2011-2012 Annual School Forest Survey
Summarized Results
Response Rate:
Seventy-nine individual schools or districts provided responses to the survey out
of 206 individual schools or districts that received the survey. Responses were
received from 78 public school districts and 1 private school. This is a 38%
response rate. The survey was sent to 206 public schools, 6 private schools, and 1 higher education institution with
registered school forests. Overall, it was distributed to 334 contacts within the school forest database.
The schools who responded include: Alma, Antigo, Auburndale, Berlin, Black River Falls, Boscobel, Brillion, Bruce,
Burlington, Cambridge, Chequamegon School District, Chetek-Weyerhaeuser, Chilton, Chippewa Falls, Cumberland,
D.C. Everest, Elmwood, Fall Creek, Fallen Timbers Environmental Center / CESA 6, Flambeau, Florence County,
Gale-Ettrick-Trempealeau, Gillett, Goodman-Armstrong Creek, Granton, Hayward, Howard-Suamico, Hudson, IolaScandinavia, Janesville, Kickapoo, La Crosse (Summit Environmental School), Lakeland Union, Lena, Luck, Madison,
Manitowoc, Marion, Marshfield, Mauston, Medford, Menomonie, Middleton Cross Plains, Mondovi, Mosinee, Mt.
Horeb, New London, Oconto Falls, Omro, Osceola, Pardeeville, Pittsville, Princeton, Pulaski, River Valley, Sauk
Prairie, Superior, South Shore Schools, Southern Door County, Sparta, Spencer, St. Paul Lutheran Bonduel, StanleyBoyd, Stevens Point, Suring, Tigerton, Tomorrow River, Tri-County, Turtle Lake, Verona, Wabeno, Waupaca,
Waupun, Wausaukee, West Salem, Westfield/Coloma Elementary, Weston, Wild Rose, Wittenberg-Birnamwood.
Survey Respondents:
Administrator = 12
Principal: 5
Superintendent: 3
Curriculum Director: 3
Teacher = 54
GRADE LEVELS TAUGHT :
Subjects or Classes Taught by Respondents
Early Childhood: 3
Elementary: 5
All subjects (elementary)
11
n=54
Middle School/Junior High: 27
Art
0
High School: 41
Agriculture
18
Post-Secondary: 1
English
3
SUBJECTS/CLASSES TAUGHT:
Math
1
All subjects (elementary teachers): 11
Physical Education
0
Art: 0
Science
31
Agriculture Education: 18
Social Studies
2
English: 3
Special Ed.
0
Math: 1
Technology
0
Physical Education: 0
Computer Science
1
Science: 31
Social Studies: 2
Special Education: 0
Survey Respondents Position within Institution
Technology Education: 0
Administrator
Other: 1 (Computer Science)
Teacher
EE/SF Coordinator = 27
EE/SF Coordinator
Community Volunteer = 1
Community Volunteer
Pupil Services/Guidance Dept. = 1
Pupil Services/Guidance
n=80
Buildings & Grounds
Buildings and Grounds = 3
School Forest Personnel:
School Forests with an
Advisory Committee
School Forest Committees:
n=76
 Found in 61% of the responding districts while 39% of the respondents did
Yes
not have a committee
39%
61%
Does the district have an official School Forest Coordinator or person in charge of
No
school forest programming?
 57% do have a school forest coordinator while 33% do not
 Position is a full-time paid position in 7% of the school forests that responded, part-time positions in 20%,
and volunteer position in 39% of the school forests.
School Forest Success:
Greatest School Forest Accomplishments
Responses indicating the district’s greatest school forest accomplishments in the 2011-2012 school year:
 Administrator interest-20%, Community involvement-22%, Facility development/improvement-34%,
Completed a grant-20%, Implement new curriculum-38%, Increased use of the school forest-41%, School
Forest education plan approved-5%, Forest management plan completed-8%, Staff development
opportunities-14%, and Other-7% (removing invasive species, EE coordinator position approved for a
stipend, celebrated 75 years as a school forest, planning an arboretum, communication with DNR).
Greatest School Forest Accomplishments
Administrator Interest
Community Involvement
Facility Develop/Improvement
Completed a grant
Implement New Curriculum/lessons
Increased Use of School Forest
School Forest Ed Plan approved
Forest Management Plan completed
Staff development opportunities
Other
n=76
Percent
20
22
34
20
38
41
5
8
14
7
Goals for the next 1-3 years
The three main school forest goals cited by the schools for the next three years are to develop or improve the
facilities and trails, to maintain or increase the use of the school forest, and to develop or implement curriculum at
the school forest. The chart below shows the total number of school forest goals listed in each category by the
seventy-four (74) schools which
responded.
School Forest Goals for the next 1-3 years
n=74
Products from school forests…
 Only 8% of the school forests had
students involved in making value
added forest products from the
school forest that are sold or
donated to the community. They
indicated those products included
firewood, maple syrup, lumber,
and bird houses.
Develop/Improve Facilities & Trails
Maintian/Increase SF Use
Develop/Implement Curriculum
Develop SF Education Plan
Manage Natural Resources
Staff Development
Increase Funding/Write grants
Develop SF Management Plan
Increase Community Use
Supervise/Secure property
32
35
30
7
14
7
9
5
5
2
Indicators of school forest success for 2011-2012
 Seventy-five (75) schools responded. Results are listed as percentages.
Indicators of School Forest Success 2011-2012
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
The school forest was used by more people in 2010-2011 than 2009.
36
The lessons presented at the school forest increased students’
knowledge of natural resource management issues.
17
36
33
44
11
37
1
9 13
56
30
4 3
13
43
20
41
9 13
49
16
7
14
32
27
11
9
40
55
The school forest increased student learning
The school forest increased students’ connection to community
resources.
27
43
Teachers recognized the school forest as a valuable learning
environment
The school forest increased attendance in school
n=75
21
Students indicated the school forest is a place where they enjoy
learning
The school forest involved students in community action projects.
Strongly Disagree
27
3
33
Percent
Community Use of the School Forest
 Community members used 78% of the school forests in the school districts that responded.
 Collectively, the respondents indicated 11,826 community members utilized the 58 school forests that
responded.
 The number of community members that used the school forests ranged from 4 to 2,500 people.
 Utilization of the school forest was highest from the general public, including recreationalists but not
hunters. The districts indicated boy scouts, girl scouts, church youth groups, hunters, school clubs, local
organizations, and school athletic teams also used the school forest.
 Community education programs that focused on sustainable natural resource management occurred in
13% of the school forests that responded. Programs in those districts focused on a variety of topics
including: bird identification, invasive plants, forest festivals, a parent’s night, Aldo Leopold Day, a Bio Blitz,
Tools of the Forest/Tree Harvest and Planting, maple syrup production, and hiking.
Community Use of School Forests
n=59
School Forests Used by the
Community
General Public
n=76
Hunters
22%
Percent
85
34
School Clubs
78%
Yes
School Athletic Teams
No
Boy Scouts
51
31
36
Girl Scouts
Church Youth Groups
Community Organizations
20
10
17
School Forest Management




School forest management plans are completed in 82% of the districts that responded while 18% did not
have a management plan in place.
Sustainable forest management activities have taken place at 62% of the districts that responded.
Seventy-six people responded to the type of sustainable forest management that occurred on their school
forest. Invasive species control and trail additions or improvements were the most common management
activities sited. Other management included prairie restoration, timber harvest, tree planting, wildlife
habitat projects, preparing for a harvest and disease (oak wilt) management.
72% of the respondents indicated the next management activity would take place within the next year, 7%
indicated 1-5 years, and 2% indicated more than 5 years. 19% of the respondents indicated a management
activity, but did not list a date for it to be completed.
Forest Management Activities
n=76
Percent
Invasive Species Control
42
Prairie Restoration
16
Timber Harvest
21
Trail Addition/Improvement
39
Tree Planting
28
Wildlife Habitat Project
12
Preparing Site for Harvest
Disease (oak wilt) Management
4
1
LEAF and School Forest Assistance


The LEAF School Forest Program was indicated as helpful or has provided assistance to 55% of the school
districts that responded.
LEAF was most commonly stated to have helped with curriculum resources, information via the
LEAF/School Forest website and by providing consultation services. Other responses include: assistance was
provided for school forest education plans, information provided about funding opportunities, professional
development, forest management plan assistance, and site visits from LEAF staff
School districts identified further assistance is needed to develop curriculum resources, find funding
opportunities for school forests, provide professional development opportunities for staff, networking
between school forest educators, visit school forest sites, and sharing evidence of school forest value.
LEAF Resources Provided
76
Percent
62
LEAF Assistance Needed
n=42
68
62
48
36
33
31
19
Percent

n=76
66
57
39
37
1
School Forest Utilization during the 2011-2012 School Year:
Student Visits
Number of School Forests that had
The following data has been calculated based off of the number
Student Visits from the following Grades
of school districts that responded for each grade level. More
80%
n=76, 72
comprehensive data is available upon request.
60%
 School Forest Use. Respondents indicated that 74% of
th
the forests had visits from PreK-5 grade students, 61%
40%
had visits from 6th-8th grade students, 71% had students
20%
in 9th-12th grade that visited, and 6% had postsecondary students.
0%
PreK-5th
6th-8th
9th-12th
Post
 The average number of times each grade level visited
Grade
Grade
Grade
Secondary
the school forest can be seen in the chart below.
Kindergarten through 8th grade students visited the
forest approximately 4 times throughout the year. Prekindergarten and post-secondary students had a
fewer trips to the forest. Due to an error in the online survey, information was not collected for 9th-12th
grade students. The number of times each grade level visited the forest ranged from 0 in each grade to 10
times in prekindergarten, 18 times in kindergarten, 23 times in 1st grade, 22 times in 2nd grade, 30 times in
3rd grade, 24 times in 4th grade, 19 times in 5th grade, 17 times in 6th grade, 20 times in 7th grade, and 20
times in 8th grade.
 The average number of students from each grade level that visited their school forest can be seen in the
chart below. There appears to be between 120 and 140 students in each grade, Kindergarten through 5 th
grade that visited their forest. Prekindergarten averaged 58 students per forest, 6th grade averaged 153
students, 7th and 8th grade averaged 77 and 73 students respectively, and there were an average of 24 postsecondary students at the forests. Due to an error in the online survey, information was not collected for
9th-12th grade students.
Average Number of Grade Level Students that Visited the School Forest in the 2011-2012 School
Year
200
150
136
135
130
129
133
100
50
153
122
77
58
73
24
0
PreK
Kinder
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Post
Secondary
Average Number of Times Grade Level Students Visited the School Forest in the 2011-2012
School Year
5
4
3
2
1
0
4
2.1
4
4
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.6
4.1
1.8
(Continued: School Forest Utilization during the 2011-2012 School Year)
Concepts Students Learned about while at the School Forest
Ecology Concepts
Respondents were asked to identify which ecology concepts students were learning
about while visiting the forest. The following three charts show trends in each
concept by grade level. The charts also reflect a great diversity of ecology concepts
that are being taught and that plant, trees, and Wisconsin forestry concepts have
been taught at every grade level. The categories in the charts below further
represent the following concepts: Water Ecology (ponds, lakes, streams, etc.), WI Forestry (ecology, management,
history, etc.), Phenology (seasonal changes); Ecology Concepts (habitat, energy transfer, succession, etc.), Forestry
(management, tree identification, measurement, etc.), Wildlife (species identification, management, etc.).
The following charts compare and contrast the concepts learned by early elementary students to those learned by
high school students. There is a greater diversity of concepts taught in the lower elementary compared to the more
focused and in-depth concepts ecology concepts taught in specific courses at the high school level. Respondents
were asked to list concepts post-secondary students learned while at the school forest, but were not included in
the charts below. Responses include forest management, students observing outdoor teaching techniques, pond
ecology, tree identification, plant identification, and public speaking.
Ecology Concepts PreK-5th Grade Students Learned at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
n=48
70%
80%
Adaptations
Animals
Biodiveristy
Ecosystems
PreK
Kinder
1st
2nd
Food webs, chains
3rd
Habitats
4th
5th
Invasive Species
Living/Nonliving
Plants, trees, etc
Phenology
Prairie Ecology
Seasons
Soil, rocks, minerals
Water Ecology
WI Forestry
Ecology Concepts 6th-8th Grade Students Learned at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
n=43
70%
80%
Adaptations
Animals
6th
Biodiveristy
7th
Ecosystems
8th
Energy Trans (web,chains)
Habitats
Invasive Species
Living/Nonliving
Plants, trees, etc
Phenology
Prairie Ecology
Soil, rocks, minerals
Succession
Water Ecology
WI Forestry
Ecology Concepts 9th-12th Grade Students Learned at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
n=50
70%
80%
General Ecology
Forestry
Soils
9th
10th
11th
Water Ecology
Wildlife
Invasive Species
12th
(Continued: School Forest Utilization during the 2011-2012 School Year)
(Continued: Concepts Students Learned about while at the School Forest)
Non-Ecology Concepts
Respondents were asked to identify which non-ecology concepts students in each grade level
that visited the forest were learning about while at the forest. These concepts include other
curriculum and skills learned that are not related to ecology concepts. Over the past few
years, the school forest survey has been identifying these common concepts. Respondents
could choose from the options below and list other concepts that were not provided in the survey. The categories
in the charts below further represent the following concepts: Orienteering/Mapping (compass, GPS, etc.), Outdoor
Recreation (hike, snowshoe, ski, bike, etc.), Teambuilding (includes ropes/challenge course). Other concepts listed
by respondents in the PreK-5th Grade category include: art, music, comparisons, model building, one on one time
with special needs, time for advanced students, fire danger, life cycles, rain gardens, Leave No Trace, littering,
measurement, matter, outdoor survival skills, then and now, composting, wreath making, hunting ethics. Other
concepts listed by respondents in the 6th-8th Grade category include: climate change, Spanish, life hobbies,
multiple cultures, natural art, and constructing bluebird houses. Other concepts listed by respondents in the 9th12th Grade category include: art.
The following charts compare and contrast the concepts learned by early elementary students to those learned by
high school students. There is a great diversity of non-ecology concepts taught throughout the grade levels.
Non-Ecology Concepts PreK-5th Grade Students Learned at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
n=52
50%
60%
Astronomy
Citizen Science /Env. Research
Earth Day
Fossils
PreK
Kinder
1st
2nd
3rd
Geology
Leadership Skills
Maple Syrup Production
Nature Observation
Nature Writing
Orienteering/Mapping
Outdoor Recreation
Senses
Teambuilding
Weather
4th
5th
Non-Ecology Concepts 6th-8th Grade Students Learned at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
n=44
50%
60%
Archaeology
Astronomy
6th
7th
8th
Citizen Science /Env. Research
Earth Day
Earth Science
Leadership Skills
Measurement/Graphing
Nature Literature
Nature Writing
Orienteering/Mapping
Outdoor Recreation
Photography
Restoration Projects
Service Learning Projects
Survival Skills
Teambuilding
Non-Ecology Concepts 9th-12th Grade Students Learned at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
n=51
50%
60%
Astronomy
Careers
9th
Chainsaw Safety
10th
Citizen Science /Env. Research
11th
Earth Day
12th
Environmental Ethics
Leadership Skills
Nature Literature
Nature Writing
Orienteering/Mapping
Outdoor Recreation
Photography
Restoration Projects
Service Learning Projects
Survival Skills
Taxonomy
Teambuilding
(Continued: School Forest Utilization during the 2011-2012 School Year)
Subjects Covered by Lessons at the School Forest
Respondents were asked to identify which subjects were covered in lessons
students were learning about while at the forest. Respondents could choose
from the options found on the charts below. The following charts compare
and contrast the subjects covered throughout each grade level. Science is the
most commonly covered subject at the school forest for all grade levels. All
subject areas were covered by at least one grade level! For example, while
foreign language was not covered in elementary school, there were 6th and 7th
grade students that did learn about foreign language concepts at the forest.
This validates that school forests are not only a place to learn about the forest
resource itself, but also is an outdoor classroom where students can learn
about other subjects and concepts besides science and forestry.
Subjects Covered by PreK-5th Grade Lessons at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
n=52
70%
80%
Art
PreK
English/Lang. Arts
Kinder
1st
2nd
3rd
Foreign Language
4th
5th
Math
Music
Physical Ed/Health
Science
Soc. Studies/Hist.
Subjects Covered by 6th - 8th Grade Lessons at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
n=44
70%
80%
Agriculture
Art
6th
Business Educ.
7th
English/Lang. Arts
8th
Foreign Language
Math
Music
Physical Ed/Health
Science
Soc. Studies/Hist.
Technology Educ.
Subjects Covered by 9th-12th Grade Lessons at the School Forest
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
n=51
70%
80%
Agriculture
Art
Business Educ.
English/Lang. Arts
Foreign Language
Math
Music
Physical Ed/Health
Science
Soc. Studies/Hist.
Technology Educ.
9th
10th
11th
12th
School Forest Budgets
2010-2011 School Forest Income
Thirty percent (30%) of the school districts in the survey reported their school forest had generated income in the
2011-2012 school year. A combined total of $214,280 was generated from school forest land. Income from the
school forest was generated from the following categories: timber sales occurred at 38% of the forests and
generated a total of $119,955; twenty-nine percent (29%) of school districts rented out their facilities and
generated a total of $10,170; twenty-five percent (25%) of the school districts generated money for their school
forests through fundraisers and raised a total of $7,850, also 25% of the districts generated $41,405 through
donations, 8% of the districts reported gaining $23,900 through grants, and 4% of the districts received $7,000
through their ropes course and another 4% raised $4,000 through hunter fees.
Income Generated by School Forests during the 2011-2012 School Year
School Forests that
Generated Income in
2011-2012
n=24
$119,955.00
$120,000.00
n=71
$100,000.00
$80,000.00
No
70%
$60,000.00
Yes
30%
$41,405.00
$40,000.00
$23,900.00
$20,000.00
$7,850.00
$10,170.00
$7,000.00
$4,000.00
$Timber
Harvest
Donations
Grants
Fundraisers
Rental Fees Ropes Course Hunter Fees
2011-2012 School Forest Expenditures
The following school forest expenditures were reported on the survey:
 School districts spent a total of $528,830 on education personnel for their school forest programs. This
calculates to an average of $11,751 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of
$0 to $100,000 was spent on education personnel for the school forest. 38% of the school districts reported
that no money ($0) is spent on school forest education personnel.
 School districts spent a total of $83,023 on education materials for their school forest programs. This
calculates to an average of $1,766 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of
$0 to $15,000 was spent on education materials for the school forest. 26% of the school districts reported
that no money ($0) is spent on school forest education materials.
 School districts spent a total of $47,115 on maintenance for their school forest programs. This calculates to
an average of $1,070 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of $0 to $7,000
was spent on maintenance at the school forest. 25% of the school districts reported that no money ($0) is
spent on school forest maintenance.
 School districts spent a total of $191,400 on facility construction for their school forest programs. This
calculates to an average of $5,037 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of
$0 to $60,000 was spent on facility construction at the school forest. 58% of the school districts reported
that no money ($0) is spent on school forest facility construction.
 School districts spent a total of $95,508 on transportation for their school forest programs. This calculates
to an average of $2,122 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of $0 to
$23,000 was spent on transportation to and from the school forest. 29% of the school districts reported
that no money ($0) is spent on school forest transportation.
Desired Annual School Forest Budgets
The following information is what school districts indicated would be their desired annual
budget for school forest programming:
 School districts would like a range of $0 to $30,000 to spend on education
materials for their school forest programs. The grand total desired for school
forest education materials from all of the districts that responded is $126,700. This
calculates to an average of $2,754 per school district that responded.
 School districts would like a range of $0 to $100,000 to spend on education personnel for their school
forest programs. The grand total desired for school forest education personnel from all of the districts that
responded is $853,950. This calculates to an average of $19,408 per school district that responded.
 School districts would like a range of $0 to $150,000 to spend on facility construction for their school forest
programs. The grand total desired for school forest facility construction from all of the districts that
responded is $644,100. This calculates to an average of $17,408 per school district that responded.
 School districts would like a range of $0 to $20,000 to spend on maintenance for their school forest
programs. The grand total desired for school forest maintenance from all of the districts that responded is
$147,704. This calculates to an average of $3,435 per school district that responded.
 School districts would like a range of $0 to $25,000 to spend on transportation to and from their school
forest programs. The grand total desired for school forest transportation from all of the districts that
responded is $155,903. This calculates to an average of $3,897 per school district that responded.
School Forest Budget: Average Spent vs. Desired Budgets
n=58, 42
$19,408.00
$20,000.00
$18,000.00
Spent
$16,000.00
Desired
$17,408.00
$14,000.00
$11,751.00
$12,000.00
$10,000.00
$8,000.00
$6,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,000.00
$5,037.00
$3,435.00
$2,754.00
$1,766.00
$3,897.00
$2,122.00
$1,070.00
$Education Materials Education Personnel Facility Construction
Maintenance
Transportation
WEEB Grants
Fourteen percent (14%) of the school districts indicated they had received a school forest
grant from WEEB in 2011 and ten percent (10%) received a grant in 2012. However, 53% of
the school districts that responded had received a WEEB school forest grant in the past.
Report Prepared By:
Gretchen Marshall
Forestry & Outdoor Education Specialist
LEAF Program: 2012