Keywords

FormalPara Key Message

This chapter provides valuable insights about the ways forward with WSA in ESD. It encourages individual and collective reflection through examples from the UNECE countries’ sustainable school vision, in order to impact the curricula and their quality, tools, materials, and collaboration between stakeholders within and outside the school. The diversity within UNECE brings out a variety of good examples where sustainable schools provide meaningful learning, and the transformative context within which learners develop the capacities needed to mitigate sustainability challenges.

1 Introduction

The whole school approach (WSA), in the context of education for sustainable development, can be traced back to the 1990s with the recognition of environmental issues’ inextricable links to a multitude of socioeconomic and political issues (Henderson & Tilbury, 2004) and reflection of its holistic-systemic view into educational reforms (Wals & Mathie, 2022). Education for sustainable development (ESD) is not only viewed as a body of information or knowledge but also as the aim and framework of education (Gleason et al., 2020). This means that sustainability is addressed through a range of complex and diverse aspects in schools’ operation, such as curriculum and pedagogy, school governance, sustainable consumption, connection with the community, the schools’ infrastructure, and landscaping. The day-to-day school practices consider sustainability, also in the nonformal or hidden curricula (Ferreira et al., 2006).

Education for sustainable development is a key priority for creating more just, prosperous, and sustainable societies. In many regions, member states jointly initiated regional plans, strategies, and policies aiming to integrate ESD into their national and regional context more effectively. Such an example of regional collaboration is the Mediterranean Strategy on ESD. The strategy serves as a flexible framework, for motivating and guiding governments in the Mediterranean region and to develop and implement policies and practices that incorporate Sustainable Development into Education and learning. Countries of the Mediterranean are also encouraged to develop and incorporate Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) into their formal, nonformal, and informal educational systems (MIO/ESCDE, 2014 p.16). The most concrete, long-term, and coherent framework of regional collaboration, though, is the UNECE ESD Strategy which constitutes a complete, holistic and coherent framework. It aims to support the 56 States of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) region to implement ESD in the most effective way, based on their needs and priorities and taking into consideration: (a) the policy, regulatory, and operational frameworks that support ESD; (b) the promotion of sustainable development through formal, nonformal, and informal learning; (c) the equipping of educators with the competence to include sustainable development in their teaching; (d) the provision and accessibility of adequate tools and materials for ESD; (e) the promotion of research on and development of ESD; and (f) the strengthening of cooperation on ESD at all levels within the UNECE region (UNECE, 2005).

This chapter focuses on exploring how the WSA in the UNECE region has contributed to the infusion of ESD in the schools’ vision, ethos, leadership, and coordination, in what we teach, how and where we learn, whom we learn from, and whom we learn with. In the introduction, we analyze what the WSA is and discuss its importance within the UNECE Strategy for ESD.

1.1 Defining the Whole School Approach

The WSA refers to a multilevel integration of sustainability within the school unit, meaning that sustainability is addressed through the curriculum (what is learnt) and drives school management, operations, and outreach. By engaging students in school decisions, community projects, and global initiatives, the WSA provides meaningful learning, connected to real-life conditions, transformation through action and practical outcomes that benefit both school and community (Tilbury & Galvin, 2022). Within this approach, the priorities shift from including ESD issues into a few selected subjects or interventions, to applying ESD as a foundation for all educational institutions’ functions, including management and budget, education, professional development, campus design, resource use, community relations, etc. (Abrahamsson et al., 1999). The WSA provides a framework for a “whole system redesign” and it is associated with the term “sustainable school” (Tilbury & Galvin, 2022), which envisions sustainability to be integrated into education through holistic, systemic, and reflexive efforts, collectively introduced by those affected:

  • Holistically indicates the multiple perspectives and the integrated and relational way in which sustainability is introduced.

  • Systemic refers to education as a system in which sustainability permeates all of its aspects: curriculum, pedagogy and learning, professional development, school–community relationships, school practices, ethos, vision, and leadership.

  • The collective-reflexive embraces the importance of including multiple voices in participative co-developed processes that lead to change and continuous learning (Wals & Mathie, 2022).

The growing acknowledgement of the value of WSA in supporting society’s transition to sustainability leads to an intense dialogue on its transformative potential. Sterling (2004a, b, 2010a, b), for example, argued that educational organizations are systems that need to be aligned with sustainability in order to support an education-driven change. The whole school approach includes the involvement of all school’s actors and expert stakeholders and brings learning closer to wider social issues (Mogensen & Schnack, 2010). In the same direction, the Environment and Schools Initiative (ENSI) expanded the concept of WSA for ESD, beyond the school grounds focus, to become much more inclusive and holistic (in Ferreira et al., 2006) and support a local sustainable future (Summers & Childs, 2007).

Progressively, the term whole institutional approach (WIA) was prompted by policymakers, in order to also address institutions and stakeholders beyond schools (UNECE, 2014; UNESCO, 2014). The term WIA has been principally adopted by higher education institutions, whereas for primary and secondary education settings, WSA is more commonly used (Mogren, 2019). It requires the reorientation of every institution’s strategy and culture toward sustainability (Gleason et al., 2020).

So, how do the terms “whole school approach” and “whole institution approach” differ? Often the two terms are used interchangeably. In general, the term WSA refers mainly to school education and “addressing the needs of learners, staff and the wider community, not only within the curriculum, but across the whole-school and learning environment. It implies collective and collaborative action in and by a school community, to improve student learning, behaviour and wellbeing, and the conditions that support these” (UNESCO IBE, 2012).

The term WIA is addressed in the new implementation framework of the UNECE Strategy on ESD 2021–2030. As stated ESD through WIA goes beyond schooling and it is relevant to any institution and organization that seeks to mainstream sustainability into all aspects of its operation. It requires reviewing and revising the institution’s internal operations and external relationships, and becomes an essential component in any strategy aligned with the SDGs (UNECE, 2022). In this chapter, we use the term WSA, being the term most widely used. The term WIA is used in the text, where appropriate

The WSA/WIA is viewed as a continual reflexive process for sustainability through which a school or an institution encourages ESD within and across all domains of school life or an institution’s operations, where governance (vision, ethos, leadership, and coordination), pedagogy, and learning (e.g., cross-curricular projects; assessments; action learning); institutional practices/infrastructure, capacity building, community connections, research, and innovation are highlighted as important aspects of it (see Wals & Mathie, 2022; Verhelst et al., 2022; NGA and NAAE, 2022; Hargis et al., 2021; UNECE, 2014).

The importance of WSA and the need for a coherent framework for organizing its dimensions are documented by literature, through several WSA models, devised by researchers and organizations, to support its implementation by schools and institutions: the OECD model (Mathar, 2013); the UNESCO model (UNESCO, 2014; p. 89); the NGA and NAAE model (NGA and NAAE, 2022); the conceptual framework of an ESD effective school (Verhelst et al., 2022); and the “flower model” (Wals & Mathie, 2022). Τhe models converge to the dimensions and aspects of WSA, they differ though, in the way they are developed. This is important for the implementation of WSA on ESD because institutions are able to choose the model that best suits their profile, plans, and aspirations. Also, the variety of WSA models proves that its application is neither linear nor static, but constitutes a dynamically evolving process, which can be applied in various ways and at multiple levels in each organization.

The aim of this chapter is not to analyze the various WSA models, nevertheless, we consider it necessary to briefly present the “flower model” by Wals and Mathie (2022), which we chose for the examination of the WSA implementation in the UNECE region. This model intends to trigger and guide a multistakeholder dialogue about infusing sustainability in school settings in the best possible ways. The model exists in a number of slight variations and, in any case, it presents in an organized way the most important aspects of WSA. The principal model consists of six interrelating elements that illustrate how all levels, areas, and stakeholders can be engaged in a WSA. The central element in the flower is the vision, which reflects the ethos, leadership, and coordination needed for a WSA, and operates as the connecting point for the six components: curriculum, pedagogy and didactics, management, operations, professional development, and school environment. The “flower model” was chosen because we consider that it presents the WSA dimensions in a complete, concise, and unified manner under a cyclical form that highlights the sequence, connections and continuity that must permeate every organization. Additionally, we consider that it is closer to the UNECE ESD Strategy and the way WSA is captured through it.

1.2 Whole School Approach in the UNECE Region

Fifty-six member states belong to the UNECE region. These are grouped into four sub-regions: Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia (EECCA); West Europe and America (EU-West); South Eastern Europe (SEE); and Western Asia (WA). The UNECE ESD Steering Committee is the body responsible for giving guidance and strategic directions for the implementation of the UNECE Strategy for ESD to the member states. The UNECE Strategy for ESD stressed the importance of the WSA since the early beginning of its implementation. It serves as a roadmap for ESD, addresses ESD axes holistically, and ensures its effective implementation (Zachariou & Pace, 2022) by the member states of the UNECE. The strategy clearly states that “an educational institution as a whole […], should follow the principles of SD” (UNECE, 2005, par. 29) highlighting the importance of integrating ESD through a whole school/institution approach.

The UNECE Strategy for ESD is fully aligned with other regional and international frameworks (WHO, 2019; UNESCO, 2020; EC, 2022a, b), but differs in the ways it seeks to provide countries and organizations with the tools they need to support the implementation of the main priority areas of the UNECE Strategy on ESD. Such a tool is the development of the UNECE school planning framework, a crucial component of a WSA, which can serve as a guide for developing national and local approaches to ESD school planning (UNECE, 2013). The UNECE ESD School Plan implementation framework goes beyond simply teaching about sustainability in schools. It provides meaningful, flexible, and feasible policy recommendations for integrating WSA more effectively, by identifying and analyzing through practical examples the core dimensions of WSA (UNECE, 2014). It addresses, explains, and describes the generic areas of a WSA/WIA as a concrete framework that can be applied in a variety of institutions, organizations, sectors, and contexts, which are implementing ESD and the SDGs (UNECE, 2012).

The third evaluation report findings of the UNECE Strategy on ESD indicated that nearly 71% of the member states promoted the WSA/WIA. Nevertheless, most of them continue to focus on enhancing curricula with ESD, through projects and voluntary schemes for ESD recognition and certification of schools (UNECE, 2016, p. 7). These findings were an important lever for mobilizing the process of enhancing and strengthening WSA in the third implementation framework (2015–2018). WSA became one of the priority areas in the UNECE region being acknowledged as an important vehicle for achieving holistic and structural implementation of ESD in formal education (primary and secondary), vocational and higher education, and in enhancing formal and nonformal education links (UNECE, 2015, p. 5).

Despite the advances, the progress report on the implementation of the UNECE Strategy for ESD across the ECE region (2015–2018) states that WSA mainly concerns primary and secondary schools rather than other formal, nonformal, and informal education and other institutions (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022). Zachariou and Hadjiachilleos (2022) comment that WSA in the UNECE region is viewed as a distinct aspect of the ESD Strategy implementation rather than as an issue, horizontally integrated into each of its parameters (e.g., policies, legislations, teacher competency development, research, development, etc.). Similarly, European Commission policy recommendations noted that WIA to sustainability is not always sufficiently present (Tilbury & Galvin, 2022).

The importance of establishing WSA in the educational systems of the UNECE region countries is emphatically stated as one of the key priority strands, in the new framework for the implementation of the UNECE Strategy for ESD from 2021 to 2030 end evolves from WSA to WIA, reaching beyond schooling in order to address every institution as a community of transformational learning for ESD. WSA/WIA in the new framework of the UNECE ESD Strategy is not just “a cerebral educational exercise” but it is the actual and core part of the organizations’ operations. It envisions ESD as a “component integrated across all educational and training programs, together with the sustainable management of the institution and its interface with the local community and system-wide interventions, where learners will acquire a “whole system” view, develop systemic thinking, and become able and willing to address problems and act accordingly” (UNECE, 2022, p. 12–13).

2 Methodology

Because of the UNECE regions (a) wide geographical representation and the large number of countries participating in its processes and mechanisms and (b) new developments and challenges set for ESD2030 with WSA being in the core of the UNECE Strategy for ESD activities, the UNECE region is considered as a good example for presenting how WSA is implemented in a regional level. In this chapter, we use the implementation of the strategy for ESD by the 56 member-states of the UNECE region, as a case study. We seek to critically reflect on how WSA is integrated through the UNECE Strategy for ESD implementation and discuss current practices and the steps forward.

Thirty-four National Implementation Reports (NIRs) (out of the 56 member-states) were submitted at the end of the fourth implementation phase of the UNECE ESD Strategy for the period 2015–2018. These 34 NIRS correspond to 8 EECCA region countries, 21 from the EU-West, 4 from the SEE, and 1 from the WA region. The NIRs reported on 48 qualitative and quantitative indicators, that reflected the 6 objectives (regulatory frameworks, ESD in formal, nonformal education, the teachers’ capacity on ESD, ESD education tools, ESD research, collaboration on ESD) of the UNECE Strategy for ESD implementation. The WSA in the UNECE ESD Strategy was specifically addressed through indicator (2.3), which includes three sub-indicators (2.3.1. “adopted by institutions,” 2.3.2 “incentives,” and 2.3.3 “ESD Indicators”). Given the fact that elements of WSA permeate the set of indicators concerning the UNECE ESD report format, the examination of WSA, solely through this specific indicator, would be very limiting. We would like to clarify that the first number in parentheses corresponds to the UNECE Strategy for ESD Issue, the second number to the indicator, and the third number to the sub-indicator. An overview of coding corresponding to the UNECE ESD Strategy can be found in ECE/CEP/AC.13/2014/5. Phase III: Format for reporting on the implementation of the UNECE ESD Strategy.

This chapter addresses all the indicators of the UNECE ESD Strategy and uses the “flower model” aspects (Wals & Mathie, 2022) as the basis for the analysis of all the NIRs submitted. This approach can provide a better insight into how WSA is viewed and addressed by the member states in the UNECE region and reveals possible challenges met by the countries and opportunities to promote WSA to ESD. It also helps highlight the connections and correlations of the UNECE Strategy for ESD with the dimensions of WSA and allows us to identify gaps and steps that need to be undertaken for improving UNECE ESD Strategy in this particular strand.

Table 3.1 presents an overview of the indicators and sub-indicators referring to each of the “flower model” petals. The NIR template, requested examples from each country’s national context, for each of the indicators and sub-indicators included in the report. These results should be interpreted with caution, due to the disparity of sizes of the UNECE member states. Additionally, they are not exhaustive and may omit other examples of WSA in ESD.

Table 3.1 Cross-examination of NIRs and the flower model
Full size table

In the data analysis, we cross examine the UNECE Strategy for ESD NIR’s data with each of the petals of the “flower model” in order to reveal how and to what extent WSA is integrated into ESD across the UNECE region. Table 3.1 presents an overview of how indicators and sub-indicators of the UNECE ESD Strategy’s issues are categorized under each of the five WSA parameters or “petals” of Wals and Matthie’s (2022) Flower Model. Following this framework, results refer to quantitative and qualitative data for each of the parameters of WSA as reported under the specific UNECE Strategy for ESD issues, indicators, and sub-indicators.

3 Results

3.1 WSA and Curriculum: What Do We Teach?

Curricula were one of the WSA aspects most frequently addressed through the NIR indicators and sub-indicators (Table 3.1). In order to examine how ESD curricula are relevant to WSA through the UNECE Strategy for ESD, prerequisite measures were examined (ESD Strategy Issue 1) with specific reference to policy documents and their indicators and sub-indicators as stated in the parentheses: (1.2.2.), raising public awareness (1.2.4), multistakeholder cooperation on policies (1.2.6), and funding (1.2.7). In terms of formal, nonformal, and informal learning (Issue 2), measures examined included SD key themes in formal education (curriculum, learning outcomes, e.g., skills/ attitudes/ values) (2.1), quality assessment systems (2.4), and ESD methods/instruments for nonformal and informal learning to assess changes in knowledge, attitude, and practice (2.5). Curriculum was also viewed in the framework of research and development, specifically the promotion of research on the content of ESD (5.1), on strategy outcomes (5.1.2), and innovation and capacity building (5.2.1). ESD is incorporated in the national curricula of 24 out of 32 reporting countries. Figure 3.1 depicts the extent to which ESD is embedded in curricula across the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels (UNESCO, 2012). ISCED is the official framework used to facilitate international comparisons of education systems, developed by UNESCO. ISCED is a universal categorization of education levels, eliminating discrepancies emerging from differences among the countries’ national education systems.

Fig. 3.1
A bar graph compares the embedding of E S D in national curricula across different levels of education, from primary to tertiary with the highest levels found in primary education and the lowest in the short cycle tertiary education.

ESD is addressed in national curricula/standards/ordinances/requirements as understood in each country’s education system: Distribution across ISCED levels (out of 32 countries). (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022, p. 36)

Full size image

Figure 3.1 presents frequencies and percentages of countries (out of 34 submitted reports), referring to whether ESD is included in national curricula, standards, ordinances, and requirements in all levels of formal education, as understood in each country’s education system. Caution should be taken when interpreting this question as it referred to all levels of education and each country responded on whether or not ESD is included in national curricula, standards, and ordinances without further justification. Considering that ESD and its level of implementation are differentiated from country to country, the quality of this integration across policies cannot be further discussed since countries were not required to provide in-depth information as to specific frameworks in which this takes place. Nevertheless, as presented in Fig. 3.1, it should be noted that 32 out of 34 countries report that ESD is integrated across curricula, standards, ordinances, and other requirements, primarily throughout school education (ISCED 0 through ISCED 3). For example, in Iceland, there is a National Curriculum Guide for all levels of school education including specific reference to sustainability as a fundamental pillar of education. In Serbia, the Law of Fundamentals of the Education System provided the framework for the compilation of The Rulebook of Foundation Education Programs, specifically referring to the kindergarten as a place of democratic and inclusive practice under which sustainability is a key strand. The lowest rates of incorporating ESD in national curricula were observed for preuniversity education levels (ISCED 4 and 5). Often, even though ESD is implicitly addressed in the curricula of preuniversity education through various actions, it seems that there is a lot to be done to achieve its full integration at this level. Indicatively, Romania points out a lack of a specific discipline for ESD at preuniversity education, even though key themes of SD are included in core or optional at this level.

Throughout the NIRs, it was evident that Sustainable Development (SD) key themes (2.1.1.) are established within curricula as >85% of the countries indicate that they have SD key themes integrated across various education levels but to a different extent, depending on the education level. Indicatively, in kindergarten and primary education, environmental protection and environmental health are the most highly integrated themes. SD key themes are more emphasized in lower secondary compared to the other education levels, especially biological and landscape diversity and environmental protection. In short-term tertiary education, cultural diversity was the SD key theme most extensively addressed, whereas in higher education, emphasis was placed on human rights, ecological principles, and oceans.

Figure 3.2 shows that the key themes of corporate social responsibility, culture’s contribution to SD, economic growth, and poverty alleviation were the themes least addressed by the countries at all education levels. This might be attributed, amongst other reasons, to the complexity of the themes, which may hamper their integration at the lower ISCED levels, particularly in early childhood and primary education levels. The way in which sustainable development themes are defined depends on the context of each country and thus more emphasis could be placed on environmental (e.g., Slovakia, Serbia), social (e.g., Estonia, Turkey, Belarus), and economic issues (e.g., Romania, Tajikistan) or to a combination of the three (e.g., Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Croatia, Switzerland, Cyprus, Greece, Kyrgyzstan, and Russian Federation).

Fig. 3.2
A radar chart. Environmental protection plots the highest value and corporate social responsibility plots the lowest value.

Key theme integration across education levels (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022, p. 55)

*Scale 0–200 refers to the sum of the number of ticks indicated by member states for each of the key themes as provided in Appendix I(a) in the report (ECE/CEP/AC.13/2014/5) template

Full size image

ESD key-theme integration level also varies according to education level. Specifically, themes integrated into school education pertain more to the environmental aspects of ESD such as environmental protection, biology and landscape diversity, and environmental health. The least addressed themes in school education refer to social responsibility, economic growth, and good jobs. Nevertheless, as suggested in the Serbian NIR, sociocultural and economic aspects of ESD are often in place but they are not always recognized as SD. Examples of key-theme integration in Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) provided by Romania, where part of the “Local development curriculum” which is adopted to local specificities in SD. In Montenegro, 25 modularized curricula for TVET ensure the attainment of key SD competences. ESD key themes with strong social and economic elements are more extensively addressed at post-secondary and in higher education levels. For example, in Estonia, the Estonian Refugee Council, Tartu University, and local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) offered several example activities as a response to the current refugee crisis.

3.2 WSA and Pedagogy/Didactics: How Do We Learn?

In formal, nonformal, and informal education, pedagogy and didactics were viewed through the pedagogical methods utilized (2.1.) and through implementing ESD as a multistakeholder process (sub-indicator 2.6). Finally, conserving traditional knowledge and knowledge of indigenous people (Issue 7) was mainly understood through utilizing nonformal settings.

NIR results indicated that various teaching and learning methods are addressed explicitly in curricula by 26 (76.5%) countries. How these methods are used depends on the education level. For kindergarten and primary levels, teaching and learning methods used are more connected to concrete life experiences, such as role-playing, excursions, and outdoor learning. In secondary education, the methods used are rather oriented toward problem-solving, simulations, and Information Communication Technology (ICT), which, in fact is one of the most extensively used methods across preuniversity and university education. Surveys, simulations, and problem-solving are also extensively integrated at these education levels.

To a large extent, the methods used at the formal and nonformal levels depend on the teacher. Schools, education institutions, and teachers in Finland, for example, have autonomy regarding the learning methods they use (Finland NIR). In the Netherlands, under the “freedom of Education” law, the national curriculum only describes the “what” (content) in highly abstract terminology. The “how” and “when” are the responsibilities of individual schools (Netherlands NIR).

Some countries report specific teaching methods in the curricula, the majority of which promote learner-centered learning (e.g., Finland, the Netherlands, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Estonia, and Slovenia). As presented in Fig. 3.3, the teaching and learning methods most widely used to promote SD throughout all ISCED levels are simulations, role-playing and games, ICT, excursions and outdoor learning, discussions, and problem solving. The least utilized teaching methods to promote SD are workplace experience, good practice analyses, philosophical inquiry, and conceptual and perceptual mapping (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022). Regarding the pedagogies and actions related to hands-on learning concerning the conservation of traditional knowledge (Issue 7), a number of countries (e.g., Belarus, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Kirgizstan, and Russia) indicate that they are bringing students in connection with local populations with programs that concern traditional crafts and local products.

Fig. 3.3
A radar chart. Simulations, role-playing, games, and I C Ts plot the highest value, and philosophical injury plots the lowest value.

Teaching–learning methods integration across ISCED levels (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022, p. 77)

*Scale 0–200 refers to the sum of the number or ticks provided regarding teaching and learning methods across all ISCED levels as required in Appendix I(c) in the report (ECE/CEP/AC.13/2014/5) template

Full size image

3.3 WSA and Building Management/Operations: Where Do We Learn?

This parameter was only examined under Issue 2: ESD in formal, nonformal, and informal learning, specifically in relation to whether instruments for formal, informal, and nonformal learning are in place to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Coombs et al. (1973) (as cited in Smith, 2002) distinguished the three forms of education by stating that (a) formal education is hierarchically structured, chronologically graded “education system,” running from primary school through the university and, including, in addition to general academic studies, a variety of specialized programs and institutions for full-time technical and professional training, (b) informal education is the truly lifelong process whereby every individual acquires attitudes, values, skills, and knowledge from daily experience and the educative influences and resources in his or her environment—from family and neighbors, from work and play, from the market place, the library and the mass media, and (c) nonformal education is any organized educational activity outside the established formal system—whether operating separately or as an important feature of some broader activity—that is intended to serve identifiable learning clienteles and learning objectives.

The significance of nonformal and informal learning in ESD is emphasized throughout the UNECE Strategy for ESD and has been reflected in the previous reporting cycles (UNECE, 2015, para. 32). Thus, member states have long recognized that addressing ESD solely through formal education is insufficient, and have emphasized nonformal and informal learning as a means of orienting societies toward sustainable development. Therefore, even though there was an attempt in the strategy to examine infrastructure in terms of the places/buildings where ESD is delivered throughout the various education levels, examining school buildings and the way in which they are utilized to promote sustainability and ESD was overlooked.

Few countries provided examples of sustainable school infrastructure (e.g., Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Netherlands). Indicatively, green spaces or gardens in schoolyards have been particularly emphasized as part of WSA efforts in Cyprus and Slovenia. In Cyprus, green school spaces are integrated into the schools’ Sustainable Environmental Education Policy, whereas in Slovenia they are promoted through the Eco-Schools program at all levels of education. The Faculty of Education in Ljubljana is the first eco-friendly faculty in Slovenia, which fully implements WSA through addressing energy and water saving, local food and effective food management, and maintaining vegetable gardens.

3.4 WSA and Professional Development: Whom Do We Learn From?

A key factor in successfully promoting ESD implementation is the educator, indicating the importance of teacher professional development and initial education. This parameter also refers to stakeholders such as the local community, traditional communities, and local artisans, which can be considered as facilitating the aspirations of ESD in terms of learning outcomes and becoming learning arenas for teachers, students, and other school actors.

“Whom do we learn from” explored educator ESD competences in the training of educators (3.1) and opportunities for educators to cooperate on ESD (3.2). Additionally, we reviewed research and development on ESD issues, specifically research on innovation and capacity building in ESD practice (5.2.1) and ways in which research results are disseminated (5.3) and feed ESD professional development. Intergenerational cooperation, local communities, and indigenous people (Issue 7) were viewed as factors promoting professional development.

Countries reported specifically on whether national policies on ESD support teacher professional development. Malta for example explained that their ministry provides educators with clear and updated guidelines for the implementation of ESD across the curriculum through a formal structure that coordinates ESD implementation in educational institutions, provides financial support, and provides adequate continuous professional development opportunities to educators and school leaders.

Countries were also requested to provide data as to how teacher professional development is delivered to preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and school leaders. An overview is presented in Fig. 3.4; most member states report that ESD is part of initial training (26 countries, 81%) and part of in-service training (28 countries, 87.5%), with 22 member states (68%) also addressing ESD competences in training programs for education leaders and administrators. These outcomes should be interpreted with caution, especially on teachers’ professional development which is often offered by tertiary-level institutions that have a high level of autonomy and reporting on this area was often fragmented.

Fig. 3.4
A stacked bar graph compares the responses for the training of educators. Initial. Yes, 26. No, 6. In-service. Yes, 28. No, 4. Training of leaders or administrators of educational institutions. Yes, 22. No, 10.

Training of educators (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022, p. 108)

Full size image

Approaches to in-service training in ESD competences vary from country to country and are offered as part of teacher professional development education in 28 member states (87.5%). It is important to mention that ESD is included in teachers’ training but often takes place on a voluntary basis. These optional opportunities are provided by extended networks on ESD actions, established in several countries. For example, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, and Slovenia have embraced the green kindergarten network. In Germany, 29 model networks supported by the foundation “Haus der Κleinen Forscher” (Little Scientists’ House) provide pedagogical resources and a continuous professional development program. Training workshops on the integration of ESD in early childhood education are offered to caring/teaching staff, reaching 30,000 early childhood education institutions. In Hungary, the green kindergarten network and the eco-school network are efficient representatives of the WSA and also provide teacher training, reaching more than 20% of the overall population of Hungarian teachers. In Austria SD and ESD lectures, courses and seminars are offered, among others, through summer academies, or specific courses offered by local universities. Despite their optional nature, an impressively high number of in-service educators have attended such courses. In Israel, the Ministries of Environmental Protection and Education train more than 2700 teachers per year on how to incorporate ESD in their teaching.

In addition, mandatory in-service ESD training was reported by several member states (e.g. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Montenegro, Cyprus, Belarus, and Tajikistan) indicating the importance placed on developing in-service teachers’ ESD competences. ESD competences in the training of education leaders and administrators have increased significantly as reported during phase IV compared to reporting on phase III (UNECE, 2015) from just above 50% of reporting member states offering such education opportunities in the period 2011–2015 to 68.7% (22 countries) in the period 2015–2018.

In Cyprus, mandatory and optional ESD courses are offered not only to teachers but also to principals and school leaders on an annual basis, focusing on their schools becoming sustainable. In Georgia, approximately 80% of public school principals have received leadership academy training to become instructional leaders. Various Official ESD Awards and activities by other stakeholders in Germany focus on the training of ESD leaders.

Twenty-six member states (81.2%) have affirmed that networks/platforms of educators and/or leaders/administrators are established in their country. For example, the Education Coalition NGO in Switzerland is a network of approximately 30 NGOs, youth associations, environment associations, health, international cooperation, and human rights organizations, aiming at integrating and anchoring ESD in civil society and politics.

Governmental support for ESD networks and platforms comes mainly in the form of coordination and/or financing. Specifically, 22 (68.7%) member states report that such support exists for specific initiatives, such as Austria’s Sustainability Award for Higher Education, Finland’s SD certificate for schools, and Slovakia’s Ministry of Environment funding for education institutions. Concrete governmental structures to provide funding, equip educators with ESD competences, support ESD Strategy implementation, and guide and/or coordinate such efforts seem to be missing.

3.5 WSA and School Environment: Whom Do We Learn With?

Sustainable development is attracting an increasing number of people, including entrepreneurs and governments. The transition from an unsustainable to a sustainable world is a learning process for everyone. The school environment and its connection to society are critical in the WSA. The school environment has been examined through the NIRs, in relation to ESD competences included in educators’ training (3.1), ESD cooperation opportunities (3.2), and research and development (5.2 and 5.3). Finally, whom we learn with was a parameter examined through the countries’ initiatives to promote ESD through intergenerational cooperation, local communities, and indigenous people (Issue 7).

The strategy places a strong emphasis on multistakeholder collaboration for ESD. Sub-indicator 2.6.1 examines whether ESD implementation is a multistakeholder process in 28 member states (87.5%). Local governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the media, communities, the private sector, organized labor, and faith-based organizations are involved in the implementation of the ESD Strategy. The actions in which stakeholders participate in ESD Strategy implementation—such as raising public awareness, training, quality education, etc.—are presented in Fig. 3.5.

Fig. 3.5
A spider chart compares the level of quality education, public awareness, reorienting education, training, and social learning in the N G Os, local government, organized labor, private sector, faith-based, media, and community-based organizations. Public awareness is the highest in the N G Os.

Multistakeholder cooperation (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022, p. 97)

Full size image

Raising public awareness is the ESD aspect stakeholders are mostly engaged in, whereas they are least engaged in reorienting education toward sustainable development. Reorienting education refers to empowering learners to be engaged in lifelong learning processes that will allow them to make informed decisions, develop creative problem-solving skills, scientific and social literacy, and participate in individual and cooperative action for a sustainable future (Bowers, 1995). Stakeholders such as community-based organizations, NGOs, the media, and local governments are the ones mostly involved in raising public awareness and social learning. Local governments have the most multifaceted role in promoting ESD implementation, specifically, training, quality education, and public awareness. This can be attributed to their authority to establish national policies and collaborations and also to funding opportunities they can provide in the national context.

4 Discussion

Despite the fact that it is not possible to extensively analyze and discuss each dimension of the WSA, within this chapter, the results allow us to summarize an overall picture of the WSA implementation in the UNECE region. What is noted from the synopsis of the results is that there is a clear orientation toward WSA. However, fragmented data provided by countries reflect a partial view of how WSA is implemented in ESD in the UNECE region. As demonstrated through the data analysis, the strategy in itself does not place equal value on each of the “petals” of the WSA to ESD “flower model” taking into consideration that the focus is on curricula and the school environment, while the school infrastructure is neglected. Below, the results of the WSA as realized through the UNECE ESD Strategy are discussed, organized under the aspects-petals of the WSA to ESD “flower model.”

4.1 What Do We Learn? (Curricula)

It was evident through the NIRs that WSA to ESD in the UNECE region is well integrated across curricula, especially in school education levels. Depending on the national context, key themes examined emphasize either the environmental, social, cultural, or economic aspects of SD issues. This is a promising fact as the well-defined context and pedagogy of the curricula are important prerequisites of quality in education (Kadji et al., 2017; Kadji & Zachariou, 2022). Maintaining the integrity of life support systems (environmental sustainability), equity between ethnic and social groups as well as between generations (social sustainability), the nourishment and sharing of attitudes and values that represent diverse ways of viewing the world (cultural sustainability), and using resources to provide necessary and desirable products and services for the next generation without compromising their ability to do the same (economic sustainability) (Wals, 2014) are all valued within curricula but understood differently across UNECE countries. The different degree of emphasis placed on each of the SD parameters through curricula is indicative of how factors such as education level and different priorities determine which SD key themes will be emphasized.

In tertiary education, despite the considerable efforts to incorporate ESD in university curricula, there is a lot to be done regarding how Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) address ESD through WIA. The 2022 European Strategy for Universities supports the higher education sector in implementing WIA for the green transition and sustainable development, through highlighting the development of skills, competences, and technological innovation. The high level of the HEIs’ autonomy can be used as a factor in promoting innovation through WIA in ESD.

In order to successfully implement WIA, the tertiary level has to highlight entrepreneurship (Hopkinson & James, 2013). Countries have made considerable efforts to connect school learning with the labor market, mainly through vocational education and tertiary education (e.g., through connecting what is taught in TVET with market needs in the area or through creating quality frameworks documenting competences acquired through ESD in HEIs).

4.2 Whom Do We Learn From? (Professional Development)

In the UNECE region, teacher training on ESD implementation is offered by multiple stakeholders on an optional basis. Mandatory training is gaining attention in several countries revealing the growing acknowledgement of the importance of ESD. In the UNECE region, governmental support for professional development is usually in the form of coordination and/or financing, whereas teachers’ initial training is mainly offered through HEIs.

University teacher education is also an important milestone in teachers’ professional development. According to Albareda-Tiara et al. (2019), active teaching/learning strategies in ESD embedded in curricula of initial teacher education highly contribute to future teachers’ sustainability competences. In order to examine this, a clearer picture of ESD integration in university education is required. The authors also claim that sustainability competences are needed to orient teachers toward sustainability and empower them to teach the way they live. This assumption places tremendous importance on teacher training for effective ESD implementation in general. Under this framework, teachers are required to make appropriate connections among various aspects of sustainability. That is why teacher professional development should be ongoing.

In addition, in the UNECE region, there is increased attention on educating school leaders for effective ESD implementation, as they can facilitate strategy implementation and dissemination. Reorienting a school to ESD requires specific leadership practices (Kadji-Beltran et al., 2012) such as empowering teachers, encouraging challenging current approaches, exploring alternative curricula and pedagogies, and collaborating with others to support the school vision. In addition, through WSA in ESD addressing school leaders’ competences improves overall coordination among stakeholders and reduces resistance to change. External stakeholders and networks have also been found to provide learning opportunities and authentic experiences for all learners in school.

4.3 How Do We Learn? (Pedagogy/Didactics)

UNECE countries reported a variety of pedagogical approaches in addressing ESD both in formal and nonformal contexts, some being more frequently used than others. Encouraging experimentation with multiple and alternative teaching techniques is a dynamic element of WSA in ESD, which can be encouraged through well-informed and progressive school leadership (Zachariou et al., 2013). Furthermore, alternative pedagogies that evolve around problem solving should be encouraged more, through national education systems, to promote the necessary paradigm shift and foster sustainability competences (Gokoo-Ramdoo & Rumjaun, 2017; Kadji-Beltran & Zachariou, 2022).

Strong experiences and appropriate pedagogies that foster critical thinking, reflection, and sustainability competences, in general, can have a transformative impact on learners. Meaningful experiential learning in nature and communities, as well as connecting places and people, are therefore important learning spaces that support shifting from transmissive to transformative forms of education (Bell, 2016). As our data analysis has revealed, the UNECE countries address pedagogical methods integration in ESD in different ways, with some countries providing full autonomy for teachers to select and use appropriate teaching and learning methods and others embedding these methods in curricula. Student-centered pedagogical approaches are highly emphasized in all education levels. Nevertheless, in school education, especially in kindergarten and in primary education, methods build more on students’ concrete learning experiences in formal and nonformal settings (e.g., field work, excursions, and role-playing), whereas in secondary and tertiary education methods gradually orient toward more abstract mental processes, engaging critical thinking (e.g., problem solving and ICT).

4.4 Where Do We Learn? (Building Management/Operations)

Sustainable infrastructure plays an important role in the green economy transition, as it sits at the heart of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (UNEP, 2021). The need to transition to green infrastructure investments is clearly stated through the new policy text of the UNECE Committee of Environmental Policy “Greening the economy in the pan-European region: working toward sustainable infrastructure.” Green infrastructure investments are becoming urgent because of the ongoing climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, which press the governments in the region to achieve collective tangible progress for the green economy beyond individual actions, especially with regard to sustainable infrastructure development (CEP, 2022, p. 4).

For schools, the creation of sustainable infrastructure is very important because it contributes to a healthy school, increases the self-esteem of students, affects their psychological mood positively, and ultimately contributes to the dissemination of knowledge as well as their creativity (Tapia-Fonllem et al., 2020). In addition, sustainable school infrastructures contribute to the protection of the environment or act as a measure of adaptation to climate change (Barrett et al., 2019). It is no coincidence that the European Commission addresses its commitment to provide member states with new financial resources to make school buildings and operations more sustainable (EC, 2019, p. 19). Despite acknowledging the need to transition to green infrastructures and sustainable school buildings, this dimension is the least addressed aspect of WSA in the current UNECE ESD Strategy. This can be justified by a number of factors such as the capacity and resources available and mainly because sustainable infrastructure is complex in nature (CEP, 2022). The results of the present study indicate that in the UNECE region, more attention should be paid to school infrastructure, schools being the place where ESD is primarily delivered. School buildings should be a sustainability paradigm: inspire students to live and act sustainably, provide experiences hard to obtain elsewhere, and develop a sense of pride in their sustainable school. The improvement of school building’s infrastructure is an issue that needs to be addressed by governments, school leadership, parents’ associations, local communities, strengthening the school’s connections, and benefitting at the same time the community (Espinet & Zachariou, 2014).

4.5 Whom Do We Learn With? (School Environment)

Apart from schools, stakeholders mostly involved in the UNECE Strategy for ESD implementation are NGOs, the media, local governments, and community-based organizations. These are highly engaged in public awareness actions and generate a special type of learning that aims to connect people effectively and actively in achieving a better quality of life in their own context (Espinet & Zachariou, 2014). This collaboration creates learning and action communities and leads to collaborative change. Bringing together heterogeneous perspectives is crucial for fully understanding sustainability challenges (Beyers & Leventon, 2019).

The status of an institution, such as for example public authorities or faith-based organizations, NGOs, or the media, calls for a different type of engagement in ESD such as, for example, quality education. Still, quality education is the least addressed aspect of multistakeholder collaboration, which reveals a gap that needs to be addressed in the future. The primary goal of participatory ESD is to educate people so that they can participate as active citizens in democratic processes concerning sustainable development issues. At the same time, external factors such as the requirements of employment may help to provide additional incentives to promote multistakeholder collaboration in ESD (Matthiews & Vargas, 2016), especially in higher education.

5 Ways Forward

There are many ways to move forward with WSA in ESD. To start with, the UNECE countries need to reflect—individually and collectively—on the vision of the sustainable school they aspire to. Indicatively, starting with curricula, there needs to be a thorough evaluation or mapping of their content across all levels of education in the UNECE countries from an ESD perspective in order to find out the status of ESD content examined (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022). Quality control mechanisms for ESD curricula (e.g., guidelines, evaluation mechanisms etc.), for tools and materials, and the kinds of collaboration established between various stakeholders outside the school, need to be set. In this way, more informed decisions on ESD implementation can be taken, promoting competences and increasing youth employability (Lambini et al., 2021). Pedagogies and curricula could be viewed from the perspective of the SDGs and “reach beyond the institution by engaging in sustainable and inclusive social change in line with the civic mission of the institution” (Gregersen-Hermans, 2021, p. 461).

Taking into consideration the complexity of sustainability issues and the need to move to more radical models of learning, which will change our frame of mind to more sustainable behaviors, WSA seems to be the only way to move forward since it “captures” unified and concretely the vision as well the challenge of the institutions to evolve from education organizations to communities of learning for ESD. McGregor (2019) pointed out that mainstream ESD should radically transform to “promote a way for people to walk a different path, especially considering the environmental challenges staring them in the face.” To achieve this radical transformation, deep, meaningful learning should be put forward and best educational practices should be integrated synergistically into a unified whole. This idea could be put forward through WSA, which encourages transformative learning settings (Ostergaard, 2021). Such settings help students to develop the capacities required to mitigate the challenges facing the environment in the long term and require internal and external synergies of the school, which are mainstreamed through WSA.

The fragmentation in the way WSA in ESD has been viewed in the current UNECE Strategy for ESD progress report (Hadjiachilleos & Zachariou, 2022) and the orientation toward transformational learning seem to be well addressed through the new framework for the implementation of the UNECE Strategy for ESD2021–2030 (UNECE, 2022). WSA approach is considered one of the key strands and in connection with the rest of the key strands (Quality Education and ESD, Digital Education, ICT and ESD, and Entrepreneurship, Employment, Innovation and ESD). The new strategic framework for the implementation of the UNECE Strategy for ESD 2021–2030 aspires to improve educational systems and other mechanisms that enable people to learn, live, and work in a more prosperous, just, creative, healthy, and sustainable planet and region (UNECE, 2022). Additionally, the new strategic framework seeks to empower WSA/WIA across the spectrum of organizations within formal, nonformal, and informal education and beyond school education. Importantly, it addresses the need for emphasizing the impact of school infrastructure and buildings, on how ESD is realized. Barrett et al. (2019) provide evidence documenting the impact of pedagogy and school buildings on the overall quality of education. Undoubtedly, addressing school infrastructure and its role in ESD implementation require planning, ambition, long-term perspectives, and, of course, funding (Barrett et al., 2019). That is why addressing school infrastructure through the new strategic framework of ESD Strategy in the UNECE region is vital. School infrastructure can facilitate the opening of the school to the community and the formation of multistakeholder collaborations (Mula et al., 2022).

WSA in ESD is currently realized in various ways through the UNECE region. Countries tend to integrate WSA differently because of the different educational priorities, particularities, and variety of educational systems as well as the disparity of size, cultural heritage, and geographic position of the countries in the UNECE region. Having that in mind, in view of the new framework for the implementation of the UNECE Strategy for ESD2021–2030 currently in progress, a lot is expected concerning how policymakers, school leaders, practitioners, students, local communities, and other stakeholders will be involved and oriented toward sustainable development in the future, through well established and validated WSAs. The UNECE can make invaluable contributions to how WSA is implemented in ESD due to the “polyphony” of countries and also due to the opportunities for international cooperation, capacity, expertise, and exchange of good practices that they can promote.