Learning for Sustainability: young people and practitioner perspectives

5. Discussion of findings

5.1 Understanding of LfS is language based, contextual, and varied

Many young people and practitioners reported they had never heard of the term sustainability and/or had not been taught about it. 'Climate change' and 'Environmental Science' were easier to understand, often used synonymously with sustainability. Practitioners, during the field visits, articulated their understandings of delivering LfS in a variety of ways, highlighting the lack of shared language or understandings. These responses differ to those in the scoping survey where a majority of practitioners said they were familiar with LfS in CfE. It is possible that this is due to the practitioners who completed the scoping survey were those who were familiar with and felt strongly about LfS.

The issues surrounding language and sustainability education were recognised over a decade ago (McFarlane and Ogazon, 2011), and are commonly raised in literature (Scoones, 2016). For example, within their systematic literature review on LfS in the secondary sector, Taylor et al (2019) report on the continuing discord surrounding the terminology and the signalling towards the environment. Given these debates the use of labels such as Education for Sustainability, Education for Sustainable Development and so on, there is a cause to question the relevance of the term 'sustainability'. As one young person said "what do we want to sustain anyway? We want it to get better – not stay as it is." (Site 5)

Kopnina (2018), indicates the most common terms in the SDGs are 'economic growth, resilience and inclusion' (p.1269), followed by more nuanced aspects of sustainability such as health and wellbeing, global citizenship, social inequalities, and rights. The young people reflected some of these issues by discussing the importance of sustainability, the impact of climate change on their communities and concerns for their future. This reflects the work of Francis and Davis (2015) who signpost studies revealing adolescent environmental concerns, regardless of cultural or economic background. We also note that some young people remarked on their own additional learning about sustainability and related terminology through the World Café events which supported sharing insights with peers and facilitators.

Even though young people identified very limited understandings, the main vehicle they did have for LfS was through lessons and school-initiated talks and events, with eco-clubs and field trips mentioned often. Many young people commented on the general learning around sustainability in their primary education with reducing, reusing and recycling as key discussion points. However, this decreased in secondary unless specific subjects were opted for, such as geography, science, and modern studies. According to Taylor et al (2019), such limited experience curtails young peoples' opportunities for becoming confident individuals and capacities to promote change for the common good. It is necessary to enable engagement across the whole education sector and this may necessitate more integrated and explicit learning. In the community sector there was no specific remit to implement LfS although they did engage in community recycling or environmental projects. Perhaps the greatest challenge was the language used concerning sustainability.

Practitioners recognised the need to articulate LfS through their curriculum areas but reported a lack of expertise and guidance enabling them to fulfil this role. Curriculum areas in which they addressed LfS mirrored the young people's responses, mainly geography and science but also through interdisciplinary learning. Workload was an issue, with concerns about another concept being added into what they perceived as a crowded curriculum. Very few had engaged with or knew about the Education Scotland Sustainability Hub.

5.2 Experiences in LfS are effective in collaboration with others

Young people discussed a range of ways in which they had been involved in, or encountered practical examples of LfS, across school and community project and settings. They ranged from outdoor learning, eco-clubs, regular school classes, partnerships in the community and memories of LfS learning in primary school. These experiences were identified as forming part of their learning experiences, as well as being important to their awareness of LfS being applied, or not, across buildings, campuses and community spaces. Through them young people gained a sense of unity and had experiences of collaborative approaches, which are necessary for sustainable futures (UNICEF, 2017). They also noted that due to challenges for practitioners in schools and CLD settings, many of these practice examples were unsustainable and would often fall into disrepair or disuse.

Young people shared narratives and identified practical examples of effective LfS being incorporated and embedded into their school/community infrastructure, but it was limited. This is consistent with the scoping survey results where two thirds of practitioners said they demonstrated LfS in their practice but only half felt empowered to teach LfS, although many felt it was important to adapt their teaching during COP26. Young people reported positive experiences in primary school where they used less plastic, recycled paper and plastic, composted food waste and engaged in outdoor learning lessons or extra-curricular projects. They were critical of secondary schools with limited sustainability aspirations, citing lack of support from staff as a barrier to their initiatives in this area. However, in order to feel a sense of hope regarding climate change, young people need to engage collaboratively and creatively in climate change or sustainability actions (Rousell & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2020). Birch (2020) also identified the need for young people to share narratives of practical experiences of place-based environmental activism, to understand their potential to make a difference, contribute to their communities and have hope for the future. Such activity also serves to mitigate the fear and helplessness that many young people feel about their future with regard to LfS and climate change (Hickman et.al, 2021).

Outdoor Learning featured in both practitioners' and young peoples' responses about LfS, ranging from opportunities to engage with nature to experiencing first-hand human impact. However, it was clear again that examples were subject-related and often limited in highlighting sustainability issues. One extra curricula area related to LfS that was seen as successful across social justice as well as the environment, was the DoE Award.

National and international collaborations were identified by practitioners as examples of successful LfS-related projects such as a pre COP26 online event for secondary and primary schools in Scotland. Useful and targeted resources were drawn from Youth Scotland and the Eco-School's initiative. Community examples were provided in the form of litter picking and community gardening. Some examples of collaboration also highlighted links to the geographical location of the school, such as visits to moorland estates to understand wildlife in these areas. The successes of these partnerships are essential for genuine sustainability education (Green and Somerville, 2015). However, many of the examples given by the participants focus on environmental features only and omit consideration of social justice and other aspects of sustainability.

5.3 Successes in LfS are integrated, creative, place-based and often outdoors

When exploring young people's understandings of LfS-related areas within the curriculum, it was evident that these were subject-specific with a focus on children's rights and social justice in social sciences aspects, and energy and climate change in the sciences. Learning about rewilding, erosion, agricultural practices, food production, reusing and recycling material (fashion clothing) were also indicated. However, the effectiveness of this learning depended on the approach, with many commenting negatively on the use of PowerPoint resources but contrasting the positive impact of guest speakers, field trips and outdoor learning. This need for creative education echoes Malone and Truong (2017) who propose that "the question is not whether sustainability education has a role to play in a sustainable future for the planet –it is, can we re-imagine new ways of 'doing' education and not repeat the same old practices" (p.8).

There was a consensus that outdoor learning was relevant in terms of a connection with nature and the natural environment, but LfS was seldom mentioned. School and/or community gardens, where possible, yielded positive LfS outcomes. Other outdoor learning activities highlighted Forest School and local outdoor field trips. It was evident that many of these trips took place in primary years, others occurred in secondary school, although these were much less frequent. The evidence suggested that COVID-19 had negatively impacted the opportunity for field trips. Even though the participants did not automatically associate the field trips with sustainability, the experience and learning from these events was memorable for the young people.

Examples of extended school initiatives include eco-clubs, eco-fest, climate ambassador groups, and fund-raising. Much of this placed an emphasis on the climate and the eco-component of sustainability through activities such as litter picking, recycling, reducing energy use, and reusing materials. However, it was through these groups that the use of the term 'sustainability' came to the fore.

Within the World Café discussions, limited attention was given directly to COP26 and 27 but when prompted three examples were highlighted in relation to school, and another related to attendance outside of school. The SDGs were briefly highlighted through eco-club work, one in relation to COP27 and their geography higher award. One fundraising focused on areas beyond the environment with references made to UNICEF and Children in Need. The topic of fundraising was minimally discussed.

In summary, practitioners indicated successes in specific projects such as the COP26 events, DoE programmes, and LfS oriented field trips although these were irregular. The majority of responses in this area indicated challenges to implementing LfS and these are addressed in the next section.

5.4 LfS challenges are exacerbated by lack of resources & joined up systems

Lack of time was mentioned by the majority of participants across every setting and site. The scoping survey identified that whilst most practitioners were supported to engage in LfS, they did not have the time to do so. Time constraints relate not only to workload but also affect timetabling and the school calendar resulting in restrictions and an inability to offer extra-curricular activities, trips or develop practical and experiential elements to their teaching. Access to external training opportunities and the time required to fit in so many other priority curriculum areas were also key constraints. As Malone and Truong, (2017), argue, in concert with the voices of young people in this study, a creative approach is needed for delivery of experiential pedagogies within LfS, ITE and its coordination of LfS pedagogy. This will require ongoing management support, appropriate spaces and learning resources in the school or community area.

Limited resources and opportunities for field trips and outdoor education were seen as a barrier by the young people. They identified the need to be outdoors, where the more academic elements of learning about LfS can be correlated with the embodied experience of being in the natural environment. This aligns with Jeronen et al.'s (2016) conclusions where 'first-hand experiences, locality and place-based education' (p.12) appeared to positively affect sustainability learning and attitudes. Two systematic literature reviews show that outdoor learning, particularly in natural environments where active, participatory, and interactive learning occurs (Jeronen et al., 2016; Mann et al., 2022), is generally beneficial to learning.

Funding was raised as a significant barrier to delivering LfS, specifically linked to staffing and time. With additional small funds participants mentioned that place-based projects could be established but staff needed time to coordinate and develop long-term, joined up outdoor learning experiences in the community for young people. Without seed funding or small-scale budget set aside, there is very little opportunity for schools to establish meaningful projects long-term, deliver programmes themselves or work with their preferred external providers and partnerships who could deliver elements of LfS.

The absence of recognisable terminology (see section 5.1) mapping projects, curriculum content and partnerships delivering elements of LfS was raised. An LfS lead tying together what is happening in the community would allow a more joined-up and whole-school strategic approach to emerge, as supported by Capra (2007), in collaboration with the local authority to identify LfS aims and objectives. Practitioners felt this would be helpful to identify ways to either contribute to existing initiatives or develop their own offering. Similarly, young people stated basic expectations about sustainable practice could not be met due to a gap in infrastructure systems between schools and their respective local authorities around paper and plastic recycling, food waste reduction, and management of heating systems. It was argued that establishing sustainable and ecologically efficient infrastructure was one of the best ways to exemplify LfS with young people, yet often these are constrained by providers/ services who have restrictions on their own contracts and capacities to deliver sustainable approaches.

5.5 Strengthen LfS with core curriculum, social justice and outdoor learning

Young people identified the need for more direct teaching and learning about LfS in all areas of the curriculum. This was consistent with responses from the practitioners who said that incorporating LfS across school/community settings through cross-sector collaboration, sharing models of integration of LfS into the curriculum and increasing curriculum resources would be helpful. This also implies, as indicated by the practitioners, that education policy needs to make LfS explicit in national curriculum frameworks and be supported by appropriate resources. Evidence of this was articulated through examples of integration of LfS into the curriculum occurring where there was joined up infrastructure allowing LfS leads to play a coordinating role in connecting the systems. Topics highlighted by young people for promoting LfS also included designating LfS as a core school or setting value, placing additional focus on eco-clubs to further engage in eco-justice and environmental ethics issues. These ideas showcase the level of awareness the young people have about their communities and their understanding of what they need. Similar sentiments were expressed by practitioners when discussing the need for school and CLD settings to be more flexible in the integration of LfS and more responsive to their own communities.

Dissemination of information about social justice and sustainability issues was highlighted by the young people as an important means of promoting LfS. Communications about school policy on a range of topics related to social justice and sustainability and two-way communication between the school/CLD and community were considered important with numerous suggestions for a range of guest speakers from various sectors providing talks at the settings. Young people talked of conducting plays and eco fairs to provide information to the community, the preparation of which would enhance their own understandings. This approach is consistent with the recognised need for young people to be active participants in their engagement with LfS (Rousell & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2020) and addresses their expressed need for a more creative approach to LfS (Malone and Truong, 2017). This need is also evident in the scoping survey responses where fewer than half of the practitioners say that young people are empowered to act on LfS issues in their settings.

Outdoor learning was discussed by young people in all of the sites. They highlighted the ways in which subjects could be taught outdoors including geography and mathematics and recommended outdoor learning for young people who were less academically inclined. Truong, Gray and Ward (2016) demonstrate the value of garden-based learning for re-engaging young people who find it difficult to progress through standard academic approaches. The success of this approach is supported by Lloyd et al. (2018) who posit place-based outdoor learning as a broader integrated approach that connects place, curriculum and learners. Gardens were consistently mentioned by young people as useful spaces for learning that needed to be utilised more effectively. Local land for learning agricultural skills and geography were suggested for integrating LfS, community and curriculum in the outdoors. These connections could be made more explicit across the CfE S1-3 and support more subjects for inclusion in Nat 4s and 5s.

5.6 Future vision and aspirations

A key message young people wanted the Scottish Government to consider is the need for schools and CLD settings to be held up as examples of good practice. This included best practice in energy generation and use, recycling and food production. This would create a connection between theory and practice and support Capra's idea (2007) of living systems. Practitioners supported this idea recognising that they, and their settings, needed to "be the change they wanted to bring about".

Creative and integrated approaches to LfS were called for as a priority. This included greatly increasing outdoor education opportunities and integrating LfS into curriculum content. This would make better use of community land resources, promote engagement in the curriculum, in LfS at school and support young people's health and wellbeing (Truong et al., 2016). Practitioners highlighted the scope for effective use of school and CLD setting grounds and the potential for prioritising and embedding LfS into school/community life. This would benefit the practitioners, young people and community enabling integrated group learning, avoiding silos, and supporting individuals that may otherwise struggle within the confines of traditional classrooms. This could engage young people in the community and promote networks with feeder schools, other secondary schools, and higher education institutions. Universities were also considered potential partners, containing expertise that would enable and support LfS. Enacting these approaches would respond to the scoping survey where at present most practitioners recognise that few young people and community members and even fewer parents are involved in developing opportunities for LfS at the sites indicated above.

Young people wanted to ensure that all age groups had access to LfS, not just those fortunate enough to have eco groups or clubs that fitted their timetable or year level. This was reflected in their desire to ensure that LfS was included as a priority in schools/CLD settings, not as an additional layer that could be forgotten when other demands of curriculum imposed. For practitioners this means policy, resources and budgets to support full integration of LfS, opportunities for professional development within working hours, ensuring they are part of the LfS planning process and having a dedicated LfS lead in school/CLD settings to support the ongoing integration and prioritisation of LfS.

Measuring and valuing all learning pathways was a key feature of practitioner recommendations to enable acknowledgement of out of school participation and achievement in activities such as DoE, Princes Trust, Outward Bound, Scouts and Guides programmes. Formal recognition of these achievements would recognise the importance of young people's agency (Rousell, Cutter-MacKenzie-Knowles, 2019) and potentially support young people of all ages to identify as LfS champions and to promote further engagement among their peers.

The agency of young people and practitioners was seen as pivotal in engagement with the community. Taking leadership roles in developing LfS activities in collaboration with other schools, community organisations and members, and key climate change organisations featured in aspirations for future LfS development. For example, integrating the process of policy development or LfS oriented community arts events would provide visibility and support community action. Inwood et al. (2017) and Ward (2013) highlight the activist role that community arts can play in raising awareness of LfS issues and there were many suggestions from young people about ways in which they may engage with their communities in this way. CLD practitioners felt that this type of activity would support engagement, promote global citizenship skills and energise community partnerships.

Practitioners recognised that the kinds of future recommendations they were making were underpinned by the need for a cultural change in schools and communities – both in the way LfS was integrated as fundamental part of the curriculum but also in terms of community engagement and partnership. Some of the young people (5 participants) took this a step further by recommending that "we say 'yes'" to the potential independence referendum in order for Scotland to take ownership of its environmental and sustainability infrastructure.

Clearly, any discussion of future education in Scotland relates to the work of Scotland's Future Forum. In their report produced with 'The Goodson Group: Schooling, Education and Learning 2030 and Beyond' (2020), they highlight three main challenges for education in order of priority: environmental, technological, and social and economic change. This is consistent with the findings in this report where the need for LfS to be a core principle of the curriculum is voiced by all stakeholders. It is also clear that LfS must be included in any national discussion about transformation of education and that young people play a key role in this discussion. Young people and their practitioners also know that practitioners need to be able to guide and support them, and in order to do this, they need guidance, training and support.