Amid multiple environmental policy failures by the Rudd Government, including climate change policy and home insulation, the report represents a paradigm shift in how government frames sustainability education with implications for how it is delivered.

Firstly, the curriculum is action orientated, arguing that ‘consideration must be given to what people need to know and be able to do to achieve improved sustainability’ (emphasis added). The framework identifies developing learner motivation to act as a key part of sustainability.

The framework encourages students to learn about sustainability challenges through active participation in problem solving, enquiry-based learning and values reflection. This is a considerable change from curriculum based on rational change models that focus on presenting information about issues in the hope that more knowledge will inspire change.

The framework sets out a ‘sustainability action process’ to shape curriculum that involves:

• ‘making a case for change—exploring a sustainability issue, assessing the current situation, investigating sustainability concepts and ideas, and stating a case for change;
• defining the scope for action—exploring options for making a change, identifying available resources and constraints, seeking consensus, and developing a statement of the agreed direction for action;
• developing a proposal for action—generating and selecting ideas, developing and modifying these to make them ready for implementation, and preparing, communicating and agreeing upon the proposal;
• implementing the proposal—turning the proposal into action;
• evaluating and reflecting—assessing the degree of success of the action and the efficiency of the processes used, identifying possible future directions and the learning that has resulted from the action.’

Within the framework is consideration of key capabilities including dealing with uncertainty and complexity; systems thinking; stakeholder analysis and consideration; negotiation and conflict resolution; and futures thinking. All of which have been called for to varying degrees in sustainability education literature and represents a step in the right direction for building capabilities to address sustainability challenges, as I have argued for previously.

Secondly, the framework curriculum takes a more holistic approach to viewing sustainability, than the traditional environmental sustainability definition usually used by government: ‘…sustainability is about reducing our ecological footprint while simultaneously improving the quality of life that we value—the ‘liveability’ of our society.’ The broader framing of sustainability to include social and economic dimensions alongside the ecological makes the curriculum more applicable to a wider variety of subjects. It also appeals to a wider range of learner interests, rather than just the environmentally engaged.

It should be noted that while the broader framing symbolises a large shift in dominant sustainability education discourse, it still posits that the goal of sustainability is about achieving better ecological outcomes, which in turn benefit global equity and quality of life.

While the Sustainability Curriculum Framework represents an exciting shift in the framing of sustainability education, as always the challenge is to turn rhetoric into reality. Will this translate into real curriculum change and how will the outcomes of the framework be evaluated?

The framework states that it ‘is not intended to specify how education for sustainability will be taught across the curriculum’, which begs the question, how do we teach the proposals contained in the framework effectively? What teaching and learning practices best develop systems thinking, the ability to understand and make decisions in complex and uncertain situations, and skills to negotiate with stakeholders and resolve conflicts?

These questions are particularly relevant to the Higher Education sector where future decision makers are educated. These kinds of capabilities need to be a key part of graduate learning outcomes if we are to really commit to producing graduates that are capable of addressing sustainability challenges.

It is assumed through education campaigns that presenting the facts about the human impacts on our social and environmental support systems will shock people into changing their behaviour. The same goes in the classroom. Environmental and sustainability education makes students aware of the real world problems that exist in and beyond the student’s community. However, does teaching about sustainability issues prompt students to take responsibility in their personal and professional lives in the long term or do students continue through life with old habits?

For educators, generating awareness is a valuable start. Increased public awareness gives government a mandate to respond to sustainability issues. Take water restrictions for example. Where I live, in Australia’s South East, the public might not enjoy water restrictions, yet due to well-organised government information campaigns they generally understand that the region is running out of water and that water can’t be used like it has in the past.

The public understanding and acceptance of water restrictions, is just that: an acceptance of regulation that is at best a quick fix to our serious long-term water woes. Policies such as building dams and pipelines offer equally superficial ‘solutions’. Awareness in the absence of critical thinking and systemic problem solving skills will only lead to short term ‘fixes’ to problems rather than long-term systemic solutions.

The need here is clear: to develop the ability to respond in innovative ways which systemically tackle complex problems. Building this capacity in the next generation of professionals should be a key focus. This is where awareness focused education falls short. There’s a clear need to go beyond ensuring that graduates are aware of sustainability challenges and emphasise building the capacity to undertake complex problem solving.

Teaching systemic interconnections between the physical, social and cultural or, the environmental, social and economic spheres, may indeed prove an invaluable insight for learners. However, without a curriculum geared towards making decisions and implementing actions within a sustainability framework, students are likely to enter careers with little more than an awareness of what is going on and an understanding that ‘someone’ needs to do something about it.

For undergraduate students who will soon be entering the professional world where decisions and actions on these issues are developed and implemented, nurturing the capacity to innovate through systemic problem solving will help nurture our society’s ability to respond in new ways. While building the capacity to act or take responsibility within society is a complex task, educators can make changes to university curriculum that strategically target the next generation of professionals to think and act on problems in a systemic way.