In this paper we report on the first phase of a two-year project exploring education and sustainability in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) of Australia. This paper reports on one of the key findings of the project: that the meanings of sustainability in use by schools and teachers are at odds with the understandings of sustainability in operation in the communities of the MDB. While both regard sustainability as very important and report high levels of commitment to its pursuit, we argue that the different understandings in use potentially creates conflict and makes the pursuit of sustainable community futures difficult. The paper draws upon data from a two-year, multiphase, multi-method project designed to explore how rural communities understand sustainability, and how schools engage with community understandings. The project was influenced by ideas that modern schooling can often encourage students to leave rural communities (Corbett, 2007) and values metropolitan-cosmopolitan knowledge’s rather than rural knowledge’s (Roberts, 2014). To explore these themes in relation to sustainability, the project methodology explicitly focussed upon rural meanings (Roberts & Green, 2013) and is organised around notions of rural social space (Reid et al., 2010). The first phase involved a survey designed to elicit understandings and meanings of sustainability in communities and schools, and a document analysis of sustainability in education policy and curriculum for the six jurisdictions that span the MDB. The analysis found that communities have a strong Triple Bottom Line (TBL) understanding of sustainability in use and are highly committed to sustainability. However, it also found that while schools are equally committed to sustainability they have a highly environmentally focussed understanding of sustainability in use. Furthermore, the document and policy analysis revealed that while a TBL understanding of sustainability is prefaced, the examples, curriculum links and proposed actions, overwhelmingly privilege an environmental meaning. Drawing upon the data generated through this study we conclude that communities’ and schools’ understandings of sustainability are at odds, with schools potentially undermining concerns of community sustainability rather than developing community capitals (Cocklin & Dibden, 2005). This finding, and the research design, has relevance for international education systems be they in Europe or elsewhere, as it provides insights into the alignment between community understandings and aspirations, curriculum and policy aimed at supporting rural regions. Furthermore, education for sustainability, the sustainability of rural regions, and their socio-economic development is a significant European concern.

Cocklin, C., & Dibden, J. (2005). Introduction. In C. Cocklin & J. Dibden (Eds.), Sustainability and change in rural Australia (pp. 1-18). Sydney: University of NSW Press. Corbett, M. (2007). Learning to Leave: The Irony of Schooling in a Coastal Community. Canada: Fernwood Publishing. Reid, J., Green, B., Cooper, M., Hasting, W., Lock, G., & White, S. (2010). Regenerating rural social space? Teacher education for rural-regional sustainability. Australian Journal of Education, 54(3), 262-267. Roberts, P. (2014). A curriculum for the country: The absence of the rural in a national curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 34(1), 51-60. Roberts, P., Chapman, A., Downes, N., Caffery J., & Mikhailovich, K. (2015). Integrating community perspectives of sustainability for place- conscious education. Policy Studies, forthcoming. Roberts, P. & Downes, N. (2015). Community and School Understandings of Sustainability: Survey Summary. University of Canberra, ACT. Roberts, P., & Green, B. (2013). Researching Rural Place: On Social Justice and Rural Education. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(10), 765-774.