Personally I believe that if something is present in someones life, whether or not it makes an impact, it is still present and is so still thought about.
When it comes to education this is probably a good example; less and less people are interested in politics and voting because they either do not know or understand what politicians are there for and how their vote will make an impact.
So if the curriculum was to teach politics from an earlier age there would probably be a more understanding and interested generation of people to follow on from the last, politically.
I think this is largely the case when it comes to sustainable development, the everyday average Joe doesn't know how much of an impact they are having when it comes to recycling or any other sustainable change is made in their lives, and so the outcome is... They don't make the change.
If Sustainable development is introduced to children at an early age, it is more likely that they will understand why they are doing it and probably carry it on through their lives if not for any other reason by habit.
For example; teaching children to put certain waste items in certain bins will teach them to go home and teach their parents, if councils and schools worked together to create a scheme where schools teach children and councils provide the bins, the step forward has already been made.
And as we learn the most when we are young why not catch the children as early as possible so they know no different?
Skip forward fifteen years... These children that were merely taught to put different items in different bins now have a full and more broad understanding of sustainable living and the environment, surely this will have an impact on education and job choices? Choosing to go to University to study Sustainable development or Waste management because they KNOW its a big deal, because they've been taught all their lives that it matters.
So to answer the first question: I think that Sustainable development is very valuable in education and that if the U.N can keep their word then we have a brighter future.
I also agree with Haigh's statement that Geography is best placed to deliver this curriculum. It could have its own individual place, but when it comes to higher education I think that Geography needs Sustainable development, simply because of how versatile a subject Geography has become, from being about 'colour by numbers' which alot of people I have noticed believe it is (unfortunately) to the more recent Human Geographies.
Sustainable development makes a good bridge between the natural and the social aspects and has a rightful place to be taught there to give people that link between us and the Earth.
So far I am enjoying this module, I think it is very informative and has a very interesting and important message to deliver.
I like the way it covers all angles, from showing the global scale of the problems (the use of the U.N meeting) to the more local problems and solutions (the travel plan assignment) I think it is an important module to have and believe it should be taught more widely than just Geography at degree level.
When it comes to education this is probably a good example; less and less people are interested in politics and voting because they either do not know or understand what politicians are there for and how their vote will make an impact.
So if the curriculum was to teach politics from an earlier age there would probably be a more understanding and interested generation of people to follow on from the last, politically.
I think this is largely the case when it comes to sustainable development, the everyday average Joe doesn't know how much of an impact they are having when it comes to recycling or any other sustainable change is made in their lives, and so the outcome is... They don't make the change.
If Sustainable development is introduced to children at an early age, it is more likely that they will understand why they are doing it and probably carry it on through their lives if not for any other reason by habit.
For example; teaching children to put certain waste items in certain bins will teach them to go home and teach their parents, if councils and schools worked together to create a scheme where schools teach children and councils provide the bins, the step forward has already been made.
And as we learn the most when we are young why not catch the children as early as possible so they know no different?
Skip forward fifteen years... These children that were merely taught to put different items in different bins now have a full and more broad understanding of sustainable living and the environment, surely this will have an impact on education and job choices? Choosing to go to University to study Sustainable development or Waste management because they KNOW its a big deal, because they've been taught all their lives that it matters.
So to answer the first question: I think that Sustainable development is very valuable in education and that if the U.N can keep their word then we have a brighter future.
I also agree with Haigh's statement that Geography is best placed to deliver this curriculum. It could have its own individual place, but when it comes to higher education I think that Geography needs Sustainable development, simply because of how versatile a subject Geography has become, from being about 'colour by numbers' which alot of people I have noticed believe it is (unfortunately) to the more recent Human Geographies.
Sustainable development makes a good bridge between the natural and the social aspects and has a rightful place to be taught there to give people that link between us and the Earth.
So far I am enjoying this module, I think it is very informative and has a very interesting and important message to deliver.
I like the way it covers all angles, from showing the global scale of the problems (the use of the U.N meeting) to the more local problems and solutions (the travel plan assignment) I think it is an important module to have and believe it should be taught more widely than just Geography at degree level.
