Teaching Locally, Thinking Globally: A New Educational Paradigm ... :: 2005/06/02 17:30
Teaching Locally, Thinking Globally: A New Educational Paradigm for a Fractured World
Sung Yong Park
1 Challenge of DESD and a New Vision for the Future
Common global issues such as poverty and militarism, population pressure, environmental degradation, and social injustice cause us to lose our optimism about the future. The more we know our reality, the more we recognize our vulnerability. Any global citizen can see poverty and the degradation of the Earth on the daily news. A feeling of despair and disempowerment derives from the large scope and multi-dimensionality of these unprecedented problems. A sense that something has to be done in order to re-orient our destiny is emerging. This feeling of anxiety about human annihilation and degradation of the environment calls for urgent action at the local, regional and global levels.
This is why the new paradigm of sustainable development (SD) has emerged among the global intellectual community. The Brundtland Report says “Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Even though there exist some disputes about the contradictory nature of SD itself--some feminist groups prefer “sustainable subsistence,” --this new paradigm of SD is a revolutionary approach to the challenge of enhancing the quality and equity of life for the present and future generations. In Chapter 36, Agenda 21 of the Rio conference, it was stressed that to develop a sustainable lifestyle and to strengthen the capacities and responsibilities to resolve environmental and development related issues, education is required. And in 2002, to emphasize that education and learning are indispensable for approaching SD, the UN adopted UN DESD (2005-2014), and selected UNESCO as a lead agency for its implementation
The Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) concept integrates socio-cultural, economical, and environmental perspectives; and the scope of this education itself is comprehensive, covering various issues such as human rights, peace, gender equality, cultural diversity, health, governance of natural resources, poverty reduction, and enterprise responsibility. Therefore ESD requires a holistic/integrative approach to our lifestyle and a lifelong (formal and informal) education. In addition, ESD requires integral efforts through institutional solidarity among governments, NGOs, the private/corporate sector and international agencies. So one must not forget the importance of maintaining a balance and tension between holistic understanding and contextual strategies in ESD.
Some of the progressive countries such as Australia, Sweden, and Japan are actively responding to these global demands and challenges in an ESD context. However, the public sectors and civil societies in most countries of the Asia-Pacific region do not know about ESD, and at best there have been only futile efforts to introduce the values of SD into the legal systems and social practices of these countries. Therefore, it is necessary to make strategies of implementation and action plans to heighten public awareness of SD, and to institutionalize the values of SD into social systems and practices. Moreover, most of these problems cross national boundaries. The popular eco-activist’s slogan, “Think globally, act locally” deserves to be considered. We need to plan ESD strategies relevant to the Asia-Pacific context. This is why APCEIU held the “Asia-Pacific ESD Strategy Planning Workshop” in Seoul, November 22-24 last year.
APCEIU is mandated to work in the area of education for international understanding (EIU) and has also been active in the area of ESD. With regard to preparations for the UN DESD, APCEIU has been working in close cooperation with the UNESCO Regional Office in Bangkok especially in relation to preparation of regional strategies in the Asia-Pacific region. APCEIU participated in the UNESCO Bangkok Office workshop to prepare the "draft plan of a situational analysis for the promotion of ESD in the Asia-Pacific region" (Aug.19-20).
Here I’d like to highlight some comments from participants’ presentations in order to highlight ESD strategies that “utilize the characteristics of the region” (Dr. Yasui, Vice Rector, UNU, Japan). Dr. Itaru Yasui, one of the keynote speakers, emphasized the importance of capacity building, links/cooperation, cognitive and ethical changes of lifestyle and a shift toward alternative energy. Another speaker, Dr Suk-Jin Choi (Director, KICE, Korea) stressed public awareness according to the new concept of ESD, and institutional/international cooperation. Ms. Tatiana Shakirova (Manager, CAREC, Kazakhstan) also agreed on the necessity of “mechanisms for coordination and interaction for development of intersectoral and interagency cooperation.” This need for partnerships and networks was an idea shared by Dr. Derek Elias (ESD Coordinator, UNESCO Bangkok Office) and Ms. Madhavi Joshi (Coordinator, CEE, India). Ms. Joshi suggested guiding principles such as people-centeredness, adaptability, multiplier effect and not re-inventing the wheel. Ms. Zabariah Haji Matali (Manager, AZAM, Sarawak) demonstrated the case for educational needs for community participation and knowledge sharing at the local grassroots level, gender equity issues in the context of development, and the role of public media.
In addition, Mr. Lawrence Surrendra (APCEIU, Korea) introduced the priority of “the promotion of values and ethics” as a dual foundation of EIU and ESD, and “Peace and Equity, Democracy, Appropriate Development and Conservation” as four interrelated principles. In the case of the Cambodia presentation, Ms. Houth Ratanak (Director, Open Forum of Cambodia) show the reality of linguistic diversity in Cambodia, and the necessity for quality education for all in a post-conflict environment. She focused on re-centering education on gender and ethnic minorities. Ms. Le Thi Hoang Cuc (Secretary of the Vietnam Natcom of UNESCO) addressed poverty alleviation, preservation of cultural identity and HIV/AIDS/sex-related education, while Mr. Mohiuddhin Ahmad (Co-team Leader, ICZMP, Bangladesh) spoke about poverty reduction, reduction of vulnerabilities in human and natural resources, and basic needs for livelihood focused on WEHAB (water and sanitation, energy, health, agriculture, and biodiversity). In the light of development education, Mr. Haruhiko Tanaka (Chairperson, DEAR, Japan) focused on partnership at the regional and international levels (ex., networks with ESD group in Chiangmai) and advocacy (curriculum development and training of educator/facilitators).
As I stated above, in spite of variety of educational foci, some common priorities and themes in our Asia-Pacific context come to our attention. These include the significance of Millennium Development Goals-related issues (ex., reduction of poverty, disease and illiteracy), re-emphasizing cross-cutting issues (ex., human rights, cultural diversity, gender equity, peace), critical empowerment of the marginalized and partnerships for community building. This regional workshop provided an opportunity for the following components: to identify current issues and situations through gathering ESD-related data; to create partnerships between stakeholders; and to plan substantive strategies according to a timeframe.
2. Synergic Effects between EIU and ESD
EIU is very critical in terms of ensuring that ESD is value-based and culturally grounded. ESD is also one of the important themes of EIU and as both have education as a focus, EIU and ESD can benefit each other’s area of activity. EIU is critical to ESD because EIU is focused on peace, equity, human rights, and value formation, and on crucially interlinked areas to ensure social and ecological sustainability.
ESD and EIU also challenge our traditional ways of education. They aim at interdisciplinary and holistic learning rather than fragmented learning. They ask us to know both the whole and the parts of reality. In addition, ESD and EIU are characterized by people-centered and problem-solving practices. APCEIU’s objective in hosting the ESD Workshop was to contribute to thinking about the educational innovations needed to mutually connect the Culture of Peace with a Culture of Sustainable Living and to work together for the establishment of just, peaceful, and sustainable communities.
EIU and ESD especially require critical thinking and moral values to deal with human error, globalized crises, and the uncertainty of the future. EIU and ESD challenge us to have a planetary consciousness, to recognize the multi-dimensional, complicated interrelationships of all existence. EIU and ESD are both deeply concerned with the human needs of marginalized Others (ex., gendered Others and ethnic Others), and committed to ending the destruction of ecological Others. Educators cannot stand in a value-neutral position. However, there is no clear road map showing us how to proceed. Given the limited time to change, we have to move towards a sustainable future with a spirit of experimentation and creative imagination.
ESD strategies in the Asia-Pacific region, where most countries are still underdeveloped, must be different from Euro-centric strategies. That is, a culture of peace beyond mere preservation of nature goes with a culture of sustainability. As seen in cases of participants’ presentations, such issues as peace in relation to violent conflicts, fairness, transparency, removal of poverty and discriminative social practices, and cultural diversity have been greatly emphasized in both EIU and ESD in Asia-Pacific contexts. Without implementation of a culture of peace in this era of violence and conflict, there is no guarantee of a sustainable future.
3. Rethinking of the Challenge of ESD as a New Paradigm
Thomas S. Kuhn’s famous explanation of the emergence of new paradigms in academic disciplines can help us appreciate the significance of the ESD challenge. According to him, a new paradigm emerges when anomalies/variables do not fit the existing model and their resistance to the old model is persistent. Then, new support groups that follow the new paradigm to solve those anomalies/variables come into existence in the academic community. This new model/paradigm is proclaimed as true within the supporting academic community. In applicability of Kuhn’s theory into the ESD area, I’d like to emphasize the persistence of anomalies and importance of community-building.
The anomalies we are facing are unprecedented; global problems that are intermingled with political discrimination, social injustice, economical injustice, cultural bias and ecological degradation. These problems are interrelated and complicated and give us little time to solve them. Our existing educational systems that are linear, individual, compartmented, static, oriented toward unlimited production, and an optimism that belies the potential impact of these macro-anomalies. New educational models focusing on complicated (integrated), dynamic (practical) and communal (collective) characteristics are required for construction of a sustainable society. They must be integrated/holistic because they cross over social, political, economical, cultural and ecological dimensions. They must be dynamic because of the necessity for concrete praxis beyond the mere recognition of a variable reality. Moreover, they need to be communal because of the indispensability of local, national, regional and international cooperation, in spite of differences of sex, race, class, religion and ideology.
Most of all, faced with the urgency of dealing with eco-crises, ESD asks us how to make fundamental changes in current non-sustainable social practices. Our education has to bring about the result of changing our personal and institutional practices. It is necessary for schools to provide the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to bring about this change effectively. The source of this change consists of a shift of cognitive perspectives and of lifestyles. The cognitive shift means critical thinking about the chaotic realities of the social and ecological dimensions. New lifestyles can include non-violent and compassionate attitudes toward marginalized Others such as oppressed human groups and threatened species.
Concerning the community of academic practice, I mean the characteristics of school as a community with empowerment and solidarity. Extending to the surrounding local villages beyond the boundary of the campus, students’ learning depends on contextual and situational knowledge. Empowerment includes students’ participation as subjects of learning. It does not seek the so-called “bank-positing knowledge” (Paulo Freire’s term), but rather depends on students’ creative autonomy. Academic structures of problem-solving practice challenge students to venture toward the uncertainty and crisis of the future.
The teacher’s role need not be omniscient. It is enough for s/he to be a facilitator to find problems together with students and to encourage them to deal with issues. Naturally, since people are mutually dependent, the new paradigm of learning seeks solidarity with others and collective wisdom to solve common problems. The recognition of solidarity refers to the extension of learning locales off-campus to areas of dispute or toward the world in general as a text. Through the experience of solidarity in problem-solving practice, students come to recognize the significance of “power-with” or “power-to” relations among themselves, rather than the dominative and competitive one of “power-over.” Contrary to the existing school system of socializing youth into social and cultural norms, this community gives a resistant energy to see and evaluate anti-reality (chaos and crisis), and to suggest alternative options for our future. Although EIU pedagogy includes the above-mentioned factors, ESD challenges one to re-discover and then actualize some potential contributions of EIU from different perspectives.
4. Practicing of EIU’s and ESD’s Vision in a Local School
Here I’d like to show how EIU’s and ESD’s visions are embodied in a particular school in Korea. Despite its short 3-year history, E-Woo Middle/High School(EWS), as an accredited and downtown-targeted alternative school founded by the government, was spotted by Korean mass media because of its various innovative educational systems. With the motto, “education practicing ‘life to live together’ in the 21st century,” EWS is embodying the vision of an alternative society with justice, peace and sustainability. EWS can be said to be a kind of strategic community for social transformation.
To become a member of EWS community requires one to share “social responsibility for cultural revolution toward ecological and communal life in our society,” based on educational principles of conviviality, autonomy, independence, creativity and integrity. The EWS educational philosophy aims at instilling an ecological worldview, communal life and values, spirituality (integrity), and diversity. EWS’s curriculum consists of accomplishing 4 major tasks through a participatory process involving teachers and students: 1) education practicing “life to live together”; 2) open education with student-centeredness; 3) education experiencing the different and various lifestyles; 4) Soul-making education with an integral heart and good will.
In the practice of “living together,” EWS stresses eco-activities and social services in NGO centers and other relief centers, as a required credit course. The eco-activities are environmental monitoring, regular agricultural labor or eco-tourism with special assignments. All students must serve in an internship or perform voluntary work in any social service center every week. EWS provides various experiential and experimental learning programs focusing on social issues locally and globally. For example, for 2 weeks last summer, 11th grade students went to peace camps in selected Asian countries (Philippines, Japan, Thailand, India) to study about peace. 9th grade students took a retreat in different religious centers to practice inner peace. Students made rules to cope with conflicts and issues on campus according to the principle of self-governance. Students practice running a co-op store for life or for credit.
With a student-centered policy, class activities mainly focus on the student’s own research and presentation. The teacher functions as a facilitator or guide. Group study and group discussion is highly recommended, even in solving mathematics assignments. Many parents and local community members become voluntary instructors to respond to student’s particular needs in subjects such as health-care, craft and woodwork, ceramics, meditation, dance, traditional music, fabric dyeing, temple-tour, culture-tour, sports, mountain climbing, textile, proper TV-watching habits, novel writing, food preparation, green energy study, movie-making, and so on. Especially in Korean literature and philosophy , social and global issues are studied in light of alternative perspectives.
The experience of various lives and perspectives is practiced in on-the-spot inquiries at political, social, economical and cultural locales. NGO leaders, corporate CEOs, and famous thinkers are also invited to speak to students regularly. Students are sent to get an apprenticeship for a certain period. For good heart-nurturing education, philosophy classes are provided to all grades to enhance the capacity to consider such issues as globalization, human rights, religion and peace. Students also have a regular class for communal exercise of Chi practice and meditation. Labor in agricultural fields is performed according to season.
On campus, peace-oriented language and pro-environmental action are required in any relationship. No artificial food but only organic food is available with a “zero food waste” policy. Students and parents practice conservation through a sparing-sharing-exchanging-reusing (“A-na-ba-da”) policy. Even teachers have an open mentoring system among themselves (“I-learn-from-you”) in order to maximize educational effects and share information/pedagogy.
The unique characteristic of EWS is the parents’ active involvement. All parents belong to a sub-committee of activities such as local community building, curriculum support and voluntary work for school activities. EWS’s sibling center, “E-Woo Alternative Education Center (YWAEC)” helps to train teachers and parents concerning E-Woo philosophy and community building. YWAEC is responsible of implementing alternative educational policies and some training courses for local and national needs, publishing the best models and networking among alternative schools.
Despite its short history, many media reported on EWS’ curriculum and activities, because of EWS’s leading role in alternative educational practices. Students, teachers and parents share local and global responsibilities for the distant Others in oversea countries, for example to help the Iraqis and Tsunami victims, and the future Others through environmental monitoring and eco-activities. The EWS community is full of liveliness with a spirit of compassion, justice and peace through communal action. EWS shows that the dream for another way is possible. This is what I got from my interviews with many members of EWS.
Other alternative schools in Korea like Gandhi Youth, Ahimna Peace, Living Stone, Silsang Temple, Blue Dream, Sungmi Mountain, Mari, or Mountain Village orient toward sustainable values by means of philosophical perspectives focus on peace, ecology and community movement. These schools root in local community in small size and class activities aim at self-independent study of students themselves as an educational subject. In Campus and community life, these schools stress on alternative values such as freedom, love, autonomy, dialogue and solidarity. They are totally around 70 numbers from elementary school to high school in Korea. Every year some alternative schools come to exist because of strong supports from local educational union. In 2002, Alternative educators and activists founded “Network for Alternative Education (NAE).” NAE, as a focal point, share different ideas and practices for peaceful and sustainable education.
5. Conclusion
Some EIU or ESD experts complain that words like EIU and ESD are too abstract and strange for our current educational contexts. The case of EWS curriculum and educational practice proves that a curriculum based on ESD and EIU can be established in particular schools. I saw how this dream for a school with a curriculum of peace and sustainability comes true in the exemplary case of EWS. Many alternative schools in Korea orient toward a similar vision: no competition but conviviality; no individual success but the social well being of all.
To conclude, the success of the ESD strategy depends on how to practice it in local context. While EIU requires critical thinking and empowerment through participation and solidarity, ESD leads students to engage in more complex, ambiguous, problem-oriented and community-based tasks. ESD demands an ethics of time-limits and contextual knowledge by the interactive involvement of the school and the community. However, commonly EIU and ESD seek an education bringing about change, that is, resistance to and transformation of a culture of violence and non-sustainability. The core purpose of both is to enhance a sense of discernment about anti-reality and an ethics of commitment and responsibility, even global responsibility. To attain this goal, we need to do collective and planetary work beyond the boundaries of gender, race, class, culture and religion. We are invited by this universal calling to imagine a new way of life and to construct new lifestyles. This is what EIU and ESD are aiming for.
Sung Yong Park, Ph. D
Programme Specialist
APCEIU.
He received his Ph.D in Religion from Temple University (USA). His academic emphasis is on inter-religious dialogue, eco-feminism and global ethics. His current work focuses on the peace movement in Korea. sungyongpk@yahoo.com
Source: Journal "SangSaeng" Vol. 12, 2005
Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding(APCEIU)
(0) 
(0)
