ua ru en

1 (32) 2018

Demography and social economy, 2018, 1(32):29-42
doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2018.01.029

.. Khmelevska
PhD (Economics), Leading Researcher
Ptoukha Institute for Demography and Social Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
01032, Ukraine, Kyiv, blvd Taras Shevchenk, 60
E-mail: kh_o@ukr.net

Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: UNESCO documents and academic publications on sustainable development describe an education as an integral part of sustainable development and the basis of a sustainable society. Also, international documents identified Education for Sustainable Development as an essential tool for achieving sustainable development. In addition, the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development focuses on the importance of the integration of a sustainable development into an education and of the integration of an education into a sustainable development. Consequently, taking into account the interconnection of the three constituents of the concept of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) and the complex nature of the Sustainable Development Goals 2030, one can conclude that the subjectivity and objectivity of the social institute of an education will be significantly expanded. If the content of a social institute is treated as the complex of institutions, then one can define the institutional basic for the Education for Sustainable Development at the national level. The author analyzed the content and systematized the directions of the relevant institutional work currently being implemented in different countries or planned for implementation in recent UNESCO publications for this purpose. The aim of the article is to ground the content of the institutions for education, which will promote the transition to sustainability and the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 in Ukraine. Therefore, it is suggested for Ukraine to focus on the development of such institutions for education as reorienting of the functional and subject field of an education; design of competencies; introduction of transformative pedagogy; support of education agents; creating sustainable learning environments; improvement of coordination and integration; updating the content of educational reforms. It will be possible to identify the key functions, to supplement the institutional content, to specify the specific forms of implementation for each of these institutions for education during further research. In addition, the author used the approaches and tools of other education practices that are not directly related to the issues of the Education for Sustainable Development, but can be useful for this (in particular, valorization of the curricular programme goals, curricular articulation, relational model of knowledge mobilization).
Key words: education for sustainable development, institutions for education, reorienting education, the key competencies for sustainability, transformative pedagogy, education agents, sustainable learning environments, education practices, educational reforms.
1. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives (2017). UNESCO Education Sector. unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf
2. Tsili Staloho Rozvytku: Ukraina. Natsionalna dopovid [Sustainable Development Goals: Ukraine. National Report]. (2017). Ministerstvo ekonomichnoho rozvytku i torhivli Ukrainy idss.org.ua. Retrieved from http://www.idss.org.ua/monografii/2017_SDGs_NationalReport.pdf [in Ukrainian].
3. Analiz derzhavnykh stratehichnykh dokumentiv schodo vrakhuvannia adaptovanykh dlia Ukrainy Tsilej Staloho Rozvytku do 2030 roku: Analitychna dopovid [Implementing SDGs-2030 in Ukraine: analysis of government strategies and public policy: Analytical Study]. (2017). Kyiv : Instytut suspilno-ekonomichnykh doslidzhen [in Ukrainian].
4. Global Action Programme (GAP) on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Goals and Objectives. UNESCO. en.unesco.org. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/gap/goals-andobjectives?language=en
5. Michelsen, G. & Wells, P.J. (Eds). (2017). A Decade of Progress on Education for Sustainable Development: Reflections from the UNESCO Chairs Programme UNESCO unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002523/252319e.pdf
6. Wolff, L.-A., Sjoblom, P., Hofman-Bergholm, M., & Palmberg, I. (2017). High Performance Education Fails in Sustainability? A Reflection on Finnish Primary Teacher Education. Education Sciences, 7. Retrieved from www.mdpi.com/journal/education, doi: 10.3390/educsci7010032. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010032
7. Sachs, J.D. (2015). The Age of Sustainable Development. Colombia University Press : NY, USA. doi: https://doi.org/10.7312/sach17314
8. McKeown, R. (Eds.). (2002). Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit Economy Environment Center for Geography and Environmental Education, University of Tennessee, Version 2. esdtoolkit.org. Retrieved from http://www.esdtoolkit.org/esd_toolkit_v2.pdf [in English].
9. White, R.E., & Cooper, K. (2012). Critical Leadership and Social Justice: Research, Policy and Educational Practice. US-China Education Review, A5, 517-532. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534295.pdf
10. Frolov, D.P., & Shulimova, A.A. (2013). Institutsionalnaya sistemnost sotsialnoy otvetstvennosti biznesa (priroda, institutsii, mehanizm) [The Institutional Complexity of Corporate Social Responsibility (Nature, Institutions, Mechanism]. Journal of Institutional Studies, 5(1), 124-144. Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/institutsionalnaya-sistemnost-sotsialnoy-otvetstvennosti-biznesapriroda-institutsii-mehanizm [in Russian].
11. Martins, J., Vale, A., & Mouraz, A. (2015). All-day schooling: improving social and educational Portuguese policies. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(2), 199-216. Retrieved from www.iejee.com
12. Tilbury, D., & Wortman, D. (2004). Engaging People in Sustainability. Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. portals.iucn.org. Retrieved from https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2004-055.pdf
13. Lingard, B. (2013). Historicizing and contextualizing global policy discourses: Test- and standardsbased accountabilities in education. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 122-132. Retrieved from www.iejcomparative.org
14. Honig, M.I. (Eds.) (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity, 1-23. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
15. Ng-A-Fook, N., Kane, R.G., Butler, J.K., Glithero, L., & Forte, R. (2015). Brokering knowledge mobilization networks: Policy reforms, partnerships, and teacher education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(122). Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2090 doi: https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2090
16. Vasquez-Martinez, C.-R., Gonzalez-Gonzalez, F., Cardona-Toro, J.-G., Diaz-Renteria, M.-G., Alvarez, M.-I., Rendon, H., Valero, I., Morfin, M., & Alvarez, M. (2016). Educational Reform from the Perspective of the Student. Education Provision to Every One: Comparing Perspectives from Around the World. BCES Conference Books, 14(1), 157-162. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568097.pdf

» pdf