In American academia, there’s a strange habit of celebrating international recognition when it comes and then putting the ideas that led to it on the back burner. A news story is sent out. An email of congratulations comes from the head of a department. After that, the work gets left at the door.
I thought of that pattern when I read about the American university professor whose research earned her a spot on the OMEP International Award for Education for Sustainable Development. People in the United States don’t really know about the award that is given by the World Organization for Early Childhood Education. But the way it makes you think? It’s harder to ignore that part.
Since 2010, OMEP has had a competition for the best projects in sustainability education. The numbers have really grown over the years—each year, projects come in from between 8 and 30 countries, reach more than 244,000 kids, involve more than 82,000 teachers, and involve almost 94,000 families. These are not test runs. There is a long-term, coordinated effort going on to figure out how the first few years of school can really prepare kids for the world as it is now, not the way it was when the curriculum was last changed.
The main idea behind this research is based on the three pillars of sustainable development that were set up at the UN World Summit in 2005. These are economic and environmental sustainability, as well as social and cultural sustainability. That way of putting things has been around for so long that it might sound boring. But OMEP has been struggling with a specific problem: how to connect these pillars in ways that are developmentally appropriate for young children. This is hard work, and the answers aren’t clear.
The award-winning research is interesting because it insists that these three pillars can’t be looked at separately. It is possible to make an economics curriculum that hides social inequality or an environmental education program that doesn’t take economics into account. Both approaches tend to fail when it comes to sustainability. The framework pushes for something more difficult: decision-making across disciplines, with kids helping to shape their own learning. If you haven’t seen that part before, it tends to surprise you. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that kids should be able to say what they think about things that affect their lives. That is something that OMEP takes very seriously. As part of its Education for Sustainable Citizenship model, participation is built right into the lessons.
The OMEP Environmental Rating Scale for Sustainable Development in Early Childhood is an example of how this work can be used in real life. It was tested in ten countries, including the US, between 2010 and 2014. Structured learning activities, like naming wild birds, recognizing wildlife habitats, recycling, and learning about different cultures and languages, are at the right level of development without being too easy. It’s not the point to teach four-year-olds about carbon emissions. This is done so that engaging and thoughtful citizenship can be built upon before bad habits of passivity take hold.
As I read more of this, I get the sense that American schools of education have been circling these questions for years without quite getting to them. In programs that prepare teachers, civic engagement is talked about. They talk about caring for the environment. They don’t usually talk about these things in a way that makes sense, and they don’t usually start in preschool. Based on the OMEP model, that’s exactly when the work should start.
People who win the OMEP award can present their work at the World Conference, and OMEP’s global publications and webinars will spread the word about their projects. It’s a meaningful thank you. It’s still not clear whether the research that went into it will end up on the curriculum of American schools of education. It should get it. That much seems certain.
