Activating the Petals in the ‘WSA Flower Model’: Critical Factors for Sustaining Schools’ Pathways Towards a Whole-School Approach

Abstract

In this chapter, we describe four Norwegian upper secondary schools’ paths towards a whole school approach (WSA) to sustainability. Since 2017, these schools have been part of a longitudinal university–school partnership, together with a school owner and a teacher education. The aim of the partnership was to develop the learning institutions’ sustainability education. The data have been analysed through the lens of the ‘WSA flower model’ (Wals & Mathie, 2022). As a result, we found that the four schools took different paths towards a WSA (e.g. they were initiated by enthusiastic teachers or the leader group). Nonetheless, what the schools had in common was that more petals in the WSA flower model were activated as the partnership evolved. Furthermore, the activation of more petals was related to more focus on robust sustainability in the schools. Thus, we conclude that schools may follow different paths towards sustainability, yet the crucial factor seems to be that more than one petal in the WSA flower model needs to be activated to sustain a school’s journey towards a WSA. We also acknowledge the important role the overarching partnership played as a catalyst for both activating the petals and keeping them active.

FormalPara Key Message

Our key message in this chapter is to acknowledge individual schools’ paths towards a WSA to sustainability, a journey that will look different depending on the local context of each school. We therefore recommend future stakeholders—internal or external to the school—to depart from and build on already existing initiatives when embarking on a path towards a WSA to sustainability. At the same time, we stress the need within schools to activate more petals in the WSA flower model to sustain the schools’ sustainability focus.

1 Introduction

Although working towards a whole school approach (WSA) is widely recognised in both research and policy as crucial for developing the sustainability competences of students and staff, there are few examples of schools that have integrated this approach in an extensive way (e.g. Wals & Mathie, 2022). Moreover, the examples that do exist seem difficult to replicate or scale up, since schools are complex entities and closely linked to local changing policies and conditions (Augenstein et al., 2020). Trying to identify critical factors that cause schools to move from ‘ordinary’ to WSA to sustainability schools is therefore complex. Nevertheless, to release the full potential of educational institutions’ contributions to sustainable development, the question remains crucial within the sustainability education discourse.

Research on schools’ development towards sustainability often describes processes where schools move from individual teachers’ engagement within their subjects to a more integrated approach where sustainability increasingly becomes part of the school ethos (Scott, 2013). The teachers and/or school leaders often seem to be crucial actors in developing and institutionalising a WSA (Mogren et al., 2019; Scott, 2013).

In this chapter, we describe four Norwegian upper secondary schools’ paths towards a WSA. Since 2017, these schools have been part of a university–school partnership consisting of four schools, a school owner and a teacher education. The aim of this partnership has been to develop the learning institutions’ sustainability education. We describe how the four schools took different paths towards achieving a WSA. We conclude that schools may follow different paths towards sustainability, yet the crucial factor seems to be that more than one petal in the WSA flower model (Wals & Mathie, 2022) needs to be activated to sustain a school’s journey towards a WSA. We also acknowledge the ‘third space’ (Zeichner, 2010) that developed through the university–school partnership as being crucial for both activating the petals and keeping them alive.

2 Background

To understand a school’s path towards a WSA to sustainability, several researchers have worked with frameworks built around ‘stage responses’, whereby some responses are more in line with promoting a WSA than others (e.g. Scott, 2013; Sterling, 2004). For example, these types of frameworks describe weak and strong responses to sustainability education, where weak responses have more of a ‘bolt-on’ quality, leading to more fragmented and sporadic initiatives. A strong response to sustainability is described as more ‘built in’ and transformative, where sustainability principles are integrated between the different aspects of the school system. These types of frameworks are useful tools for schools to reflect upon and guide their path towards a WSA to sustainability.

To further conceptualise what a WSA to sustainability entails, the WSA flower model identifies overarching levels and initiatives (petals) that are important for schools to emphasise and activate to move towards a WSA. The petals are as follows: institutional practices (walking the talk and experimenting with and learning from creating sustainability on location), capacity building (continued professional development of all staff), pedagogy and learning (new/alternative learning processes and learning environments), curriculum (design, content and assessment), community connections (school–society interface) and vision, ethos, leadership and coordination. These petals are described in detail by Wals and Mathie (2022) and have been central in this chapter’s analysis of the upper secondary schools’ paths towards a WSA.

Both the WSA flower model and the stage responses can be seen as conceptualisations of a WSA that focuses on scaling up, activating and connecting several sustainability initiatives in the school. However, Augenstein et al. (2020) highlight several challenges—including more stakeholders and more initiatives—from simply scaling up sustainability initiatives without acknowledging and embracing the complexity and struggles of being in a change process. Thus, the development process needs to be context sensitive and inclusive and involve all actors in the process. These perspectives are also emphasised by other sustainability education and WSA researchers, who argue that nurturing supportive relations, both internal and external, is an important aspect to bring about change. Moreover, in democratic decision-making, ideas should be constantly explored and negotiated to create a shared and praxis-oriented vision to guide the change process (Mogren et al., 2019; Scott, 2013; Sterling, 2004; Verhelst et al., 2020).

With these perspectives in mind, we were interested in exploring four upper secondary schools’ journeys towards a WSA to sustainability. These schools have all been supported by a university–school partnership. This partnership formed a third space in which the schools, together with a teacher education, could mutually explore and develop the sustainability activities in the learning institutions. Within the field of teacher education, third space theory describes a non-hierarchical relationship between partners, with the aim of creating new learning opportunities for both the teacher education and the schools (Robson & Mtika, 2017; Taylor et al., 2014; Zeichner, 2010). In these types of collaborations, careful attention must be given to the needs, perspectives and interests of all participants involved (Daza et al., 2021). A third space describes a symbolic space where boundary crossing becomes the norm and binary attitudes (such as teacher vs. student or theory vs. practice) are abandoned (Grudnoff et al., 2017; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2020). The aim of the third space that is described in this chapter has been for schools and the teacher education to mutually develop a whole institution approach to sustainability. Although the partnership is mutual, with the aim of also developing the sustainability focus in the teacher education, the focus of this chapter is on the four schools that were part of the partnership.

3 About the University–School Partnership

In 2017, the teacher education, together with the county council (school owner), initiated a university–school partnership with four upper secondary schools in the local area. Establishing partnerships between a teacher education and schools is part of the national strategy for teacher education institutions in Norway, introduced by the white paper ‘Teacher Education 2025 – National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education’ in 2017 (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). With these partnerships, the intention is to create a stronger connection between the teacher education and schools, institutions that often act as independent forums, to equally strengthen the teacher education and schools’ educational quality, innovation and relevance (ibid.). In this specific partnership, the aim was to promote and develop a WSA to sustainability.

The four upper secondary schools in this university–school partnership were chosen in dialogue with the teacher education and school owner and were based on the schools’ interest to promote sustainability education and motivation to participate in a collaborative partnership with the teacher education. In addition, the selection process was also driven by an interest in recruiting different types of schools; one school was college preparatory, two schools were a mix of college preparatory and vocational school and one school was a vocational agriculture school. The schools varied in size, spanning from 500 to 2000 pupils. The initial dialogues with the schools went through the principal, followed by the establishment of a coordinator position both in the schools and in the teacher education to follow up the partnership on a day-to-day basis. The coordinators in the schools were either teachers, department heads or both. The coordinator in the teacher education (the first author of this chapter) was a science educator. A research group was also established in the teacher education to follow up and support the collaborative partnership, led by the second author of this chapter.

Among the activities in the partnership has been a reference group meeting every half-year to discuss the status of and ways forward for the partnership and also to discuss how to approach a WSA in our different institutions, based on both practical and theoretical inputs. In addition, seminars and meetings were carried out with the different participants: seminars and meetings within the research group; seminars and study trips with the reference group; coordinator meetings; and specific research and development projects that were initiated between the teacher education and the schools. The partnership is equally funded by the teacher education and school owner. Although the schools were selected as partners based on their interest in developing a WSA, the schools were still at the initial stages in their sustainability work when the project started. The schools can all be considered as representative of typical Norwegian upper secondary schools.

4 Data and Analysis

The empirical data for this chapter are based on written material from the partnership: signed agreements between the different parties, presentations and minutes from meetings and seminars, a midway report in 2020 and school observation notes. In addition, a master’s thesis and field notes from PhD students carrying out research at the schools have been used as data (see a full overview of the written material in Table 12.1). As both the first and second authors have been directly involved in the partnership since the beginning as project coordinator and research leader, respectively, we also have a unique insight into the context behind the written material. The described cases in this chapter have been shared with the school coordinators for reliability assurance.

Table 12.1 An overview of the empirical data for this chapter

Wals and Mathie’s (2022) WSA flower model has been used as an analytical tool to describe the four schools’ paths towards a WSA. We use the model to identify what sustainability initiatives (petals) were active in the different schools at the beginning of the partnership in 2017 and what petals were activated as the partnership evolved.

We first collected the relevant data to be analysed. Data consisted of notes written by participants in the project, minutes of meetings and data collected by researchers and students in the project (described in Table 12.1). Subsequently, the two authors individually went through the data critically and marked sustainability initiatives in the schools according to what petals in the flower model they each represented. We then came together and separated the initiatives according to how they had developed throughout the different phases of the project period. Together, we identified some central activities from each school that we see as representative of the development of each school’s WSA journey. After doing this, we reread the documents to double check that we had not missed out on any central initiatives. We then wrote a narrative for each school’s development process. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to write extensively about all the activities that were carried out by the schools during the project period. The cases must therefore be read as instrumental case studies (Yin, 2014) that illustrate different schools’ journeys towards sustainability, not as complete descriptions of all activities in the schools.

5 Describing the Cases

5.1 School 1

School 1 is a college preparatory school situated in a small city 20 minutes out of the capital. The school has around 700 students.

The focus on sustainability at School 1 started with a group of three teachers wanting to collaborate to develop the sustainability focus in their school. To get inspiration, the teachers went on an excursion with a group of researchers from the teacher education to Globala Gymnasiet in Stockholm. Globala Gymnasiet has a particular focus on sustainability and can be considered a model school for a WSA to sustainability. The trip was inspiring and led to the teachers creating a transdisciplinary project on consumption in their school. The project became an annual event. Initially, it was carried out as a 7-week project before being reduced to 5 weeks. The project received much attention from policymakers, politicians and researchers and was ultimately awarded the best sustainability project of the year from the Teacher Union. With this success, the leadership at the school decided that the transdisciplinary project should be carried out for all students in their first year of upper secondary school. This meant that all teachers had to be involved. However, not everyone was happy about being forced into working in transdisciplinary teams, and the three enthusiastic teachers were dissatisfied about having to pull the weight of the teachers who were resistant to be involved. The three enthusiastic teachers who had initially started the project lost their motivation for the project, and the transdisciplinary project ended after being carried out for 3 years.

Despite the transdisciplinary project ending at School 1, this project inspired two of the other university schools (Schools 3 and 4) to start up similar initiatives but on a larger scale and spanning a whole school year. There will be more on this in the description of the other cases.

The story of the rise and fall of this transdisciplinary project is probably typical for many sustainability projects in schools. For various reasons, enthusiastic teachers who develop exciting projects can burn out after some years. However, the sustainability focus at School 1 blossomed in other areas.

As part of the university–school partnership, School 1 was committed to developing a WSA to sustainability. Thus, the sustainability focus was in many ways manifested in the school’s vision. A sustainability coordinator had also been appointed at the school, and he continued following up the sustainability initiatives. Another factor contributing to the sustainability focus continuing was the new curriculum being implemented in Norway in 2020, requiring more interdisciplinarity and a stronger focus on sustainability. The school was also in a process of being environmentally certified.

All in all, several of the petals in Wals and Mathie’s (2022) figure were activated: pedagogy and learning, curriculum, institutional practices and vision, ethos, leadership and coordination. A continued professional development programme was initiated from the teacher education, involving teachers from different disciplines in the school. This initiative activated yet another petal, capacity building. Currently, teachers involved in the course are developing a new transdisciplinary study at the school, like the full-year initiatives at Schools 3 and 4. The sustainability coordinator and the principal have also initiated a project that aims to develop a sustainable cantina. A process has begun in order to make the cantina the sustainable heart of the school and to develop the cantina as a learning arena for exploring and developing sustainable food choices (Brox, 2022).

5.2 School 2

School 2 is a vocational preparatory school situated in the countryside, 50 minutes out of the capital of Norway. The school has around 500 students.

While the sustainability focus of School 1 started with enthusiastic teachers developing an innovative pedagogy initiative, School 2 started their focus on sustainability by developing sustainable institutional practices. Being an agriculture school, School 2 had worked to promote and implement sustainable and climate-neutral farming into their farming practice long before this partnership started. The school has also been environmentally certified for several years. These initiatives have to a large degree been initiated and run by the leader group at the school. Thus, the sustainability initiatives have mainly revolved around changing the institutional practice of the school without necessarily affecting the pedagogy and learning and teachers and students at the school.

Although the leader group of School 2 has had a vision for a sustainable school, the leader group has struggled to get teachers involved in developing their pedagogy with a stronger focus on sustainability education and transdisciplinary teaching. In addition, the leader group has wanted to create a stronger link between the institutional practice initiatives and the learning process of their students, whereby all the students (not just the agriculture students) could be more involved in the farming practice. For example, students could have been involved in running the farmers’ market that exists at the school, where products like flowers and vegetables are sold to the local community. However, to create good collaborations between the daily practice at the farm with the students’ lesson plan demands a high level of coordination.

In 2020, a PhD student from the teacher education started a collaboration with a teacher at School 2 to develop an educational programme on the sustainable use of water. From this collaboration, they created a student-led project. Students would explore how the school could use their water resources more sustainably and develop prototypes through engaging with the technical personnel and farmers at the school and local businesses in the area. This initiative activated both the petals of pedagogy and learning, curriculum, institutional practice and community connections. The project has also sparked interest from other teachers, who have been inspired to carry out similar projects in their own teaching.

Also within the period of the university–school partnership, the leader group at School 2 has to a larger degree focused on carrying out professional development initiatives for all teachers. The aim has been to create a culture around sustainability education among the teaching staff. The process is not rushed, and the leaders want to take small steps spanning several years. The capacity-building petal was also activated through the continued professional development programme offered from the teacher education to teachers in the university schools. Three teachers from School 2 spent time evaluating the sustainability focus at the school using the WSA flower model as a starting point to develop new sustainability practices. Based on this analysis, the teachers developed a transdisciplinary teaching plan. The teachers decided to apply for funding to buy a pasteurisation machine. The idea was that the students should learn to use milk from the school’s own cows to develop products that could be sold in the school’s cantina. The purchase of this equipment generated enthusiasm in the school and opened a new perspective on the school’s own teaching (for more details, see Mathie & Wals, 2022).

A continuing professional development programme for the school leaders was also offered by the teacher education parallel to the teachers. At a joint workshop for school leaders and teachers, the principal at School 2 enthusiastically declared that he would change the school’s greenhouses from focusing on growing one type of plant for sale to becoming a learning arena for sustainable inquiry teaching.

Although both the vision/leadership petal and the institutional practice petal had been activated for years at School 2, activating the capacity building and pedagogy and learning petal in addition seemed to be crucial to stimulate the rest of the petals towards a whole school focus on sustainability.

5.3 School 3

School 3 is a mixed vocational and college preparatory school, situated 30 minutes out of the capital. The school has around 600 students.

Before the university–school partnership was established, the leader group at School 3 developed a strategic document stating the vision for the school, and one of the main points was for the school to contribute to the green shift and sustainable development. Largely with the enthusiasm of two teachers, School 3 had already established beehives on the school roof in 2016, along with a greenhouse. Since then, despite the established vision, School 3 has experienced frequent changes in principals and leadership, a situation that has interrupted the implementation of the sustainable vision at the leadership level. However, through the university–school partnership, a sustainability coordinator was hired at the school. The sustainability coordinator carried out an internship at Globala Gymnasiet, and after this, a new transdisciplinary educational programme was established at the school, focusing on inquiry and sustainability. The new programme was popular, and after a year, it expanded from one to two classes. In the third year, however, the number of applicants to this study programme decreased. Because of this, the new leadership at the school decided to put the programme on hold, a decision that disappointed the teachers involved.

In this school, the sustainability focus has existed in the pedagogy in several of the education programmes. For example, one teacher who is also a Ph.D. in the teacher education is working to develop inquiry-based teaching related to renewable energy that aligns with WSA perspectives (for more details, see Mathisen & Johansen, 2024). The pedagogy initiatives have mainly been individual initiatives by various teachers without an overall understanding of sustainability throughout the school. However, the sustainability coordinator has had an important role as a stabilising factor to keep up the continuity of the sustainability focus at the school. For example, the coordinator led the process of the school becoming environmentally certified and established a development group of 10 teachers, representing all departments at the school, to follow up the sustainability focus in their daily practice.

In School 3, the main drivers of the sustainability focus seem to be the teachers and the coordinator. Although the principals have changed, the commitment to the university–school partnership has also been a stabilising factor in maintaining the sustainability focus in the school. Teachers from School 3 also took part in the continuing professional development course offered by the teacher education. This course seemed to have activated several teachers to commit to and collaborate more on developing the sustainability focus at the school.

5.4 School 4

School 4 is a mixed college preparatory and vocational school, situated 40 minutes out of the capital. It has around 1300 students.

For a long time, this school has collaborated with the university, particularly through the science centre located on campus related to a sustainable food project. This collaboration also involves School 3. More specifically, the project is organised by and carried out at both the schools and the science centre, with the mutual aim of increasing students’ awareness about sustainable food choices. Through the university–school partnership, School 4 has also experimented with a transdisciplinary educational programme in one class, inspired by Globala Gymnasiet and the initiatives in the other university schools. However, partly due to the significant size of the school in a Norwegian context with its 1300 students and a large staff, most of the sustainability initiatives at this school seem to have existed as initiatives of individual teachers and have not necessarily influenced the school’s overall sustainability practice. Thus, as also seems to be the case for all three other university schools, this school has had several initiatives focusing on sustainability, particularly within the pedagogy and learning petal, without necessarily being connected and integrated practices as part of a WSA to sustainability.

However, in 2021 a new principal was appointed at School 4. With a strong interest in sustainability, she has focused on bringing the group of leaders on board. In the continuing professional development programme, the teacher education organised for school leaders, School 4 participated with a team of six leaders. This led to School 4 developing an extended plan for the following school year, where it was illustrated how the sustainability focus would be part of the teaching and school practice throughout the year. School 4 has also hired a new chef to cook sustainable food in the cantina. The sustainability coordinator and two other teachers from the school also participated in the continuing professional development course and subsequently developed a transdisciplinary teaching module on sustainable textiles.

In School 4, it, therefore, seems that the sustainability initiative started with the community connection and the curriculum (sustainable foods) petals through the collaboration with the local science centre. The pedagogy and learning petal was activated through the transdisciplinary pedagogy being developed in the school and was strengthened by the introduction of the new national curriculum where the focus on interdisciplinarity was prominent. The continuing professional development programme and the new principal activated yet two more petals and hence brought the school a step further towards the aim of a WSA to sustainability.

6 Summary

The short descriptions of how the sustainability focus has developed in these four schools show that they have had different starting points for their paths towards developing a WSA to sustainability (see overview in Table 12.2). While the work at School 1 mainly started within the pedagogy and learning petal by individual teachers developing a transdisciplinary sustainability module, School 2 started their path through the leader group changing the school’s institutional practice by developing a sustainable farming practice. School 3 started their path towards sustainability with a leader-initiated strategy to promote sustainability, while the point of departure for School 4 was primarily community connections through teachers collaborating with the local science centre.

Table 12.2 A simple overview of the petals that were active in the initial stages of the university–school partnership

Even though the schools had different starting points on their sustainability journey, all the schools have since activated more petals as the university–school partnership has evolved (see Table 12.3). School 1 has especially activated the institutional practice petal, in combination with capacity building, through the process of establishing a sustainable cantina in the school. School 2 has activated their pedagogy and learning and capacity-building petals through competency building for all staff and experimenting with new pedagogies. School 3 has especially activated the pedagogy and learning and capacity-building petals by experimenting with transdisciplinary classes and following up on their green vision with all staff. School 4 has activated the vision/ethos/leadership/coordination and pedagogy and learning petals through experimenting with transdisciplinary classes and the leaders working to make sustainability an overarching focus through the school year.

Table 12.3 A simple overview of the petals that were active 5 years into the university–school partnership

From this study, we argue that schools may take different approaches to sustainability, yet a crucial factor is that more than one petal in the WSA flower model (Wals & Mathie, 2022) needs to be activated. For example, in School 3, there was a rapid change in leadership, a factor that could have inhibited the sustainability focus of the school. Nonetheless, the ‘green’ vision still existed, and the university–school coordinator also played an important role in keeping the momentum. Furthermore, the school has become environmentally certified, and a teacher group has been established that follows the sustainability focus and pedagogical innovations going on. Thus, the leadership petal was not the only activated petal in the school, making the sustainability focus less vulnerable. Still, there were initiatives within the capacity-building, pedagogy and learning, institutional practices and vision/ethos/leadership/coordination petals to drive the sustainability focus forward. Thus, activating more petals will strengthen the response to sustainability (Sterling, 2004; Scott, 2013) by securing a robust and long-lasting path towards a WSA that can handle changing conditions both within and out of school. This point seems especially crucial in ‘ordinary’ schools like the university schools without a specific sustainability focus to secure momentum in the development process.

Furthermore, we want to emphasise the value of all initiatives, although some of them did not last, such as the transdisciplinary initiatives in Schools 1 and 3. Initiatives like these have inspired new initiatives within the school, across the university–school partnership and beyond, as both teachers, pupils and others become aware of the value of transdisciplinary projects. Such initiatives should therefore not be seen as failures but rather as door openers for future sustainability initiatives. This aligns with Augenstein et al. (2020), who highlight the importance of sparking innovative and experimental processes to contribute to learning, rather than measuring initiatives based on the success of efforts to continue and to be ‘scaled up’.

We also want to acknowledge the fact that the university–school partnership has provided a critical third space by connecting individual initiatives throughout the schools, thereby stimulating more petals to be activated. Through the half-year meetings, seminars and daily relational contact and eventually with the continual professional development course for teachers and leaders, we as a partnership have constantly developed our understanding of a WSA, supported each other through ups and downs and inspired each other to work towards a common goal. We acknowledge that the third space ideas of equality between the stakeholders, the freedom for participants to choose how to act on a local level and the focus on supporting local practices, followed by the longitudinal nature of the collaboration and predictable funding, have been successful factors in the partnership. Thus, the university–school partnership has provided a fruitful third space for keeping the petals activated and hence supported the development of the four schools’ approach towards developing a sustainability focus.

All the schools still have a way to go to be described as stage-four responses to sustainability (according to Sterling, 2004). During the project period, all the schools have lifted the sustainability activities from being about individuals to being more an aim for the entire school. Nevertheless, all the schools have a way to go before the sustainability focus is integrated fully into the ethos of the schools and before they work systematically with the community on sustainability. Also, although the schools are more integrated in terms of leadership, they are still vulnerable to changing leaders and teachers. We do, however, consider the schools, where all petals of the flower model to a certain degree are activated, to have a promising potential for further development towards a WSA to sustainability.