As forest schools flourish is it time to ask… what’s the evidence? And does it need to be ‘true’ forest school to make an impact?
Written by Gemma Goldenberg, PhD
Forest School (FS) is not a place, but the name of a specific ethos and philosophy, a long-term, child-centred learning process which is built upon the principle of frilutsliv (free-air life), a way of life in Scandinavia (FSA, 2022b). The approach now has an international reach, with FS programmes running not only across Europe but in China, Australia, South Africa, America, Russia and beyond (Blackwell, 2015). However, it’s been questioned whether the forest school philosophy has been successfully translated to contexts outside of Scandinavia, or whether it has become too commercialised (Leather, 2016).
Although it’s built upon on a rich heritage of outdoor learning reaching as far back as the 19th century, Forest School has only existed in in the UK since the 1990s and was first taken up by local authorities in 2000 (FSA, 2022a). Since then, the approach has expanded rapidly in the UK. Over 10,000 forest schools were operating across the UK by 2017 (Waite & Goodenough, 2018) and around 2 thirds of 200 forest schools surveyed said their demand for services had increased since the pandemic (Bryant, 2021). A search for ‘forest school’ on google now yields over 2 billion results.
Yet FS is not the only established approach for engaging children in nature. The scouting movement along with some outdoor adventure programmes, bushcraft and woodcraft groups pre-date forest school in the UK and share some similar skills and aims. Meanwhile, there are practitioners (including those in forest kindergartens in Denmark, for example) who have long favoured an outdoor approach, and continue to foster children’s nature connection, without FS training. So how important is it to do ‘real’ forest school, can the same effects be achieved without the Forest school label?
Keep true to the forest school pedagogy or adapt it to suit your context?
Many FS practitioners are emphatic about remaining true to the core forest school values, ensuring that the approach doesn’t become ‘diluted’ by those who misappropriate Forest school as shorthand for any type of outdoor learning, without adhering to the specific FS principles and pedagogy. FS leaders are specialists who have undertaken 180 hours of specific accredited training and thus the forest school ‘brand’ is seen as a mark of quality assurance. The Forest School Association exists to provide and govern such training and maintain quality and consistency of approach. However, others perceive this as a form of exclusionary gate-keeping.
Some consider FS as an exclusive, often predominantly white and middle class phenomenon and believe that broadening the outdoor approach to include other forms of outdoor education would enable more children to access the benefits of being outside in nature (Goldenberg, 2021).
With a growing mental health crisis amongst young people, some believe that supporting wellbeing by getting outside, in any form, is what’s most important, rather than getting tied up by specific labels. However, it has been reported online that insurance companies often ask business owners to employ Forest School trained staff, tying them into that particular approach (Clarke, 2021). This point is echoed in Leather’s critique (2016) where he raises concern that a market dominance of the FS brand, whereby it is deemed the only acceptable qualification, narrows the opportunities for outdoor education. He questions why experienced outdoor educators should need to gain an additional qualification.
What appeals to many about a ‘purist’ FS approach is that it is child-led and resists ‘schoolification’ – that is, it is not driven by other aspects of the school curriculum or a specific standardised outcome. The aim is for children to connect to nature in their own way. This can be difficult to maintain amidst other curriculum and assessment pressures, thus FS ‘protects’ a time which is truly play based and child led. Others describe FS as ‘holding a space’ for alternative pedagogies in a UK context where education is increasingly lacking in diversity and novelty due to state control. It is a ‘call to freedom’ (Waite & Goodenough, 2018).
However, some may prefer an approach which draws upon a range of broader practises or more easily ties in with specific outcomes or curricular topics. Leather (2016) asserts that the open ended, serendipitous nature of Forest School may be under threat anyway, as a result of increased institutionalisation and commodification whereby FS has become less of an educational philosophy, used to inform a range of approaches, and more of a product to be marketed and sold. In his view, this has let to Forest school activities becoming more standardised and outcome driven. His paper addresses the problems with importing an educational philosophy into the UK, without wider understanding and appreciation of its cultural roots and origins.
What is the evidence in support of Forest school?
Although a handful of research papers claim that Forest School improves children’s social development and wellbeing, (McCree et al, 2018; Dabaja, 2021) resilience, and confidence -(Blackwell, 2015) the research base is far from extensive. A recent systematic review (Garden & Downes, 2021) found only 25 articles on the topic. This is an unusually small body of research for such a significant educational initiative
Furthermore, these studies were almost exclusively small scale and qualitative; some of the articles were theoretical arguments whilst others relied heavily on personal experiences and anecdotes. Whilst non-experimental research such as case studies and questionnaires may offer insights into Forest School, they can’t evidence cause and effect and do not constitute a robust body of empirical evidence. Despite this, the benefits of FS are often reported as fact and remain unchallenged (Leather, 2016).
Studies typically fail to include control groups, making it impossible to ascertain whether observed benefits (such as the improved social skills and physical skills reported by Dabaja, 2021) would have occurred anyway, as a result of children’s maturation over time, or whether they would have been improved equally using any other approach to outdoor learning. For example, a case study (O’Brien and Murray, 2007) evidenced that regular FS sessions enabled Early Years children to walk for 3 miles with less fatigue than they experienced at the start of their FS programme. They also reported improved balance for some of the children. However, it is unclear whether this happened because the children were several months older at the end of the programme than they were at the start, or perhaps the same improvements could have been gained through daily walks or PE lessons.
One study which did include a control group (McCree et al, 2018) tracked 11 children aged 5-7 across 3 years of weekly Forest School sessions. These children were compared with non-participating peers. FS children sustained higher levels of engagement and wellbeing (measured by Leuven scales) and rated themselves higher on a nature connection survey than their in-class counterparts. They also made more academic progress in maths, reading and writing and had better attendance. These findings are promising but would need to be replicated on a much larger scale to be statistically significant and generalisable. Furthermore, in such studies where a selection of children are withdrawn for an intervention, it can be problematic to ascertain whether it is the content of the intervention which benefitted them, or the experience of being ‘selected’, working within a smaller group than usual, or enjoying the novelty of something new which increases motivation. The study itself stated that those involved were “praised for their involvement and regarded as ‘wild experts’ within school” (McCree et al, 2018, p994).
Qualitative interviews with 33 primary school children, outlined 3 key positive aspects of Forest School; having a break from routine, learning through play and having opportunities for collaboration and teamwork with peers (Coates, 2019). However, arguably these could also be achieved through other forms of outdoor education or without going outside at all.
So without a clear evidence base, why is FS so popular? Perhaps the approach speaks to the innate ‘gut feel’ of many practitioners that being outdoors in nature is something inherently good for their pupils. And they are probably right - although research specifically on FS is lacking, there is no shortage of evidence in support of nature contact and outdoor time being beneficial for children and adults alike. Activities in nature have been shown to have a positive impact on children’s wellbeing, cognitive skills and creativity and imagination (Dabaja, 2021). Very few people would argue against the idea that time outside and time spent being physically active are good for children. FS offers both of these in abundance.
Game changer or gimmick?
Without a doubt, FS has had a positive impact on many children. However, whether or not FS sessions provide benefits above and beyond other types of outdoor learning, remains a debate.
FS training enables practitioners to develop expertise and deliver outdoor sessions confidently and safely, sometimes these involve the use of fire or sharp tools which may not be safe without adequate training. But some feel that the increasing demand for FS qualifications has left practitioners feeling that they are unable to take children outside in nature at all, without such training. This may unnecessarily hold back nature access for some children.
Early Years staff may not be able to offer everything that a FS leader can, but in turn, many FS leaders do not have specific Early Years expertise. An Early Years practitioner’s understanding of development, and in-depth knowledge of their own pupils strengths, personalities and difficulties, can also help them to reap the most from outdoor sessions. There are many ways that Early Years staff can take play and learning outdoors with their children, without the need for specific further training. A systematic review found that almost all outdoor learning had a positive impact on defined outcomes, particularly when activities were longer term and included good preparation and follow up (Fiennes et al, 2015).
Whether settings want to invest in qualified FS practitioners, or prefer to get children outdoors more broadly without subscribing to one particular approach, will depend on each setting’s aims and ethos. However, it’s clear that the research evidence is not yet sufficient in offering a clear decision on this. Nevertheless, Forest School’s ‘call to freedom’ has reached the ears of many practitioners who are keen to get their children outside.
Gemma is a former assistant headteacher, currently conducting research into the effect of learning outdoors on children’s cognition, wellbeing and behaviour. You can follow her research on Instagram @phd_and_three where she also shares research summaries of relevant studies in this field.
References*
Blackwell, S. (2015). Impacts of long term forest school programmes on children’s resilience, confidence and wellbeing. Acesso em, 30(04), 1-46.
Bryant, M. (2021) ‘Forest schools flourish as youngsters log off and learn from nature’, The Guardian 31.10.21 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/oct/31/forest-schools-flourish-as-youngsters-log-off-and-learn-from-nature
Clarke, N. @intersectionalmotherhood (2021, August 11) ‘What’s the deal with forest schools and outdoor education?’ Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/intersectionalmotherhood/
Coates, J. K., & Pimlott‐Wilson, H. (2019). Learning while playing: Children's forest school experiences in the UK. British Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 21-40.
Dabaja, Z. F. (2021). The Forest School impact on children: reviewing two decades of research. Education 3-13, 1-14.
Fiennes, C., Oliver, E., Dickson, K., Escobar, D., Romans, A., & Oliver, S. (2015). The existing evidence-base about the effectiveness of outdoor learning. London: Giving Evidence and the Social Science Research Unit (SSRU), UCL Institute of Education, University College London.
Forest School Association ‘History of Forest School’ accessed online 9.3.22 https://forestschoolassociation.org/history-of-forest-school/
Forest School Association ‘What is Forest School?’ accessed online 9.3.22 https://forestschoolassociation.org/what-is-forest-school/
Garden, A., & Downes, G. (2021). A systematic review of forest schools literature in England. Education 3-13, 1-17.
Goldenberg, G. @phd_and_three (2021, November 30) ‘A critique of forest school: something lost in translation’ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/phd_and_three/?hl=en
Leather, M. (2016). A critique of “Forest School” or something lost in translation. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21(1), 5-18.
McCree, M., Cutting, R., & Sherwin, D. (2018). The hare and the tortoise go to forest school: taking the scenic route to academic attainment via emotional wellbeing outdoors. Early Child Development and Care, 188(7), 980-996.
O’Brien, L., & Murray, R. (2007). Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 249-265.
Waite, S., & Goodenough, A. (2018). What is different about Forest School? Creating a space for an alternative pedagogy in England. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21(1), 25-44.
*In addition to the research papers cited, this piece was informed by teachers’, parents’ and forest school leaders’ thoughts and comments on an instagram post from 30.11.21 @phd_and_three https://www.instagram.com/phd_and_three/?hl=en
LINK to PDF of article
