pillars’ section was read and a curriculum analysis key in three parts derived from it to analyze other sections. The questions are the following: 1) Is sustainability or sustainable development mentioned in the school-level specific sections of the curricula, how often, and in what contexts? 2) Are the different spheres of sustainability education noted? Under that question, I searched for particular ideas that could be classified as belonging in one of the three spheres of sustainable development, as it is defined in the curriculum: a) Environment and nature: Are ecosystems and cycles of nature dealt with? Are the ecological footprint, environmental protection, climate change, and biodiversity among the topics? b) Social perspective (as in the official translation): Is intragenerational and transgenerational equality and welfare in focus? c) Economic factors: Is the use of natural resources “in a sensible manner” dealt with? Are economic growth, financial literacy, and consumption in focus? 3) Is fostering the competence of children and teenagers to live and work in a democratic society a focal point? Is there an emphasis on children and teenagers being able to come to grips with diverse problems and controversial issues? Is action competence emphasized? (In Icelandic, this concept is geta til aðgerða. The official translation from Icelandic uses “capability for action” in the fundamental pillar text but action competence in the natural sciences subject area. This concept was invented by Danish scholars as handlekompetence, or in English, action competence, e.g., Jensen og Schnack, 1997).

 

The school-level specific sections were read with these questions in mind; the paper version was read many times and all curricula were engine-searched for specific terms and phrases. The findings indicate that the concepts sustainable development and sustainability are not much in evidence in the school-level specific sections, except in the subject area section of the curriculum for compulsory schools. Ideas on sustainability tended to appear in various ways, depending on the school level, but differed also according to subject area of the compulsory school. The application of the terms under scrutiny appeared as incidental and fragmented in the different sections, compared to what was said in the fundamental pillar section. The natural sciences subject area seems an exception, including, for example, groups of competence criteria entitled Action competence and A healthy environment. Ideas relating to consumer education in the spirit of the fundamental pillars are to be found in a few of the compulsory school subject areas.