Exploring the link between Learning for Sustainability and attainment

Variation between local authorities, schools, and teachers

It was clear from the data that approaches to and understanding of LfS and its outcomes vary depending on the local authority, school and teacher.

Variations in understanding and implementation of LfS

Primary practitioner school C noted that their local authority was not very active in promoting LfS in schools. He observed that for initiatives that local authorities prioritise, the messaging to schools often notes the connections to literacy, numeracy and health and well-being, but that this is not the case for Learning for Sustainability. He considered that LfS-specific messaging from local authorities would be beneficial for schools, to support making similar connections and recognising the potential outcomes of LfS.

The two primary schools that were in areas of deprivation were more advanced in their LfS journeys. This was due to practitioners’ recognition of Learning for Sustainability’s potential to contribute towards equity and inclusion for their demographic of pupils. However, even within schools where LfS was embedded in the school’s culture and ethos, practitioners considered that there was varying commitment to LfS among staff, which in turn had an impact on levels of engagement and motivation among pupils. Furthermore, especially at the secondary level, many practitioners noted that they focused on the sustainable development content of LfS, where it connects to the curriculum, with much less focus on global citizenship and outdoor learning.

Secondary practitioner school G talked about his perception of a conflict of priorities between children’s rights initiatives and LfS initiatives in school. He commented that the school would have more time for LfS if it had not prioritised going for their Rights Respecting School Award (which focuses on children's rights). This indicates that his understanding of LfS did not include the children’s rights agenda. However, for practitioners in all four of the participating primary schools, children’s rights formed a significant part of LfS content. This highlights a potential lack of consistency of understanding among practitioners about what constitutes LfS and how it is implemented.

Learners’ access to LfS varies

Teachers in schools where LfS was well established in the curriculum saw more benefits for all learners from LfS than those who were less active in integrating LfS across the curriculum. For practitioners in schools where LfS was well established, a range of positive cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes for pupils were identified. For schools with a less well established LfS provision, the main outcomes were seen as equipping the next generation with awareness of other global contexts and the challenges that they may face, while also offering learners the opportunity to develop skills which could assist them in achieving positive post-school destinations.

In secondary schools, much of the LfS provision centred around extra-curricular activities such as eco-committees. Several of the practitioners reflected that eco-committees attracted ambitious pupils. For example, secondary practitioner school H said that the eco-committee attracted pupils who were keen to demonstrate their leadership skills and secondary practitioner school G said it attracted pupils who wanted the school’s captain badge. As these activities were optional, and often seen as a means to develop post-school applications and opportunities, participants observed that lower attaining pupils were potentially less likely to participate.

For several of the primary practitioners, LfS was considered an opportunity to expose children from less advantaged backgrounds to topics that they might not otherwise have awareness or experience of. Primary practitioner 2 school B observed that in their school, learners from families impacted by poverty tended to have limited experience in the outdoors. These children’s parents told the practitioner that they did not feel confident taking their children outdoors or answering their children’s questions about LfS related topics. Thus, the practitioner considered LfS experiences to be even more important for these children, as they would be less likely to access them elsewhere. Several practitioners reported that learners from disadvantaged backgrounds had lower levels of awareness of sustainability related topics due, for example, due to barriers to their to participation in extra-curricular activities (e.g. cost) compared to their more advantaged peers. This was reflected in both primary and secondary practitioners’ responses:

‘I think those pupils that are able to make the strongest connections, tend to be the most able pupils and tend to have… more life experience so have home situations where they have the ability to visit other places.’ Secondary practitioner 1 school E

‘Actually, giving them [disadvantaged pupils] all these kinds of opportunities I think is increasing equity for them because they're getting to experience talking to… a child in India and a child in Nepal and other opportunities that they maybe would not get through… their own life and life with family and things.’ Primary practitioner 1 school D

These examples illustrate the perception among some practitioners (in less disadvantaged settings) that there is a correlation between opportunities, such as travel, and academic ability. In contrast, primary practitioner 1 school B observed that the choice of an LfS global citizenship topic like migration could support inclusion in their setting where there was a high level of deprivation. By not separating children by ability, it also supported equity and allowed learners to bring their own lived experiences.

‘It’s so inclusive because you don’t have to be the best writer in the class to be able to contribute to the story… So, I think by its very nature, it enables children to contribute and join in, whether they’re having dyslexia, or they have, you know, they’re new to English, there’s an approach there that supports all learners.’ Primary practitioner 1 School

In this context, when learners were working together on an LfS activity, participants reported that everyone had a part to play and expectations were equal for all learners.

These examples highlight the difference between schools with regard to access to LfS activities for learners and expectations of participation for all.

Variations in access to training for teachers

Some practitioners noted the importance of appropriate training to support them to engage with challenging social justice topics as part of their LfS provision. For instance, primary practitioner 2 school B commented that training she undertook with WOSDEC gave her confidence to deal with complex issues when delivering global citizenship related LfS content:

‘[They] have equipped us with the confidence and the knowledge to be able to tackle these global issues and societal issues and how to tailor it to each stage. Because at first in infants we thought, oh my goodness, we do not want to traumatise these little youngsters.’ Primary practitioner 2 school B

Primary practitioner 1 school B noted the importance of supporting the development of teachers’ skills to be able to tackle difficult LfS-related issues at the same time as ensuring a safe and supportive environment for both learners and practitioners.

‘We as a school are continuing to develop our teacher skills because when you're working in the area of learning for sustainability, you are bringing children face to face with some complex, you know, real world issues and you have to be able to do that in a safe and supportive way around migration and poverty and prejudice and stereotypes.’ Primary practitioner 1 School B

Participants who received training in delivering global citizenship pointed to the importance of such training for supporting the delivery of an inclusive LfS curriculum. Without such training, common LfS activities, such as fundraising for charity and collecting for food banks, were not always utilised as opportunities for deeper exploration. For instance, themes of global citizenship and social justice were not consistently addressed, nor were the skills that LfS aims to cultivate, such as critical thinking.

The findings from this research suggest that in the absence of appropriate training, practitioners may be influenced by their perceptions of learners’ ability to participate in LfS. Practitioners who are delivering global citizenship may focus on the idea of ‘helping others who are less fortunate,’ without also considering the implications for social justice and equity. This may represent a missed opportunity for developing learners’ critical thinking skills. Indeed, in some cases such an approach may perpetuate inequality, lending weight to the argument for more consistent access to LfS related training for all schools and practitioners.

This section has shown how different local authorities, schools and teachers provide different LfS experiences for learners, due to different understandings of LfS, different levels of experience of LfS and appropriate training and differing expectations of participation in LfS.