Keywords

FormalPara Key Message

Folk high schools (FHSs) are living examples of how schools can practice a Whole-School Approach (WSA) to sustainability through learning by doing, dialogue and democratic participation, in a cross-disciplinary and cross-sectorial learning environment. Fostering sustainable development is a process, for staff and students, and requires regular reflections and evaluations. Having common whole-school sustainability goals within the greater FHS community, with the liberty for each school to find their way of working toward these goals, is important in this process.

1 Introduction

The Folk High Schools (FHSs) originated in Denmark in 1844, and the FHS idea was spread across the Nordic countries. In Norway, the FHSs celebrate their 160th anniversary in 2024 (NOU, 2001: 16). The FHSs in Norway offer a wide range of courses, promoting lifelong learning. They are nonformal educational institutions, with no fixed curriculum, exams, nor grades. The FHSs receive government subsidies, and students get two study credits for attending a full year at a FHS (Folkehøgskolene, undated-a). Currently, over 7000 young adults with different backgrounds come to live and learn at the 84 FHSs across Norway for 9 months every year, where most students are between 18 and 23 years old (Folkehøgskolene, undated-b). As stated in the Norwegian Folk High School Act from 2002, the schools’ objectives are “allmenndanning” (bildung) and “folkeopplysning” (public enlightenment) (my translation). These concepts are dynamic and not easily translated (see e.g. Lövgren, 2015; Lysgaard et al., 2023). For the purpose of this chapter, bildung is understood as democratic, and personal development through engaging with a community, and public enlightenment as the general knowledge individuals need to engage in society – locally and globally. Each FHS is autonomous, owned by either Christian or Liberal organizations/foundations, and has its own value basis (Folkehøgskolene, undated-c). The value basis may vary from one school to another, as each school decides its own, but it is founded on the FHS pedagogy (see next section).

In 2015, when the global community agreed on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), forty FHSs in Norway joined a project called Action Research and Sustainability—the folk high schools for the future, with a goal of implementing sustainability in the school’s operation and teaching through action learning and research. Four years later, the five national FHS organizations (two labor unions, two information and marketing organizations, and an umbrella organization, representing the four organizations and the FHSs) (Folkehøgskolerådet, undated-a), agreed on a common decision with four sustainability targets for all the 84 FHSs to contribute to reaching the SDGs (see next section). As discussed in this chapter, while a Whole-School Approach (WSA) to sustainability is not a common term among the FHSs in Norway, the approaches and pedagogies used throughout the FHS initiatives resonate and align with the characteristics of a WSA.

With the Norwegian FHSs implementation of sustainable development as a case, this chapter draws upon examples from collective initiatives as well as examples from individual FHSs, to critically analyze and reflect on processes the schools have engaged in over the last 9 years. A WSA is applied as an analytical lens to explore the challenges and opportunities that a WSA brings in the context of the FHSs.

2 Characteristics of Norwegian FHSs and Their Involvement in Sustainability Issues

The FHSs have a long history of being involved in sustainability issues in Norway and across the world (Phuthi, 2013). Not having to follow a fixed curriculum, the FHSs have the liberty to dive into relevant issues with their students and address emerging topics, such as global politics, human rights, and sustainable development. Learning by doing and learning outside the classroom, are characteristics of everyday life at the FHSs. The FHS’s pedagogical approach is based on the philosophy of Nicolai F. S. Grundtvig, the founder of the FHS idea in Denmark. “The central principle in Grundtvig’s pedagogical philosophy is captured in the concept of ‘living interaction’” (Lövgren, 2022, p. 3). A central component of this interaction is dialogue-based learning, where the teacher guides the students through conversations and questions.

The FHSs in Norway are boarding schools, where most students share a room in dormitories. The social pedagogics focus on students learning to live in a community and are a central part of the FHS pedagogy. Most FHSs have weekly dormitory meetings, which are facilitated by a teacher, and focus on both practical reality and philosophical importance of socially living in a community. Grundtvig argued that “true enlightenment can never only aim at developing students’ understandings of themselves but must always have an outward focus as well” (Lövgren, 2022, p. 3). The pedagogical aim is also to develop the self, in relation to others, including relevant political issues, concerning local, national as well as global matters. FHSs were originally founded as a school for the people (folk), primarily for peasants and factory workers, “to gain the personal development and knowledge needed to become active citizens” in the growing Nordic democracies (Lövgren, 2022, p. 3). In today’s globalized world, Lövgren (2022) argues that contemporary FHSs have reoriented from their initial focus on nation building, to emphasize global citizenship education based on human rights.

The Norwegian FHSs cooperate and meet regularly through conferences, seminars, and courses arranged by one or more of the five national FHS organizations. The action learning and sustainability project, mentioned in the introduction, was one example of the FHS organizations, together with an NGO, inviting the schools to participate. For participation in the project, each school joined with a whole-school team comprised of two students, one operational staff, one teacher, and either the principal or deputy. The goal was for sustainability to be implemented in the schools’ operation and teaching through action research and learning. The schools were also encouraged to connect with their local community through activities. The action research project was running from 2014 to 2017.

The other example, the common sustainability decision from 2019, was a result of initiatives from some schools and the five national FHS organizations. The decision, made by the boards of the five national FHS organizations, included the following four targets supporting the SDGs, emphasizing on SDG 4.7 and SDG 13:

  • Reduce the total of the FHS’s carbon footprint by 40% within 2030, based on measures from 2019, with emphasis on reducing airplane travel.

  • Include sustainable development as the main topic in one of the school’s annual self-evaluation reports within the year 2023.

  • By 2021: Apply the Global guidelines (“Globalvettreglene,” created by the FHSs’ International Committee in 2017) when planning study tours, and in connection with the school’s global involvement.

  • All schools draw up an annual local plan and strategy to achieve the SDGs.

    (Folk high school council, undated).

These four targets were not legally binding for the schools, as the five national FHS organizations that decided on these targets do not hold legal authority over the schools. However, through the following analysis in the next section, it is evident that the schools sympathized with the decision and worked to support these goals in their own ways, a central characteristic of the WSA to sustainability.

3 The WSA Flower Model as an Analytical Lens

By adopting the WSA flower model by Wals and Mathie (2022) as an analytical lens, I critically reflect, as a practitioner, on the abovementioned initiatives directed at the Norwegian FHS, from a macro and a micro perspective. The analysis gives insight into how the FHS pedagogies, and shared FHS sustainability initiatives can contribute toward research and literature on WSAs focused on sustainability. The WSA flower model includes six key components (Fig. 22.1). In the following section, each component of the WSA flower is considered in relation to the FHS initiatives and sustainability targets. The analysis is based on two project reports from the action research project, a survey from 2022 on the 2019-decision involving 79 FHSs, a FHS’s self-evaluation report for the academic year 2021–22, and conversations with FHS staff regarding their process of following up the 2019-decision at their schools.

Fig. 22.1
A diagram with six interconnected circles represents the W S A. The central circle is labeled Vision, Ethos, Leadership, and Coordination, and it is surrounded by circles labeled Pedagogy and Learning, Capacity-Building, Community Connections, Institutional Practices, and Curriculum. Each element is described.

The WSA flower model by Wals and Mathie (2022)

Full size image

3.1 Vision, Ethos, Leadership, and Coordination

As previously mentioned, the national FHS organizations do not hold legal authority over the FHSs in Norway, which means that the 2019-decision is not binding for the 84 FHSs. It is therefore interesting to see that a recent internal survey shows that the schools support this decision (Phuthi, 2022). This is not to say that all schools equally implemented the four targets, but through the school’s responses in the survey, it is evident that they support the vision of the decision and think that it is in alignment with the FHS’s objectives and ethos. The supportive framework that each FHS finds themselves within, in this case the 2019-decision, is thus relevant for each school’s values and leadership.

Findings from the two reports from the action research project show that it is essential that the schools’ leadership prioritizes sustainability, also when the school has dedicated staff and students, for the implementation to be a reality (Tiller et al., 2017). To further strengthen the school’s efforts and vision of becoming more sustainable, some schools involved their respective school boards, which was perceived as a successful process by the schools’ management in implementing necessary changes together with the staff (Tiller et al., 2017). This measure has also been part of the process of following up the 2019-decision by several schools (Phuthi, 2022).

Wals and Mathie (2022) argue that a key to a WSA to sustainability education “is that all stakeholders in a school are involved in developing a vision of what a sustainable school entails and invites” (p. 4). The FHSs are based on a culture of involving all staff in processes regarding the school’s development, as the FHS’s value basis is democratic participation (Tiller et al., 2017). Both the action research project and the 2019-decision support this structure. However, as a recent study of three FHSs shows, even if the schools have prioritized sustainability, they have not necessarily taken the time to go in-depth to achieve a common understanding of what Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) entails for their school (Isungset, 2021). As much as the FHSs have the liberty to form their own learning programs founded on the school’s values, some schools experience that it is not always easy to find the time where all the staff can meet and discuss relevant issues in a busy everyday life (Isungset, 2021). Hence, the structures to allow time for these meetings must be in place.

One school that managed to develop this structure, was Lofoten FHS, where the deputy principal lead a process at her school to follow up on the 2019-decision (Frilynt folkehøgskole, 2022). She followed a five-step process within the time frame of one school year: (1) mapping, (2) structure, (3) vision, (4) long-term plan, and (5) communication and marketing. In the first step of mapping, all staff were interviewed, and information was shared about what the school was already doing regarding sustainability initiatives. This information was presented as a map that outlined the structure (2) of the school’s operation, learning program, and the school’s communication/marketing. In step 3, students were invited to participate in a visioning-workshop, in which they imagined the school in 2027 (5 years later). The ideas from this workshop then formed the basis of the development of a long-term plan (step 4), where all the staff were involved in formulating concrete targets for the school’s sustainability plan. Step 5 was then based on communicating the long-term plan (Frilynt folkehøgskole, 2022). Lofoten FHS is an example of how a FHS can act in their own way upon the shared sustainability decision from 2019. As evidenced by Lofoten FHS, this was achieved through setting aside time and involving all staff, as well as students, in a whole-school process.

3.2 Capacity Building for All Staff

According to Wals and Mathie (2022), the WSA model suggests that staff consider “more integrated, existential, and relational forms of teaching and learning” (p. 6). The FHS model is similarly based on this educational approach, however, through capacity building, the FHSs may further strengthen their integrated teaching and learning.

Findings from the action research project show that ownership is a success criterion for students’ and staffs’ involvement, as well as the importance of the cooperation between operational staff and teaching staff (Tiller et al., 2017). One school wrote that,

last year the project was ‘forced’ on the kitchen staff, with limited success. This year the kitchen staff found a solution for themselves. From this we concluded that the people who are nearest the measures, often have the best solutions, and this affirms the importance of ownership. In projects, which staff are told to participate, they tend to be less motivated than projects in which the staff have been consulted for their ideas on developing the project. (Tiller et al., 2017, p. 45, my translation).

Ownership may start by a sense of connection to the issue and relevance to the work. This is a process, and as Rønningen FHS writes in their self-evaluation report from 2021–22, the first step for a teacher to become engaged in the school’s vision for sustainable development is having ownership of the vision. Perhaps by being honest about that it is sometimes challenging—and by finding a way forward together (Rønningen FHS, 2022, p. 29). Hence, capacity building can be an internal process at the school, where staff supervise each other through integrated learning approaches, reflecting on how to foster the desired learning experiences for the students.

3.3 Locally Designed Learning Programs (No Fixed Curriculum)

As mentioned, the FHSs do not have a fixed curriculum, and each teacher designs the learning program for their class, which is then approved by the principal. Each class has a chosen subject, like art, outdoor life, sports, music, etc., and is centered around the FHS objective of fostering bildung and public enlightenment.

The content, as well as methodology in these programs is highly relevant for the implementation of sustainability at each school. Wals and Mathie (2022) argue that an open curriculum, which is dialogical and cocreated, rooted in the lifeworld of the learners, is more conducive to a WSA. FHS teachers design learning programs where the students are encouraged to share the topics and questions they want to investigate. This methodology also challenges the banking model (Freire, 1972), which many students have experienced through their formal schooling. Students must therefore challenge themselves in finding questions they want to ask and consider why they want to direct their learning in particular directions. Unlearning previous methods, and how things have been done before, becomes part of this process for the students. In finding more sustainable ways, we cannot solve our problems by applying the same thinking we used when we created them, as Einstein famously said. Hence, unlearning and rethinking are important skills to foster sustainable development.

The teaching at FHSs depends on the competencies of each teacher. Hence, knowledge of and interest for sustainability in an educational context varies from one teacher to another. Lack of competencies of ESD, as Isungset (2021) found, may be a challenge in meeting the targets of the 2019-decision. One way to address the lack of ESD competencies within a school is to actively recruit staff who have this knowledge, which we have seen examples of recently in FHS’s hiring practices. However, even more important, is to find structures and time for the schools’ staff to engage in the topic through the FHS model of democratic participation, which is central to the WSA.

3.4 Folk High School Pedagogy and Lifelong Learning

In a WSA the pedagogical environment a teacher and the school create tends to be one of trust, curiosity, collaboration, participation, and democracy. Much of the learning does not take place inside the classroom but also in other spaces in the school building, as well as on the school grounds and in the local environment (…) (Wals & Mathie, 2022, p. 5).

This quote could be a description of FHS pedagogy, where the teacher is more of a facilitator and the classroom is the school’s community, which is situated within and connected to (through study tours) various regions in Norway as well as other regions in the world.

Öhman and Östman (2019) advocate for a pluralistic approach to education, which goes beyond the knowledge-based and the normative approach to education, and views sustainable development as political. Teaching should enable students to become democratic citizens, who engage critically with how (un)sustainability problems may be solved. This approach resonates with the FHS ideology and pedagogy, but as discussed earlier in this chapter, WSA to sustainability is a continuous process, and there is always room for improvement. Education for sustainable development may lead FHS teachers to promote certain normative attitudes through predetermined activities. Isungset (2021) found that some FHS teachers had not reflected properly on how to understand ESD together with their fellow colleagues, but at the same time stated that they would like to change the students’ attitudes, hence the risk for the teaching to become more instrumental and normative.

The FHS pedagogy aims at fostering lifelong learning by incorporating the mind, the heart, and the hands—the whole person. Such a holistic approach may strengthen the WSA to sustainability. However, one challenge in sustainability education is that there are issues that need to be dealt with urgently, such as the climate crisis as well as growing inequalities—and that calls for action-oriented education. Many young people are demanding actions, which we have seen through school strikes for the climate across the world (Sinnes, 2022). FHSs have the liberty to take initiatives together with their students for the climate and equality. At the same time, it is central to the FHS pedagogy to not rush into new ideas, but to take the time to gain knowledge, reflect and discuss, to make sure that the initiatives are contributing positively and do not have unintended effects—as advocated by the FHSs Global guidelines, one of the targets of the 2019-decision (Folkehøgskolerådet, undated-b).

3.5 Institutional Practices: Cross-Disciplinary Cooperation and Learning

“Walking the talk” is how Wals and Mathie (2022) describe institutional practices in the WSA flower model. The school must practice what they teach and follow up on the values that the school is based upon. Living in dormitories and learning together through various activities at the FHS invites different approaches in implementing sustainable lifestyles, as documented in the action research-project report (Tiller et al., 2017). Both the school’s operation and the community the school is located within require integrating “thinking” with “acting” (Wals & Mathie, 2022). Action research is one way of making this connection, as shown through the example below:

One student-initiated action research project focused on changing the students’ and staffs’ attitudes toward vegetarian food at their FHS (Tiller & Phuthi, 2017). Their first action was to conduct a survey among the students, followed by the kitchen making a vegetarian surprise dinner. Afterward, the students followed up with a new survey and in-depth interviews with a selection of students. It turned out that the students did not appreciate the surprise dinner and being “forced” to eat vegetarian food. Reflecting on their findings, the students decided to try a new approach. They invited an NGO to speak about food and sustainable development, next they cooperated with the kitchen staff and organized a voluntary vegetarian cooking course, making “awesome veggie burgers.” This turned out to be a hit, and many students attended the course. In a final survey, 9 out of 10 students said that they would like to eat more vegetarian food after they had attended the course. The students concluded with the following: “Through voluntary courses, interesting lectures and good information, we can change the students’ and staffs’ attitudes to vegetarian food.” (Tiller & Phuthi, 2017, p. 14, my translation). This example shows how the school can change toward more sustainable practices, and when students take initiatives, it is crucial that the staff support these initiatives. By involving the wider school community, kitchen staff, the janitor, or the financial manager, cross-disciplinary learning, involving multistakeholders, is thus central to make thinking meet action. Cross-disciplinary cooperation, however, will be difficult if structures and common visions are not in place for all staff to see the relevance of these actions.

In their self-evaluation report from 2021–22, Rønningen FHS reflects on this process of integrating thinking and action. Although two of Rønningen FHS’s values are “green” and “global,” these values will not be followed up through actions if all staff are not onboard. Hence, the school chose “sustainability” as the topic for their self-evaluation. Most of the staff and several students contributed by writing their reflections on institutional practices regarding sustainability. As Wals and Mathie (2022) point out, the WSA is an ongoing process, and by “interrogating, rethinking, and redesigning institutional practices, the ‘hidden curriculum of unsustainability’ that is often present, can also be exposed and addressed.” (p. 5). This kind of process is one of the strengths of the self-evaluation report—if the school ensures that the report is not a one-staff job, but a process for the whole personnel, and a whole-year process.

Being part of a greater FHS community is also central to the changes in FHS’s institutional practices. When a FHS sees that neighboring schools make changes for sustainable development, it is easier to initiate similar measures at their own school (see Stoknes, 2015), hence the importance of common goals for the FHSs in Norway.

3.6 Community Connections

There are numerous examples of how FHSs involve their students through community-oriented sustainability activities, such as harvesting apples from neighbors that do not pick these themselves or picking up the remaining potatoes in the field after the farmer has completed the harvest. Students go to the shores to collect garbage; they organize local demonstrations for the climate; or they invite local politicians to the school for discussions. Being involved in the local community, as well as cooperation with partners across the world, is an important part of the learning programs at the FHSs.

Community connections through WSA may also be understood to include the greater FHS community. Over the past few years, the effects of the common sustainability project and the 2019-decision can be seen through increased sustainability initiatives across the FHSs (Phuthi, 2022). Being part of a joint project, seeing that neighboring schools make changes, shows that the community and common goals of the FHSs matter and become a motivator. The national FHS organizations support the schools through supervision, and by developing tools, such as a FHS customized carbon footprint calculator. So far, three schools have been awarded the “Folk High School Sustainability Prize,” to inspire and motivate all the FHSs.

Lysgaard (2020) emphasizes the importance of the FHS community in relation to sustainability initiatives and argues that an FHS-year is primarily shaped by participation in the “binding community” at the school. Life at a FHS is not about only attending classes and then withdrawing to one’s room, but about each student participating in the community at the school—sometimes in smaller groups and other times all together (Lysgaard, 2020). It is not up to each person to transform the world; rather sustainable development is about finding new ways together. And in this space, the focus is not necessarily on quick fixes, but asking the big existential questions and searching for answers together, as a community.

4  A WSA to Sustainability through Democratic Confidence?

As discussed in this chapter, the FHS pedagogical model engages with all six elements of the WSA flower model (Wals & Mathie, 2022), and can be argued to be an example of schools that practice the process of a WSA to sustainability. The emphasis on process is important, as the FHSs are constantly developing; through their annual self-evaluation and dialogues with students, and in cooperation with the larger FHS community.

Education as sustainable development emphasizes how education may be carried out in a sustainable way, through actions and activities that promote sustainability (Sinnes, 2015, p. 51). In many ways, one can argue that the WSA is education as sustainable development, through its holistic approach by learning through theory and practice, and how the learning emphasizes cross-sector cooperation and cross-disciplinary learning.

Being a school that is founded on democratic values, such as participation and dialogue, I argue that there is a need to go one step further in the WSA to sustainability. Van Poeck and Vandenabeele (2012) argue for an alternative approach to ESD: Learning from sustainable development, which “shifts the focus from the competencies that citizens must acquire to the democratic nature of educational spaces and practices” (p. 13). They further argue that,

This alternative approach to ESD focuses on how people may learn, again and again, in response to the ambiguities and differences they encounter when facing contemporary sustainability issues. This is not a process of schooling but an educational practice, acknowledging the plurality of voices and the controversy surrounding many sustainability issues without resorting to an ‘anything goes’ relativism. (Van Poeck & Vandenabeele, 2012, p. 584).

The FHS’s main objective is to foster bildung and public enlightenment through dialogue and democratic participation. From this perspective, the FHS model may be argued to be in a place between education as, and learning from sustainable development, where the emphasis is on democratic bildung. Hansen (2019) argues that we are currently experiencing a democratic crisis. One reason, he argues, is that many have lost faith in their ability to make a difference. Young people have great knowledge about democracy and democratic processes, but low democratic confidence (Hansen, 2019). Current structural problems need common solutions (Haltli, 2021). If young people have been taught to think that problems should be solved at the individual level, there’s a risk for resignation. Fostering democratic confidence is about seeing and experiencing that there are alternatives to individual solutions (Haltli, 2021). A stronger emphasis on learning from sustainable development through fostering democratic confidence, among students as well as staff, might be the way forward in further developing a WSA to sustainability.

In conclusion, I will end with a FHS reflection on how to evoke the students’ engagement and ownership to the sustainability agenda, through staff being open to, and able to relate to the students’ realities: “We must dare to walk in front, to walk alongside and to walk behind the students” (Rønningen FHS, 2022, p. 46, my translation):

Walk in front, by showing possibilities, and why it is important to get involved.

Walk alongside, to avoid that sustainability is forced on the students. Rather, show how it can be meaningful and inspirational.

Walk behind, to support the students’ own initiatives, and be willing to be challenged and led by the students.