Supporting Structures for Education for Sustainable Development and School-based Health Promotion

Abstract

The article aims to explore the following question: ‘How is education for sustainable development and health education in schools approached and contextualized at a municipal level, and what contradictions and tensions might local structures imply for sustainable health promoting school development?’ Based on interviews with key agents at the municipal level in Denmark and drawing on a knowledge exchange network, the article identifies and discusses the following three themes across education for sustainable development and health education: (i) autonomy, engagement and ownership; (ii) open frameworks and invitations to ‘run with the ball’; and (iii) ad hoc professional development. A main conclusion in the article is that local approaches are largely based on plurality and voluntarism, and are formed around enthusiasts. There is a risk that this framework becomes so flexible that it ‘falls apart’ in the balance between rigidity and flexibility.

Keywords

Education for sustainable development health education municipality framework local engagement

Introduction

Education for sustainable development (ESD) and health education are practices often driven by a few passionate frontrunners. At various levels, engaged professionals work to promote learning about sustainability, environmental issues or health, based on a vision to change existing unsustainable and unhealthy structures and practices in schools and/or society at large. Sustainability and health form some of the largest societal challenges of the twenty-first century, which according to Klafki (2001) are considered to be among the ‘key societal problems’—essential to work within a school setting as they have current relevance, future relevance and value as pedagogical examples. From this perspective, the aim of pedagogical work with sustainability and health is not to find ‘correct’ answers, but rather to strengthen the students’ ability to critically reflect upon the issues and pay attention to inherent conflicts of interest, the historical construction of the issues and a sense of solidarity and social justice related to these issues. ESD and health education and promotion (HEP) are interwoven practices, which, despite their differences, share a number of characteristics reflected in global and national policies, both at a local authority level and at school level. It could also be argued that the two thematic areas face some of the same challenges within a school context.

Global calls for sustainable development and health promotion have been introduced since Our Common Future (United Nations [UN], 1987) and the Ottawa Charter (World Health Organization [WHO], 1986). Furthermore, Agenda 21 has explicitly stressed the importance of school and of the development of children’s and young people’s competences and commitment related to a sustainable and healthy future (UN, 1992, Chapters 25 and 36). Since then, a number of international action plans have expanded the importance of the educational dimension of sustainable development and health promotion, including the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2008), the Bangkok Charter for Health Promotion in a Globalized World (WHO, 2005) and most recently, the UN Global Action Programme (GAP) on ESD (UNESCO, 2014, 2015). Within the aims of the GAP, one of the five priority actions areas is ‘Encouraging local communities and municipal authorities to develop community-based ESD programmes’ (UNESCO, 2014, 2015). Educational research conferences have also placed these issues on the educational research agenda; for example, the Nordic Educational Research Conference (NERA 42nd Conference, 2014) focused on ESD, which was highlighted in the title of the conference, ‘Education for Sustainable Development—Only Big Words for Politicians or a Responsibility for Education Workers?’ Additionally, within the European Educational Research Association (EERA), two networks have recently been established to place research emphasis on these issues: Research on Health Education (NW8); and Research on Environmental and Sustainability Education (NW30) (EERA, 2014).

The question of how these issues should be approached in a school context is an ongoing discussion within research for both ESD and health education. One of the main challenges in this respect is based on the tension between the urgency for ‘solving’ the problems linked with sustainability and health versus the democratic educational aims characterized by participation and plurality of values. Within research on sustainability education, Sund and Öhman (2013) propose that sustainability as a political issue should be placed on the educational agenda in a form open to discussion: ‘we cannot escape the idea of universal values, but should try to see them as part of the educational process rather than as educational goals’ (Sund & Öhman, 2013, p. 12). Van Poeck and Vandenabeele (2012, p. 543) point to sustainability as a ‘public issue’ of concern to all, and urge educational practices ‘to experiment with the tension between a sense of urgency and the need for democratic participation’. A similar debate can be found within health education research, particularly within the paradigm of health promoting schools where the critical health education perspective is emphasized, focusing on a socio-ecological view of health, participation and pupils’ competences to act and bring about ‘real life changes’ (e.g., Clift & Jensen 2005; Green & Tones, 2010; Simovska & Jensen, 2012). Within this paradigm, research on sustainability education and health education have at times been combined (e.g., Jensen, Schnack & Simovska, 2000; Reid, Jensen, Nikel & Simovska, 2008; Simovska & McNamara, 2015) in order to explore synergies in working educationally with global social issues.

In Denmark, both sustainability and health education are cross-curricular topics integrated across subjects and levels in primary and lower secondary school (6–16 years). Health education has its own curriculum guidelines, whereas sustainability is included as part of a number of subjects, including food literacy, crafts and design, social science, science and science and technology (Danish Ministry of Education, 2014a). Local authorities, that is, municipalities, have a key role in the work with health promotion and sustainability in local contexts, including schools. After a large municipal reform in 2007, the municipalities in Denmark took on a greater responsibility for health promotion. In addition, all municipalities were obliged to form local Agenda 21 plans, following the international Agenda 21 (UN, 1992), outlining aims and strategies for the local work with environmental, sustainability and climate issues. However, a recent evaluation indicates that only 27 per cent of the municipalities in Denmark directly address children and education as part of the local Agenda 21 (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2014b). Each municipal council is also responsible for determining the aims and framework for the general activities of the schools within the national curriculum framework (Common Aims), including the economic framework and in-service teacher training (Danish Ministry of Education, 2014b).

Within this context, the aim of this article is to contribute to the debate by exploring challenges and perspectives at local (municipal) level for working pedagogically with sustainability and health in schools. Based on interviews with key agents at the municipal level and drawing on a knowledge exchange network, we focus on the following question: ‘How is education for sustainable development and health education in schools approached and contextualized at the municipal level, and what contradictions and tensions might local structures imply for sustainable health promoting school development?’ The research was conducted as part of the Research Centre for Health Promoting Sustainable School Development (shs.au.dk) at the Danish School of Education at Aarhus University in Denmark. The overall interest of the research centre is to explore how ESD and health promotion are contextualized and ‘translated’ (Gherardi, 2006) from political intentions declared in international, national and municipal policies to school practices, as well as to identify factors that hinder or support the work with these issues in schools (Madsen, Nordin & Simovska, 2015; Simovska, Nordin & Madsen, 2015). The particular focus of this article is the municipal level as a transition sphere between national and school platforms. We start by sketching a shared conceptual framework of ESD and health education that grounds the research theoretically. We then present the qualitative approach and data we drew on in the analytical work. The analysis is structured based on the research question stated earlier, and focuses on three themes which have emerged inductively in the data across ESD and health education, characterizing how sustainability and health in schools is approached, substantiated and contextualized within the selected municipalities.

Conceptual Framework

Our understanding of ESD and HEP is based on a critical pedagogical conceptualization as represented within the sustainability education research by Læssøe, Schnack, Breiting and Rolls (2009), Reid et al. (2008), Rolls, Madsen, Ingerslev and Larsen (2015), Scott and Gough (2003), Vare & Scott (2007) and Wals (2011), and within the HEP research by Clift and Jensen (2005), Green and Tones (2010) and Simovska and McNamara (2015). These perspectives share a number of common issues: first, ESD and health education are understood as concepts that relate to both individual behaviour and living conditions, including individual, socio-cultural and societal factors. Second, the development of critical competences and socially responsible actions are considered key educational aims linked to both issues. As such, the school is perceived as an active player in relation to the work with sustainability and health in a school context, rather than a passive arena for externally defined goals (Jensen, 2012).

This requires sensitivity to the socio-historical context of the schools and the everyday life experience of staff and students. The whole-school approach, including the many dimensions of school life, is relevant for achieving educational outcomes: for example, leadership and social organization; the school culture; the physical surroundings at the school; as well as the curriculum- and classroom-based teaching (Læssøe et al., 2009; Simovska, 2012). Cross-disciplinarity is also necessary to capture the multidimensional and complex issues that include the change of perspectives as an epistemological principle (Stevenson, 2007b). This involves collaboration, both internally at the school as well as with external actors, based on an opening of the school to the surrounding society. Participation is viewed within both fields as a pedagogical method and democratic aim—underlining the importance of ‘real’ participation, including the opportunity for all of the involved partners to question and influence the underlying assumptions and framework, thereby also giving weight to ownership, rather than just participation on a symbolic level (Simovska, 2007, 2012).

Participation is emphasized even when not fully consequential, if only as an ideal that helps teachers create meaning and motivation in the complexities of the pedagogical practices linked to contested issues such as sustainability and health (Lysgaard & Simovska, 2016). From a critical education perspective, teaching and learning processes are perceived as open-ended, involving a reflective approach as well as ongoing dialogue related to the questions of how the concepts of sustainability and health are defined, and how individuals and societies can address them within rapidly changing global conditions based on variable and ever-changing knowledge (Green & Tones, 2010; Vare & Scott, 2007).

Methodology, Method and Analytical Framework

This research forms part of an in-depth qualitative study carried out in 10 municipalities in Denmark during the autumn and winter 2013–2014. The focus of the study was to explore aims, approaches, knowledge/competences and the contextualization of sustainability and health promotion in relation to schools at the municipal level. It investigated the challenges and possibilities that arise in this work on the basis of how these issues are articulated and addressed in local policies, and as seen from the perspectives of key agents in selected municipalities. The specific focus in this article is on how ESD and health education are approached, argued, substantiated and contextualized at the municipal level, based on the perspectives of key agents. Data were generated through interviews with key staff in the 10 municipalities, and through a knowledge exchange network. Additional data were extracted from background material, for example, from local web pages and documents, when referred to in the interviews. The 10 municipalities were selected for this qualitative study based on findings from previous research which mapped the policies, priorities, and practices relating to sustainability and health education within all municipalities in Denmark (Simovska et al., 2015). The selection criteria included: variety in the level of priorities and practices relating to sustainability and health education in schools; geographical variation (municipalities from all five regions in Denmark); and variety in size of the municipality. Interviews were conducted with 14 key agents working within the fields of sustainable development and/or HEP in schools.

The interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide. Key questions focused on the decision processes, aims, priorities and experiences with the work on municipal level, as seen from the perspectives of the interviewees. The aim was to learn from the interviewees, not only as experts, but also to get insights into their lived experiences and reflections as key agents struggling with these issues in their daily work life (Brinkmann, 2007; Finlay, 2006). As such, it is the practices as seen from ‘inside’ (Gherardi, 2006) which form part of the analytical starting point. Aside from interviews, the analysis drew on presentations and observations at seminars during the period of 2012–2014 within a knowledge exchange network consisting of practitioners at municipal and school level, established as part of the research centre. Presentations and discussions from these network meetings were incorporated to identify issues at stake, and to support and challenge the ongoing analysis. Observations at seminars provided inspiration for adjustments in the analytical processes, as the network also functioned as a place to present preliminary results, which resulted in a kind of verification and further nuancing of the analysis.

The analysis builds on the notion of a dynamic relationship between the framework created for the work at schools on a municipal level, external actors and the schools themselves. The concept of ‘norm-supporting structures’ (Wickenberg, 1999, 2004) is used analytically to identify and discuss how the work is approached and supported within the municipalities. A norm-supporting structure is defined as a rule for action which is individually and socially communicated and characterized by shared expectations and stability over time. Conversely, there might be circumstances and practices that form ‘norm-hindering structures’ for the work with ESD/HEP. Within this framework, the analysis combines inductive and deductive analytical strategies. Emerging and recurrent themes are first categorized inductively from the interviews, and then analyzed and discussed from the perspective of the theoretical framework. The analytical focus centres on common themes appearing across ESD and health education at the local level in order to identify challenges and perspectives in the approach and contextualization of these key societal problems, forming cross-curricular issues to be integrated in schools.

Findings

Autonomy, Engagement and Ownership

One of the common themes that emerged from the interviews was the recognition of a high degree of local autonomy, engagement and ownership of the schools to interpret and adapt the national guidelines in relation to the work with sustainability and health education. This is highlighted in the following extracts from the interviews with municipal employees working within sustainability and health promotion respectively:

It is fiery souls. No doubt. Fiery souls and human resources. And of course, where they have chosen to work with it themselves, it works best. When they feel ownership. That is alpha and omega. (Municipality employee, B)

To me, it is not so important what they [schools] do. As long as you have engaged students and engaged teachers, who do something. (Municipality employee, A)

The given extracts emphasize that motivation and engagement are at their best when schools (both teachers and pupils) feel ownership and are involved in the decisions about the ways in which health and sustainability can be unfolded in practice. The first excerpt specifically points to ‘human resources’ and ‘fiery souls’, which illustrates the importance of highly engaged individual teachers at school level. Similarly, the interview extract, given next, regarding sustainability in schools highlights the tendency of the municipal stakeholders to respect the autonomy of the schools, and to work with it in a bottom-up rather than top-down manner:

They [the teachers] have to see the purpose of it. This is how I think. We do not want to go out to the schools to dictate how to work with sustainability or health, because if we did that, we would fail. We would be rejected by the schools. (Municipality employee, C)

This extract also reflects a pragmatic approach to school autonomy, as the interviewee is aware that if approached in top-down manner, the schools would simply refuse to cooperate, which in turn would make the implementation of the national and municipal policies on health and sustainability difficult—if not impossible. Furthermore, the interviews reflect recognition by the municipal consultants of the heavy workload of the schools and the many competitive agendas governing school practices. Within this context, health and sustainability education and promotion are not necessarily perceived by teachers as a core task of the school.

It seems to be a shared perception among the interviewed municipality consultants that expert knowledge and political aims and strategies at the national and municipal level should be brought into dialogue with the perspectives and priorities of teachers, pupils and school leaders in the reality of school practice. This emphasis on autonomy, engagement and ownership does not only seem to exist on an aspirational level, but has also been learned through difficult experiences in the municipalities. This was strongly illustrated through a case in one of the larger municipalities where both sustainability and health promotion are clear political priorities. At one of the network meetings, the municipal employees explained how it was first decided to introduce relatively firmly defined action plans for the schools within health education. They realized, however, that the schools rejected and opposed the plans and did not integrate the issue of health education or show any interest in them. They then decided to change strategy, and allow the schools to define the methods and content of health promoting projects themselves, making it possible for the schools to seek funding for health promoting initiatives based on their interests. This was sustained by financial support provided by the municipality for a health coordinator at every school and a network for these coordinators in order to support the exchange of knowledge and experiences. This time, a number of projects and initiatives within health education were formulated and implemented at the schools. Some of the projects were even identical to the ones first introduced by the municipality (Knowledge exchange network meeting documentation, 21 November 2013).

This example illustrates how participatory processes supported by the municipalities have had an actual influence on the motivation and the number of initiatives started at the school level. While the municipality defined the overall priority, the schools were provided space to specify local priorities and strategies, and were supported with resources to implement them in practice. Continuing the recognition of the importance of autonomy, engagement and ownership, the municipal employees describe their role as largely to inspire, support and coordinate this work with sustainability and health promotion in schools. The following extracts from the interviews demonstrate the work with health promotion and sustainability respectively:

It is difficult to point out one single way, one general issue. It will be individual issues, so my job is simply to coordinate the entire process; somehow, my job is to bridge on this area. (Municipality employee, B)

My approach is in fact just to communicate, disseminate offers using the channels we got. (Municipality employee, G)

We offer a number of projects and activities here at the office, which we match to where it seems meaningful. To where they [the teachers] are working right now and where they feel that it is meaningful at the moment. (Municipality employee, G).

In the given accounts, the municipal consultants characterize their role as mainly coordination and facilitation. Along with the bridge metaphor in the first quote, these characteristics signify the mediating role of the local authorities in terms of the translation of policy from national through municipal to school level. This also reflects a tradition of a relatively high degree of autonomy of teachers (Breiting & Wickenberg, 2010) and schools in Denmark, which is also legally supported (Danish Ministry of Education, 2014b).

Mental ownership is a crucial part of successful participatory processes aiming for change from a long-term perspective, as argued by Breiting (2008). In the literature on participation within ESD and HEP (e.g., Lysgaard & Simovska, 2016; Reid et al., 2008; Simovska, 2007), there is a distinction between participation as ‘being present’ and participation in which actors develop a sense of ownership and where they can actually make a difference. A key element for the latter form is to have real influence on decisions and the possibility to influence both processes and results—for both the planning and designing processes and in the framing and naming of problems as well as solutions. The interviews in this study indicate that the municipal employees strive for the latter form of participation from school leaders and teachers, emphasizing the importance of autonomy, ownership and engagement of school actors. This is consistent with a recent evaluation of the experience with participatory processes in relation to children and youth based on selected case studies in Danish municipalities (NIRAS, 2010). In this report, participation is firmly placed on the political agenda in Danish local authorities. Similar to our findings, the authors point out that participation is more than an overall vision in policy documents, and constitutes a core element of the everyday democratic practices (ibid., pp. 18–19). How much the perspectives of the municipal consultants represent an aspirational and idealized position as opposed to a realistic one remains to be further researched, as the municipalities are also responsible for monitoring the pedagogical work carried out in schools in form of ‘quality reports’ (Danish Ministry of Education, 2014b). In this respect, it is important to explore how the work with sustainability and health promotion is evaluated, and which quality criteria are used. As stressed by Biesta (2010), the growing demand for detailed planning and evaluation based on measurable indicators within the education system creates a tension in relation to wider purposes of education as well as open and participatory-based teaching and learning processes, and the organization of everyday life at schools.

Open Frameworks and Invitations to ‘Run with the Ball’

The municipal consultants point to a variety of initiatives and projects initiated by or in cooperation with the municipalities that aim to support the work within sustainability and/or health education in schools. Most of the initiatives are documented online. Examples of such initiatives include: networks for sustainability/health coordinators at schools, ‘profile schools’ (e.g., green schools and health promoting schools), student ambassadors, online teacher resources/inspiration material for teachers, innovation camps, science festivals and outdoor schools. For example, the ‘outdoor schools’ is an initiative within environmental education/sustainability education in the larger municipalities in Denmark. These schools are places for students and their teacher to visit, offering a variety of educational activities related to sustainability and environmental issues, such as learning about flora and fauna, beehives, decomposition, nature restoration, ecosystems and food chains. Here, teachers interested in working with environmental and sustainability issues can bring the entire class; students cook their own meals on a fire stove and carry out seasonally defined activities such as collecting berries and nuts and cooking pickle (Municipality employee, G). Based on these materials, the schools might select the activities that they find most interesting and suitable to the particular context of their school. The municipal consultant emphasizes the open, inspirational nature of the material:

We did it in a way showing respect for the fact, that the schools have such hectic days, so we did put an inspiration catalogue, where they [teachers] could choose whatever they felt did fit to their school. They could also just develop ideas based on the catalogue and develop their own angle on the issue. But at least then there is a framework to build on. (Municipality employee, C)

This quote also illustrates a recurrent perspective in the interviews, that municipalities can provide a framework and resources to the teachers which are informative and helpful, but are sufficiently open to their adjustment and to the development of new ideas. A number of the above-mentioned initiatives and projects within both sustainability education and health education are characterized by collaboration between different departments within a municipality, as well as between the municipality and external actors in the local community. External partners represent a wide range of actors such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, museums, sport associations, energy production firms, environmental organizations, health networks and green cities. The ‘Green Flag’ administered by the Danish Outdoor Council is mentioned as an example of a key partner for schools in the work with environmental education and ESD. The family planning NGO (Sex & Samfund) is mentioned as an important partner within health, particularly for sexual education in schools. These external partners contribute to the development of both fields through teaching materials, in-service training and other support. In general, the findings show that the frameworks provided by the municipalities for the schools’ work with sustainability and health education in schools is open and based on internal and external collaboration between the municipality and the local community. Schools and teachers interested in these fields are supported by a variety of inspirational materials which can be adjusted and adapted, thereby also reflecting an approach which is sensitive to the context of the school. Schools are also encouraged to move beyond traditional boundaries and collaborate with external partners directly. However, such open frameworks call for voluntarism and invite school leaders, teachers and coordinators at schools to ‘run with the ball’. Arguably, such open frameworks leave the responsibility for implementation of sustainability and health education in schools to a few enthusiastic school leaders and teachers, which can be a fragile construction when it comes to the integration of these pedagogical practices into the regular school work.

Ad hoc Professional Development for Teachers

Another recurrent theme that emerged from the interviews was the lack of systematic in-service training within ESD or health education aimed at the broader group of teachers or school personnel in the 10 municipalities. The strategy in several of the municipalities seems to be to support in-service training of key persons at the schools—teachers, coordinators and ‘ambassadors’—to, in turn, be driving forces in the development of ESD and health education at the school. The in-service training happens occasionally and often depends on demand from schools. The idea is that such occasional professional development focusing on selected key motivated teachers would inspire others at the school and would serve as an agent of change. For example,

“The result would be that these key persons develop their competences and could form a kind of inspirators and facilitators at the schools. They are not meant to teach lessons, but they should work as inspirators for their teacher colleagues’ (Municipality employee, F).’’

Keywords in the description of the tasks of these key people at schools are similar to the engaged key agents at the municipal level—to engage, facilitate and inspire. The task is not to inform about ‘correct’ behaviour regulation or introduce one correct way of working pedagogically with sustainability or health promotion, but rather to ensure that the issues are discussed within the schools. The observations from network meetings further point to the development of professional identities—as the school’s ‘health’ or ‘environmental’ person.

As stressed by Læssøe (2008, 2009), there are both positive and negative effects of the work of engaged key agents. The main positive effect is that they make things happen! As in non-formal educational settings, these are individuals who take on the responsibility in a social setting, working for a case in which they are mostly engaged, making an effort to engage and activate others at times where maybe little else would happen if they were not involved—or they might speed up the process, which is valuable considering the urgency of the issues. However, a risk of work that is largely driven by a few engaged key agents might be that it adds to a gap between the already engaged key agents and the broader group of teachers at the school, as colleagues will often leave the work for these persons to complete, delegate responsibility to them or tire of always hearing about the issues from the same person. Another risk is that the social learning dimension is not unfolded if colleagues solely become ‘followers’ of the engaged key agent (Læssøe, 2008), who is eager to get the message across, rather than creating space for critical reflection on the issue, which would in turn strengthen the self-critical aspects of ESD/health education. Finally, the risk is that pedagogical work mostly dependent on enthusiastic teachers cannot be integrated into the regular school practices and be sustained from a long-term perspective. Researchers within both ESD/HEP have pointed to the need for broad professional development within both fields for the implementation and sustainability of the pedagogical practices (Breiting & Wickenberg, 2010; Jourdan, 2011; Madsen, 2013; Nordin, 2013; Stevenson, 2007a, w2007b). When key enthusiastic teachers are involved, it is important that they are supported to facilitate a process of ‘collective translation’ of the ideas expressed in national and local policies, in order to support dialogue and reciprocal learning on the trajectory from municipal to school practices.

Concluding Reflections

Our analysis of the perspectives of key agents in the 10 municipalities participating in this study shows that the ‘norm-supporting structures’ related to the school-based work with ESD and health education are characterized by:

Emphasizing schools’ autonomy, participation and ownership.

Providing an open framework on initiatives to inspire schools and teachers.

Inviting teachers and schools that are already motivated and engaged to ‘run with the ball’.

As discussed earlier, the critical educational approaches to sustainability and health education in schools acknowledge the school as an active player, rather than a passive receiver of externally defined goals within sustainability/climate change/ environmental or health promotion issues. The findings indicate that municipal employees strive for this to a great extent. The findings also indicate that the municipal employees recognize participation on more than a symbolic level, by emphasizing the importance of ownership and engagement of school actors. Furthermore, the work is contextualized within a collaborative atmosphere, both across municipal departments and within a web of actors around the school. These characteristics can have elements of a norm-supporting framework of community-based ESD/HEP, respectful of local schools’ priorities, preferences and planning, and by emphasizing collaborative efforts that also reflect the cross-curricular nature of the issues. However, the same characteristics can also be seen as ‘norm-hindering structures’ when they result in an absence of a coherent and consistent framework which would make it easier for schools to prioritize, plan and implement ESD and health education, as well as to ensure continuous professional development of teachers. Structures which rely on single individuals passionate for sustainability and health education issues are rather fragile and not sustainable in terms of school’s organizational learning and development.

It is important to emphasize that these findings should be seen within the context of a decentralized school system and a tradition of a relatively high degree of school and teacher autonomy that characterizes Danish schools. Herein lies great potential if schools and teachers embrace ESD and health education, as it will seemingly lead to longer-term changes at school level due to greater sense of relevance and ownership at the schools (Simovska, 2012). On the other hand, it could be argued that in the context of an increased focus on accountability and performance, as well as different competitive agendas related to schools’ practices, these open frameworks also present a barrier to effective sustainability and health education. There is little systematic teacher professional development offered to the schools, and in most of the municipalities, there is no clear priority supported by an allocation of resources to work with sustainability and health education. This results in voluntarism and invitations to ‘run with the ball’, and the work of a few enthusiastic teachers becomes crucial for implementation of sustainability and health education in schools. A risk in following a framework that is largely based on plurality and voluntarism, and formed around enthusiasts, might be that it becomes so flexible that it ‘falls apart’ in the balance between rigidity and flexibility (Timmermans & Epstein, 2010)—or in the balance between strong political leadership and community-based development.

The study points to the importance of giving clear priority to the issues of sustainability and health at a municipal level and at the same time, leaving space for local interpretation and reinterpretation at school level. However, if this is not followed with additional supporting structures in terms of teacher training, pedagogical resources and support for the schools to actually develop and integrate sustainability and health education in their everyday practices, the norm-supporting structures are easily turned into hindering ones. Sustainability and health promotion form key societal issues which are recognized as relevant topics for the schools in the municipalities. However, as cross-curricular themes, they also hold a certain position characterized by a high degree of flexibility and decentralization when compared to core subjects in the schools. This might express a hesitant attitude towards more comprehensive and targeted political decisions and strategies at a local level, involving a risk of ‘anything goes’. As stated by Sterling (2000), sustainability and health education, forming ‘education for change’ issues, cannot be effective if working from a marginalized position.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Aarhus University Research Foundation through the AU IDEAS PILOT CENTRES scheme, grantd for the period 2012–2016. The AU IDEAS funding scheme aims to support visionary and innovative interdisciplinary research ideas over a period of 5 years. The project leader is Professor Venka Simovska.

References

Biesta

G. J. J.

(2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Breiting

(2008). Mental ownership and participation for innovation in environmental education and education for sustainable development. In Reid

, Jensen

B. B.

, Nikel

& Simovska

(Eds), Participation and learning: Perspectives on education and the environment, health and sustainability (pp. 159–181). The Netherlands: Springer.

Breiting

, & Wickenberg

(2010). The progressive development of environmental education in Sweden and Denmark. Environmental Education Research, 16, 19–37.

Brinkmann

(2007). Could interviews be epistemic? An alternative to qualitative opinion polling. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1116–1138.

Clift

, & Jensen

B. B.

(2005). The health promoting school: International advances in theory, evaluation and practice. Copenhagen: Danish University of Education Press.

Danish Ministry of Education. (2014a). Forenklede fælles mål [Danish national curriculum]. Undervisningsministeriet. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.uvm.dk/

Danish Ministry of Education. (2014b). Act of primary and lower secondary schools (chapter 6, paragraph 40, part 2). Danish Ministry of Education. Retrieved 3 March 2015, from http://uvm.dk/Uddannelser/Folkeskolen/Styring-og-ansvar/Kommunens-ansvar

Danish Ministry of the Environment. (2014). Lokal Agenda 21 I kommunerne og regionerne [Local Agenda 21 in the municipalities and regions]. Copenhagen: Naturstyrelsen.

EERA. (2014). European educational research associations networks. Retrieved 1 June 2016, from http://www.eera-ecer.de/networks/

10.

Finlay

Linda

. (2006). Dancing between embodied empathy and phenomenological reflection. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, Special edition, 6(August), 1–11.

11.

Gherardi

(2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

12.

Green

, & Tones

(2010). Health promotion: Planning and strategies (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

13.

Jensen

B. B.

, Schnack

, & Simovska

(Eds). (2000). Critical environmental and health education: Research issues and challenges (Publication No. 46). Copenhagen: Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education, the Danish University of Education.

14.

Jensen

J. M.

(2012). Sundhedsfremmende settings [Health promoting settings]. In Simovska

& Jensen

J. Magne

(Eds), Sundhedspædagogik i sundhedsfremme [Health pedagogy in health promotion] (pp. 51–69). Copenhagen: Gads Publisher.

15.

Jourdan

(2011). Health education in schools: The challenge of teacher training. Saint-Denis: Inpes, Coll. Sant’e en action.

16.

Klafki

(2001). Dannelsesteori og didaktik: Nye studier (Andet og tredje studie) [Bildung and didactics: New studies, Second and Third study]. Århus: Klim.

17.

Læssøe

(2008). Participation and sustainable development: The role and challenges of mediating agents. In Reid

, Jensen

B. B.

, Nikel

& Simovska

(Eds), Participation and learning: Perspectives on education and the environment, health and sustainability (pp. 144–159). The Netherlands: Springer.

18.

Læssøe

(2009). Den sundhedsfremmende mediator: Roller, tilhørsforhold og dilemmaer [The health promoting mediator: Roles, belongings and dilemmas]. In Carlsson

, Simovska

& Jensen

B. B.

(Eds), Sundhedspædagogik og sundhedsfremme—Teori, forskning og praksis [Health education and health promotion—Theory, research and practice] (pp. 247–263). Aarhus: Aarhus University Publisher.

19.

Læssøe

, Schnack

, Breiting

, & Rolls

(2009). Climate change and sustainable development: The response from education. A cross-national report from international alliance of leading education institutes. Copenhagen: The Danish School of Education, Aarhus University Press.

20.

Lysgaard

, & Simovska

(2016) . The significance of ‘participation’ as an educational ideal in education for sustainable development and health education in schools. Environmental Education Research, 22(5), 613–630.

21.

Madsen

K. D.

(2013). Unfolding education for sustainable development as didactic thinking and practice. Sustainability, 5(9), 3771–3782.

22.

Madsen

K. D.

, Nordin

L. L.

, & Simovska

(2015). Linking health education and sustainability education in schools: Local transformations of international policy. In Simovska

& McNamarra

(Eds), Schools for health and sustainability: Theory, research and practice (pp. 81–109). Dordrecht: Springer Science.

23.

NERA 42nd Congress (2014). Education for sustainable development: Only big words for politicians or a responsibility for education workers? Retrieved from 1 June 2016, from http://www.cvent.com/events/nera-42nd-congress/event-summary-f2d3cca536e0455dabe1be8e6986be1f.aspx

24.

NIRAS. (2010). Kommunernes erfaringer med inddragelse af børn og unge [Experiences with participation of children and young people in the municipalities]. NIRAS Analyse & Strategi for Sundhedsstyrelsen, Center for Forebyggelse.

25.

Nordin

Lindegaard, L.

(2013). Fra politik til praksis: Implementering af kommunale sundhedsfremmeprojekter med fokus på kost og fysisk aktivitet fra et lærerperspektiv [From politics to practice: The implementation of municipality health promoting initiatives focusing on healthy food and physical activity]. PhD dissertation, IUP, Aarhus University.

26.

Reid

, Jensen

B. B.

, Nikel

& Simovska

(Eds). (2008). Participation and learning: Perspectives on education and the environment, health and sustainability. The Netherlands: Springer.

27.

Rolls

, Madsen

K. D.

, Ingerslev

, & Larsen

(2015). Searching for a sea change, one drip at a time: Education for sustainable development in Denmark. In Juncker

& Mathar

(Eds), Schooling for sustainable development in Europe: Concepts, policies and educational experiences at the end of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (pp. 257–279). Switzerland: Springer.

28.

Scott

, & Gough

(2003). Sustainable development and learning: Framing the issues. London: Routledge.

29.

Simovska

(2007). The changing meanings of participation in school based health education and health promotion: The participants’ voices. Health Education Research, 22(6), 846–879.

30.

Simovska

(2012). Editorial: What do health-promoting schools promote? Processes and outcomes of health-promoting schools. Health Education, 122(2), 84–87.

31.

Simovska

, & Jensen

J. M.

(2012). Sundhedspædagogik og sundhedsfremme: Principper og sammenhænge [Health pedagogy and health promotion: Principles and connections]. In Sundhedspædagogik i sundhedsfremme [Health education in health promotion] (pp. 19–33). Copenhagen: Gads Forlag.

32.

Simovska

, & McNamara

P. M.

(2015). Schools for health and sustainability: Insight from the past, present and the future. In Simovska

& McNamara

P. M.

(Eds), Schools for health and sustainability: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer.

33.

Simovska

, Nordin

L. L.

, & Madsen

K. D.

(2015). Health promotion in Danish schools: Local priorities, policies and practices. Health Promotion International, 31(2), 480–489. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav009

34.

Sterling

(2000). The significance of system thinking to environmental education, health education and beyond. In Jensen

B. B.

, Schnack

& Simovska

(Eds), Critical environmental and health education: Research issues and challenges (Publication No. 46). Copenhagen: Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education, the Danish University of Education.

35.

Stevenson

R. B.

(2007a). Editorial. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 129–138.

36.

Stevenson

R. B.

(2007b). Schooling and environmental/sustainability education: From discourses of policy and practice to discourses of professional learning. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 265–285.

37.

Sund

, & Ö hman

(2013). On the need to repoliticise environmental and sustainability education: Rethinking the postpolitical concensus. Environmental Education Research, 20(5), 639–659. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.833585

38.

Timmermans

, & Epstein

(2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(August), 69–89.

39.

United Nations (UN). (1987). Our common future. The World Commission on Environment and Development. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

40.

United Nations (UN). (1992). Agenda 21. Rio: UN.

41.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural, Organization (UNESCO). (2008). United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005–2014. Retrieved 22 March 2014, from http://www.desd.org/About%20ESD.htm

42.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural, Organization (UNESCO). (2014). Roadmap for implementing the global action programme on education for sustainable development. Paris: UNESCO.

43.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural, Organization (UNESCO). (2015). Global action programme on ESD. Retrieved 5 March 2015, from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco-world-conference-on-esd-2014/esd-after-2014/global-action-programme/

44.

Van Poeck

, & Vandenabeele

(2012). Learning from sustainable development: Education in the light of public issues. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 541–552. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2011.633162

45.

Vare

, & Scott

(2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191–198.

46.

Wals

(2011). Learning our way out of sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(2), 177–186.

47.

Wickenberg

(1999). Normstödjande strukturer: Miljötematiken börjar slå rot i skolen [Norm supporting structures: Environmental issues anchored in schools] (Lund Studies in Sociology of Law No. 5). Lund: Institute of Sociology, Lund University.

48.

Wickenberg

(2004). Learning to change our world? Swedish research on education and sustainable development. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

49.

World Health Organization (WHO). (1986). The Ottawa charter. Ottawa: UN.

50.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2005). The Bangkok charter for health promotion in a globalized world. WHO. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/6gchp/hpr_050829_%20BCHP.pdf?ua=1