A simple internet search will reveal that the Forest School approach is accredited to the early years department of Bridgewater College in Somerset. They took part in an exchange visit to Denmark in 1993 to experience first-hand the Scandinavian approach to early years education, and returned to the UK in awe of the outdoor environment being an integral part of their education system. Determined to study how this approach could be incorporated into UK schools, they began creating what is now known as the Forest School approach (Bridgewater College, 2016). An in-depth look at the historical context of both Scandinavia and the UK, is required to fully understand why this particular exchange visit inspired educationalists and students to introduce the idea to the UK. It is worthwhile investigating why this approach has become widely accepted across the UK, by not only early years settings, but also schools and other educational settings. Knight (2013), a known advocate of Forest School, proposes that the benefits of outdoor play are not revolutionary to early years, and states it has been recognised within the UK and with educationalists, and health professionals internationally for many years. Making reference to pioneers such as Froebel (1782-1852) and McMillan (1860-1961) regarding their ideologies of children accessing the outdoors and the health benefits to children by participating in outdoor play, Knight reinforces these conclusions. This subject will be reviewed in more detail later in this blog. Knight (2011, 2013) continues that despite this knowledge, the popularity of play based learning and access to outdoors is largely dependant on economic or social crisis at the time. This appears to be the case in Scandinavia where the late twentieth century childcare system was seen as ill equipped for the increasing population of the country. Moreover, the high costs of running nurseries meant that many could not afford to open or attend the already established settings (Knight, 2013; Constable, 2014). In response to this economic crisis, parents, carers and educators began to arrange informal gatherings in local outdoor environments. (Joyce, 2004; Knight, 2013; Constable, 2014); However, this was not entirely unusual as deeply embedded within the Scandinavian culture is ‘Friluftsliv’ which roughly translates to ‘Open Air Life’ and relates to the strong family orientated relationships and the time they spend engaging in outdoor activities together (FSA, no date). ![]() It is believed that during the twentieth century a movement of more formal outdoor play groups began to appear. Those such as ‘Skogsmulle’; an idea originally created by Gosta Frohm in 1957 (Robertson, 2009), which promoted the use of storytelling and the natural surroundings for play opportunities that enabled children to become independent thinkers, gain confidence in their own abilities, and develop physically through challenges such as climbing trees. A later adaptation ‘I Ur ouch Skur’, translating to ‘rain or shine’, is believed to be the closest ancestor of the UK’s Forest School Approach (Robertson, 2009). Developed by Siw Linde and introduced to early years settings in Sweden in 1985, the principles of the ‘I Ur ouch Skur’ incorporated the children’s learning needs and interests into an outdoor environment for a high percentage of the year despite harsh weather conditions. As the popularity of the ‘I Ur ouch Skur’ grew, so did the interest from educational and health care professionals. Thus eventually leading to the model of outdoor play for children, also known as ‘Skogsbornehaven’ or ‘Naturbornehaven’ becoming replicated across Scandinavia and widely accepted as a large part of the education system. The ‘I Ur ouch Skur’ principles and ethos was almost certainly the inspiration behind the participants from Bridgewater College's eagerness to introduce outdoor education to the UK in 1993 (Robertson, 2008; Bensten, et al., 2010; Joyce, 2012; Knight, 2013). Similarly to the Danish schools, Forest School principles relate to the holistic development of all involved; fostering resilience, confidence, independence and creative learning over an extended period of time. Ideally experiencing all four seasons, it heavily focuses on observations, reflective practice and a learner centred pedagogical approach (Trout, 2004; Joyce, 2004; Maynard, 2007; Knight, 2013; Constable, 2014). However, cultural differences between the UK and Scandinavia meant that the ethos and principles of the Forest School approach took time to establish strong roots within the UK education system. On their visit to Denmark, the UK practitioners and students witnessed how young children were able to cook on open fires, climb high into trees and become absorbed in their own agendas, free to explore while practitioners watched from a distance. This was considered a contrast to the UK, which since the 1970’s and the 1980s, had witnessed the education system move towards a heavily prescribed curriculum in an attempt to improve literacy and mathematics outcomes across the country (FSA, no date).
In 1990, however a growth of alternative models of education appeared across the UK raising public interest and debate amongst professionals who were focusing on the disadvantages of an overly prescriptive curriculum on a child’s well-being (Gillard, 2011). This debate resulted in education professionals actively seeking possible alternatives, and arguably one of the motives behind the early years department of Bridgewater College examining how the ‘I Ur ouch Skur’ ethos could be implemented within the UK (FSA, no date; Central Advisory Council for Education, 1967). Cultural differences surrounding the attitudes to how families enjoy social activities together and the lack of the 'wilder landscapes' in the UK were just the tip of the proverbial iceberg (Knight, 2013). The most obvious difference and difficult barrier to overcome was the risk adverse attitudes and breakdown of outdoor play opportunities within the UK in the 1990’s and which is still being debated today (Furedi, 2002; Gill, 2007; Louv, 2010). Lupton 1999; Tovey, 2007 and Solly, 2014; highlight that many in the UK are confused between a healthy level of risk taking and real danger, similarly Gill (2007) concludes that adding to this confusion is the culture of blame and fear of being sued, further aggravated by the media coverage of extreme cases. Inevitably, the consequences are that it is difficult for early years practitioners and indeed all education professionals to convince parents, carers, and fellow practitioners that the benefits of being outside for young children far outweigh the risk of injury (Jones, 2007). This may become a barrier for Forest School leaders as many of the activities, such as tree claiming and using real tools, could be considered too dangerous by some adults. In order to promote positive attitudes to risk taking, practitioners must understand the benefits of risky play for children. Sobel (2015) proposes that the antidote to parents' and carers' concerns may lie in the practitioner’s ability to deliver knowledge and truth in a competent and convincing manor. If the parent or carer's trust that practitioners are confident, then they are more likely to allow their children to participate in risky play. In addition a sympathetic practitioner who recognises that a concerned parent only has their child’s best interest at heart will be able to reassure against, for example stranger danger, by promoting the attentive and protective roles of the staff members looking after their children. ![]() Gill (2010) believes that children have an innate thirst for adventure and challenge, a sentiment echoed in literature from Savery (2011), Knight (2013), and McKinney (2013). Likewise, Kellert (2002) refers to children naturally wanting to master and control the natural world around them through risk taking, den building, and developing self-sufficiency; this teaches children to avoid certain risks and develop respectful relationships with the world around them through trial and error, statements that reverberate the ethos the Forest School approach. A succession of reports published by the Forest Education Initiative (Murray, 2003; Murray and O’Brien, 2005; O’Brien and Murray, 2006, 2007; Borradaile, 2006) attempted to collate information on the effects Forest School had on children in the foundation stage for the first time since the approach gathered momentum. They concluded that the Forest School approach increased the confidence of children when given the freedom, time, and space to demonstrate their learning potential. Moreover, the childrens' knowledge and understanding of the natural surroundings created a respect for the environment; children achieved an increased awareness of the consequences of their actions on others and formed strong relationships with their peers. Communication and listening skills were supported by a multi-sensory approach to learning and the physical development of the children was evident through improvements in stamina as well as gross and fine motor skills. Knight (2008) advocates that these positive outcomes for children will support the UK in overcoming current social crises such as childhood obesity, mental health issues, and poor social skills in adolescents. The findings of these reports not only show close links to Frobel (2012) and McMillan (1919) theories of the benefits of play and the health benefits of being outdoors but coincides with the core values of the Early Years Foundation Stage (DofE, 2014) and the Characteristics of Effective Learning (Development Matters, 2014) in the UK . Research by Taylor et al. (2001) describes the benefits of play in the outdoors on children who have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). The literature emphasises that, when given a natural environment in which to play freely. Children with ADD are more likely to focus and pay attention in class compared to when playing in a paved, artificial play area. Concurring statements can also be found in research from Roe and Aspinall (2011) who expand on research surrounding 'restorative environments', focusing on the effects of nature and the positive outcomes for young people. Thus further reiterating the benefits of Forest School and its potential to support development of children with Special Educational Needs alongside those who do not. ![]() As the author of this blog discovered recently whilst clearing an area for children to explore outdoors, it is important that practitioners acknowledge what is deemed to be a ‘safe enough’ area in which children can explore. The aim should be to limit risk instead of eliminating it completely (Sobel, 2015). On reflection, as an Early Years Practitioner who had reservations about going out into the rain and mud, it became apparent that an intimate knowledge of the surrounding area was gathered; which allowed for a risk benefit analysis that was superior to perhaps scanning a ready prepared outdoor area. Sobel (2015) concurs that it is integral to have knowledge of the site in order to know the potential dangers, such as sinkholes and rotten tree branches. Further to this, the author recalls the initial lack of enthusiasm of the team, and indeed herself, dissipate as the time spent outside continued. In particular, laughter, communication, and teamwork seemed effortless on the second day of preparing the site. The author feels this is a true testimony to the Forest School approach having a positive impact on not only the cognitive and physical aspects of learning, but also the social and emotional development of all involved. From the very beginning, practitioners working outside Bridgewater College were interested in the developing Forest School approach, especially the encouragement of supported risks and the scaffolding of learning with the use of the children’s interests outdoors. Many wanted to implement this within their own settings (Maynard, 2007; Knight, 2013). However, it was important to the practitioners and the students who had visited Denmark that the fundamental ethos of Forest School remained intact and remained independent of the traditional outdoor play assumptions. Realising that the approach was in danger of becoming misinterpreted by many who have not come to understand the principles of the Forest School fully, Bridgewater College created a standard qualification, and subsequent levels of the qualification targeting practitioners wishing to run Forest School sessions. These qualifications including health and safety, risk analysis, and first aid practice are tailored to the outdoor environment (Knight, 2013). In relation to this Gonsoski (2016) writes the most difficult thing for practitioners to do is to stand back and trust in the abilities of the children. Forest School practitioners undergo training so that they are able to teach children to risk assess for themselves and develop skills that will support them in adulthood. Gill (2007) reiterates that children who are allowed to take appropriate risks in childhood and problem solve for themselves make good decisions in adulthood. The importance of natural environments and the movement of the Forest School approach is by no means limited to the UK; advocates for the importance of outside play are appearing internationally. The video below gives an insight into Australia's risk adverse attitudes towards children and the effect it is having on them as they take unprecedented risks in early adulthood (lastparadisefilm, 2013). Word count 2108. Jess Hopkins explores the attitudes to risk and the international similarities to the UK's Forest School approach further in her blog (see link below). Bentsen, P., Søndergaard Jensen, F., Mygind, E. and Barfoed Randrup, T. (2010) ‘The extent and dissemination of udeskole in Danish schools’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(3), pp. 235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2010.02.001 Borradaile, L. (2006) ‘Forest School Scotland: an evalution’ Available at: www.forestry.gov.uk Bridgwater College (2016) Forest School courses at Bridgwater college in Somerset. Available at: http://www.bridgwater.ac.uk/forestschool (Accessed: 25 September 2016). Central Advisory Council for Education (1967) Children and their Primary Schools('The Plowden Report'), London: HMSO Constable, K. (2014) Bringing the forest school approach to your early years practice. London, United Kingdom: Routledge Department of Education (2014) Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335504/EYFS_framework_from_1_September_2014__with_clarification_note.pdf (Accessed: 22 September 2016) Development matters (2014) Available at: https://www.early-education.org.uk/development-matters (Accessed: 8 April 2016). Forest School Association (FSA) (no date) History of Forest School. Available at: http://www.forestschoolassociation.org/history-of-forest-school/ (Accessed: 25 September 2016). Froebel, F. (2012) The education of man. New York, NY, United States: Dover Publications. Furedi, F (2002) Culture of Fear: Risk Taking and the Morality of low expectation, 2nd ED London: Continuum Gill, T. (2007) No Fear: Growing Up in Risk Adverse Society. London: Calouse Gill, T. (2010) Nothing ventured... Balancing risks and benefits in the outdoors. Available at: http://www.englishoutdoorcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Nothing-Ventured.pdf (Accessed: 5 October 2016). Gonsoski, T. (2016) Providing opportunities for risk-taking. Available at: http://www.communityplaythings.com/resources/articles/2016/the-importance-of-risk (Accessed: 7 October 2016). Jones, D. (2007) Cotton Wool Kids: Releasing the potential for children to take risks and innovate. Coventry: HTI Joyce, R. (2004) ‘The Forest Schools of Sweden’ Nursery Education: December Joyce, R (2012) Outdoor learning Past and Present. Maidenhead: Open University Press Kellert, S. (2002) Experiencing Nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. Cambridge: MIT Press Knight, S. (ed.) (2011) Forest school for all. London: Sage Publications. Knight, S. (2013) Forest school and outdoor learning in the early years. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications Lastparadisefilm (2013) Cotton wool kids. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VeZjTxeX4 (Accessed: 22 September 2016) Louv, R. (2010) ‘A timely truth’, in National Trust Magazine. Lupton, D. (1999) Risk. London: Routledge Maynard, T. (2007) ‘Forest Schools in Great Britain: An initial exploration’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(4), p. 320. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2007.8.4.320. Mckinney, K. (2013) Adventure into the Woods: Pathways to Forest Schools. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ994011.pdf (Accessed: 08 October 2016) McMillan, M. (1919) The Nursery School, London: J. M. Dent and Sons [online] Available at: https://archive.org/details/nurseryschool00mcmiuoft (Accessed: 20 September 2016). Murray, R. (2003) Forest School evaluation project A study in wales. Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ForestSchoolWalesReport.pdf/$FILE/ForestSchoolWalesReport.pdf (Accessed: 21 September 2016). Murray, R and O’Brien, L. (2005) Such Enthusiasm – a Joy to See – An Evolution of Forest School in England. Report carried out by NEF Available at: www.neweconomics.org O’Brien, L. and Murray, R. (2006) A Marvellous Opportunity for Children to Learn. Report carried out by the Forestry Commission and NEF available at: www.neweconomics.org Revill, R. (2016) [photo 5] Exploring together. Unpublished Robertson, J. (2009) I UR OCH SKUR ‘ RAIN OR SHINE ’ SWEDISH FOREST SCHOOLS. Available at: http://creativestarlearning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rain-or-shine-Swedish-Forest-Schools.pdf (Accessed: 23 September 2016). Roe, J. and Aspinall, P. (2011) ‘The restorative outcomes of forest school and conventional school in young people with good and poor behaviour’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(3), pp. 205–212. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.03.003. Savey, A. (2011) Branching Out. Available at: https://www.shopshirelg.net/media/69839/forest-school-article.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2016) Sobel, D. (2015) Nature Preschools and Forest Kindergartens: The handbook for outdoor learning. Philadelphia, PA, United States: Redleaf Press. Solly, K. S. (2014) Risk, Challenge and Adventure in the Early Years London: Routledge Taylor, A., Kuo, F. and Sullivan, W. (2001). ‘Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings’, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 33(1), 54–77. Tovey, H. (2007) Places and Spaces, Risk and Challenge Berkshire: OUP Lester, S and Maudsley, M. (2006) Play naturally. Available at: http://www.playengland.org.uk/resource/play-naturally-a-review-of-childrens-natural-play/ (Accessed: 08 September 2016) Trout, M. (2004) ‘All about Forest Schools’ Nursery World, Supplement: 15-22. Unknown author (2016) [photo 1] Friluftsliv. Available at: http://www.savsjo.se/images/18.6e06ecf413b99207d822076/1358166286536/friluftsliv-top.jpg (Accessed: 07 October 2016) Unknown author (2016) [photo 2] Gosta Frihm. Available at: http://owlscotland.org/images/uploads/cluster_groups/Skogsmulle_-_the_start.pdf (Accessed: 07 October 2016) Unknown author (2016) [photo 3] Tree Climbing. Available at: https://primarysite-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/bef38b11109c41eca5aa6e41cc5e63ff_1x1.JPG (Accessed: 07 October 2016) Unknown author (2016) [photo 4] Just hanging around. Available at: http://kindlingplayandtraining.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Tree-Climbing-Risk-1.jpg (Accessed: 07 October 2016) |
Bec Revill "Coming from a large family and growing up in a forest filled landscape i feel privileged to have had such a wonderfully enriched childhood. My interest in Forest School is fuelled by my own experiences of nature growing up and my passion to get more children out into the fresh air and away from computer screens so that they experience the world around them first hand." |