Education policy mobility: reimagining sustainability in neoliberal times

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the twinning of sustainability with priorities of economic neoliberalization in education, and in particular via the mobility or diffusion of education policy. We discuss the literature on policy mobility as well as overview concerns regarding neoliberalism and education. The paper brings these analyses to bear in considering the uptake of sustainability in education policy. We ask to what extent sustainability as a vehicular idea may be twinning with processes of neoliberalization in education policy in ways that may undermine aspirations of, and action on, environmental sustainability. Toward the end of the paper, we draw on data from an empirical study to help elucidate how the analytic frames of policy mobility can inform our analyses of the potential concerns and possibilities of sustainability as a vehicular idea. In particular, we investigate how sustainability and related language have been adopted in the policies of Canadian post-secondary education institutions over time. The paper closes by suggesting the potential implications of the proceeding analyses for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers concerned with sustainability in education policy.

Strategic Planning for Sustainability in Canadian Higher Education

“…Moving beyond a single case study approach, the Sustainability and Education Policy Network (SEPN) was developed to undertake national and international comparative studies of sustainability in education policy and practice [29]. These studies include document analyses, national surveys, in-depth site analyses, and ongoing knowledge mobilization regarding sustainability policy and practice in kindergarten to grade 12 (K−12) and post-secondary or higher education [14,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. For example, a census of sustainability initiatives across all 220 post-secondary institutions in Canada found a strong co-occurrence of sustainability assessments, sustainability policies, and sustainability offices or officers, which suggests some re-enforcement between these types of sustainability initiatives [32].…”

“…To set the stage for introducing this typology further, it is helpful to appreciate some of the ways in which higher education structures and decision-making processes intersect with ambitions of SHE. The shifting and complex governance structures of higher education have often been cited as a barrier to innovation in SHE, including in relation to both entrenched and emergent aspects of the higher education sector [2,3,31,40].…”

“…This results in a paradox between centralization and decentralization: a tension between the imperative to streamline HEIs and the heterogeneity of people and ideas with a stake and an opinion about what HEIs should be doing [44]. One possible impact is that sustainability actors and their goals must compete with a variety of other sectors for relevance and consideration in higher education decision-making processes [2,3,31,[45][46][47]. Wals discusses this, suggesting that a variety of educational goals can be seen as competing for priority in higher education change efforts, such as "concurrent educational reforms towards efficiency, accountability, privatization, management and control that are not always conducive for such re-orientation [i.e., towards sustainability]" [3] (p. 14).…”

“…Wals discusses this, suggesting that a variety of educational goals can be seen as competing for priority in higher education change efforts, such as "concurrent educational reforms towards efficiency, accountability, privatization, management and control that are not always conducive for such re-orientation [i.e., towards sustainability]" [3] (p. 14). Indeed, prior research has shown that institutional change involves tensions between sustainability and other educational aims and values [2,3,31,[45][46][47].…”

The victims of unsustainability: a challenge to sustainable development goals

“…Bartlett 1994), promoting economic development is not likely to address social inequalities (Rees 2010;Wijkman and Rockström 2012;Fletcher et al 2014;Washington 2015;Black 2016) and exacerbate ecological injustice between species, privileging human welfare over concerns with other species (Crist 2012;Kopnina 2012;Strang 2013;Cafaro & Primack 2014;Shoreman-Ouimet & Kopnina 2016). The achievement of SDG goals, as will be further elaborated on in this article, is unlikely to lead to greater social equality and economic prosperity, but to a greater spread of unsustainable production and consumption to all corners of the globe, continuous economic as well as population growth that has caused environmental problems in the first place and non-abating commodification and objectification of environment and its elements (McKenzie et al 2015).…”