Sjálfbær þróun sem hugtak komst á dagskrá á síðustu árum 20. aldar á alþjóðlegum vettvangi
og hér á landi. Þótt hugmyndir hennar væru kunnar skólafólki var það ekki fyrr en
í aðalnámskrá leik-, grunn- og framhaldsskóla 2011 sem sjálfbærnimenntun komst fyrir
alvöru á dagskrá í opinberri skólastefnu með því að sjálfbærni var gerð að einum af sex
svokölluðum grunnþáttum menntunar. Í þessari grein er athugað hvernig hugmyndir um
sjálfbærni í grunnþáttakafla aðalnámskrár 2011 eru útfærðar í sérnámskrám fyrir leik-,
grunn- og framhaldsskóla til að meta hversu gott samræmi sé milli ólíkra hluta námskrárinnar.
Fyrst var lesinn kaflinn um sjálfbærni til að rannsakandi áttaði sig á inntaki hans.
Þá var útbúinn greiningarlykill með þremur spurningum og ein þeirra með þremur undirspurningum.
Sérhlutar námskrár hvers skólastigs, þar með talinn greinahluti aðalnámskrár
grunnskóla, voru lesnir með þessar spurningar í huga. Niðurstöður sýna að hugtökin
sjálfbær þróun og sjálfbærni koma sjaldan fyrir í sérhlutum námskránna, oftast þó í greinasviðshluta
aðalnámskrár grunnskóla. Hugmyndirnar um sjálfbærni virðast vera útfærðar
á ólíkan hátt eftir skólastigum en einnig á ólíkan hátt í mismunandi greinum grunnskóla.
Oft virðist útfærslan vera fremur tilviljunarkennd og hugmyndirnar sundurlausar miðað við
það sem kemur fram í kaflanum um grunnþætti. Markvissustu dæmin eru í náttúrugreinum
í grunnskóla þar sem sérstakur flokkur hæfniviðmiða er nefndur eftir lykilhugtakinu geta
til aðgerða. Einnig eru hugmyndir um neytendafræðslu í anda grunnþáttanna víða í ólíkum
námsgreinum grunnskólans.
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 comsumption 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.
