ArticlePDF Available

Monitoring SDG 4.7: Assessing Education for Sustainable Development in policies, curricula, training of educators and student assessment (input-indicator)

January 2024
Sustainable Development 32(1)

DOI:10.1002/sd.2865

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Jorrit Holst

Freie Universität Berlin

Mandy Singer-Brodowski

University of Regensburg

Antje Brock

Freie Universität Berlin

Gerhard de Haan

Freie Universität Berlin

Education is viewed as a critical keystone in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is meant to enable everyone to contribute to sustainable development (SDG 4.7). This target is monitored using the global indicator 4.7.1 – mainstreaming of ESD in policies, curricula, training of educators and student assessment. Here, we offer a conceptual and methodological framework for assessments of SDG 4.7.1 (input-level) that addresses both quality and depth of implementation and speed of change. The approach combines document analysis with external expert evaluation and is applied to 10-year data (>11,000 documents) from all formal areas of education in Germany (early childhood education, school education, vocational education and training, higher education). Currently, ESD is mostly implemented in Germany as an “add-on” to the educational system, with all sub-indicators ranging from “isolated mentioning” of ESD and related concepts to “partial integration”. Across most areas of education, the sub-indicator training of educators was evaluated as most deficient. With regard to the speed of change, it was found that the implementation of ESD is dynamic, with all sub-indicators having been evaluated as increasing. The proposed framework can increase the validity, reliability, and comparability of both country reporting and scientific assessments of SDG 4.7.1. We argue for independent and integrative monitoring across input, process, output and outcome to complement self-reporting and to support evidence-informed policymaking on sustainability in education.

Content uploaded by Jorrit Holst

Content may be subject to copyright.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Monitoring SDG 4.7: Assessing Education for Sustainable

Development in policies, curricula, training of educators and

student assessment (input-indicator)

Jorrit Holst | Mandy Singer-Brodowski | Antje Brock | Gerhard de Haan

Institut Futur, Department of Education and

Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin,

Germany

Correspondence

Jorrit Holst, Institut Futur, Department of

Education and Psychology, Freie Universität

Berlin, Fabeckstr. 37, Berlin, 14195, German.

Email: j.holst@fu-berlin.de

Funding information

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung,

Grant/Award Numbers: 01JO2004, 01JO2305

Abstract

Education is viewed as a critical keystone in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs). Specifically, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is meant to enable

everyone to contribute to sustainable development (SDG 4.7). This target is monitored

using the global indicator 4.7.1 –mainstreaming of ESD in policies, curricula, training of

educators and student assessment. Here, we offer a conceptual and methodological

framework for assessments of SDG 4.7.1 (input-level) that addresses both quality and

depth of implementation and speed of change. The approach combines document analysis

with external expert evaluation and is applied to 10-year data (>11,000 documents) from

all formal areas of education in Germany (early childhood education, school education,

vocational education and training, higher education). Currently, ESD is mostly implemented

in Germany as an “add-on”to the educational system, with all sub-indicators ranging from

“isolated mentioning”of ESD and related concepts to “partial integration”. Across most

areas of education, the sub-indicator training of educators was evaluated as most deficient.

With regard to the speed of change, it was found that the implementation of ESD is

dynamic, with all sub-indicators having been evaluated as increasing. The proposed frame-

work can increase the validity, reliability, and comparability of both country reporting and

scientific assessments of SDG 4.7.1. We argue for independent and integrative monitoring

across input, process, output and outcome to complement self-reporting and to support

evidence-informed policymaking on sustainability in education.

KEYWORDS

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), SDG 4.7, Education for Sustainable Development

(ESD), monitoring & evaluation, document analysis, input-indicator, early childhood education &

school education, vocational education & higher education

1|TOWARD SDG 4.7 –RESPONDING TO

AN EXISTENTIAL CHALLENGE

Sustainable Development (SD) encompasses an ambitious global

agenda for the development of resilient, socially just human life within

the limits of planet Earth. With 17 globally agreed upon goals, 169 tar-

gets and well over 200 indicators, the Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs) are currently the core normative framework for global sustain-

ability efforts (e.g., Biermann et al., 2017; Biermann et al., 2022).

Although the SDGs are not without controversy due to their

Received: 9 June 2023 Revised: 27 November 2023 Accepted: 11 December 2023

DOI: 10.1002/sd.2865

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited.

Sustainable Development. 2024;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sd 1

inherently conflicting goals (Hickel, 2019; Holden et al., 2017;

Spangenberg, 2017), the general necessity and urgency to move

toward global sustainability is virtually undisputed in academia and

international politics (e.g., Richardson et al., 2023; Rockström

et al., 2023; United Nations General Assembly, 2023). As important as

the SDGs are, the findings of the mid-term report on their implemen-

tation are very sobering (Sachs et al., 2023): Currently, none of the

17 goals are on track, and in some cases progress is reported to be

going backwards. Nonetheless, the authors remind us that all of the

goals are still achievable (ibid.). For this transition, the mid-term report

highlights universal quality education as a critical SD pathway, among

others. This is supported by studies on assessments of the SDGs and

their interactions, in which quality education (SDG 4) and particularly

SDG 4.7 are described as having a strong positive relationship with

various other SDGs (Dalampira & Nastis, 2020; Fonseca et al., 2020;

Pham-Truffert et al., 2020; Vladimirova & Le Blanc, 2016; Xiao

et al., 2023). In this vein, linking education with sustainability has been

discussed as fundamental for change toward sustainability both in the

fields of education (Agbedahin, 2019; Sterling, 2003,2016; Wals &

Benavot, 2017) and sustainability research (Abson et al., 2017; Otto

et al., 2020; Sachs et al., 2019; Van Poeck et al., 2020).

Correspondingly, target 4.7 of the SDGs calls for education sys-

tems worldwide to “ensure [by 2030] that all learners acquire the

knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development”

(United Nations General Assembly, 2015, p. 21). Against this back-

drop, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is approached by

UNESCO and its member states as “an enabler for all 17 SDGs”and a

“foundation for the required transformation”(UNESCO, 2021). Con-

sequently, the final declaration at the UNESCO World Conference on

ESD in 2021 set a commitment for member states to “[e]nsure that

ESD is a foundational element of our education systems at all levels”

(UNESCO, 2021, p. 2).

To be able to meet this commitment as well as the objective set

in SDG 4.7, it is of critical importance to systematically monitor and

evaluate the degree to which ESD and sustainability are being inte-

grated within education systems (Brent Edwards et al., 2020; Kioupi &

Voulvoulis, 2019; Stepanek Lockhart, 2018). Such data provide the

basis for observing trends, identifying progress and gaps as well as

deriving necessary policy measures to strengthen the implementation

of ESD. As with all SDGs, the development of concrete and facilitative

indicators for the integration of sustainability in education is crucial

for its governance and practical implementation (Biermann

et al., 2017; Hák et al., 2016; Kim, 2023). Currently, the global indica-

tor for target 4.7 of the SDGs is described as the “extent to which

(i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable devel-

opment are mainstreamed in (a) national education policies;

(b) curricula; (c) teacher education; and (d) student assessment”

(UNESCO, 2017,2019a,2019b). However, this indicator has not yet

been sufficiently operationalized for independent and scientific

assessments (Brent Edwards et al., 2020; Giangrande et al., 2019).

Monitoring is currently based on countries' self-reporting using a

dichotomous (yes/no) assessment scheme as well as qualitative

highlighting of best-practice cases (UNESCO, 2019a,2019b). This

reliance on countries' self-reporting results in a bias toward positive

reporting (e.g., Nazir et al., 2011), which most likely does not reflect

the real status of target 4.7. Taking the example of Germany, the cur-

rent score on the global indicator for SDG 4.7.1 is reported at 1.0 for

national education policies (range: 0–1), 0.904 for curricula, 0.95

for teacher education and 0.917 for student assessment

(Destatis, 2023). However, the results derived from independent data

from the national monitoring of ESD in Germany (e.g., Grund & Brock,

2020; Holst et al., 2020) are significantly different. While there is con-

siderable support for the integration of ESD into the German educa-

tion system, including through a large participatory multi-stakeholder

process (Nationale Plattform BNE c/o BMBF, 2017; Singer-Brodowski

et al., 2020), the discrepancies between self-reporting scores and

evaluations by independent monitoring provide good reasons for

complementing countries' self-reporting on SDG 4.7 with indepen-

dent evaluations to allow for evidence-informed policy-making

(Lingard, 2013).

Also, with regard to operationalization, the conceptual openness

of the current global indicator 4.7.1. is viewed by some authors as

problematic because, among other reasons, “it is not clear how com-

parisons of this indicator across countries should be interpreted”

(Brent Edwards et al., 2020, p. 35) and because the term “mainstream-

ing”is not sufficiently concrete with regard to depth of integration

(Gallwey, 2016). However, a more nuanced approach to measuring

SDG 4.7.1 at the input-level of documents has not yet been proposed.

Aware of the necessity of monitoring ESD across the different indica-

tor levels (inputs, e.g., in documents; processes, e.g., assessments of

Whole Institution Approaches; outputs and outcomes,

e.g., assessments of competencies) and the need to develop both

international and more context-specific indicators, we focus here on

measurement strategies for the assessment of ESD at the input-level

of documents. While we are proposing a way to further operationalize

SDG 4.7.1 and apply in one illustrative context (Germany), the

approach can also be used as a general input-indicator for ESD in

other contexts.

Various authors have already conducted document analyses on

ESD (e.g., Beveridge et al., 2019; Fredriksson et al., 2020; De Haan,

2021; Holst et al., 2020; Krah et al., 2021). However, evaluating the

results of these studies has often proved difficult and, because of

the lack of clear criteria for “sufficient”or “satisfactory”ESD imple-

mentation, it has not been possible to compare evaluations across dif-

ferent contexts and over time. This also accounts for past document

analyses as part of the monitoring of ESD in Germany, where the

focus has primarily been on whether the goals set by stakeholders

themselves were met and how the observed status compared to other

contexts described in the international literature (Holst et al., 2020).

We thus see a considerable need for a conceptual and methodological

framework for evaluating the current status quo and progress toward

implementing SDG 4.7. Such a framework must allow for more stan-

dardized assessments that provide greater reliability and validity, and

thus better comparability across contexts and over time.

In this article, we (1) propose an input-level framework for indica-

torising and systematically assessing ESD, and specifically SDG 4.7,

2HOLST ET AL.

10991719, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2865 by Freie Universitaet Berlin, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

based on lexical document analysis and external expert evaluation.

We (2) report on the results of an assessment of the operationalized

indicator 4.7.1 based on a longitudinal analysis of >11,000 documents

from early-childhood education, school education, vocational educa-

tion and training, and higher education in Germany. By combining sys-

tematic document analysis with an external expert evaluation, we

propose an operationalization that can be used both for independent

scientific assessments and as part of countries reporting on SDG 4.7.

2|MONITORING SDG 4.7.1 AT THE

INPUT-LEVEL: BASELINE DOCUMENT

ANALYSES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

FOR OPERATIONALIZATION

At the international level, the UNECE expert group on indicators for

ESD contributed to the design of ESD indicators during the United

Nations Decade on ESD (UNECE, 2005). This provided a basis for

countries to report on their progress (UNECE, 2009,2022) and was

intended to cover a broad range of educational areas and levels

(e.g., input, output/outcome). While international reporting to date

has mostly been based on countries' self-assessments, independent

national monitoring of ESD has been carried out at Freie Universität

Berlin in Germany since 2015. This monitoring includes conducting

repeated document analyses to track the status and progress of ESD

implementation at the input level of educational governance. System-

atic assessments of documents are considered a fundamental part of

educational monitoring (Ioannidou, 2010) as documents (e.g., policies,

curricula) provide important leverage for integrating emerging con-

cepts and objectives within the structures of education systems. In

Germany, data have now been collected and analyzed over a 10-year

period (from 2012 to 2021) in all areas of formal education (early

childhood education, school education, vocational education and

training, higher education). This longitudinal document analysis serves

as an exemplary data base for the operationalization of indicator 4.7.1

in this article.

In the following sections, we first present a conceptual framework

for assessing different degrees of implementation of sustainability and

ESD in education system documents, in line with SDG 4.7. We then

outline our methodological approach to document analysis and, build-

ing on the proposed conceptual framework for indicatorising SDG

4.7.1 at the input-level, and describe the process of expert evaluation.

In the results, we first synthesize the core findings from the document

analysis on the status of ESD and sustainability in Germany and then

present the results of the external expert evaluation on SDG 4.7.1. In

the discussion, we reflect upon the core implications of the findings,

strengths and limitations of the approach, and ways to further opera-

tionalize and assess SDG 4.7.

Redesign? Integrate? Add-On? What does it mean to “main-

stream ESD”?

As the fundamental basis for the development of indicators for

SDG 4.7, it is necessary to consider the different degrees to which

ESD and sustainability may or may not be “implemented”or “main-

streamed”within education systems. From an implementation theory

perspective, the mainstreaming of the social innovation of ESD

(Bormann & Nikel, 2017) can be described as the scaling of an educa-

tional reform. Coburn (2003) identifies four dimensions of the scaling

of such innovations in education: depth, sustainability (in the sense of

durability), spread and shift in ownership. A document analysis, by its

very nature, can hardly capture a shift in ownership (the fourth dimen-

sion of Coburn's approach). However, the proposed framework traces

the scaling of ESD in documents in terms of (1) depth, quality and

spread (Coburn's first and third dimensions) and (2) stability and speed

of scaling (Coburn's second dimension) by analyzing data at different

times. With regard to depth and quality, Sterling (2003, 282ff.)

describes four different modes of implementation: “denial”(rejection,

leading to no change), “bolt-on”(“accommodation”, resulting in sur-

face level reforms where sustainability is added to an existing system

without changing the underlying paradigms), “build-in”(“serious

greening”, resulting in significant system changes) and “redesign”

(whole system change, a “deep reordering of assumptions equivalent

to epistemic change”). Since the early 2000s, various authors have

referred to this heuristic for evaluating the depth and quality of sus-

tainability implementation (e.g., Kolmos et al., 2016 on engineering

education; Wals & Benavot, 2017 generally on education; Weiss &

Barth, 2021 on curriculum change in higher education). For the con-

ceptual framework proposed here, we adapt, refine, and further oper-

ationalize the heuristic for evaluating SDG 4.7.1. Regarding the

second aspect of mainstreaming ESD, speed of change, it is important

to consider the usual cycles in which different types of documents are

revised. As both aspects are important for the evaluation of the status

and progress of ESD implementation, the proposed framework for

assessments of SDG 4.7.1 contains two modules for the two separate

yet interrelated domains: (1) quality and depth and (2) speed of

change. The first (depth) is considered as the foundational module,

which can be utilized in one-off or continuous (longitudinal) assess-

ments. The latter (speed of change) requires time series,

either –where possible –through the inclusion of past data (e.g., old

and new versions of curricula, laws, exams) or, through comparative

surveys (ideally, as part of long-term monitoring). Both parts of the

framework are introduced in the following.

2.1 |Quality and depth of implementation

With regard to depth of implementation, we adapt and operationalize

Sterling (2003) heuristic for the evaluation of document analysis

within six demarcated assessment categories: (1) No Mentioning,

(2) Isolated Mentioning, (3) Add-On, (4) Partial Integration, (5) Substan-

tial Integration and (6) Redesign (for an overview, see Figure 1). In line

with Sterling's approach, we suggest focusing primarily on the quality

of observed implementation patterns (e.g., Redesign, Integration, Add-

On, Isolated Mentioning) rather than the sheer quantity of textual ref-

erences to concepts such as ESD or sustainability. At the same time,

HOLST ET AL.3

quantification is to some extent inherent in the categories presented

below, considering that “Redesign”and “Substantial Integration”,by

definition, require more textual references, while the categories of

“No Mentioning”and “Isolated Mentioning”always imply low or non-

existent quantities.

Redesign is described by Sterling (2003, p. 284) as transformation

in the sense of “a deep, conscious reordering of assumptions equiva-

lent to epistemic change, leading to change of paradigm”. Education is

thereby re-thought “through a continuous learning process –to

embody and reflect a whole system approach”to sustainability

(ibid.:285). This paradigm shift (sustainability as a central objective of

quality education) is manifested at all levels of education systems

(e.g., policy, organizations and learning networks, specific learning

environments and situations). In line with theories on leverage points

for system changes, redesign addresses the “mindset or paradigm out

of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise”as well as the

“goals of the system”itself (Abson et al., 2017; Meadows, 1997).

As the deepest form of implementation, which does not by defini-

tion require a fundamental shift in the underlying educational para-

digms, Substantial Integration of ESD and sustainability in education

system documents is operationalized to include the goal of ensuring

“that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote

sustainable development”(UNESCO, 2020; United Nations General

Assembly, 2015, p. 21) as a priority and guiding objective of all learn-

ing processes in a given sector of education (UNESCO, 2021). With

reference to the sub-areas of the indicator for SDG 4.7, we propose

operationalizing this as the following type of integration in the differ-

ent areas of education:

1. Policy: Ambitious and binding education policy decisions and rec-

ommendations of the relevant actors in the respective education

sector for the implementation of ESD and sustainability at all levels

of the education sector. Key references for this are the roadmap of

the UNESCO “ESD for 2030”program and the Berlin Declaration

on the implementation of ESD (UNESCO, 2020,2021).

2. Curricula: Cross-cutting integration of discipline-, subject- or

occupation-specific goals (e.g., relevant competences), content

(e.g., aspects of the SDGs, the socio-ecological transformation),

didactic principles (e.g., action- and life world orientation, participa-

tion), and, if appropriate for the respective type of document,

forms of organizational implementation (e.g., inclusion of the

socio-physical learning environment as well as regional partners in

the sense of a whole institution approach; see Buckler &

Creech, 2014; Holst, 2023).

3. Training of educators: Cross-cutting integration of ESD- and

sustainability-specific competence goals in the relevant documents

for the training and further education of educators (e.g., teachers,

trainers, early childhood educators), that is, across all subjects, dis-

ciplines and age groups.

4. Student performance assessments: Design of examination ques-

tions in all subjects, disciplines, and professions in a form that takes

into account other objectives of performance assessment and pro-

vides an incentive to promote and measure sustainability-related

competences, including the critical and systemic examination of

current non-sustainable development and the development

of future-oriented possibilities for action.

By definition, such Substantial Integration implies both high qual-

ity and high quantity textual references. In contrast, Partial Integration

requires a similarly high level of quality, but a lower level of quantity.

This means that several, but not most, documents, groups or contexts

apply an ambitious and binding conceptual understanding of ESD.

Taking an example from Germany, partial integration might mean that

there are high quality passages in texts on sustainability and ESD in

the laws or curricula of several, but not most federal states.

The quality of implementation of Add-On differs from that of

partial and substantial integration in that it refers to a pattern where

the integration of textual references to SD, ESD and related con-

cepts is predominantly of low quality and where such references are

often simply added to objectives and explanations that are otherwise

hardly changed at all. Sterling (2003, p. 282) describes this as “a

‘bolt-on’of sustainability ideas to [an] existing system, which itself

remains largely unchanged”. In the case of curricula, for example, this

could mean adding the label “ESD”to courses without making sub-

stantial changes to their content, adding new electives on topics

related to SD without making changes to the main body of compul-

sory courses, or modifying parts of courses or subjects so that they

briefly touch on sustainability.

We suggest that isolated textual references to ESD/sustainability

learning-related concepts (low quantity) that are not further contextu-

alized and/or picked up in the rest of the document (low quality)

should be considered as Isolated Mentioning.

The lowest proposed category (No Mentioning) implies that no

anchoring can be identified at all.

FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework for the depth of implementation of sustainability and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in

education system documents; refined operationalization based on the underlying heuristic by Sterling (2003).

4HOLST ET AL.

2.2 |Speed of change

When assessing documents, speed of change always relates to the

usual publication dates and revision cycles (e.g., school curricula are

revised less frequently than, for example, examination questions).

Moreover, speed of change can only refer to documents in which ref-

erences to ESD/sustainability can be expected (e.g., no reference to

sustainability or ESD could be expected in resolutions by ministries in

response to the Covid-19 pandemic). Based on these considerations,

we suggest operationalizing speed of change in five categories (Strong

Increase, Medium Increase, Small Increase, No Change, Decrease;

detailed operationalization: see methods). These can be evaluated

either by external experts who have comprehensive knowledge of the

fields of education (as in this study), or as part of countries' self-

reporting (see discussion). Lastly, an assessment of speed of change

requires data for comparisons across time, which may not always be

available.

In the following section, we provide an introduction to the docu-

ment analysis that serves as the data basis for external expert evalua-

tion, and operationalize the conceptual framework within a code

system for evaluations.

3|METHODS FOR MEASURING SDG 4.7.1:

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS AND EXPERT

EVALUATION

3.1 |Systematic document analysis (quantitative,

qualitative)

Since 2017, the national monitoring on ESD in Germany has con-

ducted repeated large-scale document analyses, which serve as the

data basis for reviewing the status and progress on SDG 4.7.1 at

the input level. This current analysis includes a total of 11,061 docu-

ments (2017: 2795 (Brock et al., 2018; Singer-Brodowski, et al.,

2019), 2019: 45078 (1713 new) (Holst et al., 2020), 2021/22: 11,061

(6553 new)) from all subdomains of the global indicator for 4.7: educa-

tion policy, curricula, training of educators and student assessment.

Table 1provides an overview of the different types of documents

included from each of the four areas of formal education (Early Child-

hood Education, School Education, Vocational Education and Training,

Higher Education) for the four sub-indicators (Education Policy, Cur-

ricula, Training of Educators, Student Assessment).

The choice of document groups is based on (i) international indi-

cators that were operationalized into groups of documents for assess-

ment (Brock et al., 2018; Singer-Brodowski et al., 2019;

UNECE, 2005), (ii) groups of documents specifically addressed in the

National Action Plan on ESD (National Platform ESD c/o BMBF,

2017) and (iii) a systematic alignment of the document base with the

subdomains of SDG 4.7.1 (education policy, curricula, training of edu-

cators, student assessment). A transdisciplinary knowledge exchange

with members of the German ESD expert fora took place throughout

all process steps. This iterative approach, which began in 2016,

gradually led to the inclusion of further groups of documents

(e.g., exams in school education and didactic training of educators in

higher education were assessed for the first time for this study).

Applying the same data collection procedure used for the 2017,

2018, and 2019 benchmark data, the new and updated data for all

document groups included in this study were collected between

November 2021 and January 2022. A total of 6553 additional docu-

ments were downloaded, inventoried and loaded into the data analy-

sis software MAXQDA for this study, bringing the total dataset to

11,061 documents. All data were automatically searched for concep-

tual keywords relating to (i) ESD, (ii) Sustainability/Sustainable Devel-

opment, (iii) Perspectives on and from ESD and (iv) Related

educational concepts. An overview of all keywords used in the lexical

analysis is provided in Figure 2.

Keywords on a conceptual level were chosen to address the the-

matic as well as the didactic level of ESD. All codings of identified text

segments were checked manually, for example, to avoid miscoding,

such as the use of “nachhaltig”(German for sustainable) only in the

sense of “langfristig”(durable/long-term) instead of in the sense of

the normative concept of sustainability/SD. As a coding rule, all seg-

ments where the coding did not seem entirely clear were strictly

coded as “uncertain”and discussed in a peer debriefing (Spall, 1998)

with three researchers to reach consensus or, where this was not pos-

sible, to vote on the coding. The coded text segments within each

group of documents were analyzed both quantitatively and

qualitatively.

3.2 |External Expert Evaluation

After reports had been finalized in German for each area of education,

six external experts on ESD and educational measurement in the Ger-

man education system were asked to evaluate the descriptive results

according to the predefined system of categories. The experts were

chosen based on their context of expertise, representing all areas of

education, and their professional experience with indicator develop-

ment as professors in the fields of general education and ESD. Table 2

provides an overview of the experts involved in the external evaluation

with their institutional affiliation and context of expertise. The number

and selection of experts took into account both the need for reliability

and validity of evaluations, and the feasibility of applying the methodo-

logical framework in different contexts. Given the extensive and long-

standing field knowledge and experience of the experts, in one specific

area of education and more generally across all areas of education, it

can be assumed that they were able to make robust assessments of the

quality and speed categories based on the predefined template (below).

A template was developed (supplementary material) to standard-

ize the external expert evaluation, including background information

on the document analysis and the scales for evaluation (quality/depth,

speed of change). As the descriptive basis for their judgments, the

experts received a descriptive raw version of four reports on the most

recent document analysis (in German: Brock & Holst, 2022; Holst,

2022; Holst & Singer-Brodowski, 2022; Singer-Brodowski &

HOLST ET AL.5

TABLE 1 Document groups included in the systematic lexical document analysis sorted by areas of education and sub-indicators of SDG

4.7.1 (education policy, curricula, training of educators, student assessment).

Education policy Curricula Training of educators Student assessment

Early Childhood

Education

(ECE)

•Laws of all states and

federal laws

•Educational plans from all

states

•School curricula of

courses in ECE from all

federal states

•Education reports •Course handbooks and

study/examination

regulations for all study

programs at higher

education institutions

(HEI) for educators in ECE

•Documents from the

conferences of Ministers

for Youth and Family

Affairs (JFMK) /

Education (KMK) and the

Child and Youth Welfare

Association (AGJ)

School Education

(SE)

•Laws of all states •School curricula of all 16

states for 9 selected

subjects

•Course handbooks and

study/examination

regulations for teacher

training at the 20 higher

education institutions

with most graduates in

Germany

•Exams for degrees in

secondary education

(Abitur, Realschule,

Hauptschule) from 2005

until 2021

•Documents from the

Standing Conference of

the Ministers of

Education and Cultural

Affairs (KMK) with focus

on SE

Vocational

Education and

Training (VET)

•Federal and state laws •All new or modified

training regulations

since 2015

•Course handbooks and

study/ examination

regulations for teacher

training in five selected

states

•Regulations on exams in

training regulations

since 2015

•Federal Institute for VET

(BIBB), KMK-Committee

on VET

•All new or modified

frame-curricula for VET-

schools since 2015

•Ordinance on Trainer

Aptitude (AEVO) and

regulations for further

training of educators

•Education reports and

data reports (BIBB)

•Guides for Educational

Practice (BIBB)

since 2015

Higher Education

(HE)

•Federal and state laws •Course handbooks and

course regulations of 3

subjects (biology,

mechanical engineering,

business administration)

from 20 HEIs

•Didactic training of

educators at 20 HEIs and

respective networks for

didactic training in HE

•Federal, regional rectors'

conferences (HRK/LRK)

•Target agreements of all

states with HEI

•Education reports

•Student associations

•HEI self-governance (e.g.,

mission statements,

reports, strategies,

statutes) from 20 HEIs

6HOLST ET AL.

Holst, 2022). Abstracts, evaluations and recommendations were

removed to better ensure an unbiased and independent evaluation by

the experts. The descriptive reports were divided into five PDFs

(introduction and methods, one PDF for each sub-indicator of SDG

4.7.1) and provided to the experts with the template. The following

Tables 3and 4are part of the template and were provided to the

experts as the predefined category system for assessment. First,

Table 3introduces the category system used to evaluate the quality

and depth of ESD implementation. Table 4subsequently introduces

the category system used to evaluate speed of change.

Importantly, the rating of both categories (depth/quality, speed)

refers to the predominant pattern of anchoring, which means that indi-

vidual references are less important in the evaluation than the larger

patterns. During the evaluation, all document groups were evaluated

individually and an aggregated assessment was made for each sub-

indicator. After the six expert evaluations had been collected, the mean

and modus were calculated for each document group and sub-indicator.

4|RESULTS

Section 4.1 provides a descriptive overview of the main results of the

document analysis for each area of education. These serve as the data

for the evaluation of SDG 4.7.1. The results of the expert evaluation

are reported in section 4.2.

4.1 |Implementation of ESD and related concepts

in Germany: Descriptive overview

Before presenting the results for each area of education, it is impor-

tant to note that, under the German constitution, education in

Germany is the responsibility of the 16 federal states. This means that

the federal government only has direct influence on some parts of the

education system (e.g., parts of vocational education) and that most

data are reported for the 16 states.

4.1.1 | Early childhood education (ECE)

Early childhood education in Germany is primarily organized by inde-

pendent institutions. Municipalities and states support daycare places,

and in recent years the federal government has provided funding for

overall quality development. At the level of education policy (state

laws), there is a slight trend toward the inclusion of ESD compared to

the previous study, with 4 state laws (2019: 1) referring to sustainabil-

ity or ESD. The supporting associations, which are united in the Child

and Youth Welfare Association (AGJ), have also taken a position on

ESD.

Position papers of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of

Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) on the training of early child-

hood education specialists and support staff have provided a basis for

FIGURE 2 Conceptual keywords

used for lexical search (translated from

German, different forms for singular/

plural as well as different suffixes were

included); based on Holst et al. (2020).

Keywords which were included in this

study for the first time are marked with.

TABLE 2 Experts involved in the external expert evaluation with

institutional affiliation and context of expertise.

Expert

Institutional

affiliation Context of expertise

Prof. Dr. Inka

Bormann

Freie Universität

Berlin

Professor of General

Education

Prof. Dr.

Johannes

Hartig

Leibniz Institute for

Research and

Information in

Education

Professor of Educational

Measurement

Prof. Dr.

Werner

Kuhlmeier

University of

Hamburg

Professor of Vocational

Education

Prof. Dr.

Armin Lude

Ludwigsburg

University of

Education

Professor of Biology and

Biology Education

Prof. Dr.

Heike

Molitor

Eberswalde

University for

Sustainable

Development

Professor of

Environmental

Education and

Education for

Sustainable

Development

Prof. Dr.

Marco

Rieckmann

University of Vechta Professor of Higher

Education

Development

HOLST ET AL.7

strengthening ESD in training (see below). ESD has not been included

in education reporting. Regarding the curricula, there are no binding

documents for young children up to the age of 6. However, by the

end of 2021, 9 of the 16 educational plans of the federal states explic-

itly referred to ESD (2017: 6; 2019: 8). A clear trend can therefore be

observed, which applies in particular to the recently revised educa-

tional plans. Early childhood educators follow one of two training

paths: traditional dual educator training (see section on Vocational

Education and Training (VET) below) or an early education/childhood

study program at higher education institutions. An increase of refer-

ences to ESD or related concepts was found in documents related to

study programs (3% of documents with references in 2017 to 5% in

2021). Specifically, this means that references to ESD could be found

on about one in 31 analyzed pages (2017: 1/139 pages), and refer-

ences to sustainability on about one in 45 pages (2017: 1/256 pages).

There is also an increase in the proportion of ESD in relation to other

sustainability-related educational concepts. An even clearer trend is

evident in VET for early childhood educators: starting from compara-

tively few references in the baseline analysis (2017: 1 reference every

280 pages, n=292), ESD is more frequently integrated in more

recent documents (2019: 1 reference every 43 pages, n=44; 2021:

1 reference every 24 pages, n=72). No ECE documents exist that

could be analyzed in the area of student assessments.

4.1.2 | School education (SE)

In Germany, SE laws, curricula and examination questions differ from

state to state. The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education

and Cultural Affairs (KMK) therefore wields considerable influence as

the joint consulting body of the federal states. A review of the

TABLE 3 Category system for quality and depth of ESD implementation with descriptions and further elaborations for the categories

“Redesign”,“Substantial Integration”,“Partial Integration”,“Add-On”,“Isolated Mentioning”and “No Mentioning”.

Category Description Further elaboration

Redesign Comprehensive redesign or reorganization of the fundamental

orientation of documents/document groups toward

sustainability/ESD (paradigm/lived culture of sustainability).

Understanding of ESD as a central, continuous and binding part

of the educational mission in the sense of a whole institution

and ultimately a whole-system approach, which in turn

corresponds to a fundamentally changed educational

paradigm/a lived culture of sustainability (cf. also

Sterling, 2003). The orientation toward sustainability

restructures the goals and paths of the educational sector /

institution in question.

Substantial

Integration

Deep and cross-sectional integration of sustainability/ESD in

the various documents/document groups; high quantity and

quality (substantial integration) of references on ESD and

sustainability.

An ambitious and binding conceptual understanding of ESD is

consistently applied to the content of the respective

documents (e.g., curriculum or resolution).

Partial

Integration

Predominantly high content quality of the references to

ESD/sustainability in the sense of substantial integration in

several documents/document groups (e.g., in several, but not

all federal states) with differences between or within the

documents/document groups.

An ambitious and binding conceptual understanding of ESD is

applied in several documents of a document group or in

several federal states, subjects, or at several locations with

high content quality in the sense of substantial integration

(see above).

Add-on References to ESD/sustainability are predominantly of medium

to low content quality, often as a supplement to otherwise

frequently unchanged requirements/objectives/explanations.

For example, naming the concept of ESD in curricula, but

without describing goals, content, methods/media, and

organizational implementation as substantially oriented

toward ESD/sustainability.

Isolated

mentioning

Isolated references in individual documents (groups of

documents) that are not further contextualized and/or taken

up in the rest of the document.

Isolated references to for example, sustainability, ESD or related

concepts.

No mentioning No mentioning of sustainability, ESD or related concepts.

TABLE 4 Category system for speed of change of ESD-

implementation with descriptions for the categories “Strong

Increase”,“Medium Increase”,“Small Increase”,“No Increase”and

“Decrease”.

Category Description

Strong

increase

Avery strong/rapid increase in references to

ESD/sustainability in the respective documents

(groups) compared to usual publication/revision

times.

Medium

increase

Asignificant increase in references to

ESD/sustainability in the respective documents

(groups) compared to usual publication/revision

times.

Small

increase

Aslow increase in references to ESD/sustainability in

the respective documents (groups) compared to

usual publication/revision times, recognizable by

sporadically increasing references.

No change No change is discernible over time.

Decrease A reduction of references to sustainability/ESD can be

observed in the periods under consideration.

8HOLST ET AL.

different education policies adopted in each state shows that no

change has occurred in the education laws of the 16 federal states

since 2019. Four laws explicitly refer to ESD and another four men-

tion sustainability. The recommendations and resolutions issued by

the KMK since 2019 only refer to ESD in one thematically relevant

document on consumer education. ESD is not referred to in docu-

ments that focus on the overarching design of the school system. The

analysis of curricula continues to show that references to ESD and SD

differ greatly across federal states and subjects. Looking first at all

curricula valid at the time of data collection (n=422), four federal

states included at least some explicit references to ESD in more than

50% of all curricula assessed. However, the curricula documents from

eight states included ESD in less than 20% of the documents ana-

lyzed. There is a strong tendency to include references in subjects that

are thematically close to SD, which limits the cross-cutting implemen-

tation of ESD. In a few federal states, ESD has been implemented

across different subjects (e.g., Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-

Westphalia, Saxony). ESD is rarely –6% of all documents –integrated

in training course handbooks and course/examination regulations for

the training of educators, whereas ESD-relevant terms, including

related concepts, appear in 14% of the documents. Documents that

contain references to (E)SD focus primarily on specific universities

and, again, on specific subjects (e.g., biology, geography). In 5 out of

20 of the largest teacher training institutions in Germany, ESD did not

appear in any document. Within the category of student assessment,

thematic references to the ecological dimension of SD were analyzed

based on dimensions of the planetary boundary concept (Steffen

et al., 2015). The number of text segments has increased over the past

years, especially those related to climate change and, less frequently,

biodiversity. Strong differences were also found between subjects.

For instance, 78% of geography exams referred to SD, and 46% to cli-

mate change. In business administration, 41% referred to SD and

around one third (28%) to climate. There were far fewer references to

SD in other subjects, such as most natural sciences, German, history,

or arts, with a maximum of 3% of all exams in each subject referring

to SD-related issues.

4.1.3 | Vocational education and training (VET)

In Germany, VET is organized in a dual system, in which vocational

schools cooperate with companies to combine both theoretical and

practical perspectives. While a programmatic discourse on sustainabil-

ity in VET was observed in the last assessment in 2019, the concrete

integration of ESD was described as slower and less dynamic (Holst

et al., 2020). In contrast, the present analysis shows significant trends

toward embedding sustainability in the German VET system between

2019 and 2021. Regarding VET-related education policies, the con-

cept of sustainability (not ESD) has been included in the standard

training elements (“Standardberufsbildpositionen”) by the Federal

Institute for VET (BIBB), and the contribution to SD has been included

by the KMK in the corresponding agreement as a task of vocational

schools. No major changes were observed with regard to laws and

educational reporting. In particular, the inclusion of sustainability in

the standard training elements and the KMK's curriculum develop-

ment guidebook has led to a sharp increase in the number of text seg-

ments in curricula (training regulations, school curricula) that refer to

sustainability. As of 2021, all new or updated documents include ref-

erences to sustainability (not to ESD, which could only be expected in

school curricula). So far, this only affects a comparatively small num-

ber of vocations (e.g., 5 training regulations in 2021), in which the

number of references to sustainability has increased (e.g., in training

regulations, from an average of 4.5 to 10.8 mentions per document).

In terms of depth, references are frequently overarching VET require-

ments or closely follow the wording of the standard training element.

The concrete meaning of sustainability for a specific vocational con-

text is only defined in individual cases. Regarding the training of edu-

cators (teacher training in universities), the longitudinal data show an

increase in the relevant text segments based on an overall low anchor-

age in 2017 and 2019 (Holst et al., 2020). However, these references

focus primarily on single HEIs and individual courses (1% of all text

segments at four out of 16 HEIs). Further, the respective sections on

student assessment in all training regulations published between

2015 and 2021 were analyzed: Out of a total of 66 vocations, 6 train-

ing regulations (9%) referred to sustainability. Although the standard

training elements should legally be part of all assessments, this is not

yet reflected in the data since 2020.

4.1.4 | Higher education (HE)

In HE, the category of education policy includes state-policies (includ-

ing agreements between federal states and HEIs) and the documents

produced by self-governing HEIs. Continuing a trend described in

Holst et al. (2020), the data shows that sustainability –and to some

extent ESD –is increasingly included in target agreements between

state ministries and HEIs. In 2021, 12 of the 16 federal states men-

tioned sustainability at least once in >50% of their agreements with

HEIs (7/16 for ESD). At the same time, frequency and qualitative

depth vary strongly between states and among HEIs. In contrast to

earlier observations, significant dynamic can be observed in state

laws, with 10 of the 16 states mentioning sustainability as a core mis-

sion of HEIs (2017: 5, 2019: 6). In addition, from 2022 onwards, two

states explicitly designate ESD as a compulsory objective (Hesse,

Bavaria). In contrast to state policies, there are far fewer references to

ESD and sustainability in documents in the self-governance docu-

ments of HEIs (e.g., mission statements, strategies, statutes) and in the

positions formulated by the federal and regional rectors' conferences.

A slowly increasing number of individual references to sustainability

were found in curricula (module guides; e.g., in biology, business

administration, mechanical engineering) at almost all of the 20 HEIs

surveyed, albeit with a low frequency (2021: approx. one reference

every 14.8 pages, 2017: 19.3, 2019: 25.7). The majority of references

are concentrated in individual HEIs and within individual study pro-

grams and modules (82% of all references at 5 out of 20 HEIs). Over-

all, the data do not show a comprehensive horizontal integration of

HOLST ET AL.9

sustainability or ESD in the analyzed curricula. Bearing in mind their

importance in enhancing the quality of training in the training of edu-

cators, assessments were carried out on programs for further training

in higher education didactics. Of the 126 documents from the

20 assessed HEIs and related networks (2020, 2021), 6 documents

(5 modules) referred to ESD and sustainability in individual modules at

7 of the 20 HEIs. The data did not show structural that is, systematic,

cross-sectional and comprehensive embedding of ESD, sustainability

and related concepts. As exams in HE are mostly created individually

by each lecturer and are therefore highly heterogeneous, no data on

student assessment in HE could be assessed.

4.2 |External expert evaluation on SDG 4.7.1

As part of the external evaluation, six experts in ESD and educational

monitoring evaluated the descriptive results in terms of both depth

and quality of implementation as well as speed of change. Figure 3

and Table 5show their evaluation of the status and progress of ESD

implementation in Germany across all formal areas of education and

sub-indicators for SDG 4.7. Figure 3provides a graphical overview of

both quality and depth (background colors) and speed of change

(arrows). The same result is presented in descriptive form (means and

distributions for the ratings of each sub-indicator) in Table 4below.

Across all sub-indicators and areas of education, the mean

expert-evaluations are concentrated on and spread around the “Add-

on”-pattern of implementation (indicated in yellow in Figure 3). This

pattern describes a medium to low overall quality of integration,

where implementation usually involves adding ESD to a mostly

unchanged main body of content. The evaluations by the experts

range from isolated mentions of sustainability, ESD and related con-

cepts (curricula in HE, training of educators in VET and HE, student

assessment in VET, orange in Figure 3) to partial integration, which

describes a high quality of implementation in several but not the

majority of documents or document groups (curricula in ECE, student

assessment in SE; light green in Figure 3). Of the sub-indicators, the

training of educators is currently the lowest ranked sub-indicator in

Germany with two areas of education rated as “Isolated Mentioning”

(VET, HE), and two as “Add-On”(ECE, SE). No sub-indicator scored

within the lowest and highest categories of “No Mentioning”and

“Substantial Integration”or “Redesign”respectively. Even one aggre-

gation level below sub-indicators, within the specific document

groups, none of the 34 document groups were rated by the experts as

fitting into the categories of “Substantial Integration”or “Redesign”.

Two were rated as not mentioning sustainability, ESD or related con-

cepts at all (National Education Reports, Ordinance on Trainer Apti-

tude in VET (AEVO)).

In terms of the speed of change, the experts evaluated the

increases in implementation since the last assessment to be small for

most of the sub-indicators (30upward pointing arrows in Figure 3).

For the sub-indicators on ECE and VET curricula and on ECE educator

training, all three of which started from a comparatively low level of

implementation in the previous evaluation (Holst et al., 2020), the

increases were rated as medium/significant (60upward pointing

arrows in Figure 3). None of the sub-indicators were considered by

the experts to have increased significantly, and none was judged to

have decreased or not changed at all. Looking at the individual docu-

ment groups, considerable increases were seen in nine of the 34 docu-

ment groups. These include laws and target agreements in HE,

different types of curricula (ECE, VET), documents of the Standing

Committee of the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and

Training (BIBB-Hauptausschuss) in VET and positions formulated by

the Child and Youth Welfare Association (AGJ) in ECE.

With regard to the variance of the responses (Table 5) it is worth

noting that, with the exception of one sub-indicator (curricula in VET),

the responses scatter around a maximum of three assessment

FIGURE 3 The status of and progress with the implementation of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in the German education

system. Colors and arrows refer to the rounded mean external expert evaluations (see Table 5) of quality and depth of implementation as well as

speed of change. No data exists for student assessment in Early Childhood Education (ECE) and no data was assessed for student assessment in

Higher Education (HE). Speed of change could not be evaluated for training of educators and student assessment in HE due to a lack of

appropriate data (indicated with a question mark).

10 HOLST ET AL.

categories and in most cases the mode matches the mean. Focusing

on the differences in the evaluations of all 34 individual document

groups (one aggregation level below the sub-indicators), the highest

mean score of the expert evaluation on depth of implementation is

3.3 (“Partial Integration”) for the most recent documents from the

BIBB-Hauptausschuss (part of education policies in VET), which

issued an update to the standard training elements (“Standardberufs-

bildpositionen”) in 2020 to include sustainability as a focus for all

training programs in VET. This score is considerably higher than the

scores for the document groups in the sub-indicator for education

policies in VET (e.g., laws, documents by the KMK which focus primar-

ily on the school side of the dual VET system in Germany). A further

finding specific to the area of HE is that policy documents are evalu-

ated differently depending on whether they are the responsibility of

state actors (laws, target agreements) or students (publications by

state student councils) on the one hand, or the direct responsibility of

autonomous HE institutions on the other. While state and student-

driven documents were generally evaluated as “Partial Integration”

and as increasing considerably (e.g., target agreements (M

Quality

=2.8)

or documents by State Student Councils (M

Quality

=3.0)), most docu-

ments produced by HE institutions and their representative bodies

were categorized as “Isolated Mentioning”and sometimes “Add-On”

with little or no increase. In ECE, the documents of the Child and

Youth Welfare Association (AGJ) were evaluated as of higher quality

(M=2.3) with a considerably faster speed of change (M=1.8) than

policy documents from the federal states or the minister conferences.

5|DISCUSSION: DEVELOPMENT OF

INPUT-INDICATOR FOR ESD IN LINE WITH

SDG 4.7 AND ILLUSTRATIVE ASSESSMENT IN

GERMANY

The development of concrete, measurable and facilitative indicators is

crucial to support evidence-based governance of the integration of

sustainability into all levels of education (on SDG indicators generally,

Hák et al., 2016, Biermann et al., 2017, Kim, 2023). However, most

international SDG assessments do not focus on the implementation of

ESD and sustainability in education (SDG 4.7). Instead, SDG assess-

ments to date have tended to refer to general developments in educa-

tion. As an example, the SDG-mid-term report includes data on

participation rates in pre-primary learning, primary-, secondary school

enrollment and literacy rates (Sachs et al., 2023). Other assessments

measure SDG 4 according to school enrollment rates, literacy rates, or

gender parity index of school enrolment among others

(e.g., Campagnolo et al., 2018; Huan et al., 2021). The input-indicator

framework presented in this article differs from these analyses in that

it focuses explicitly on the depth and speed of ESD integration, which

is critical to the quality with which sustainable development is imple-

mented and practiced in education. While the importance of ESD for

high quality education has often been proclaimed and indicators

for ESD have been discussed for over 15 years (e.g., Tilbury, 2007),

monitoring of SDG 4.7 specifically has to date mostly relied upon

country self-reporting using a binary (yes/no) scheme

(UNESCO, 2019a,2019b). With the proposed framework we respond

to this by offering a procedure to increase the validity, reliability and

reproducibility of input-assessments of SDG 4.7.1.

The framework can be used to evaluate the status and develop-

ment of ESD implementation in documents at the level of countries

and federal states, as well as in the context of international frame-

works and education partnerships (e.g., UN, UNESCO, OECD, and

others). The operationalization is two-dimensional. It includes the

quality and depth of ESD implementation as well as speed of change

and combines lexical document analysis with structured external

expert evaluation. The reliability of assessments is increased by pro-

posing clearly structured categories for the evaluation of quality (6 cat-

egories) and speed of change (5 categories) of implementation of ESD

and related concepts in documents. This allows for a more concise

and comparable understanding of the different levels of monitoring

and mainstreaming of ESD (see Brent Edwards et al., 2020;

Gallwey, 2016). As the literature-based conceptual framework

beneath the category system provides a condensed understanding of

TABLE 5 Expert evaluations of quality/depth and speed of ESD implementation in documents of the German education system (mean,

distribution in brackets) for all four subdomains of target 4.7.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (mainstreaming of ESD in education policy,

curricula, training of educators and student assessment). Results are shown for early childhood education (ECE), school education (SE), vocational

education and training (VET) and higher education (HE). Scale for quality: 0 =No Mentioning, 1 =Isolated Mentioning, 2 =Add-On, 3 =Partial

Integration, 4 =Substantial Integration, 5 =Redesign. Scale for speed: 1=Decrease, 0 =No Change, 1 =Small Increase, 2 =Considerable

Increase, 3 =Strong Increase. nR =No Response.

Education policy Curricula Training of educators Student assessment

Early childhood education Quality 1,7 (1

•••

••

•

)2,8 (2

•

•••••

)1,8 (1

••

•••

•

)–

Speed 1,0 (1

••••••

)1,5 (1

•••

)1,8 (1

•

•••••

)–

School education Quality 1,7 (1

•••

••

•

)2,3 (1

•

••

•••

)1,7 (1

••

••••

)2,5 (2

•••

)

Speed 0,5 (0

•••

)1,0 (1

••••••

)0,8 (0

•

••••

,nR

•

)1,2 (1

••••

•

,nR

•

)

Vocational education and training Quality 1,8 (1

••

•••

•

)2,3 (1

•

•••

•

)1,0 (1

••••••

)1,2 (1

•••••

•

)

Speed 1,2 (1

•••••

•

)1,8 (1

••

•••

•

)1,0 (1

••••••

)0,8 (0

•

•••••

)

Higher education Quality 2,2 (1

•

•••

••

)1,2 (1

•••••

•

)1,0 (1

••••••

)–

Speed 1,0 (1

••••••

)1,0 (0

•

•••

•

,nR

•

)––

HOLST ET AL.11

the different degrees of quality of integration and depth, the frame-

work itself also contributes to increased assessment validity. By pro-

viding clear methodological steps, the framework allows for

reproducibility and comparability across diverse research contexts and

time periods. By broadening the knowledge base for future evalua-

tions, the framework might also bridge approaches between interna-

tional large-scale assessments and less quantitative evaluations of

cross-cutting educational topics such as ESD (e.g., Sinnes &

Eriksen, 2016). In addition, by minimizing the risk of author or self-

reporting bias, external expert evaluation increases the objectivity of

evaluations.

The framework could be used in future assessments in two ways:

1. First, the use of independent scientific analyses with external

expert evaluation is proposed as a complement to country self-

reporting. Depending on the resources and data available, assess-

ments can either focus solely on current quality and depth, or –if

longitudinal data are available –also include speed of change. The

commissioning of independent assessments would allow for coun-

tries to assess the current situation as well as shortcomings and

trends and would provide an empirical basis for informed policy

making.

2. Second, the conceptual framework can be used as part of self-

assessments: The quality of self-assessments could be enhanced

by complementing reporting on thematic indicators (e.g., on the

integration of human rights, gender equality, peace and non-vio-

lence) with a structured and critical self-evaluation of the patterns

of quality and depth of ESD implementation (0: No Mentioning, 1:

Isolated Mentioning, 2: Add-On, 3: Partial Integration, 4: Substan-

tial Integration, 5: Redesign) as well as speed of change in the

domains of SDG 4.7.1 (1: Decrease, 0: No Change, 1: Small

Increase, 2: Medium Increase, 3: Strong Increase).

The quality of the data evaluated is critical to the validity of the

results for both pathways (scientific assessments, self-assessments).

The documents assessed must be representative of the total set of

documents (e.g., no showcasing of best practices; focus not only on

latest, but on all currently valid documents). It is moreover important

for external evaluation purposes to involve external experts from the

specific region who have considerable contextualized field knowledge

of the different educational areas and, ideally, of educational monitor-

ing in general.

5.1 |Assessment in Germany: From add-on to

substantial integration?

The conceptual and methodological framework for assessing SDG

4.7.1 was applied in this study to the German context. The experts on

ESD and educational measurement evaluated most 4.7.1 sub-

indicators in the “Add-On”category. This describes the implementa-

tion of ESD and sustainability content as predominantly of medium to

low quality, often as an addition to otherwise unchanged educational

objectives or explanations (also Sterling, 2003). Evaluations ranged

around the “Add-On”category from isolated mentioning of ESD-

related concepts in the training of educators (VET, HE), curricula

(HE) and student assessment (VET) to partial integration in curricula of

ECE and student assessment in SE. Across the four sub-domains, edu-

cator training is still the lowest ranked sub-indicator, which is in line

with previous studies (Grund & Brock, 2020; Holst et al., 2020) and

international studies on ESD (De Haan 2021; Fischer et al., 2022;

Gough, 2016). In the area of education policy, we found that in many

cases there are policies on ESD, but they are often non-binding and

often address ESD as an “add-on”instead of a central point of refer-

ence. Particularly within curricula, but also across all other domains,

we found strong foci of textual references within specific states, sub-

jects, organizations (e.g., HEIs) and modules. Overall, based on the

conceptual framework presented in this study, it is not yet apparent

that ESD has been comprehensively integrated (in a cross-cutting

way) into documents of the German education system. While the “No

Mentioning”category was not used at all, which means that ESD has

its place in all areas of education and all sub-domains of SDG 4.7.1 in

Germany, the same is currently true for the “Substantial Integration”

and “Redesign”categories. In terms of speed of change, the German

data clearly show a dynamic of implementation (all sub-indicators

were evaluated as increasing). However, the experts rated the

increases as mostly small or, in some sub-indicators and areas of edu-

cation, as considerable. It is important to note here that the evaluation

of the speed of change is related both to the revision cycles of docu-

ments (e.g., curricula are only revised every 10 to 20 years) and the

speed of change required to achieve the objective set in SDG 4.7 –

enabling all to contribute to sustainability by 2030. While the current

implementation might be considered dynamic compared to (a) past

timescales of substantial changes in education systems and (b) the low

implementation status reported in in the first analysis in 2017 (Brock

et al., 2018; Singer-Brodowski et al., 2019), this dynamic is still too

slow given the ambition of SDG 4.7.

5.1.1 | Methodological strengths and limitations

In addition to the contributions of the presented framework to

enhancing the reliability, validity and objectivity of ESD assessments

at the input level, further methodological strengths and limitations

require discussion. First, the data set containing over 11,000 docu-

ments from over 30 document groups is very heterogeneous. This

implies that both the initial analysis and the external evaluation

required considerable system-specific knowledge on the part of the

researchers and external experts involved. The analysis presented

here therefore needed time and resources, which may not be available

in every context. However, one strength of the approach lies in its

scalability, that is, the same procedure can be applied to a much smal-

ler dataset, as long as the selection of documents accurately repre-

sents the total set of documents (e.g., a document analysis for one

federal state in one area of education, see Krah et al., 2021) or other

educational concepts (e.g., Global Citizenship Education). For regional

12 HOLST ET AL.

adaptation, we suggest involving key stakeholders from civil society,

educational practice, administration and academia in the selection of

document groups to be assessed. Regarding the keywords used for

lexical analysis, we deliberately focused on conceptual keywords

(e.g., ESD, sustainability/SD, related educational concepts and per-

spectives). Naturally, thematic references to sustainability and ESD

(e.g., to sustainability-related topics) can be found more frequently

across the set of documents than conceptual keywords. However,

assessing a wide range of conceptual keywords gives a broader

impression not only of the topics but also of the objectives, methods

and approaches associated with the educational concept of ESD

(e.g., Brundiers et al., 2021; De Haan, 2010; Rieckmann et al., 2017).

Also, SDG 4.7.1 specifically focuses on the “mainstreaming”of ESD.

Here we argue again that this is best operationalized by focusing on

the relevant key concepts. Lastly, while a wide range of data was

included in the present study, not all sub-indicators could be covered

equally: No data are available for student assessment in ECE (there

are no assessments in ECE) and no data were collected in HE, where

data might theoretically exist, but in practice are very difficult to

acquire as exams in HE are very diverse and mostly created by the

individual lecturers themselves.

6|CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK

In light of the ambition articulated in SDG 4.7 –to enable all to con-

tribute to SD until 2030 –the Declaration from the recent UNESCO

World Conference on ESD calls on all countries to “[e]nsure that ESD

is a foundational element of our education systems at all levels”

(UNESCO, 2021, p. 2). If the practice of sustainability in education is

to live up to the call for ESD to become a “key enabler of all the other

SDGs”(United Nations General Assembly, 2017), it is necessary that

its structural integration into education systems matches this ambi-

tion. Clearly, individuals cannot be expected to act consistently in a

sustainable manner if the norms around them –as formalized in

documents –treat sustainability as an isolated issue or “add-on”.

Although integration in structures involves more than anchoring in

documents (e.g., mental structures), these formalizations set a frame

for human action, provide orientation and are therefore an important

lever for changing practice. For this reason, it is crucial that reliable

assessments are made of the status and progress on SDG 4.7. The

proposed framework adds validity, reliability, and comparability to

country reporting and scientific assessments (Brent Edwards

et al., 2020; Giangrande et al., 2019). Furthermore, the categories

introduced can also be a means for policymakers, administrators, and

practitioners to reflect on their actions in relation to sustainability in

education.

With regard to further developments, future research may focus

particularly on understanding the processes of policy development

and policy mobility (McKenzie et al., 2015) which lead to ESD imple-

mentation in line with a pattern of integration or even redesign. In this

vein of public policy-making, it would be critical to explore how

administrative stakeholders in particular can overcome status-quo

biases (e.g., thinking ESD in an “add-on”-mode). We further argue that

while stocktaking through input assessments is critical to understand-

ing the status and progress of structural implementation, integrative

monitoring approaches may go further and include indicators also

across the levels of educational processes, outputs and outcomes

(e.g., Holst et al., in review; Marron & Naughton, 2019;

Unterhalter, 2019). Regarding monitoring, internationally agreed-upon

indicators (e.g., on 4.7) may be complemented with context-specific

indicators to foster participation and generation of policy-relevant

knowledge, e.g., at sub-national levels (also Brockwell et al., 2022;

Gallwey, 2016). Finally, while there is a tendency to focus on what is

easy to measure using existing data, we join various other scholars in

arguing that it is critical to aim for assessments that actually measure

what is important for achieving the targets set (e.g., Brockwell

et al., 2022; McCool & Stankey, 2004). Ultimately, consistently linking

education with sustainability in times of mounting unsustainability cri-

ses is closely connected to what education is fundamentally about: to

empower learners to understand and address the key epochal prob-

lems of any given time (Klafki, 1996; Kvamme, 2021).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the six external experts, Prof. Dr. Inka Bor-

mann, Prof. Dr. Johannes Hartig, Prof. Dr. Werner Kuhlmeier, Prof.

Dr. Armin Lude, Prof. Dr. Heike Molitor and Prof. Dr. Marco Rieck-

mann for their participation in the expert evaluation as well as for

helpful feedback on the analysis. We also thank our colleagues Julius

Grund, Marie Heitfeld, Niclas Kollhoff, Christoph Schönherr and

Sophie Schulke for their feedback on the evaluation template and the

manuscript. This research received funding from the German Federal

Ministry of Education and Research under Grants No. 01JO2004 and

01JO2305. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Pro-

jekt DEAL.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ORCID

Jorrit Holst https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2677-806X

Mandy Singer-Brodowski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9176-318X

ENDNOTE

https://www.agj.de/fileadmin/files/positionen/2021/AGJ-Discussion_

Paper_How_dare__you.pdf.

REFERENCES

Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T.,

Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D.,

Jager, N. W., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability

transformation. Ambio,46(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s13280-016-0800-y

Agbedahin, A. V. (2019). Sustainable development, education for sustain-

able development and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development:

Emergence, efficacy, eminence, and future. Sustainable Development,

27(4), 669–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1931

HOLST ET AL.13

Beveridge, D., McKenzie, M., Aikens, K., & Strobbe, K. M. (2019). A

National Census of sustainability in K-12 education policy: Implica-

tions for international monitoring, evaluation, and research. Canadian

Journal of Educational Administration and Policy,188,36–52.

Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, C.-A., Beisheim, M., Bernstein, S.,

Chasek, P., Grob, L., Kim, R. E., Kotzé, L. J., Nilsson, M., Ord

oñez

Llanos, A., Okereke, C., Pradhan, P., Raven, R., Sun, Y., Vijge, M. J., van

Vuuren, D., & Wicke, B. (2022). Scientific evidence on the political

impact of the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability,

5(9), 795–800. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5

Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-set-

ting: The novel approach of the UN sustainable development goals.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,26-27,26–31. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010

Bormann, I., & Nikel, J. (2017). How education for sustainable develop-

ment is implemented in Germany: Looking through the lens of educa-

tional governance theory. International Review of Education,63(6),

793–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9683-9

Brent Edwards, D., Sustarsic, M., Chiba, M., McCormick, M., Goo, M., &

Perriton, S. (2020). Achieving and monitoring education for sustainable

development and global citizenship: A systematic review of the litera-

ture. Sustainability,12(4), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041383

Brock, A., De Haan, G., Etzkorn, N., & Singer‐Brodowski, M. (Eds.). (2018).

Wegmarken zur Transformation—Nationales Monitoring von Bildung für

nachhaltige Entwicklung in Deutschland. Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Brock, A., & Holst, J. (2022). Schlüssel zu Nachhaltigkeit und BNE in der

Schule: Ausbildung von Lehrenden, Verankerung in der Breite des

Fächerkanons und jenseits der Vorworte. Kurzbericht des Nationalen

Monitorings zu Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE). Freie Uni-

versität Berlin. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-36094

Brockwell, A. J., Mochizuki, Y., & Sprague, T. (2022). Designing indicators

and assessment tools for SDG target 4.7: A critique of the current

approach and a proposal for an ‘Inside-out’strategy. Compare: A Jour-

nal of Comparative and International Education,1–19. https://doi.org/

10.1080/03057925.2022.2129957

Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-

Remington, S., Dripps, W. R., Habron, G., Harre, N., Jarchow, M. E.,

Losch, K., Michel, J., Mochizuki, Y., Rieckmann, M., Parnell, R. A.,

Walker, P., & Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in

higher education—Toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sus-

tainability Science,16(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-

020-00838-2

Buckler, C., & Creech, H. (2014). Shaping the future we want: UN decade of

education for sustainable development (2005-2014). Final report.UNESCO.

Campagnolo, L., Eboli, F., Farnia, L., & Carraro, C. (2018). Supporting the

UN SDGs transition: Methodology for sustainability assessment and

current worldwide ranking. Economics,12(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.

5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2018-10

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep

and lasting change. Educational Researcher,32(6), 3–12. https://doi.

org/10.3102/0013189X032006003

Dalampira, E.-S., & Nastis, S. A. (2020). Mapping sustainable development

goals: A network analysis framework. Sustainable Development,28(1),

46–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1964

De Haan, G. (2010). The development of ESD‐related competencies in

supportive institutional frameworks. International Review of Education,

56(2‐3), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-010-9157-9

De Haan, G. (2021). Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung in Luxemburg:

Eine Bestandsaufnahme. In LUCET & SCRIPT (Eds.), Nationaler Bil-

dungsbericht Luxemburg 2021 (pp. 211–225). Imprimerie Centrale.

Destatis. (2023). Integration von ‚Global Citizenship Education‘und, Bil-

dung für nachhaltige Entwicklung’im Bildungswesen. Retrieved from

https://sdg-indikatoren.de/4-7-1/

Fischer, D., King, J., Rieckmann, M., Barth, M., Büssing, A., Hemmer, I., &

Lindau-Bank, D. (2022). Teacher education for sustainable

development: A review of an emerging research field. Journal of

Teacher Education,73(5), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/

00224871221105784

Fonseca, L. M., Domingues, J. P., & Dima, A. M. (2020). Mapping the sus-

tainable development goals relationships. Sustainability,12(8), 3359.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083359

Fredriksson, U., Kusanagi, N., Gougoulakis, P., Matsuda, Y., & Kitamura, Y.

(2020). A comparative study of curriculums for education for sustain-

able development (ESD) in Sweden and Japan. Sustainability,12(3),

1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031123

Gallwey, S. (2016). Capturing transformative change in education: The

challenge of tracking Progress towards SDG target 4.7. Policy and

Practice: A Development Education Review,23, 124–138.

Giangrande, N., White, R. M., East, M., Jackson, R., Clarke, T., Saloff

Coste, M., & Penha-Lopes, G. (2019). A competency framework to

assess and activate education for sustainable development: Addres-

sing the UN sustainable development goals 4.7 challenge. Sustainabil-

ity,11(10), 2832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102832

Gough, A. (2016). Teacher education for sustainable development: Past,

present and future. In W. Leal Filho & P. Pace (Eds.), World sustainabil-

ity series. Teaching education for sustainable development at university

level (pp. 109–122). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/

10.1007/978-3-319-32928-4_8

Grund, J., & Brock, A. (2020). Education for sustainable development in

Germany: Not just desired but also effective for transformative action.

Sustainability,12(2838), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072838

Hák, T., Janouˇ

sková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable development

goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators,60, 565–

573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003

Hickel, J. (2019). The contradiction of the sustainable development goals:

Growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustainable Development,

27(5), 873–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1947

Holden, E., Linnerud, K., & Banister, D. (2017). The imperatives of sustain-

able development. Sustainable Development,25(3), 213–226. https://

doi.org/10.1002/sd.1647

Holst, J. (2022). Nachhaltigkeit & BNE in der Beruflichen Bildung: Dynamik

in Ordnungsmitteln, Potentiale bei Berufen, Lernorten und in der Qua-

lifizierung von Ausbildenden. Kurzbericht des Nationalen Monitorings

zu Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE). Freie Universität Berlin.

https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-35827

Holst, J. (2023). Towards coherence on sustainability in education: A sys-

tematic review of whole institution approaches. Sustainability Science,

18(2), 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01226-8

Holst, J., Brock, A., Singer‐Brodowski, M., & de Haan, G. (2020). Monitor-

ing progress of change: Implementation of Education for Sustainable

Development (ESD) within documents of the German education sys-

tem. Sustainability,12(10), 4306. https://doi.org/10.3390/

su12104306

Holst, J., Grund, J., & Brock, A. (in review). Whole Institution Approach:

Measurable and highly effective in empowering learners and educators for

sustainability.

Holst, J., & Singer‐Brodowski, M. (2022). Nachhaltigkeit & BNE im

Hochschulsystem: Stärkung in Gesetzen und Zielvereinbarungen, unge-

nutzte Potentiale bei Curricula und Selbstverwaltung. Kurzbericht des

Nationalen Monitorings zu Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE).

Freie Universität Berlin. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-35828

Huan, Y., Liang, T., Li, H., & Zhang, C. (2021). A systematic method for

assessing progress of achieving sustainable development goals: A case

study of 15 countries. The Science of the Total Environment,752,

141875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141875

Ioannidou, A. (2010). Educational monitoring and reporting as gover-

nance instruments for evidence-based education policy. In S. K.

Amos (Ed.), International perspectives on education and society (Vol.

12, pp. 155–172). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3679

(2010)0000012011

14 HOLST ET AL.

Kim, R. E. (2023). Augment the SDG indicator framework. Environmental

Science & Policy,142,62–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.

02.004

Kioupi, V., & Voulvoulis, N. (2019). Education for sustainable development:

A systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational out-

comes. Sustainability,11(21), 6104. https://doi.org/10.3390/

su11216104

Klafki, W. (1996). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: Zeitgemäße

Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik. Beltz Verlag.

Kolmos, A., Hadgraft, R. G., & Holgaard, J. E. (2016). Response strategies

for curriculum change in engineering. International Journal of Technol-

ogy and Design Education,26(3), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10798-015-9319-y

Krah, J. M., Reimann, J., & Molitor, H. (2021). Sustainability in Brandenburg

study programs. Perspectives for anchoring sustainability in higher

education curricula. Sustainability,13(7), 3958. https://doi.org/10.

3390/su13073958

Kvamme, O. A. (2021). Rethinking Bildung in the Anthropocene: The case

of Wolfgang Klafki. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies,77(3),

1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i3.6807

Lingard, B. (2013). The impact of research on education policy in an era of

evidence-based policy. Critical Studies in Education,54(2), 113–131.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.781515

Marron, R. K., & Naughton, D. (2019). Monitoring Progress Towards SDG

Target 4.7 in Europe: Proposed Framework and Tools.

McCool, S. F., & Stankey, G. H. (2004). Indicators of sustainability: Chal-

lenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Envi-

ronmental Management,33(3), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s00267-003-0084-4

McKenzie, M., Bieler, A., & McNeil, R. (2015). Education policy mobility:

Reimagining sustainability in neoliberal times. Environmental Education

Research,21(3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.

993934

Meadows, D. H. (1997). Places to intervene in a system. Whole Earth,

91(1), 78–84.

Nationale Plattform BNE c/o BMBF. (2017). Nationaler Aktionsplan Bil-

dung für nachhaltige Entwicklung: Der deutsche Beitrag zum

UNESCO-Weltaktionsprogramm. Retrieved from https://www.bmbf.

de/bmbf/shareddocs/downloads/files/nationaler_aktionsplan_bildung_

fuer_nachhaltige_entwicklung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2

Nazir, J., Pedretti, E., Wallace, J., Montemurro, D., & Inwood, H. (2011).

Reflections on the Canadian experience with education for climate

change and sustainable development. Canadian Journal of Science,

Mathematics and Technology Education,11(4), 365–380. https://doi.

org/10.1080/14926156.2011.624673

Otto, I. M., Donges, J. F., Cremades, R., Bhowmik, A., Hewitt, R. J.,

Lucht, W., Rockström, J., Allerberger, F., McCaffrey, M., Doe, S. S. P.,

Lenferna, A., Morán, N., van Vuuren, D. P., & Schellnhuber, H. J.

(2020). Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth's climate by 2050.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America,117(5), 2354–2365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.

1900577117

Pham-Truffert, M., Metz, F., Fischer, M., Rueff, H., & Messerli, P. (2020).

Interactions among sustainable development goals: Knowledge for

identifying multipliers and virtuous cycles. Sustainable Development,

28(5), 1236–1250. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2073

Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E.,

Donges, J. F., Drüke, M., Fetzer, I., Bala, G., von Bloh, W., Feulner, G.,

Fiedler, S., Gerten, D., Gleeson, T., Hofmann, M., Huiskamp, W.,

Kummu, M., Mohan, C., Nogués-Bravo, D., et al. (2023). Earth beyond

six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances,9(37), adh2458.

https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

Rieckmann, M., Mindt, L., & Gardiner, S. (2017). Education for sustainable

development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO.

Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Lade, S. J., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., &

Zhang, X. (2023). Safe and just earth system boundaries. Nature,

619(7968), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8

Sachs, J. D., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Drumm, E. (2023). Implementing

the SDG stimulus. In Sustainable development report 2023. Dublin Uni-

versity Press. https://doi.org/10.25546/102924

Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D.,

Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to

achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability,2(9),

805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9

Singer‐Brodowski, M., Brock, A., Etzkorn, N., & Otte, I. (2019). Monitoring

of education for sustainable development in Germany –insights from

early childhood education, school and higher education. Environmental

Education Research,25(4), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/

13504622.2018.1440380

Singer‐Brodowski, M., von Seggern, J., Duveneck, A., & Etzkorn, N. (2020).

Moving (Reflexively within) structures. The Governance of Education for

Sustainable Development in Germany. Sustainability,12(7), 2778.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072778

Singer‐Brodowski, M., & Holst, J. (2022). Nachhaltigkeit & BNE in der Frü-

hen Bildung: Chancen durch Partizipation und ökologische Kinder-

rechte, Bedarfe bei der Ausbildung von Fachkräften. Kurzbericht des

Nationalen Monitorings zu Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung.

https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-35735

Sinnes, A. T., & Eriksen, C. C. (2016). Education for sustainable develop-

ment and international student assessments: Governing education in

times of climate change. Global Policy,7(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.

1111/1758-5899.12256

Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging opera-

tional models. Qualitative Inquiry,4(2), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.

1177/107780049800400208

Spangenberg, J. H. (2017). Hot air or comprehensive Progress? A critical

assessment of the SDGs. Sustainable Development,25(4), 311–321.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1657

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Ingo, F.,

Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A.,

Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M.,

Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Panetary boundaries:

Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science,348(6240),

1217-c. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9629

Stepanek Lockhart, A. (2018). Monitoring ESD: Lessons learned and ways

forward. In A. Leicht, J. Heiss, & W. J. Byun (Eds.), Issues and trends in

education for sustainable development (pp. 215–231). United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Sterling, S. (2003). Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in edu-

cation: Explorations in the context of sustainability (PhD).UniversityofBath.

Sterling, S. (2016). A commentary on education and sustainable develop-

ment goals. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development,10(2),

208–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408216661886

Tilbury, D. (2007). Monitoring and evaluation during the UN decade of

education for sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sus-

tainable Development,1(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/

097340820700100214

UNECE. (2005). Indicators for education for sustainable development. Pro-

gress report on the work of the Expert Group Retrieved from https://

unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/cep/ac.13/cep.ac.13.

2005.9.e.pdf

UNECE. (2009). Learning from each other: The UNECE Strategy for Edu-

cation for Sustainable Development ECE/CEP/159. Retrieved from

https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/798ece5.pdf

UNECE. (2022). Implementation of the UNECE strategy for ESD across

the ECE region (2015–2018). Retrieved from https://unece.org/sites/

default/files/2022-09/Implementation%20of%20the%20UNECE%

20Strategy_web_final_05.09.2022.pdf

HOLST ET AL.15

UNESCO. (2017). Measurement Strategy for SDG Target 4.7: Proposal by

GAML Task Force 4.7. Retrieved from GAML4/17 website: http://uis.

unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/gaml4-measurement-strategy-

sdg-target4.7.pdf

UNESCO. (2019a). Proposal for monitoring of SDG indicators 4.7.1, 12.8.1

and 13.3.1. TCG6/REF/14. Retrieved from United Nations Educa-

tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization website: https://tcg.uis.

unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/08/TCG6-REF-14-

Proposal-for-monitoring-of-SDG-indicators-4.7.1-12.8.1-and-13.3.1.pdf

UNESCO. (2019b). TCG6/REF/4. SDG indicator 4.7.1: Proposal for a

measurement strategy. Retrieved from United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization website: https://tcg.uis.unesco.

org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/08/TCG6-REF-4-4.7.1-Proposal-

for-measurement-strategy.pdf

UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development. A roadmap.

UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2021). Berlin declaration on education for sustainable develop-

ment. UNESCO.

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). 70/1. Transforming Our World:

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&

Lang=E

United Nations General Assembly. (2017). Education for sustainable

development in the framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development: Resolution 72/222.

United Nations General Assembly. (2023). Political declaration of the high-

level political forum on sustainable development convened under the

auspices of the General Assembly A/HLPF/2023/L.1. Retrieved from

https://hlpf.un.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/A%20HLPF%202023%

20L1.pdf?_gl=1*krm5r*_ga*Mjc5NDQ5NDA4LjE2MDMxNDUzNDU.*_ga_

TK9BQL5X7Z*MTY5NjM0NTIzNi4xMjEuMS4xNjk2MzQ3Nzk1LjAu

MC4w

Unterhalter, E. (2019). The many meanings of quality education: Politics of

targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Policy,10(S1), 39–51. https://

doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12591

Van Poeck, K., Östman, L., & Block, T. (2020). Opening up the black box of

learning-by-doing in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation

and Societal Transitions,34, 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.

2018.12.006

Vladimirova, K., & Le Blanc, D. (2016). Exploring links between education

and sustainable development goals through the lens of UN flagship

reports. Sustainable Development,24(4), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.

1002/sd.1626

Wals, A. E. J., & Benavot, A. (2017). Can we meet the sustainability chal-

lenges? The role of education and lifelong learning. European Journal of

Education,52(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12250

Weiss, M., Barth, M., & von Wehrden, H. (2021). The patterns of curricu-

lum change processes that embed sustainability in higher education

institutions. Sustainability Science,16(5), 1579–1593. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s11625-021-00984-1

Xiao, H., Liu, Y., & Ren, J. (2023). Synergies and trade-offs across sustain-

able development goals: A novel method incorporating indirect inter-

actions analysis. Sustainable Development,31(2), 1135–1148. https://

doi.org/10.1002/sd.2446

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Support-

ing Information section at the end of this article.

How to cite this article: Holst, J., Singer-Brodowski, M., Brock,

A., & de Haan, G. (2024). Monitoring SDG 4.7: Assessing

Education for Sustainable Development in policies, curricula,

training of educators and student assessment (input-indicator).

Sustainable Development,1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/

sd.2865

16 HOLST ET AL.

Education for Sustainable Development in Swiss Vocational Education and Training: A Curricular Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

Structured Abstract Background: The increasing ecological, economic, and social challenges have amplified the demand for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). A significant challenge in the field of ESD is the absence of universally understood definitions for key terms such as sustainability, sustainable development (SD), and ESD itself. In the Swiss context, SD competences are not uniformly integrated into vocational education and training (VET) curricula. The lack of comprehensive studies on this integration indicates a need for further research. This study aims to systematically analyze and identify SD competences, dimensions and topics integration in six selected Swiss VET curricula. Methods: Educational curricula for six VET programs focusing on multi-faceted occupations (Building Services Technician, Electronics Technician, Geomaticist, Physics Laboratory Technician, Road Builder, Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Process Technologist) were systematically analyzed for ESD dimensions, topics and competences through a structured qualitative content analysis. The curriculum analyses followed a pre-structured deductive content-analytical design. Based on Switzerland-oriented SD competences and general SD dimensions and topics, 23 codes were defined and qualitatively coded by three independent coders in a high inferential analysis procedure. Findings: The analysis shows a diverse integration of SD competences, dimensions, and topics, with great variation in how each profession emphasizes these elements. Competences such as "Responsibility", "Systems", and "Act" stand out as most frequently identified across all professions. ESD topics are mainly grouped under environmental and societal dimensions, with "Climate and energy", "Health and well-being", and "Economic efficiency and value creation" being the most frequent topics across all occupations. Conclusions: The study's findings indicate that while SD competences, dimensions and topics do appear in all analysed basic VET curricula, they are not labeled as such and are highly heterogeneous in terms of distribution and occurrence. Besides time to teach for an ESD, this makes it difficult for teachers to identify and integrate ESD and thus presenting a significant obstacle for the integration of ESD into basic VET. ESD may not be seen an add-on, it needs proper integration with existing content. The findings have been translated into profession-specific guidelines for VET teachers, school administrations, and professional organizations. These are intended to support VET teachers with concrete examples for their own teaching. Expanding the analysis to more basic VET curricula and examining ESD integration across different learning locations, including companies and inter-company courses, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of ESD's role in Swiss VET.

Universities towards sustainable development - a review of Polish schools' approaches to the formulation of SD strategies

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

Universities have an important role to play in the process of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations in its 2015 Declaration, which specifically addresses their contribution in the areas of education, research and social impact. The main objective of the article is to review the approaches of Polish higher education institutions (HEIs) to the formulation of sustainable development strategies by reference to their position in international rankings. The study focused on three international rankings: UI GreenMetric, THE Impact Rankings and QS World University Rankings: Sustainability. The methodology used included literature review and critique, analysis of documents and other source materials, descriptive analysis and comparative analysis. The paper contributes to deepening and advancing the academic debate on the role of universities in achieving the SDGs and improving institutional governance to accelerate progress towards their implementation.

Las instituciones argentinas de educación superior, ¿impulsan la sostenibilidad?

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

Este estudio aborda cómo las instituciones argentinas de educación superior integran la sostenibilidad en sus programas educativos, de modo alineado con la Agenda 2030 y la Ley 27621 de Educación Ambiental Integral. Se realizó un estudio cuantitativo descriptivo transversal que incluyó a 132 instituciones, y se evaluó su oferta educativa en sostenibilidad. Los resultados revelan que el 54 % de ellas incorpora al menos una modalidad de enseñanza relacionada con la sostenibilidad, entre las que destacan las áreas de gestión ambiental y energías renovables. Sin embargo, existe una notable disparidad entre las provincias, con Buenos Aires, Santa Fe y Mendoza liderando en la oferta educativa, mientras que otras regiones presentan una oferta limitada. Además, se observa una mayor prevalencia de programas de grado y maestría en comparación con cursos, especializaciones, diplomaturas y doctorados. Las instituciones públicas tienen una mayor participación en la enseñanza de sostenibilidad que las privadas. El estudio concluye que, aunque hay un compromiso significativo con la sostenibilidad, es necesario implementar políticas y estrategias para mejorar la equidad regional y diversificar la oferta educativa. Se recomienda desarrollar normativas, guías prácticas y programas de capacitación, así como fomentar la colaboración entre instituciones y asegurar financiamiento adecuado para apoyar estas iniciativas.