Using the Scherp model to evaluate education approaches for sustainable development

Looking to the future, it is important that education systems can adapt to changing needs in society, such as a shift towards sustainability. One way that schools have adapted to and embraced sustainability is by incorporating Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) into curriculums. ESD aims to equip people with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to foster a sustainable future. School organizations, the collective human effort and material equipment that can hinder or help student learning, are believed to be possible drivers of ESD in schools. However, there is little research focused on this possibility. This study aimed to compare teachers' perceptions of school organizations in non-ESD and ESD-active schools.

This study used the Scherp model to provide a framework for researchers to describe a school organization's potential for promoting school improvement and current practices by evaluating the listed constructs as well as the interactions between the constructs. The Scherp model was designed to analyze the relationships between school organization and educational quality. Four constructs are included in the model 1) holism, a school's holistic vision for student outcomes; 2) routines and structures, the maintenance of stability and security for teaching; 3) professional knowledge creation, the changes facilitated in the education system as the outer world or community changes; 4) practical pedagogical work, the learning and teaching at the school.

The researchers evaluated teachers from 8 ESD-active schools and 12 non-ESD schools in Sweden in 2013 (referred to as reference schools). The ESD-active schools were chosen from a ranked list based on successful ESD implementation and/or from an ESD-related network, while the non-ESD schools were chosen from a group of schools that had previously participated in training programs. The schools were classified in two ways, by the ESD implementation strategies used and the general quality approaches that guided the ESD-active school leaders. ESD implementation was categorized as: 1) award, the schools with the highest ranked success of implementation; 2) interdisciplinary, the schools involved in a network dedicated to ESD; or 3) combined, which were award schools that also participated in the network. The general quality approaches were: 1) internal, focused on collaborative action, student improvement and student-centered learning; 2) external, where schools collaborate and engage with outside organizations; or 3) combined, a mix of the two. The researchers compared the ESD schools to reference schools where ESD was not used, as well as to others within the two parameters. A total of 263 teachers participated in the study, 58 of the most active teachers from ESD-active schools and 205 from the reference schools. All teachers completed a survey designed to capture their perceptions on how holism, routine, and professional knowledge creation are implemented in their schools, as well as the coherence of these constructs. Questions were answered on a four-point Likert scale (respondents can pick an answer on a scale from disagree to totally agree).

The researchers found a significant difference in holism between ESD-active and reference schools, indicating that the ESD-active schools were more influenced by a holistic vision. ESD-active school were also rated higher in the routine/structures and professional knowledge creation constructs. Teachers from ESD-active schools scored routines and structures and its coherence with holism and professional knowledge creation higher than the reference schools. Within the ESD-active schools, ESD award strategy schools scored routines and structures significantly higher than interdisciplinary schools, where holism and professional knowledge creation scored significantly higher. Schools with a combined strategy assigned higher scores to all three constructs as well as the coherence among constructs. There were also differences in scores between schools with different general quality approaches—schools with an external approach scored higher on professional knowledge creation, while schools with an internal approach scored higher for routines and structures, as well as higher coherence between this construct and holism. Coherence scores for schools with a combined quality approach were much higher than either approach on its own. Overall, ESD-active schools have higher quality school improvement processes and organization that could better support teaching.

This study had limitations. The schools that were selected as ESD-active schools had previously earned awards for their ESD implementation. While this offers a relatively representative sample of schools that excel in their ESD implementation, it does not include schools with different levels of ESD implementation. There were also limited respondents in the ESD active schools compared to the reference schools, which may have affected the results. Also, the study took place in Sweden, so the results may not be generalizable to other countries where ESD may not be as prevalent.

The researchers recommend that schools focus on improving internal quality approaches before considering award-based ESD implementation with external quality approaches. They also recommend schools collaborate with society in general, but only after attending to its internal quality assurance. Also, based on the results from this study, the researchers found that the Scherp model is an effective tool for evaluating school organizations.