A Whole School Approach: A Synthesis of Interconnected Policy, Practice, and Research Conceptualisations

Abstract

This explorative study examines the principles, problematics, and prospects of a Whole School Approach (WSA) by comparing 27 distinct, but inter-connected, WSA conceptualisations purposively selected from curriculum frameworks, policy documents, and academic literature. A WSA from an Education for Sustainable Development perspective forms the departure point of the study, conceptualisations from Education for Health and Wellbeing and Global Citizenship Education are then introduced. The chapter concludes that if a WSA is adopted to integrate individual education initiatives, such as reducing bullying, or a whole school climate action, it still runs the risk of further fostering siloed thinking and creating competition over what is prioritised. Instead, an inclusive understanding of the role of a WSA is essential, to ensure synergies between different but interconnected educational innovations are made: By framing a WSA as a reflexive thinking tool for general quality educational change processes, grounded in holistic, systemic, and sustainable perspectives, a WSA has potential to support the integration of continual educational innovation processes and foster a proactive ‘culture of change and reflexivity’ within schools.

FormalPara Key Message

If we are to address siloed thinking and competition over what educational innovations are prioritised in school reforms today, finding synergies between different but inter-connected educational initiatives is vital. To authentically integrate sustainability-oriented education, critiquing what a Whole School or Whole Institution Approach means for education generally, not just Education for Sustainable Development, is required. Subsequently, education policy is required that supports boundary-crossing, increases collective capacity-building across and between education institutions, embeds reflexive thinking into every day practice, and increases school-based participatory research opportunities.

1 Introduction: Educational Change, Innovation, and School Reform in Times of Global Sustainability Challenges

Transforming societies sustainably is a complex task that calls for an immediate collective effort and action from all sectors of society. It is not enough to teach sustainability-oriented values; one also needs to have the capacity to act and experience those values in practice (Shallcross, 2003). Therefore, to meaningfully experience sustainability-oriented education there needs to be consistency in what we teach in and outside of the classroom: requiring education to be relevant, responsible, and responsive in a world challenged by (un)sustainability (Shallcross & Robinson, 2008; Wals, 2019). Wals (2015, 2019) points out that just like business-as-usual, education-as-usual is no longer an option: arguing that, as the nature of sustainability challenges is complex, value-laden, ambiguous, emotional, uncertain, and emergent, and that conventional learning forms, that predominantly focus on knowledge transfer, are insufficient to engage learners with the sustainability challenges we face today. This shift in pedagogical focus is also linked to the progression seen, as Henderson and Tilbury (2004) describe, in terms of moving from purely focusing on Environmental Education (EE), to instead moving towards Education for Sustainability (EFS):

EFS differs from traditional approaches to EE in that it focuses sharply on more complex social issues, such as the links between environmental quality, human equality, human rights and peace and their underpinning politics. This requires citizens to have skills in critical enquiry and systemic thinking to explore the complexity and implications of sustainability. This new educational approach also requires a new pedagogy which sees learners develop skills and competencies for partnerships, participation and action (Henderson & Tilbury, 2004, p8)

As Shallcross (2003) also summarises, the call for more relational, transactional, and ideally transformational forms of learning has multiple, distinct but interconnected, theoretical roots. For example, critical pedagogy (Freire, 1972), emotional and ecological literacy movements (Orr, 1992; Goleman, 1996), and holistic education (Greig et al., 1989). These forms of learning, and their theoretical foundations, all require a reorientating of curriculum. However, a deeper shift is also called for that goes beyond making changes in curriculum content and structures. Such a shift also addresses what holistic education necessitates: a change in ‘[…] an attitude of mind on the part of teacher and student alike which prioritises and searches out relatedness to the whole’ (Greig et al., 1989, p20 as cited in Shallcross, 2003, p138–139). Therefore, education institutions around the world are being asked, or are demanding from themselves, to simultaneously change multiple aspects of their approach to education: the curriculum content, how students are assessed, teacher training, where and how the students are taught, and how schools are organised (Wals & Mathie, 2022). In turn, to meaningfully engage with sustainability challenges, schools are also asked to consider a manifold of learning approaches such as action-orientated and participatory pedagogy (UNESCO, 2020).

Despite this pressing need for changes in education, educational innovation and curriculum reforms also have a long history of failing, highlighting that embedding long-lasting change in schools is difficult to achieve (Hargreaves, 2002; Priestley et al., 2011; Serdyukov, 2017; Whiteside, 2019). As Hargreaves (2002) states ‘We live in a world of endless and relentless change’ (p189), and yet institutional change is notoriously difficult, especially in the education context. For example, previously, top-down, centrally prescribed educational innovations and policy disseminations have been shown to be ineffective in creating systemic and lasting educational change (Priestley and Sime, 2005). This puts into question, as Priestley et al. (2011) discuss, the sustainability of educational change itself. Consequently, if education, as called for, is to play a central role in realising the aims of sustainability-oriented education, schools must be given the support needed to embed continual and effective processes that foster a culture of change in schools. Localized, contextualized methods that are more readily welcomed by the school community are especially needed. As Priestley et al. (2011) conclude, instead of this onslaught of related but separate reforms, we need to ‘[…] consider the process of change in a more complex relational manner than is often the case, analysing how these ingredients come together in their particular enactments in specific settings’ (p31).

So, how do we support educational innovations and reforms to be more effective? Multiple sustainability-related educational innovations today seek to do this by ensuring all stakeholders are involved in the educational change process: to have top-down support, but also harness bottom-up engagement (Ávila et al., 2017; Shallcross et al., 2006). The United Nations also advocates for education initiatives that stress the importance of multistakeholder engagement, dialogue, and active participation at the school level in order to realise the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2030 Agenda. Ensuring that education is more than a cognitive experience, and that learning moves beyond the traditional classroom setting to proactively engage learners with real-world issues and solutions (Leicht et al., 2018; Scott, 2013; UNESCO, 2017), is also echoed throughout the SDG 2030 Agenda. Discussed in this chapter are three specific education initiatives: Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), Education for Health and Wellbeing, and Global Citizenship Education. These initiatives all emphasise the need to students, and other key stakeholders, to be meaningfully engaged in global, national, and local matters, and highlight how contextually based situated methods are essential for empowering students to participate in ‘real-life’ locally based change (UNESCO, 2015, 2016, 2017).

While it is complex to see how the global issues represented by the SDGs are interconnected, research shows that holistic and systemic thinking is vital for dealing with this complexity and are required to innovate and integrate sustainable solutions (Leicht et al., 2018; Henderson & Tilbury, 2004). Thus, education that seeks to transform and meaningfully engage societies in being part of creating a sustainable future needs to model this thinking. Recent policy documents, such as UNESCO’s (2020) ESD Roadmap, mention that educational innovation and school change required by the SDGs can be achieved through a Whole Institution Approach. More recently, an increase in nations supporting a Whole Institution Approach is also evident in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Framework for the implementation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development from 2021 to 2030, where a Whole Institutional Approach is recognised as a transformative learning tool relevant with the aim to support all institutions becoming ‘[…] communities of transformational learning’ (p12). While this chapter focuses on a Whole School Approach within formal school-level education, as UNECE (2022) emphasises the need for a Whole Institution Approach in all institutional settings is important to acknowledge, as this also helps to see why transformative education is both relevant and necessary throughout all aspects of society:

The “whole institution approach” concept embraces settings of all levels of formal education and institutions providing formal, non-formal and informal education in the public and private sectors. This learning process is fundamental for quality education in all aspects: learning programme, governance, infrastructure, connection to community and society (UNECE, 2022, p12).

The term Whole Government Approach is also used (European Commission, 2022), showing the versatility and breadth of contexts and related conceptualisations concerning a Whole Institution Approach. However, for this study, the term Whole School Approach (WSA) is used due to the scope and context of this enquiry being limited to formal school-level education (primary to upper-secondary).

In recent years WSA’s in a formal education setting have particularly gained traction in terms of ESD policy. One of the main reasons for this interest in a WSA is that the framework supports moving beyond learning about sustainability in the classroom and instead enables learners to experience sustainability in action throughout the school: where opportunities and spaces in students’ everyday lives to proactively ‘live what they learn’ are commonplace (UNESCO, 2017). WSA related models also exist in educational change contexts beyond ESD, such as general ‘whole-school reform’, for example, comprehensive school reforms (Slavin & Madden, 2013), integrating whole-school pedagogic change, for example, formative assessment (Priestley & Sime, 2005), and school interventions, for example, anti-bullying ‘whole-school intervention’ approaches (Cross et al., 2018). While a WSA has multiple manifestations and origins, in essence, a WSA promotes the earlier mentioned holistic, participatory, and co-engaged approaches needed to move towards more systemic school reform and educational change: an approach where the whole school, and their surrounding community, collectively discover what sustainability means and how becoming ‘more sustainable’ can be approached and realised in their own context.

2 Methods, Scope, Aims, and Objectives

The objective of this study is to lay the foundation for a larger research project co-developing a WSA as a thinking tool in four Norwegian upper-secondary schools. Of note is that a WSA conceptualisation (Wals & Mathie, 2022; Mathie & Wals, 2022) is specifically utilised to co-develop reflexive professional development practices as part of the PhD research. Therefore, Wals and Mathie’s (2022) WSA conceptualisation, alongside ESD literature reviewed in a previous study (Mathie, 2019), means there is a pre-defined departure point for this study: Wals and Mathie (2022) offer a broad conceptualisation of a WSA showing ‘[…] how all areas, levels and stakeholders can be engaged in a WSA’ (p3). The flower model depicts six interlinked and movable WSA strands (Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.1

The whole school approach flower model with its six key components. (Reproduced from Wals & Mathie, 2022, p4)

Subsequently, the aim set for this literature synthesis study is to critique and gain a deeper understanding of the principles, problematics, and prospects of a WSA both in and beyond ESD. The reason for this aim is to broaden the author’s own knowledge of a WSA, and to see if and/or how a WSA is understood differently in other contexts within and beyond ESD. To explore different WSA conceptualisations beyond the predefined ESD literature, the following research question was set: What are the key principles of Whole School Approaches in the context of sustainability-related Educational Innovations? To answer this, a broader search for WSA conceptualisations in ESD, alongside two distinct but inter-connected sustainability-oriented fields—Education for Health and Wellbeing (EHW) and Global Citizenship Education (GCE), commenced. The reason for choosing to search for WSA conceptualisations in the EHW and GCE fields is due to the larger research project relating to three interdisciplinary topics introduced in the 2020 Norwegian curriculum renewal: Today all schools in Norway are required to facilitate learning in three interdisciplinary topics based on dominant societal challenges: (1) health and life skills, (2) democracy and citizenship, and (3) sustainable development (UDIR, 2020). The premise of selecting EHW and GCE is also due to a broad and holistic understanding of sustainability recognising EHW and GCE as a part of ESD and vice versa.

This study presents and compares works of literature found through a non-systematic literature search using the following databases—Eric, Google Scholar, Oria, and Web of Science. The main selection criteria were that the literature included a clear outline and description of each distinctive WSA strand. The literature selected for the synthesis also had to meet at least one of these requirements:

• A. An educational reference or framework clarifying what a WSA is

• B. Of historical and foundational importance concerning a WSA within the selected field

• C. Give current examples of how a WSA is being used in practice

The methods chosen are purposive and explorative, allowing for a broad synthesis of literature from multiple educational initiatives to represent and collate both current and foundational WSA’s. As Cook (2019) describes, purposive methods allow for a broad reflection, bringing together different frameworks, philosophies, and research beyond one field. Explorative methods were also chosen as the literature searches at the time revealed limited empirical-based peer-reviewed research concerning a WSA in all ESD, EHW, and GCE contexts. While multiple journal articles identified mention a WSA, very few went into detail about the different strands of a WSA and were thus excluded from this study as they did not meet the main selection criteria set. A lack of peer-reviewed journal articles meant the literature search was broadened to include WSA-related policy documents, curriculum frameworks, and educational resources. Though the explorative nature of the methods has limitations, for example, the literature selected is broad thus not all literature is peer-reviewed, however, the documents selected are considered both relevant and suited to the aims, objectives, and breadth of this study.

Out of just over 150 pragmatically scanned papers, 27 literature documents (from 2003 to 2020) were selected for comparison representing the different but inter-connected normative contexts of ESD, EHW, and GCE. Through the lenses of educational change (Hargreaves, 2002, 2010; Hubers, 2020; Priestley et al., 2011) and educational innovation (Serdyukov, 2017), patterns, variances, and commonalities in the way a WSA is conceptualised were identified, compared, and evaluated. First, an initial round of analysis comparing and interrelating each of the document’s WSA frameworks took place. The initial analysis was followed by a second round of abductive thematic analysis using NVivo. This second round of analysis was performed to, (a) to check the rigorousness of the initial analysis and (b) to be able to systematise the analysis results and more clearly visualise the multiple interconnections between the different WSA conceptualisations.

Of note is the limited size and scope of this study. When conducting the WSA and other connected synonyms literature database searches (for publications only written in English), the results relevant to this study predominately originate from westernised countries (Europe, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Therefore, the choice to limit this study to a westernised perspective of a WSA was taken. Time and accessibility constraints also precluded the inclusion of book publications (a surge of which is seen in the early 2000s), and literature focusing on a WSA in higher, informal, or non-formal education contexts was also excluded. Nor does this study include all WSA-related policy and curriculum framework documents identified, of which there are predominately more than empirical peer-reviewed publications. Meaning, the WSA conceptualisations chosen are not an exhaustive account of a WSA. Instead, for the purpose of gaining a deeper insight of a WSA in various settings, the literature selected acts as a representation of WSA conceptualisations in their respective fields.

3 A Synthesis of Whole School Approach Conceptualisations Within Distinct But Connected Education Initiatives

A wealth of knowledge exists about why engagement with societal challenges across all sectors is needed (UNESCO, 2017, 2020). There are also multiple international agendas, such as the SDGs, that detail why education needs to play a central role in resolving these societal challenges. At first glance, it seems ESD (SDG 4.7) is put forward as the initiative required to fulfil the ‘educational’ requirement of sustainable development. However, when looking at UNESCO’s (2017) learning objectives and definition of ESD, interconnections, and overlaps between ESD, GCE, and EHW are found, and all are promoted as central to supporting the SDG 2030 Agenda generally, and specifically in SDG 4—Quality Education. Furthermore, UNESCO policy documents concerning all three education initiatives also promote a WSA (UNESCO, 2015, 2016, 2017). In turn, other UN-based policy documents, such as steering committee meeting papers connected to UNECE (2014, 2022), exist that fully support a WSA. While situated challenges inevitably exist to fully integrate and mainstream a WSA, all 27 conceptualisations synthesised in this study mention in some way that a WSA develops an integrated effort for school-based transformations and a viable way to nurture the multistakeholder partnerships this requires. An overview of the main themes found during the synthesis followed by a brief introduction to a WSA in the contexts of ESD, EHW, and GCE, and an overview of the WSA conceptualisations selected for the synthesis is now presented.

3.1 Thematic Structure of the WSA Conceptualisation Synthesis

The following section (Figs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6) gives an overview of the main WSA themes, with their respective sub-themes, developed and coded to analyse the documents, and structure the synthesis. These figures give a broad overview of the different ways the WSA strands are phrased in all 27 WSA conceptualisations and show the number of references found relating to each sub-theme. While all WSA conceptualisations refer to each of the five coded WSA interconnected overarching themes, of note is the varying sizes of the documents analysed. For example, two WSA-related PhD publications are included in the analysis under ESD, which due to their size naturally results in a higher number of references found in these documents. Various sub-themes also include another layer of sub-themes. For a more detailed account of the coding structure, please contact the author directly. The overarching themes are proposed as five interlinking WSA strands phrased to capture the main strands of a WSA from all ESD, EHW, and GCE perspectives. Together, this overview proposes seeing a Whole School Approach to support general quality educational change processes:

Fig. 2.2

WSA strand 1—formal and informal learning content and processes: overview of references present under each sub-theme

Fig. 2.3

WSA strand 2—institutional culture, ethos, and practices: overview of references present under each sub-theme

Fig. 2.4

WSA strand 3—local community, family, and wider society links: overview of references present under each sub-theme

Fig. 2.5

WSA strand 4—continuous quality staff development and reflexivity: overview of references present under each sub-theme

Fig. 2.6

WSA strand 5—pro-active leadership and coordination: overview of references present under each sub-theme

3.2 Education for Sustainable Development and a Whole School Approach

While WSA’s to enacting ESD do exist, today it still seems, as Hargreaves (2008) highlighted over a decade ago, few examples exist of a WSA to ESD being achieved on a system-wide or national basis. Before presenting the ESD-based conceptualisations, of note is the increasing commitment on national levels to supporting WSA’s, such as UNECE’s implementation strategy for ESD 2021–2030 (UNECE, 2022), which opens up and provides the much-needed infrastructure and guidance required for the genuine mainstreaming of a WSA (or in this context the Whole Institution Approach) in the ESD context. Also of note is the Scottish Government’s utilisation of a WSA for their education policy Learning for Sustainability (Scottish Gov., 2012, 2020) Qablan, (2018) also serves as another example in the Scottish context, in particular their policy and educational frameworks aiming to integrate, monitor, and assess a WSA, whereby whole-school and community approaches are promoted on multiple education levels: by weaving together ESD, outdoor learning, and GCE principles (Education Scotland, 2022). While not included in the WSA conceptualisation synthesis, both the origin of the UNECE and Scottish Government WSA contexts are also noteworthy. For example, UNECE’s (2014) WSA approach to ESD pre-dates and appears to closely influence UNESCO’s (2017) policy Whole Institution Approach conceptualisation, and the Scottish WSA model can be traced back to the 4C model ‘culture, curriculum, campus and community’ (Scottish Gov., 2012) that originates from a higher education context—the Plymouth University Centre for Sustainable Futures (Selby, 2009). However, due to (a) the original literature search engines not identifying these policy documents, and (b) it being beyond the scope of this chapter to include all ESD-based WSA policy conceptualisations, UNESCO (2017) was chosen to represent a ESD-based policy perspective.

UNESCO defines ESD as empowering ‘[…] learners to take informed decisions and responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability and just society for present and future generations’ (UNESCO, 2017, p7). While some contest the term ESD, since the United Nations (UN) Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD), ESD dominates global policy and represents the current semantic progression that education concerning people and planet has taken since the late nineteenth century (Wals & Benavot, 2017). As outlined in the introduction, a WSA is being promoted internationally as an effective way to fulfil the ESD policy requirements. This is in part due to a WSA interconnecting central aspects of ESD policy and theory, such as the ESD-ascribed pedagogies, action and learner-oriented approaches, and transformative learning (UNESCO, 2017, 2020).

UNESCO’s (2017) WSA conceptualisation (in this context referred to as a Whole Institution Approach) provides a four-strand model being utilised for example, by UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPnet), in an international pilot involving schools in 25 countries, to build Climate Ready Schools. Chopin’s et al. (2018) study uses UNESCO’s WSA model as a lens to evaluate 28 Canadian schools’ approaches to integrating climate action into all aspects of the school. The study includes both pilot and reference schools, half of which took part in the ASPnet climate-ready schools’ pilot. Both Chopin et al. (2018) and, more recently UNESCO’s (2020) ESD roadmap, refer to a WSA as a viable method for schools to mobilise ESD. However, Chopin et al. (2018) highlight that while the ASPnet pilot schools presented a broad range of integration and activities throughout all four WSA components, the reference schools (non-ASPnet schools) in some cases reported higher results. Chopin et al. (2018) also mention that when schools become more aware of the complexity of issues, for example, through professional development seminars connected to the pilot project, schools’ self-evaluation and assessment may become more critical and result in less self-perceived progress. Chopin et al. (2018) also discuss the vital role collaborative networks play in a WSA. Through these networks, schools learn from and with each other, which is further supported by having ‘diverse climate action actors’ (multi-stakeholders). Equally important is for ESD content (in this context, climate change) to be local and relevant, to utilise technology creatively, and to ensure concrete and feasible actions are experienced (Chopin et al., 2018).

One of the earliest, and still most comprehensive, WSA literature reviews is the Australian Henderson and Tilbury (2004) Education for Sustainability international review. The review examines national initiatives from around the world, such as Enviroschools in New Zealand, the Green School award in Sweden, Eco-Schools from Environment and School Initiatives (ENSI) (also discussed in Affolter & Varga, 2018), and Eco-schools from the International Foundation of Environmental Education (FEE) to gain experience of WSA’s in these contexts. The review concludes with an outline of key features which characterise 12 ‘visions’ of a sustainable school (Henderson & Tilbury, 2004, p45) and are used to represent distinctive WSA strands. In addition, Henderson and Tilbury (2004) present five key considerations for Education for Sustainability programs: (1) Relevant (to the school community’s needs); (2) Resourced (expertise and financially), (3) Reflective (critical evaluation at all levels); (4) Responsive (flexible school structure); and (5) Reformative (capacity for change). These key WSA characteristics, features, and considerations remain relevant in today’s ESD context, for example, in the European Commission’s development of a WSA for learning about Environmental Sustainability (Tilbury & Galvin, 2022).

Shallcross (2003) an extensive PhD study on a WSA, Shallcross and Robinson (2008) represent an early conceptualisation of a WSA in the ESD context. Shallcross and Robinson’s (2008) WSA model shows key characteristics attributed to each strand. While similar to the Chopin et al. (2018) and UNESCO’s (2017) WSA conceptualisation, Shallcross (2003) in particular emphasises reflexive research, monitoring, and evaluation as an integral standalone strand. Central to this is the role of self-evaluation and teacher-led ‘action-research’ where this WSA conceptualisation shows a cautious stance towards how value-laden ESD can be as summarised in Mathie (2019):

Shallcross (2003) references Bonnet’s (1999) caution that damage can be done if the impact of sustainability-related values and actions, that are inevitably expressed when implementing ESD, is not carefully evaluated. […] it seems process-oriented evaluation and research of ESD-practice is key. However, Shallcross and Robinson (2008) also raise various barriers and leverages concerning implications for future ESD research, stressing the research process should be inclusive and involve all actors throughout the process to ensure the research gives back and not only takes from participants (Mathie, 2019, p61)

However, different emphasis and the type of approach given to the evaluative processes do differ. One WSA framework similar to Shallcross (2003), where self-evaluation is emphasised, is the UNECE (2014) WSA framework where self-assessment also is shown as a standalone WSA strand, highlighting:

It [self-assessment] is an essential means to establish a continuous and effective ESD school planning process, which supports continuous enhancement of implementation quality. The self-assessment is a tool only for the school itself, its improvement and development in ESD and not connected or linked to an external reporting mechanism (UNECE, 2014, p12)

Mathar’s (2016) WSA conceptualisation is from the German ESD Curriculum Framework publication (Schreiber et al., 2016), and details a mind map that visualises in detail nine strands, with multiple sub-strands, that make up a WSA. The main strands of this mind map utilise ESD and Global Development education as a working field for the whole school. Mathar’s (2016) chapter also offers examples of each WSA strand in action from various German schools. The Curriculum Framework, in general terms, also advocates for a holistic approach that integrates ESD as a foundation of all subjects, school management, and extra-curricular activities, and that adopting a WSA is a way for schools to do this (Schreiber et al., 2016). German publications, such as Jucker and Mathar (2016) and Affolter and Varga’s (2018) ENSI network 30-year review, also provide WSA-related case studies from around the world.

Mogren’s et al. (2019) conceptualisation builds upon Scherp’s school improvement model and consists of four WSA-related interlinked dimensions: (1) routines and structures, (2) professional knowledge creation, (3) practical pedagogical work, and (4) holism (p511–512). This conceptualisation takes a holistic view of how a school operates, what functions, what doesn’t, and how all these dimensions interact and impact each other (Mogren et al., 2019). Mogren et al. (2019) summarise why operationalising Scherp’s model as an empirical research tool and analytical guide is suitable for the ESD context. Reasons are given such as the model being useful to assessing how a holistic vision is integrated in practice; to assess school improvement from a generic perspective; and to visualise the ESD staged responses to sustainability (Scott, 2013) model (Mogren et al., 2019). Mogren’s (2019) PhD publication presents four principal quality criteria for transformative ESD in local school organisations which are consequently added to the WSA conceptualisation synthesis: (1) student centred education, (2) collaborative interaction and school development, (3) proactive leadership and long-term perspective, and (4) cooperation with local society. Mogren (2019) also points out the importance of recognising the normativity of ESD: that situating a WSA through a school improvement lens can provide a new way to research a WSA to ESD by addressing the implications of politicisation and normativity concerning ESD policy and practice.

Lastly, Bosevska and Kriewaldt’s (2020) WSA conceptualisation presents a recent research case study looking into a whole-school community response to fostering sustainable education. While similar to other WSA conceptualisations in the synthesis, of note here is the reference to Sterling’s seven Operational Dimensions of a school (2004, as cited in Bosevska and Kriewaldt, 2020, p60). However, Bosevska and Kriewaldt (2020) add the ‘historical context’ dimension to a WSA, the premise being to capture the case-study school’s own historical progression (from learning for sustainability to sustainable learning), which played a pivotal part in the school’s development, vision, ethos, and focus.

Table 2.1 gives an overview of the nine ESD-related WSA conceptualisations included in the synthesis and shows the prevalence of references found organised thematically under the five interlinking WSA strands:

Table 2.1 Matrix overview of the ESD literature selected for comparison—an overview of references coded to each interlinking WSA strands

3.3 Education for Health and Well-Being and a Whole School Approach

UNESCO defines EHW’s goal as supporting ‘[…] the contribution of national education sectors to ending AIDS and promoting better health and well-being for all children and young people. This in turn will contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those related to education, health, and gender equality’ (2016, p8). To realise this goal, UNESCO identifies two priorities: ‘(1) To ensure that all children and young people benefit from good quality, comprehensive sexuality education that includes HIV education (2) To ensure that all children and young people have access to safe, inclusive, health-promoting learning environments’ (UNESCO, 2016, p8). Five guiding principles are mapped out by specifying EHW to be guided by: an international human rights approach; addressing gender and diversity; alignment with national ownership, priorities, plans, and processes; scientific and evidence-based approach; and active participation of young people in policy-making (UNESCO, 2016).

The policy document selected for comparison is a more recent publication from the United Nations Girls Education Initiative (UNGEI) promoting a WSA to Prevent School-Related Gender Based Violence (SRGBV). UNGEI (2019) stipulates eight WSA components that address five SRGBV drivers: (1) normalisation of violence against children through social norms that justify violence; (2) silence around violence against women and girls; (3) rigid gender roles; (4) stereotypes of masculinity and femininity; and (5) inequality and discrimination (UNEGI, 2019). UNEGI (2019) also highlights the need for minimum standards that, out of all the documents reviewed, sets out the most comprehensive WSA monitoring framework for countries to follow. The framework lays out national and school-level indicators for measuring improvement in all eight WSA strands. Participatory methods in both pre-service teaching courses and the classroom are emphasised, as is the need for a holistic approach that ‘addresses the drivers and root causes of violence at both the school and the community levels’ (UNEGI, 2019, p7). UNEGI (2019) also emphasises involving community and government stakeholders as central to a WSA.

Numerous stand-alone EHW education initiatives utilise a WSA. One example is Save The Children’s (STC) ABC anti-bullying practice (Barber et al., 2010). While not selected for the main WSA conceptualisation comparison, it is of note as Barber et al. (2010) provide practical tools for schools to develop annual feedback cycles for the whole school community confronts an issue together. Barber et al. (2010) also highlight that a WSA enables the change process to become a ‘normal and sustainable part of the school community’ (p3). Another example is the ‘Safe to Learn’ global initiative (STL, 2020) to end violence against children, who also refer to UNGEI’s (2019) minimum standards and monitoring framework. STL (2020) shares similarities with a WSA analytical framework developed by Mathie (2019), whereby even if a WSA is not utilised in schools, a WSA still offers a framework to monitor, evaluate, and benchmark schools’ ESD enactment. Studying the effectiveness of frameworks that benchmark and measure a WSA progress, is noteworthy for future research.

Rowe et al. (2007), Rowe and Stewart (2011), and Scott’s (2005) WSA conceptualisations are indicative of when a WSA started to be utilised in EHW in connection to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Promoting School principles.

Rowe et al. (2007) present an Australian-based WSA regarding school connectedness stressing the importance of processes, structures and wider community connections, democracy, and social capital. Rowe and Stewart (2011) discuss four main strands of a WSA and offer a detailed critique concerning WSA and the Health Promoting School mechanisms that influence school connectedness.

Scott (2005) presents a New Zealand–based foundational WSA conceptualisation concerning behaviour management that concludes that for an effective WSA, a strong collective vision that the whole-school community commits to is essential. Moreover, ‘If all students are to experience a sense of belonging and inclusion in our schools there must be a shift in the way that schools respond to severe and challenging behaviour’ (Scott, 2005, p33). Scott’s (2005) findings also point out key leverages and barriers impacting the effectiveness of a WSA and the importance of continuous monitoring and evaluation within this context.

Rowling’s (2009) WSA conceptualisation presents 14 core characteristics that support the capacity building of schools to implement WSA for mental health promotion. Unlike ESD, issues of collegiality and consistency between staff, the need for students to uphold high standards, and the need for consistency in disciplinary sanctions are highlighted. Experiences from over a decade of MindMatters implementation in Australia, and other research connected to this, form the basis of this study and conclude two key issues: Leadership and Professional Learning are considered central for WSA-related capacity building. Rowling also discusses that a need for increased educational research and teacher professional development (like Shallcross, 2003) is vital for the future progression of school mental health promotion.

A combination of Coordinated School Health (CSH) and the coordinated school health’s Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model in Lewallen et al. (2015) is also added for comparison. Added also for comparison is Hunt et al. (2015) paper concerning the WSCC model. Hunt et al. (2015) point out that research concerning how to make the model ‘actionable’ is limited and subsequently propose a ten-step systematic process to support closing this WSCC theory-practice gap.

Lastly, Cross et al.’s, (2018) WSA conceptualisation again concerns bullying behaviour, this time evaluating the Friendly Schools Project (FSP), an Australian-based intervention that ‘[…] aimed to reduce bullying and aggression among 3000 students who had recently transitioned to secondary school’. This quantitative study concludes, ‘[…] a whole-school intervention approach shows promise in the prevention of bullying and negative outcomes’ (Cross et al., 2018, p509).

Table 2.2 gives an overview of the nine EHW-related WSA conceptualisations included in the synthesis and shows the references found organised thematically under the five interlinking WSA strands:

Table 2.2 Matrix overview of the EHW literature selected for comparison—an overview of references coded to each interlinking WSA strands

3.4 Whole School Approaches to Global Citizenship Education and a Whole School Approach

UNESCO defines GCE through three conceptual dimensions that serve to form GCE goals, learning objectives, and competencies: (1) Cognitive—concerning issues on local-global levels, interconnectedness, and interdependency; (2) Socio-emotional—concerning, common humanity, shared values, respect for differences and diversity; (3) Behavioural—concerning effectiveness and responsibility on all local-global levels for a more peaceful and sustainable world (UNESCO, 2015, p15). These conceptual dimensions are also shared with ESD. UNESCO (2015) likewise offers a broad overview and GCE history that interconnects the initiative to human rights education, peace education, gender equality, and ESD-shared perspectives such as transformative learning, critical thinking, lifelong learning, and action-orientated approaches. In this GCE context, a WSA is promoted as an approach to school-wide delivery of GCE by providing opportunities for transforming ‘[…] curriculum content, the learning environment, and teaching and assessment practices’ (UNESCO, 2015, p48). The use of participatory learning methods across subjects and community engagement are listed as some examples of a WSA in practice (UNESCO, 2015). This GCE synthesis, possibly due to the nature of GCE’s global context, includes a higher number of WSA-related international curriculum frameworks and school guides. This is because the literature searches found multiple WSA-related curriculum and education frameworks as opposed to academic studies concerning national- or school-based empirical research.

In efforts to support GCE policy in Europe, the Council of Europe Education Department (COE, Ed.) developed a Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (RFCDC) that utilises a WSA. The RFCDC provides practical guidelines for enacting a WSA—a reflexive cyclical process involving situation analysis, planning, and executing action plans, reflexive evaluation, and sharing lessons learned (COE, Ed., 2018). In the RFCDC WSA conceptualisation, integrating democratic and human rights principles, along with the safety and well-being of students, is central. The framework also discusses (as in Henderson & Tilbury, 2004) the need to address the hidden curriculum, meaning all that is not explicitly taught but still learnt beyond the formal lesson content. The COE, Ed, (2018) also emphasises the importance of informal, nonformal, and formal education. As with other WSA conceptualisations, the COE, Ed. states, ‘A whole-school approach implies the active involvement and commitment of all stakeholders in a school’ (COE, Ed., 2018, p91).

Barrett’s (2020) review of the RFCDC also mentions that it is well known that a WSA is an effective way to teach, for example, human rights and equality, and highlights how the framework gives practical examples of a WSA application in the context of building a democratic culture. Barret also gives an overview of the benefits this approach can have:

[…] increased learner responsibility, self-efficacy, self-esteem and intrinsic motivation; improvements in learning and academic standards; better understanding by learners of the nature of rights and responsibilities; learners participating actively in decision making […]; learners being empowered to undertake action in defence of human rights; and learners acquiring more positive attitudes towards diversity (Barret, 2020, p12).

The RFCDC also mentions sustainability in different contexts, such as creating a sustainable democratic and inclusive society; the need for long-term support to have a sustainable impact; and the relevance of other ‘transversal topics’ that interconnect and can overlap with a Democratic Culture such as sustainable development (COE, Ed., 2018).

While Henck’s (2017, 2018) WSA conceptualisation offers a comparatively brief overview, they represent a well-established WSA framework used to inspire learners and transform schools within the GCE context, the America-based Association for Childhood Education International Global Schools First (GSF) programme. The GSF programme offers support for schools concerning GCE by utilising a WSA. Here, similarities in the ESD-based UNESCO (2017) WSA model are found, yet informal learning experiences and arenas are clearly emphasised in this GCE context.

Hunt and King (2015) discuss a WSA in the context of the UK’s Global Learning Programmes (GLP) (2013–2017), which utilised a WSA to deliver a school-wide citizenship scheme. Hunt and King (2015) also provide concrete WSA didactic approaches, case-study examples, and a strong focus on measurement tools for assessing the impact of global learning.

Another example from GCE is Anne Beauvallet’s (2016) England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland comparative study documenting educational approaches to Citizenship Education. Here, England is highlighted as the only nation not utilising a WSA to enact GCE. One of the main WSA case-study examples in Beauvallet is a Scottish Government GCE resource document published by Learning and Teaching Scotland (2011). From reviewing Beauvallet (2016) and in more depth Learning and Teaching Scotland (2011), four WSA strands are determined: (1) active participatory activities, (2) school ethos, (3) organisational structures, and (4) community links. Also, of note in Beauvallet (2016) is the Northern Ireland case study mentioning whole-school events and extra-curricular activities as core to the WSA in this context.

Van Driel’s et al. (2016) WSA conceptualisation derives from a European review about fostering tolerance in children (in terms of social tensions and unrest concerning issues that arise due to ethnic and religious diversity). Here, a WSA is documented extensively in terms of defining a WSA and concludes that WSA’s ‘[…] with strong and dynamic ties to the local community have great potential for promoting cohesion. They create a sustainable positive school atmosphere, as well as a stronger sense of belonging’ (Van Driel et al., 2016, p9).

Oxfam’s WSA conceptualisation (2015) is another example of a practical guide for schools concerning GCE. Within the guide, a WSA framework is presented as ‘a stimulus for whole school planning’ and a ‘starting small but thinking big’ attitude is advocated (Oxfam, 2015, p14). In addition, participation is emphasised in this practical guide, stressing the importance of learner-led participation through curricular and extra-curricular activities (Oxfam, 2015). Table 2.3 gives an overview of the nine GCE-related WSA conceptualisations included in the synthesis, showing the prevalence of references found organised thematically under the five interlinking WSA strands.

Table 2.3 Matrix overview of the GCE literature selected for comparison—an overview of references coded to each interlinking WSA strands

4 Discussion: What are the Main Principles, Processes, and Strands of a Whole School Approach in and Beyond Education for Sustainable Development?

All 27 WSA conceptualisations in this chapter showcase how a WSA is relevant for and can be adapted to support schools in enacting specific school initiatives. While a more extensive systematic literature review would provide additional rigour, an indication of central WSA principles in a ‘general quality education’ context is found. Fig. 2.7 depicts the synthesis findings through a composite model outlining central WSA principles when viewed in this broader context. WSA principles are divided into the following keys: (a) overarching processes, (b) underpinning perspectives; and (c) five aspects of an educational institution that a WSA requires for engagement and collaboration from within the whole-school community.

Fig. 2.7

Overarching principles, processes, and strands of a Whole School Approach to Support Educational Change Processes

4.1 Holistic, Systemic, and Sustainable Perspective

Holistic, Systemic, and Sustainable perspectives have been chosen as they provide a normative direction to work towards when enacting a WSA and help unravel different mechanisms at play within a WSA. The majority of WSA conceptualisations reviewed refer specifically to a holistic and systemic perspective as a part of this approach; however, this terminology is mentioned more frequently in the ESD conceptualisations. In a broader context, sustainability as a concept has multiple meanings and dual purposes. As Hargreaves (2002) discusses, in educational change sustainability can have five interconnected dimensions: ‘(1) Improvement that sustains learning—not merely change that alters schooling; (2) improvement that endures over time; (3) Improvement that can be supported by available or achievable resources; (4) improvement that doesn’t impact negatively on the surrounding environment of other schools and systems; (5) improvement that promotes ecological diversity and capacity throughout educational and community environment’ (p193). So, in this WSA underlying ‘perspective’ context, sustainability is understood in terms of environmental, societal, and economic sustainability, and also to determine whether a specific initiative, procedure, or aspect being implemented can be sustained. Subsequently, sustainability has strong normative values and is both adaptable and relevant for sustaining educational change and innovation over time. In Mogren (2019) there is a need to recognise the normative and politicisation attached to ESD; this is something to consider further. Hargreaves (2010) also summarises that, if educational reforms are to succeed (they have mainly failed so far) sustainability in a school reform context needs to encompass more than just maintainability:

A deeper philosophy and practice of sustainability returns to and embraces the environmental roots of the concept. It emphasises, celebrates, and advocates for the learning in depth about one’s place in and contribution to the world […] Our future has to be sustainable. So must our schools be (Havelock, 1971; Hargreaves, 2010, p293).

Therefore, a broad sustainability perspective, with its multiple meanings, is a critical part of a WSA, especially if it is to be utilised to integrate continual educational change processes instead of supporting one-off initiatives. Of note also is the prevalence throughout all WSA conceptualisations to broader social and societal contexts (Table 2.4) that very much link to the holistic and systemic values. This highlights why weighting the importance of environmental, social, political, and economic contexts equally is needed, and how developing an awareness of holistic and systemic perspectives can support this.

Table 2.4 Matrix overview of the holistic, systemic, and sustainable themes and sub-themes referenced under ESD-, EHW-, and GCE-related WSA conceptualisations

4.2 Democratic and Participatory Processes Involving All Actors

Democratic and participatory processes are, to some extent, part of all the WSA conceptualisations compared. Although the extent varies (Table 2.5), and different definitions are given, WSA conceptualisations within ESD, EHW, and GCE often refer to democratic and participatory processes as critical for integrating a WSA. Therefore, the choice was made to emphasise these as key overarching processes to be present, not just within the curriculum or one specific strand, but throughout all aspects of a WSA.

Table 2.5 Matrix overview of the Democratic and Participatory themes and sub-themes referenced under ESD-, EHW-, and GCE-related WSA conceptualisations

The decision to include democratic and participatory as overarching processes is also due to questions arising throughout the synthesis analysis regarding how and why promoting a WSA for general quality educational change processes, instead of for specific ‘whole-school’ initiatives, is necessary. Therefore, these processes are illustrated as an overarching process because to have a participatory and democratic approach, all school and community members, including parents, staff members, students, and teachers, are required to be involved, not just the students.

4.3 Five Strands of a Whole School Approach to General Quality Education

While some WSA conceptualisations give more details than others, all the different variations of what a WSA entails fit into, or under sub-categories of, the following five overarching strands: (1) Formal and informal learning content and processes, (2) Institutional culture, ethos, and practices, (3) Local community, family, and wider society links, (4) Continuous quality staff development and reflexivity, and (5) Pro-active leadership and coordination. These five overarching strands comprise the core aspects of an institution’s community, both in terms of place and representing the key stakeholders that a WSA requires to engage in the process. The overlapping circles in Fig. 2.7 illustrate the importance of educational change processes throughout the school and for each aspect to interconnect. Most WSA conceptualisations a highlight the importance of interconnections between the strands and that the learning, messages, and the formal and hidden curriculum are to be echoed in practice throughout the school. For example, Rowe et al. (2007, p524) highlight the importance of school connectedness for enacting a WSA, ‘defined as the cohesiveness between diverse groups in the school community, including students, families, school staff and the wider community’. This relational side of building sustainable societies is also why institutional culture, ethos, and practices are all identified as part of this WSA strand.

UNESCO’s (2020) ESD 2030 roadmap describes that change is needed in how societies and individuals think and act. Hence, education also needs to change if we are to create a sustainable and peaceful world. However, as previously mentioned changing well-established institutions is a massive undertaking in which past efforts show curriculum reforms often fail, and long-lasting embedded change is hard to achieve (Hargreaves, 2008). Enabling ‘change’ to be accepted and embraced in schools is proposed as possible through enacting a WSA, yet the examples synthesised often focus on enabling change to support a specific initiative. It is clear multiple WSA conceptualisations presented in this study highlight that a WSA can enact and operationalise a variety of education initiatives. Subsequently, a WSA could also act as a link between different but inter-connected educations and topics (such as climate, health, democracy, justice, biodiversity, and citizenship) through a common united goal for school improvements, educational innovation, and sustainability-oriented transformations. Equally, when WSA is utilised for just one specific education initiative, such as bullying, citizenship, or climate change, it runs the risk of doing the opposite of its intentions by unintentionally fostering siloed thinking and creating competition over what is prioritised in terms of educational innovations at a school.

4.4 Tensions, Problematics, and Dilemmas

While the theory and the practice-based WSA examples synthesised in this chapter are compelling, this type of holistic approach is not without its challenges. Synthesising the 27 WSA conceptualisations, alongside examining the additionally assembled WSA-based literature sources, two dominant and recurring barriers to enacting a WSA are found as commonplace: (1) resources and capacity and (2) commitment and inter-dependency from all stakeholders. This is because a WSA requires commitment and effort on every level, along with a willingness to restructure and rethink institutional power dynamics in order to forge new ways of working together: As Hunt (2015) also touches upon, this rethinking and restructuring require all stakeholders to have the capacity (competency, time, resources), readiness, and opportunity to engage.

While it is evident the knowledge and willingness to integrate a WSA are present on many levels, for example, UNECE (2022) shows 56 UNECE nations committing to and recognising a Whole Institution Approach as a high-priority issue, it is clear capacity and commitment issues are evident and impact every level. Having the capacity and necessary policy structures to fully realise a WSA is not always present. What Shallcross et al. (2006) mentioned nearly 20 years ago seems to remain a challenge for enacting a WSA, that not all schools will have the capacity to fully enact a WSA without additional support due at large to limited resources that often connect to broader socio and economic struggles. In Mathie and Wals (2022) a similar conclusion is drawn, that creating healthy policy environments (Fig. 2.8) is essential for a WSA to move from the margins into the mainstream. What is clear however, as UNECE (2022) illustrates, is that nations committing to prioritising a WSA in national policy and strategy is increasing.

Fig. 2.8

Healthy policies for enabling a Whole School Approach. (Reproduced from Mathie & Wals, 2022, p102)

After analysing all 27 WSA conceptualisations, an issue concerning labels and names has also arisen. Many conceptualisations that exist under a WSA ‘label’ appear to share similar theoretical underpinnings. However, do they have a shared understanding of the terminology? In turn, it is also clear that numerous other models exist, while they may not explicitly be called a WSA, that also share similar theoretical underpinnings and objectives, many of which have come about in a local grassroots manner suitable for the context promoted within. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to seek to answer questions concerning these themes, however, some questions for future consideration are proposed:

• What is it about a WSA that makes it stand apart from other educational change frameworks?

• Does a WSA need to have a globally recognised name, or is it appropriate for a WSA to have multiple names?

• Does a commonly recognised ‘label’ help schools, or does it pigeonhole the ‘methods’ too much so the approach is not situated and contextually appropriate enough?

• What opposes a WSA?

• Would the holistic, systemic language not be welcomed in some cultural settings?

• What other ‘labels’ or methods exist that can also support schools to arrive at the same outcome, but in a different manner?

Questions like this arise, albeit hypothetically vague, because a WSA represents a set of values, approaches, methods, and ways of thinking that are crossing boundaries and being implemented worldwide in different ways.

4.5 The Role of Reflexivity

The role of reflexivity and critical reflection to build up the capacity of all school community-related staff and actors are dominant themes in ESD, EHW, and GCE. When analysing the barriers mentioned that a WSA faces, reflexive monitoring and evaluation (RME) practices are highlighted as a potential solution. For example, if RME practices become embedded into a school’s organisational structures and everyday practices, this could provide a catalyst for capacity building, awareness raising, and collaboration between key stakeholders. Increasing and promoting a culture of change is also an essential part of this.

While the task of integrating reflexive education practices is well known for being arduous and tremendously challenging (Shallcross et al., 2006), when comparing all the WSA conceptualisations in this study, a WSA appears to have the potential to enable reflexive processes becoming more commonplace. In turn, RME practices seem pivotal to integrating a WSA as they can support combatting operational challenges, such as the difficult task seen in sustainability-oriented education: ‘[…] to create an integrated and systemic response that addresses sustainability issues meaningfully, consistently and effectively’ (Wals & Benavot, 2017, p409).

Another important WSA aspect, also connected to RME, is determining achievable indicators of progress and methodologies for researching, monitoring, and evaluating a WSA. It is also common knowledge that educational innovations and reforms face monitoring and evaluation issues. As do global agendas, such as the SDGs, highlight that current monitoring and evaluation methods are insufficient (Leicht et al., 2018). Therefore, detailed WSA assessment frameworks, in particular UNEGI’s (2019) monitoring and evaluation framework, Hunt and King’s (2015) auditing tools, and the Scottish government’s reflexive auditing tools (Education Scotland, 2020), all show realistic processes and existing frameworks others can build upon. Moreover, these frameworks call for schools to actively participate in developing RME practices at the school level. A WSA, especially with RME as a primary focus, could help provide accessible and meaningful monitoring and evaluation systems that support schools in assessing themselves. In turn, this could lead to more active participation, and support schools to directly engage with leading their own school’s journey towards sustainability: A journey where sustainability issues are not viewed as static problems to solve, but seen through a reflexive lens that recognise the ever-changing and uncertain nature this process brings (Wals et al., 2009).

5 Conclusions

This chapter provides an overview of different but interconnected conceptualisations of a WSA in sustainability-related educational innovations. It is evident all 27 WSA conceptualisations synthesised call for action-orientated participatory pedagogical approaches to innovate and change the way mainstream education is currently conducted. While not an exhaustive literature review, through purposively collating a broad variety of WSA-related conceptualisations within ESD, EHW, and GCE, a deeper understanding of how a WSA can support educational change, both in and beyond ESD, is realised. From this, three main principles and points of interest have arisen (Fig. 2.7): (a) democratic and participatory processes are overarching tools throughout all aspects of a WSA; (b) holistic, systemic, and sustainable perspectives are central underpinning theories; and c. all aspects of an institution’s organisation that a WSA seeks to engage and involve can be situated under five broad interlinking strands. Looking at a WSA beyond ESD and through a GCE and EHW context also highlights the importance of emphasising the social and societal aspects of a WSA: To support the forging of reciprocal relationships and collaborations within all levels of society towards the common goal of strengthening social cohesion. The purpose of viewing a WSA in this broad way helps to stress that to meaningfully integrate a WSA it needs to be less about one agenda, innovation, or initiative, and as a means to encourage schools to use a WSA as a thinking tool for integrating general quality educational change processes, whilst still grounded in the values of a peaceful, inclusive and sustainable future for people and planet.

The lenses of educational change, reform, and innovation show us that schools are often overwhelmed by the amount of change and new agendas thrust upon them. With the knowledge that top-down curriculum reform often falls short of the theoretical visions when implemented in practice, schools require a way of approaching educational innovation where neither top-down nor bottom-up, individualistic, or one-off projects dominate. The examples from ESD, EHW, and GCE all show promise that a WSA can support schools in developing this multistakeholder approach that encourages collaboration and learning together in all arenas. However, more school-based empirical research is required to determine practical methods for supporting schools to utilise a WSA as a thinking tool in their own situated context—to support their own, and their surrounding communities, journey with relevant educational innovations, and engagement with sustainability-oriented transitions. Future considerations for WSA research also include understanding better the effectiveness of different WSA monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

To conclude, this chapter proposes framing a WSA as a continuous reflexive thinking tool to enable schools to integrate educational change processes into their everyday practice, thus supporting the type of school reform and action required today. With the proper support and open-minded experimental attitude, a WSA is relevant for supporting multiple forms of quality educational change and innovation. A WSA also has the potential to be adopted internally by schools as a reflexive analytical tool to proactively monitor, evaluate, and operationalise their own, and their surrounding communities, journey towards a more sustainable and just future. However, when a WSA is utilised to integrate only singular education initiatives, such as bullying, citizenship, or climate change, it still runs the risk of further fostering siloed thinking and creating competition over what is prioritised in terms of educational innovation at a school. Instead, a broad and inclusive understanding of a WSA is essential as this has the potential to trigger continual educational innovation processes, more reflexive schools, and create synergies between different but inter-connected sustainability-oriented educations and topics.