COMMISSIONED REPORT
Commissioned Report No. 224
Working with Local Authorities
to deliver first-hand experience
of the natural heritage through
the formal education sector
(ROAME No. F05AB05)
For further information on this report please contact:
Brian Spoor
Scottish Natural Heritage
Battleby
Redgorton
PERTH
PH1 3EW
Telephone: 01738 444177
E-mail: brian.spoor@snh.gov.uk
This report should be quoted as:
Outdoor and Environmental Education Section, University of Edinburgh (2007). Scottish Natural
Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05).
This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage.
This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should
not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage.
© Scottish Natural Heritage 2007
COMMISSIONED REPORT
Summary
Working with Local Authorities to deliver first-hand
experience of the natural heritage through the
formal education sector
Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Contractor: Outdoor and Environmental Education Section, University of Edinburgh
Year of publication: 2007
Background
There is increasing recognition of the potential value attached to learning in and about the natural heritage
through first-hand experience. Despite this, little educational policy exists to encourage schools and others
to deliver such experiences. However recent educational developments in Scotland represent new policy
drivers to which Local Authorities are exposed, and these may have relevance to learning in and about
the natural heritage. This research used a mixed-method research design (predominantly semi-structured
interviews) to explore potential developments in Scottish Local Authorities. Initial contact with all
Scottish Local Authorities demonstrated the lack of consistency in there being a relevant nominated officer.
However all Local Authorities have an individual responsible for the Scottish Executive’s major new educational
policy development A Curriculum for Excellence (ACfE) and this provided the only consistent avenue (in the
32 Local Authorities) to explore current and future educational policy with regard to the natural heritage.
Main findings
●
●
●
●
●
There is no consistency in the ‘job title’ (or ‘seniority’) of those with responsibility for learning in and about
the natural heritage within Scottish Local Authorities. This is highly significant as it reflects the current
policy void in relation to outdoor learning.
Whilst all the ACfE officers welcomed curricular reform and see an important role for outdoor learning,
there is no sign of this becoming a commitment through written policy.
Very little policy specifically relating to outdoor natural heritage education currently exists nationally or
in Local Authorities. Health and safety policy dominates, and any policy on ‘curriculum’ is lost in the
current departmental structures of Local Authorities.
There was overwhelming agreement that ACfE was an excellent opportunity for developing outdoor
learning in and about the natural heritage. Practical outdoor learning was seen as being able to
contribute to developing ‘the four capacities’ of ACfE. However as ACfE seeks to move away from a
prescriptive curriculum the inclusion of such opportunities in policy is unlikely.
For outdoor learning to develop it must contribute to the delivery of the revised curriculum guidelines
rather than its own agenda. Simple approaches avoiding complicated logistics whilst providing multiple
dividends will encourage teachers to use the outdoors.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
●
●
●
●
●
Substantiating the ability for outdoor learning to provide holistic experiences that draw together the
aspects of the ‘academic’ curriculum with ‘the four capacities’ of ACfE will be the most productive way
of encouraging teachers to use outdoor learning with their pupils.
The culture of risk-aversion is a barrier to outdoor learning as is the complex paperwork for accessing
time out of the classroom. Local Authorities need policy encouragement to take a lead in reversing this
culture. Lack of time is a greater barrier.
The confused structure for outdoor learning is the greatest barrier to development. This ironically stems
from its holistic nature that fits so well with the current educational thinking that has led to ACfE.
These findings are consistent with those of the SNH study on ‘Teachers approaches and attitudes to
engaging with the natural heritage’. (Commissioned Report No. 161 (ROAME No. F04AB04).
The report makes five policy recommendations based on this study.
For further information on this project contact:
Brian Spoor, Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Redgorton, Perth PH1 3EW
Tel: 01738 444177
For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact:
Policy and Advice Directorate Support Unit, Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness IV3 8NW
Tel: 01463 725000 or ascg@snh.gov.uk
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Foreword
This report fulfils the agreed brief of the contract, ‘Working with Local Authorities to deliver first-hand
experience of the natural heritage through the formal education sector’.
In preparing the report we undertook substantial desk studies of the research literature in the field, the
national political and educational climate, and the curricular opportunities and limitations for education
outdoors. Much of this information is now available through website databases (such as those of the
Scottish Executive and Learning and Teaching Scotland). However our previous reports for SNH, ‘Teachers
approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural heritage through the curriculum’ (Higgins, Nicol and
Ross, 2006) and our recent reports for Learning and Teaching Scotland ‘Outdoor Education: the views of
providers from different contexts in Scotland’ (Nicol, Higgins and Ross, 2006), and ‘Recognition of young
people’s achievements in outdoor learning activities’ (Ross, Higgins and Nicol, 2006) contain much that has
relevance to the present study and addresses many common elements. This has been summarised at the start
of the Desk Study presented below. There are however policy drivers to which Local Authorities are more
exposed than schools or providers, and a number of these are also reviewed.
The empirical content of the report is presented in two stages. The first stage was to make direct contact
with all 32 Scottish Local Authorities and to identify those in the Authority with responsibility for first-hand
experience of the natural heritage, and so we attempted to identify the highest-ranking relevant official.
The importance of the seniority being the identification of someone with an overview of Local Authority
services and current policy, and being most likely to be able to influence it. The principal method employed
to do this was a series of telephone interviews with each Local Authority. Where there was a significant lack
of information from the initial contacts, searches of Local Authority websites were conducted.
These enquiries support the observation made in our interpretation of the brief that trying to find out who,
within Scottish Local Authorities, organises provision ‘to deliver first-hand experience of the natural heritage
through the formal education sector’ is not a straightforward matter. Our finding that all Local Authorities have
a named individual responsible for the Scottish Executive’s major new educational policy development
A Curriculum for Excellence (ACfE) was significant in this respect as it provided the only stable variable
throughout the 32 Local Authorities in terms of an employment title used. In all cases ACfE officers are in a
fairly senior position meaning this person is likely to have a good overview of policy and provision and this
was the basis of selection for Stage Two. Stage One therefore enabled us to construct a database of all
contacts we could find in each of the 32 Local Authorities with responsibility for outdoor learning.
Confidentiality considerations required that we could not include this in the present report and so this
database was provided directly to SNH. Stage Two was an analysis of the telephone interviews with each
Authority’s ACfE officer. This method involved sending the script of the interview to ACfE officers with an
introductory letter prior to the telephone interview.
The authors would like to thank all those who took part in this research.
Robbie Nicol
Peter Higgins
Mat Goodyear
Hamish Ross
Outdoor and Environmental Education
School of Education
University of Edinburgh
12 December 2006
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Abbreviations
AALA
ACfE
CPD
DfES
FSC
HMIE
ITE
LTS
NQ
OFSTED/ofsted
PE
SDE
SDELG
SNH
TCRG
Adventure Activity Licensing Authority
A Curriculum for Excellence
Continuing Professional Development
Department for Education and Skills
Field Studies Council
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education
Initial Teacher Education
Learning and Teaching Scotland
National Qualifications
Office for Standards in Education
Physical Education
Sustainable Development Education
Sustainable Development Education Liaison Group
Scottish Natural Heritage
The Curriculum Review Group
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Contents
Summar y
Foreword
Abbreviations
1
DESK STUDY
1
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Teachers’ approaches and attitudes to engaging with the
1
natural heritage through the curriculum
1.2.1
Literature review
1
1.2.2
Research approach and main findings
2
1.2.3
Conclusions
3
1.3
Curricular issues
4
1.4
The political climate for outdoor learning in Scotland
4
1.5
International and national policy guidance on sustainable
5
development education
2
1.6
Residential centres (outdoor and field-studies)
6
1.7
New Opportunities Fund
7
1.8
Eco Schools
7
1.9
‘Education outside the classroom’ manifesto
7
1.10 Recent research on outdoor learning
8
1.11 Health education
9
1.12 Physical education
10
1.13 Health and safety
12
INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE 32 LOCAL AUTHORITIES
14
(STAGE ONE)
3
2.1
Introduction
14
2.2
Telephone enquiry schedule
14
2.3
Initial findings
15
A CURRICULUM FOR EXCELLENCE OFFICERS
17
(STAGE TWO)
3.1
Methods
17
3.1.1
Pilot study
17
3.1.2
Process of data collection
17
3.1.3
Authority variations
18
3.1.4
Written policies
18
3.1.5
Coding the data
18
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
4
ANALYSIS
4.1
What are current policy, curriculum and assessment guidelines
concerning educating about the natural heritage out-of-doors?
4.1.1 Summary
4.2
How are these guidelines likely to change through the curriculum
review?
4.2.1 Summary
4.3
Does the current political climate offer opportunities to develop
educating about the natural heritage out-of-doors?
4.3.1 Summary
4.4
How do Local Authorities develop and evaluate opportunities to
use the natural heritage and the outdoors as a resource?
4.4.1 Summary
4.5
What are the real and perceived opportunities for and barriers
to Local Authorities using the natural heritage and the outdoors
as a resource?
4.5.1 Summary
4.6
How can such opportunities be developed or such barriers be
overcome?
4.6.1 Summary
20
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
24
25
25
26
5
CONCLUSIONS
27
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
29
REFERENCES
31
Appendix 1
Telephone enquiry brief
34
Appendix 2
Pilot questionnaire
35
Appendix 3
Amendments to pilot questionnaire
36
Appendix 4
Introductory letter
38
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
1
DESK STUDY
1.1
Introduction
Our previous report for SNH, ‘Teachers approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural heritage
through the curriculum’ (Higgins, et al., 2006) contains much that has relevance to the present study and
addresses many common elements. In particular, that study reviewed policy documentation, curricular
guidance and other literature relevant to schools and Local Authorities. This has such specific relevance that
it has been summarised, reviewed and extended here as a precursor to other aspects of the present desk
study. The study found that many schools and teachers do not take up the existing opportunities in curriculumbased work to engage pupils with the natural heritage. In particular the study addressed:
●
The educational drivers which encourage teaching about the natural heritage out-of-doors.
●
The factors to which teachers have responded when they made a decision to use the outdoors and the
natural heritage as a teaching aid.
●
The barriers preventing teachers from deciding to use the outdoors and the natural heritage as a teaching
aid, or from thinking about it in the first place.
●
These issues were explored through literature review and research within two Scottish Local Authorities.
Following on from the review of this previous research, the Desk Study then continues by considering a
number of policy drivers to which Local Authorities generally are exposed which have relevance for schools,
and therefore for this study.
1.2
Teachers’ approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural heritage
through the curriculum
1.2.1 Literature review
Because of the place-specific nature of Local Authority provision (geography and resources) the literature
concerning the climate for outdoor educational experience, and the written curriculum itself, should not be
analysed in isolation from the institutional contexts that deliver it. The following points can be made however:
●
The use of outdoor learning experiences in formal education is in tension. National government is
increasingly keen, but rarely insisting, that outdoor learning be part of pupils’ education. However a
range of current and historical factors may deter schools and Local Authorities from responding, perhaps
including the difficulty of formally evaluating its benefits.
●
No part of the written curriculum is prescriptive about study out-of-doors in general (Geology may be a
minor exception), let alone about studying the natural heritage in such contexts. No part of the curriculum
is interpreted by Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Education as being prescriptive on this point either.
●
A wide range of curriculum outcomes can be met through outdoor study of, or in, the natural heritage.
The Guidelines for 3–14 year-olds flexibly allow for such outcomes to be combined (such as Science
and Personal and Social Education, for example) in the same learning experiences. Of these, the
5–14 Guidelines contain the more explicit concern with studying the natural heritage. The National
Qualifications framework (currently broadly relating to 14 year-olds upwards, but also influencing the
1
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
discipline structures of S1 and S2) is less flexible in this sense. Therefore, the greatest (curricular)
opportunity for outdoor study of the natural heritage is in the primary school sector, followed by S1 and
S2, and then older students but only in certain subject disciplines that students may or may not choose
to study.
●
In the National Qualifications framework, Geography is the major subject containing the greatest
curricular opportunity, followed by Biology. Examinable field data analysis, occasionally prescribed field
techniques, and subject content, combined, drive curricular opportunity for outdoor study of the natural
heritage. Recent developments in the content of Biology (such as Biotechnology) are changing the
balance of the subject away from field experience. Depth of outdoor study in Geography increases at
higher levels, partly due to the personal investigations at Advanced Higher, (however Advanced Higher
is taken by fewer candidates).
●
However, a wide range of subjects across the 3–18 curriculum offer real and important potential to use
the natural heritage as a context for learning, including other sciences, Expressive Arts, Mathematics and
social subjects.
●
Curricular reform is likely to affect all the above and to make outdoor study of the natural heritage even
more dependent on teachers’ attitudes and institutional contexts.
1.2.2 Research approach and main findings
The study focused on rural and urban settings in the contexts of two Local Authorities (City of Edinburgh
Council and Highland Council’s sub-region of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey ). Questionnaires
were sent to all primary schools and to all Principal Teachers of Biology and Geography in all secondary
schools in the areas. Two hundred and eleven (211) questionnaires were sent and there was a 46% return
rate. The questionnaire responses helped to create a sub-sample of 20 interviewees for further participation
in the study. The main findings were:
●
Despite the lack of curricular imperative, teachers made a remarkable effort to get their pupils outdoors,
often citing curricular justification as a major reason for doing so.
●
The significant barriers to outdoor study (ie those that were mentioned most in questionnaires), in ranked
order, include: cost, time, pupil/adult ratios and related issues, safety, weather, transport, disruption to
classes and teacher qualifications. Crucially, these issues combine in complex ways in different teachers’
contexts. ‘Safety’ is not ranked as highly here as it appears to be in public/media discourse.
●
In weighing up whether to organise outdoor study, all teachers consider the costs (in terms of effort,
finance and other issues). However teachers may differ in how they understand the benefits of outdoor
study. Therefore, for those teachers whose attitudes and situations have the effect of providing less
outdoor study for their pupils, there may be little point in only providing resources to cover costs, when
the causes include under-recognition of benefit. For this group increased capacity for outdoor study may
also depend on the development of an appreciation or legitimisation of the wider benefits of outdoor
study. Teachers whose personal and institutional attitudes and dispositions promote outdoor study would,
nonetheless, benefit from increased resources to tackle the various costs involved.
●
Outdoor study depends very much on the immediate locality of each school which tends to suggest that
any training intervention (other than Initial Teacher Education) should involve trainers going to schools
2
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
and working in situ, as opposed to teachers gathering at an area not representative of their own locality.
The use of rangers and other experts was evident in those schools with a good track-record of going
outdoors.
●
The reduced prescribed content expected of the current curricular reform programme (A Curriculum for
Excellence – ACfE) represents both an opportunity and a threat to outdoor study. Other routes of
development might include a role for Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Education to include outdoor study in
their inspection schedules and for Initial Teacher Education institutions to provide compulsory elements in
their teacher-training programmes.
1.2.3 Conclusions
Analysis suggested two important ways forward, both of which are discussed here. The first is to publicise,
share and legitimise the benefits of outdoor study that are more than ‘curricular topic justification’.
The second is to work on the situational factors that ‘put a brake’ on outdoor activity.
Legitimising all the benefits in schools
In weighing up whether to organise outdoor study, all teachers are presented with situations that represent
effort-cost. However teachers may differ in how they understand the benefits. In particular, essential noncurricular/topic justifications tend to be de-legitimised or hidden in the discourse. There are two ways to
address this:
●
Advocate the legitimacy of these benefits in the face of the existing curriculum. It is worth noting here
current agendas such as Assessment is for Learning, which are pushing successfully for the legitimisation
and installation of just such linked pedagogical, personal and social benefits, rather than curricularcontent relevance, in the face of the existing curriculum.
●
Advocate a curriculum in which these benefits are built in. Significantly, A Curriculum for Excellence, the
current curricular reform programme, is strongly focused on both processes (as opposed to merely
content) in education and on the development of young people more holistically.
Such advocacy could involve external agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage, and internal institutions
such as the Initial Teacher Education providers and others. Clearly, if the national context is to be addressed
such advocacy might also extend to educational policy makers.
Tackling the situational context in schools
Regardless of whether the benefits are clear and legitimate for a teacher, all teachers perceive problems on
the cost side of the analysis:
●
There are data to suggest that an advocacy role with school management would be a worthwhile
activity. This would again focus a re-prioritisation of benefits and relates to what is the most significant
issue for many school-teachers – the availability of staffing to cover excursions, and indeed the
availability of non-contact time for the organisation of such excursions.
●
Other data suggest that, for other areas of education, the existence of a full-time, in-school co-ordinator
to develop an area (such as for health-promotion, for example) has been successful. Similar resources
for field study, or perhaps excursions in general, might make a difference.
3
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
●
Also at the school level, easily accessible cash to cover costs would remove one problem. Primary
schools also mentioned the provision of a minibus and field equipment. Special needs and disability
legislation is a growing issue – for example minibuses that have wheelchair access and sites that have
wheelchair-friendly paths.
●
The delivery of curriculum-relevant expertise into local natural heritage contexts may help, and primary
teachers in particular valued the assistance of experts.
●
Both primary and secondary teachers thought that pre-prepared packs or local trails, and perhaps some
initial ranger input would be valuable. These are seen as both time-saving and value-enhancing, but it
would be a large exercise to provide for local contexts. However, most teachers do not subscribe to
‘any information is better than no information’, preferring something much more tailored to their needs.
●
Another way of doing this, according to secondary teachers, would be to develop a database of
opportunities, through which the practice and resources of teachers in different sites could be shared.
The primary school variant again focused on the people as well, asking for a resource network of local
people that the schools could contact. A pilot might help to establish likely uptake was from schools.
There was also a concern to increase awareness of resource material.
●
Both primary and secondary teachers suggested the provision of expertise to teachers could also be
arranged at training events, with experts giving talks and seminars for local teachers on local natural
heritage sites and the wider picture.
1.3
Curricular issues
There are a number of existing curricular issues and guidance documents pertinent to the present study,
for example the National Priorities for Education, National Qualifications structures etc. These are as relevant
to the Local Authority context as they are to the school context, which has been reviewed by Higgins et al.,
(2006).
However, progress on the reform of the curriculum for 3-18 year-olds is currently underway following the
recommendations of The Curriculum Review Group (TCRG) and it is likely to change during the timescale of
the present study. It is driven by the principles of A Curriculum for Excellence (TCRG, 2004). Indications are
that the intended move to a less prescriptive and more flexible approach to school education may provide
significant opportunities for outdoor education (and some threats in the form of less of a requirement to
include field-studies in academic curricula).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/education/nationalpriorities/default.asp)
1.4
The political climate for outdoor learning in Scotland
The climate for outdoor learning in Scotland is increasingly favourable with the Minister for Education and
Young People and indeed other politicians being very supportive. The publication of Health and Safety on
Educational Excursions by the Scottish Executive is one manifestation of this (see below) but there are others.
For example at the opening of an extension to an outdoor centre in October 2004 Education Minister Peter
Peacock MSP stated:
4
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Outdoor education can have tremendous benefits in the physical, personal and social
development of children of all ages, providing an important setting for young people to discover
more about themselves and the world around them. I want more young people to experience
the far-reaching benefits of outdoor education. Not only can it enrich their school life, it can
help pupils develop skills and interests that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/10/08131557)
In 2005 the Minister announced a development programme being run by Learning and Teaching Scotland.
The location of the programme is significant as it is a clear signal that education outdoors is being seen as
a corollary to education in the classroom. The minister’s view is that this programme should raise the profile
of outdoor education and ‘promote better opportunities for young people to engage with Scotland’s outdoors
at an early stage and develop lifelong interest’.
(http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/pqa/wa-05/wa0817.htm)
A Development Officer was appointed in October 2005 and his priorities include an audit of current
provision, identification of barriers to participation, and proposals for development. An ‘Outdoor Connections’
steering group has been appointed to advise and assist in this programme. In another significant
development Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools in Scotland are currently preparing a report on outdoor
education in Scotland. Whilst these developments mirror those in England where an ‘Education Outside the
Classroom Manifesto’ has recently been published,1 in other ways they overtake this process (eg through the
appointment of a Development Officer).
1.5
International and national policy guidance on sustainable development education
The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development began on January 2005. It aims
to integrate sustainable development into education in all sectors of society. This makes it timely to be
developing a strategy for education based on first-hand experience of the natural heritage.
The Sustainable Development Education Liaison Group (SDELG) is funded by the Scottish Executive Education
Department and managed by Learning and Teaching Scotland. It has been charged to develop policy to
enable SDE to be implemented within the school curriculum through cross-curricular approaches including
citizenship, inclusion and health education. There are clear correlations between what the SDELG is charged
to do and the early indications of the structure and purpose of A Curriculum for Excellence and project-based
approaches are being promoted in both cases.
1
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/resourcematerials/outsideclassroom/
5
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
1.6
Residential centres (outdoor and field-studies)
There has been an observable change in the level of provision of residential education opportunities in
Scotland in the post war period. Nicol, Higgins and Crowther (1999) reported that provision peaked in the
1960s and ’70s when there was great interest in the value of outdoor education and Local Authorities within
Scotland bought and converted old mansions or built new outdoor education centres. Most Local Authorities
invested in outdoor education and at this point probably had the most comprehensive outdoor education
provision anywhere in the world. Supporting evidence may be found in the research conducted by
Cheesmond and Yates (1979) whose study focussed on provision within the then Lothian Region. Provision
here was substantial, progressive and well-integrated to provide a comprehensive range of diverse outdoor
learning opportunities. For example all Secondary Schools had some programme of outdoor education,
either formal or informal, and most (45) employed promoted staff responsible for outdoor education. A high
proportion of other staff (estimated 500–600, the majority of whom were volunteers) assisted in outdoor
education provision, ranging from only one or two in some schools to over 50% in others. There were four
fully-staffed outdoor education centres and several ‘resource bases’ (centralised stores of equipment with
peripatetic staff etc).
One study reported that in 1996 there were 15 Scottish Local Authority residential outdoor education centres
(Scottish Environmental Education Council, 1996). Soon after another study reported that there were only
nine (Nicol, 1999). The reason for the decline was due to the reorganisation of local government where
the redefining of boundaries created smaller authority areas. This together with concomitant smaller budgets
meant Local Authorities looked to makes cuts in service provision. Residential education facilities were
targeted to make savings (see Higgins, 2002 and Higgins et al., 2006 for a more detailed review).
Although the situation appeared to have stabilised since 1999 (ie no closures) East Dunbartonshire
announced this year (2006) that they will close their centre at Garelochhead.
The Field Studies Council (FSC) has only one residential centre in Scotland called ‘Kindrogan’ (Perthshire)
(one of 17 throughout the UK) (http://www.field-studies-council.org/kindrogan). There are also
several private field studies centres, prominent amongst which are Lochranza (Isle of Arran –
http://www.fieldstudies.co.uk) and Aigas (Strathglass near Beauly – http://www.aigas.co.uk) both of
which offer curricular opportunities for schools. The National Trust for Scotland have a centre in Kintail
(http://www.nts.org.uk). These examples are not comprehensive and a more thorough search would be
required to identify laboratory facilities and the range and quality of provision on offer.
The existence of facilities such as field study centres and outdoor centres are in themselves drivers in the
sense that without them there is not the capacity for residential field or outdoor study. This is more clearly
seen when reviewing the outdoor education provision in the former Lothian Region (now the City of
Edinburgh Council, West-, East- and Mid-Lothian). Whilst, as noted above this provision was dramatically
reduced in the 1990s (Higgins, 2002 and Higgins et al., 2006) these Local Authorities still provide
substantial outdoor learning experiences and several of these four councils have sought to re-establish more
comprehensive provision. There is an important observation to make here: the provision teachers and their
pupils enjoyed in the 1970s to early 1990s closely parallels the ‘ideal’ provision suggested by the
respondents to our previous study on ‘teachers’ attitudes and approaches’ for SNH (Higgins et al., 2006)
(noted above). Clearly any further Local Authority cuts in provision of such facilities means a reduction in the
capacity to deliver first-hand experience of the natural heritage and moves the position further away from
that which the teachers would wish for.
6
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
1.7
New Oppor tunities Fund
The New Opportunities Fund was established in 1998 to award grants to education, health and
environment projects in the UK. http://www.nof.org.uk. This funding stream provided residential centres in
Scotland the opportunity to obtain capital and revenue funding to develop provision. Research into this area
is necessary to indicate the level of additional provision this funding stream created throughout the Local
Authorities. Some form of cost-benefit analysis would be very useful in determining the effectiveness of
funding as a means to increase curricular provision.
1.8
Eco Schools
Eco Schools is an international certification scheme that targets schools and Local Authorities to
promote sustainability and environmental education. In Scotland there are 2000 schools registered
on
the
programme
and
10%
have
achieved
the
highest
certificate
(a
‘green
flag’)
(http://www.ecoschoolsscotland.org/). The scheme’s success has perhaps in part been due to its
adoption as a quality assessment standard for one of the five National Priorities in Education
(http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/citizenship/evaluation.asp). These were established by the Scottish
Executive in 2000 and National Priority 4 (Values and Citizenship) which commits the Executive ‘… To work
with parents to teach pupils respect for self and one another and their interdependence with other members
of their neighbourhood and society and teach them the duties and responsibilities of citizenship in a
democratic society’ (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/education/nationalpriorities/default.asp). The relevance
to the natural heritage (notably through good citizenship and hence sustainability) is implicit in this priority,
and the adoption of the Eco Schools scheme has been a convenient indicator of schools’ progress in this
area for the Executive and for Local Authorities. However it should be noted that it is not specifically
designed to engage school children with the natural heritage.
1.9
‘Education outside the classroom’ manifesto
Whilst recognising that education is a devolved issue it is important to review key developments in England
and Wales to establish national trends in policy orientation that may affect Scotland.
In the draft stages of the manifesto the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) intended the finished
document to be:
a joint undertaking which many stakeholders create and which anyone, including providers,
voluntary organisations, youth groups, schools and Local Authorities can sign up to.
The main aim of the Manifesto is to provide all children and young people with a variety of
high quality learning experiences outside a classroom environment, whether that be during
school, after school or during holidays.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conDetails.cfm?consultationId=1370
The final document states:
we believe every child and young person should experience the world beyond the
classroom as an essential part of their learning and development, whatever their age, ability
or circumstance.
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/resourcematerials/outsideclassroom/
7
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
1.10
Recent research on outdoor learning
In a research project titled Engaging and Learning with the Outdoors Dillon, Morris, O’Donnell, Reid,
Rickinson and Scott (2005:6) found ‘there were many descriptions of curriculum-related outcomes in terms
of increased knowledge and understanding of geographical, ecological or food production processes and
of the development of values and beliefs about the environment’. The report also carried a series of
recommendations and priorities for actions mirroring the UK Government’s Manifesto for Education Outside
the Classroom which included:
1
The DfES, Local Authorities and other agencies should aim to further raise school staff awareness and
understanding about the range of outdoor learning sites and what the outdoor education opportunities
they offer.
2
The DfES, Local Authorities and other agencies should seek to further develop school-teachers’
confidence and capacities to work with students in outdoor contexts (both by themselves and with
outdoor educators).
3
School governors, head-teachers and teachers need to enhance the extent to which outdoor education
is embedded into the routine expectations and experiences of the school, so that it becomes an
established and normal part of ‘what we do here’. Such an initiative would require the status of the
full range of personal outcomes of outdoor experience to be raised substantially.
4
All involved in outdoor education should further develop their awareness and understanding of the
national [school] curriculum and how outdoor education can contribute at different key stages to realising
its goals.
5
Teachers and other outdoor educators should consistently aid students to understand how what they
experience in the outdoor classroom connects to, extends, and reinforces their in-school work.
6
Schools, Local Authorities and outdoor providers need to optimise the extent to which work out-of-school
is integrated with work in school before they try to increase the amount of time spent in the outdoor
classroom.
7
All concerned need to be much clearer about how (as well as what) outdoor education can contribute
to pupil learning. This should involve a greater conceptual understanding of ways that students can learn
in the outdoor classroom.
8
All decisions about the organisation of teaching in the outdoor classroom should take ideas about how
students learn into account when considering what they will focus on and the experiences they will have.
9
Government departments and research funders must take seriously the need for a stronger and more
accessible evidence base on outdoor learning. The recommendations of the recent Learning Working
Group concerning innovative programmes of development and research deserve the attention of
practitioners, policy-makers and researchers within the outdoor learning field (see DEMOS, 2005)
(Dillon et al., 2005:9–10).
Whilst this research focussed on the National Curriculum of England and Wales there are a number of
pointers that are valuable in the Scottish context. This includes the guidance offered specifically to Local
Authorities (points 1, 2, 6 and 7). The findings above are also consistent with those of Higgins, et al. (2006)
who identified the need to develop teacher awareness of the potential of outdoor learning (points 1, 3 and
4 above), teacher insecurities and developing of confidence (point 2) and that outdoor education tends to
be episodic and not always integrated into the curriculum (points 3 and 4).
8
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
This research is also important in that it draws on case-study and action research. This type of research is
useful for in-depth study and is important where variables are not easily generalisable. For example, in some
Authorities outdoor study is cross-departmental (eg education, community services, children’s’ services),
delivered by different people (eg teachers, rangers, instructors) and takes place in different settings
(eg schools, field visits, school grounds, residential centres). In such circumstances it is likely that the
variations are so great that single case-studies (eg within individual Local Authorities) may well produce more
meaningful research results than cross-case research (between Authorities).
In another study Higgins, et al., (2006: 9–10) reported that:
… the Field Studies Council (FSC) commissioned a study which offered schools from London
the opportunity to take a group of Key Stage 3 students (secondary school students in
England and Wales of equivalent age to P7–S2 Scottish students) away on a fully funded
residential course at a designated rural field study centre in the UK and Eire (Amos and
Reiss, 2004). The study included 13 courses with 428 students from 10 London schools.
The findings included the teachers’ observations that students’ learned about Ecology and
Geography more effectively than at school and that this was due to experiential
approaches. Furthermore, students learnt new skills in Geography and science and there
‘was good evidence that a group of Year 9 Geographers learnt more technical and
accurate Geographical information as well as techniques for collecting/analysing data
during their curriculum-focused course’ (p16). They also stated that ‘teachers and students
reported that levels of motivation and participation were very high, particularly where
activities were adventure-based rather than purely academic’ (p16).
The significance of this work is that it is to date the largest single study of outdoor educational experience
in the UK.
1.11
Health education
The ‘Paths for All Partnership’ began in 1996 and provides a focus for thinking about health education.
It has particular relevance to schools because of the growing demand for more paths near to where people
live and work. Their website states ‘it is a unique forum comprising all the national organisations with interest
in and responsibility for creating and promoting networks of paths around settlements. The partnership was
established to provide a national lead in creating and promoting path networks. The key objectives of the
Partnership are to achieve a significant increase in well-managed and welcoming paths close to where
people live, and to promote their use’. http://www.pathsforall.org.uk/partnership.shtml#History
There are clear links between the Paths for All organisational purpose and data from the report Teachers
approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural heritage through the curriculum (Higgins et al., 2006)
where teachers particularly in urban schools reported that they would more happily walk to nearby facilities
(such as river-walks or parks) if they did not have to use busy roads. Local Authorities may wish to work with
Paths for All to look at place-specific plans for individual schools based on the proximity of schools to nearby
facilities and the possibility of linking these with paths. There are clearly opportunities here for integrated
study of the natural heritage whilst walking or cycling along these paths.
Because it is inexpensive and requires no special equipment walking represents one way of overcoming
one the most cited barriers to teachers taking their pupils outdoors namely cost (Higgins et al., 2006).
9
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
There are now walking schemes throughout Scotland. Walking for health is therefore something that can be
incorporated into everyday school life including walking to and from school.
This is confirmed by an empirical study which states that ‘brisk walking has the greatest potential for
increasing overall activity levels of a sedentary population and for the meeting of current health
recommendations on exercise’ (Dawson, Boller, Foster and Hillsdon (2006: 6). Although this research
focussed on adults it has relevance to schools in the sense that the foundations for healthy and active lifestyles
should be established at an early age. This view has ministerial support (see below).
‘Active Schools’ which can involve walking to school, play, physical education, sports and dance is about
schools using and developing opportunities for pupils to be more active in order to contribute to their health
and well being. The literature in this area is limited and this information has been sourced from:
http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/ChannelNavigation/Our+activities/TopicNavigation/Active+Schools/.
The Scottish Executive provided sportscotland with a £24m roll-out budget to provide a staffing network for
this scheme of 630 co-ordinators and 32 managers who are charged to work closely with all 32 Local Authorities.
There are a number of important points arising out of this level of provision:
●
It provides a model to judge the extent to which the scale of any new infrastructure for the first-hand
experience of the natural heritage may or may not be necessary.
●
It also provides an existing framework that may be helpful in promoting first-hand experience of the
natural heritage.
●
Perhaps one of the more subtle lessons to be learnt from active schools is that the co-ordinators have had
to be imaginative in thinking about space and use whatever was available to them at each school.
●
This corresponds precisely with the findings in Higgins et al., (2006) where the data showed that the
extent of outdoor study depended very much on the space and opportunities available to each school.
It is worth noting that the relationship between woodlands and health and well-being is an issue of current
interest to the Forestry Commission. They have recently published a report on several consultations on the
issue (Tabbush and O’Brien, 2003) and have recently advertised for their first ‘forest and health development
officer’ whose brief will relate to mental health and physical activity. Whilst this is not a policy area of direct
relevance to Local Authorities there may well be opportunities to develop relationships with local Forestry
Commission staff and projects.
1.12
Physical education
In 2004 the Scottish Executive published The Report of the Review Group on Physical Education
(Scottish Executive, 2004). In it there were a number of recommendations that affect Local Authorities and
schools. One relevant to this review was the broadening of the scope of physical education which
recognised that other opportunities such as outdoor education were also important contributors to increasing
the physical activity levels of young people.
In his response to this document Peter Peacock, Minister for Education and Young People published the
following letter:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/rgpecl-00.asp
10
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
The Group and I expect that the implementation of these recommendations will improve the health and wellbeing of young people in Scotland. The Group hopes it will result in more young people being more active,
more of the time, a commendable, and I believe achievable, aspiration.
I heartily support and endorse the report and recommendations. Not only do I accept all of the
recommendations, it is my intention to move beyond these and sanction the biggest boost to physical
education in schools for generations. I am doing this because I believe that this is an area of the curriculum
which, exceptionally, needs greater priority to support the health and well-being of young people in Scotland.
We must build the foundations for healthy and active lifestyles at an early age and we know that physical
activity can help improve motivation and achievement in many other areas of school life. In recognition of
this, and as a direct result of the report, I intend to pursue the achievement of three key aims. To provide:
●
●
●
More time for physical education.
More teachers of physical education.
More choice in physical education.
I intend to support these by taking the following 10 actions2:
1 I will provide for 400 additional PE teachers to support the growing emphasis on physical education.
2 I will ask the curriculum review group to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the curriculum to allow
schools to accommodate the provision of at least 2 hours of good quality physical education for each child
every week, and more if possible. This should be achieved by schools over the coming four academic years.
3 I will ensure that the physical education curriculum is reviewed as a priority in the 2nd phase of the
curriculum review. This will include the development of advice on an appropriate pre-school curriculum to
encourage participation in school-based physical education.
4 I will issue guidance to Local Authorities on physical education within the context of our National Priorities
planning and reporting under the 2000 Act to help monitor progress in meeting these three key aims.
5 I will ensure that appropriate research is supported by the Scottish Executive to inform future learning and
teaching.
6 I will ask HMIE and Learning and Teaching Scotland to work together to gather and disseminate good
practice in physical education. This will include advice on making a wider range of activities available
for young people which responds to their needs and aspirations.
7 I will ask HMIE to monitor implementation of the move to 2 hours per week as part of the future inspection.
8 Learning and Teaching Scotland will also work with relevant agencies to hold regional seminars to raise
awareness and understanding of the report. These will take place over the next academic session.
9 I will continue dialogue with the teacher training institutions to secure the additional places needed for
the expansion of the additional PE teacher numbers.
10 I will ensure more opportunities are made available to Primary Teachers to enhance their qualifications to
support more physical activity in schools.
These measures are an important extension of support for an area of educational provision which I consider to
be in need of more attention. While I know there are many schools providing the high quality physical education
aspired to by the Review Group, my response aims to make this a consistent approach across Scotland.
I would encourage all schools and Education Authorities to act on the recommendations as soon as they can.
I place significant importance on consulting with pupils on how best to improve programmes and increase
participation as part of the improvements sought.
With this report, Scotland has the opportunity to address strengthening learning and overcoming problems of
inactivity and growing obesity in young people. The report provides the template and I will provide the support
to help schools and Education Authorities achieve the outcome to which we all aspire – supporting the health
and well-being of our young people and improving their motivation, engagement in school life and attainment.
Peter Peacock
2
Please note that the Minister’s original letter had bullet points. The numbers have been added by the present authors for ease
of analysis at the end of the letter.
11
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
We have included the Minister’s response in its entirety because it is clear that he is arguing that physical
education is not just about sport education but something much broader. It is important to recognise this if
first-hand experience of the natural heritage is to be promoted. The importance lies in the findings of earlier
research where in relation to outdoor learning experiences national government is increasingly keen, but
rarely insisting, that it be part of pupils’ education (Higgins et al., 2006). This is in stark contrast to the
detailed support that this letter provides physical education. What this shows is the political support required
at the early stages of policy formation.
Points 1, 2 and 9 of the Minister’s letter above are similar to the findings of Higgins, et al., (2006) where
there is recognition that the training of teachers is important in developing policy and provision of developing
educational ideas. Point 4 indicates that Local Authorities may require guidance to develop first-hand
experience of the natural environment. Point 4 also warrants the need for research and justifies the SNH and
LTS rationale in undertaking the current research programme.
Points 6 and 7 show the importance of HMIE involvement. One of the drivers would appear to be having
first-hand experience of the natural heritage on the inspection schedule. Points 6 and 8 show that the
development of educational ideas depends on direct liaison with, and support from LTS. Point 10 is also
mirrored in Higgins, et al., (2006) where primary school teachers asked for more support (nb there was no
mention of National Governing Body qualifications) in terms of their current teacher training qualifications
which did not always help with outdoor study.
1.13
Health and safety
The Department for Education and Skills published a booklet titled Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational
Visits. The booklet contains information about planning education visits, including parental consent and
emergency contact forms and appropriate forms to use. The guidance encourages teachers to use their own
professional judgement when applying and implementing the guidance. The booklet also contains contact
information for governing bodies, associations, and others involved in educational visits.
Whilst the booklet is aimed primarily at provision in England and Wales it does have general relevance to
Scotland in that it is part of a challenge to the public perception that outdoor activities are inherently
dangerous. It is also part of a raft of documentation that addresses the concerns of some teachers who feel
insecure about taking their pupils outdoors because of the fears of litigation (Higgins et al., 2006).
The Scottish Executive has responded in a similar way with the publication in 2004 of Health and Safety
on Educational Excursions. This publication is intended to provide schools and Local Authorities in Scotland
with safety guidelines to reassure staff regarding the health and safety of their charges. This is a comprehensive
document offering advice on responsibilities, planning, supervision, preparing participants, communicating
with parents, planning transport, insurance, types of visit, visits abroad, emergency procedures as well as
providing a range of sample forms.
The document opens with the statement that ‘participants can derive a good deal of educational benefit from
taking part in excursions organised under the auspices of their Local Authority, especially through schools’
(Scottish Executive 2004: 4). Furthermore it goes on to state that ‘most educational excursions take place
without incident and it is clear that excursion leaders are already demonstrating a high level of safety
awareness’ (Scottish Executive 2004: 4).
12
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
The guidance suggests that Local Authorities should be the first source of advice and their responsibilities are to:
●
Provide written guidelines for heads of establishment and excursion leaders including advice on risk
assessment.
●
Provide access to technical advice where necessary.
●
Assess proposals for certain categories of excursion.
●
Have emergency procedures in place for dealing with major incidents/emergencies.
●
Ensure training needs are addressed.
●
Provide access to named staff for advice.
●
Have appropriate insurance cover in place.
●
Have in place procedures to monitor and review safety during off-site excursions and activities (Scottish
Executive 2004: 7).
The Scottish Executive guidance also has three supplements the first of which is specifically written for Local
Authorities (Supplement 1: Standards for Local Authorities in Overseeing Educational Excursions). This document
provides useful guidance on risk assessment, training policy and procedures.
Further support exists to allay teachers’ fears. At the Learning and Teaching Scotland Outdoor Connections
2006 national conference Taking Learning Outdoors Marcus Baillie the head inspector of the Adventurous
Activity Licensing Authority (AALA) stated that conventional models of risk assessment together with the public
perception of risk focussed more on risk and less on educational benefits. His arguments were based on
evidence that road traffic accidents and accidents in the home (for example) were statistically more
dangerous than outdoor activities but that any fatality in outdoor activities received disproportionately more
media coverage.
These guidelines and support from AALA should reassure Local Authorities and teachers of the support for
outdoor activity and associated educational benefits. This raft of documentation could therefore act as a
driver in two main ways. Firstly it should reassure teachers who are already using the outdoors that their work
is supported. Secondly it could be used by Local Authorities to actively encourage teachers to go outdoors
knowing that so long as they acted safely they need have little to fear.
13
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
2
INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE 32 LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STAGE ONE)
For ease of reference the empirical content of this research is presented in two parts. Stage One refers to
preliminary enquires with Local Authorities to understand the broad range of provision within each.
Stage Two used this information to focus on gathering policy data from an authoritative source within each
Local Authority. The Stage One results identified that this should focus on A Curriculum for Excellence Officers.
2.1
Introduction
For Stage One we set out to identify the most senior person in the Authority with responsibility for first-hand
experience of the natural heritage. The importance of the seniority was that it was necessary to identify of
someone with an overview of Local Authority services and current policy and most likely to be able to
influence it.
In our tender brief we stated that it would not be a straightforward task to identify one person in each
Authority who has sole responsibility for outdoor study of the natural heritage. The identification of a single
person did indeed prove to be elusive.
For the telephone enquiry brief (Appendix 1) the purpose was to ask specifically for the Director of Education.
One of the findings from this exercise is that not all Authorities have someone with the title ‘Director of
Education’. However this in itself did not present a major obstacle because even though this may not have
been the person’s employment title the term had sufficient commonality to identify the person with the overall
responsibility (for example ‘head of service’ or ‘head of children’s services’).
A far more substantive issue was that it was not possible to speak to any of the 32 Directors because the
Director’s office would screen calls. This meant that sometimes the questions would be answered by the
Director’s personal assistant or other secretarial support within the Director’s office, or referred to a quality
development officer with some overview of education provision. This did not in any way diminish the study
because the contacts provided were cross-departmental, and the key to understanding these data is to
recognise that the answers lie across departments.
The contacts we made were not exhaustive (this was not the intention of Stage One of our study) and so are
likely not to be the only relevant contacts or service provider within each Local Authority. Further, where there
was the absence of a policy or post responsible for outdoor learning this does not imply the absence of
provision at school level. However, discussions with contacts made fulfilled the aim of Stage One, which
was to identify an authoritative source within each Local Authority.
2.2
Telephone enquir y schedule
From the ‘Telephone Enquiry Brief – Directors of Education’ (Appendix 1) it was easier to get information on
questions 1–3 than 4–6. As a result of questions 1–3 we were able to identify appropriate contacts for each
of these three areas.
14
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Question 1
Is there someone specifically responsible for outdoor education?
This question was answered by contacting the Director of Education’s office in all 32 Authorities and asking
for a specific contact. This was accompanied by a website search of Local Authorities’ websites to fill any
obvious gaps.
Question 2
Is there someone specifically responsible for the ranger service?
This question was answered by contacting the Director of Education’s office in all 32 Authorities and asking
for a specific contact. This was accompanied by a website search of Local Authorities’ websites to fill any
obvious gaps.
Question 3
Is there someone specifically responsible for field studies?
Question 4
Is there someone specifically responsible for relevant subject disciplines such as geography or biology?
Question 5
Is there anyone else you can think of who has responsibility for delivering first-hand educational
experience of the natural heritage?
The answers to these questions provided a range of potential contacts, and highlighted the variability of
approach across the 32 Local Authorities.
2.3
Initial findings
In research it is normal to separate findings into the two categories of data display and data analysis. For
reasons of confidentiality and anonymity it is not possible to display the contacts made here. The contact
details have been made available to SNH. However before moving to the analysis phase it is important to
show how Stage One was conducted. The following ‘pen portrait’ indicates how Stage One was conducted
with all 32 authorities. It is an anonymised (all names are fictional) but real report of efforts to gather
information from a particular council and gives an indication of the difficulties we encountered.
A Scottish Council
Joe Black is responsible for the curriculum for excellence in the education department (email address on
LTS website). The Director of Education is Bill Simpson and I spoke to Alison Fairweather in the office
who suggested speaking with Julie Smith who is in charge of the Eco Schools Project (email address) and
Anne James who is a Development Officer for the Geography curriculum (email). Alison also suggested
Community services where contacts include James Small (telephone number) (email address), Pete Hayward
(email address), Development Services (telephone number), Jane Peters, Environmental Services (email
address) (telephone number). David Dallas is director of community services and I spoke to his PA Jennifer
Blair. Andy Carpenter is based at (name of location) and is responsible for outdoor education (telephone
number) (email address). The Council also runs a residential outdoor centre (centre name) and Alison Hope
(telephone number) is the head of centre (website address of centre) (email address). Arthur Jones (telephone
number) is head of (the authority) ranger service. Another contact might be Jennifer Mason (telephone number)
who is manager of (an associated organisation). No-one could provide written policies.
15
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
The quality of responses tended to be variable and where there was some doubt as to the accuracy of the
information or where there was a significant absence of information from the initial contact follow up
telephone calls were made and searches of Local Authority websites were conducted.
One difficulty experienced in Stage One was getting information about policies from respondents. Although
all 32 Authorities were asked none could send anything written (see minor variations below in Stage Two).
There were two reasons for this and they appear to be attributed to the responsibilities associated with the
respondent (either secretarial staff or quality development officers). Where secretarial staff and quality
development officers did not know of the existence of written policies they said that the contacts they
supplied would because they were the people most affected. In both cases these data suggest that it is close
to the point of provision that information on policy will be gained. While this may well be the case it is
important to remember that in terms of line management the closer to front line services often means further
from those with a policy overview of provision.
It is clear from this initial trawl of contacts that those responsible for first-hand experience of the natural
heritage (rangers, outdoor educators etc) have various titles and responsibilities (eg rangers, teachers,
outdoor educators) and work in different departments from one Authority to another (eg community services,
planning, education).
The final part of Stage One was to establish if each local authority had someone specifically responsible for
A Curriculum for Excellence. A search of the LTS website found a list of all 32 Local Authorities with a
nominated person and their contact details.
16
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
3
A CURRICULUM FOR EXCELLENCE OFFICERS (STAGE TWO)
The finding that all Local Authorities have a named individual responsible for A Curriculum for Excellence is
a significant one. Stage One therefore demonstrated that these individuals were the only stable variable
throughout the 32 Local Authorities in terms of an employment title used that was directly relevant to the study.
In all cases ACfE officers are in a fairly senior position which means that this person is likely to have a good
overview of policy and provision. For these reasons Stage Two concentrated on A Curriculum for Excellence
officers.
3.1
Methods
ACfE officers were contacted individually by letter, seeking their involvement in a telephone interview.
Through discussion with SNH it was agreed to send the interview schedules in advance to allow officers to
consider the nature and scope of the interview.
3.1.1 Pilot study
The initial interview schedule was piloted with two Local Authorities (see Appendix 2 for the pilot schedule).
The responses to the pilot questionnaire, our narrative on these and the explanation of the changes made
prior to distribution is included as Appendix 3 (the schedule eventually used).
It was not possible to pilot in the normal sense where we look for someone representative of our sample.
Since the whole population of ACfE officers was to be interviewed there were none left to pilot. To accommodate
this we used ‘live’ pilots by using the first two officers that were available. Due to this sampling procedure,
these officers did not have the benefit of an introductory letter. The pilot study raised one important question;
was the purpose to seek the personal opinion of the ACfE officer or the Local Authority’s policy position?
After discussion between the contractors and SNH it was decided it was the policy position of the Local
Authority that was being sought; however, if it became apparent that the officers were offering their personal
opinion and this was of interest these data are recorded as such. Some other refinements were made to the
questionnaire. These were of a minor nature involving how the questions were asked and can be viewed
through comparing Appendices 2 and 3.
3.1.2 Process of data collection
Following the pilot study the introductory letter (Appendix 4) and interview schedule (Appendix 3) were sent
out to all remaining ACfE officers. Telephone interviews were subsequently arranged and held, using the
introductory letter as the starting point.
Notes made during the interview were written up immediately after the call to ensure an accurate
reproduction of the preceding conversation.
Through a combination of telephone and email contact responses were received from 25 out of 32 Authorities
(a response rate of 78%). Given the seniority of officers and the consequent demands on their time this
should be considered an excellent response rate.
17
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
3.1.3 Authority variations
The majority of officers seemed very happy to speak with us and answered the questions fully and
enthusiastically. In a minority of cases respondents were less forthcoming. The majority of officers interviewed
had read the introductory letter and interview schedule, and had given the questions some thought before
the interview. This made the interview more productive.
On five occasions the data gained were from an officer other than the ACfE officer, largely as a result of
the officer using the information provided to delegate responsibility to someone else in the Authority. These
included two quality improvement officers, someone responsible for ‘eco-schools’, for environmental
education and for outdoor education. However, in these cases effort was made to persuade the ACfE officer
that it would be appropriate for them to answer the questions, and on several occasions this was agreed
to. Where other staff participated in the survey their responses differed slightly in specific technical content,
but not in general opinion. For example, the quality improvement officer with specific responsibility for ‘ecoschools’ had more specialist knowledge on ‘eco-schools’ than the ACfE officers but reflected the general
policies of the Authority in a similar way to the ACfE officers.
3.1.4 Written policies
The final two questions of the interview schedule asked for written policy to be sent to us at the University.
Officers were generally unaware of anything relating to outdoor learning and the natural heritage although
most were aware of a health and safety policy. All the Authorities were asked to send any policy documents
they could find. From the 25 Authorities we received five documents; two health and safety policies, one
brochure for adventurous activities, one outdoor education service strategy (an audit and development plan)
and one paper titled ‘Essential learning opportunities and experiences in the curriculum’. These were read
but were not found to contain any substantial policy content. This corresponds with Nicol, et al.’s, (2006)
report Outdoor Education: the views of providers from different contexts in Scotland where it was found that
at least 72% of respondents did not have a written policy to communicate the outdoor learning they provide.
Whilst the existence of a written policy does not necessarily equate with quality there is a counter side. If the
quality of Local Authority provision is to be reviewed at a strategic level this cannot be easily done where
the aims are not explicit. It would appear therefore that an important aspect of determining quality would
include having a written policy available for external scrutiny. This would allow Local Authorities to review
the opportunities that the opening up of the curriculum may represent for outdoor learning and the study of
the natural heritage.
3.1.5 Coding the data
The data were coded using the six research questions from the initial tender as categories:
●
What are current policy, curriculum and assessment guidelines concerning educating about the natural
heritage out-of-doors?
●
How are these guidelines likely to change through the curriculum review?
●
Does the current political climate offer opportunities to develop educating about the natural heritage outof-doors?
18
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
●
●
●
How do Local Authorities develop and evaluate opportunities to use the natural heritage and the
outdoors as a resource?
What are the real and perceived opportunities for and barriers to Local Authorities using the natural
heritage and the outdoors as a resource?
How can such opportunities be developed or such barriers overcome?
Each interview transcript was read and relevant ‘chunks’ of data cut and pasted into a new document.
Chunking is a form of data management which provides ‘tags or labels for assigning units of meaning
to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during the study’ (Miles and Huberman, 1994: 56).
The research questions were therefore used as the headings (tags) to provide a structure into which the data
was categorised. This served two purposes. First it provided a structure that linked this research with the
questions posed in the initial tender. Secondly, the structure provided the means by which data could be
considered relevant (that which answered the questions posed) and data that was irrelevant (data that was
additional to the questions posed). This was completed for each question individually. The relevant data for
each question was then read several times and summarised in bullet points. Finally the bullet points were
expanded into discursive paragraphs and a summary for each question. This is the form in which the data
is presented and analysed in the next section.
19
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
4
ANALYSIS
The following discursive paragraphs summarise the combined findings for each of the questions the
ACfE officers were asked in the semi-structured telephone interviews. For each question there is also a
brief summary.
4.1
What are current policy, curriculum and assessment guidelines concerning
educating about the natural heritage out-of-doors?
‘Outdoor Education contributes significantly to young people’s health, motivation, social
development and knowledge of the natural environment.’
This was the opening quote from one Authority’s outdoor education strategy for 2004–07. It was the closest
evidence collected to an outdoor learning policy that included reference to the natural heritage. It was the
only piece of written evidence received from the 25 Authorities that responded, which had any specific
policy content relating to the natural heritage. However, the bulk of the document was not policy but an audit
of current provision and a development plan.
When asked about current policy most (17) officers were unsure if one existed whereas seven knew there
were no direct guidelines for outdoor learning regarding the natural heritage. Some officers (9) were aware
of heath and safety guidelines and offered to send these to us, but of those received only one had any
reference to ethos or curriculum, and this was half a page of a 70-page document.
One Authority said they didn’t have anything specific to outdoor learning but sent a copy of a recent paper
on essential learning opportunities and experiences, this made reference to a number of opportunities and
outcomes that could be achieved through direct engagement with the natural heritage (although there was
no specific reference to this).
4.1.1 Summar y
There are very little, if any, current policy, curriculum and assessment guidelines specifically concerning
educating about the natural heritage out-of-doors. The two main reasons for this are:
●
Confusion as to whether policy should exist discreetly for outdoor learning or exist within other more
general policies.
●
The dominance of the health and safety agenda where outdoor learning is viewed as a safety issue as
opposed to a learning opportunity.
4.2
How are these guidelines likely to change through the curriculum review?
When asked directly about the curriculum review being a driver to develop written policy most Authorities
(22) thought it would not or were unsure. Two Authorities thought the review would result in new policy
specifically relating to outdoor learning, one thought some guidelines would be in place by summer 2008
and when we were directed to the head of outdoor education he confirmed that it was in their development
plan to be completed by summer 2007. One respondent thought guidelines would be created by the
20
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
curriculum review but these would fall under PE because of the dominant health agenda. One Authority
spoke of an internal review of guidance and felt that this would include looking at the place of outdoor
learning within the guidance curriculum, it was unclear as to whether this was a direct result of the
curriculum review.
When asked more generally about changes as a result of ACfE, officers were more forthcoming but as these
changes did not refer to written policy they have been included in the coding for the last question on
development.
4.2.1 Summar y
It is unlikely the limited current guidelines for outdoor learning will change substantially through the curriculum
review. Very few Authorities felt that policies would need to be written as a result of the curriculum review
but none had any plans to do this within the next six months.
4.3
Does the current political climate of fer oppor tunities to develop educating about
the natural heritage out-of-doors?
‘Outdoor learning allows people to see things first-hand, it is a flexible form of education
and it teaches people about the environment, these are all part of ACfE.’
‘ACfE is about getting out of the classroom, widening the horizons of the young people,
giving learning a purpose. It’s about encouraging young people to relate to their own local
environment so they can go on to relate to the wider world.’
‘ACfE is so broad and encompassing, outdoor learning has to be in here.’
‘ACfE is a huge opportunity for outdoor learning and for a lot of other things. The school
will be the arbiter of how to strike the right balance.’
As these quotations from four separate Authorities show, there was a feeling of optimism about ACfE and
the opportunities it offered for developing outdoor learning; this was a unanimous sentiment. All officers felt
that the spirit of ACfE was to ‘loosen-up’ the curriculum and to focus on offering young people appropriate
learning opportunities for their needs. Eight Authorities made direct mention of the ability of outdoor learning
to develop one or more of ‘the four capacities’ (successful learners, confident individuals, responsible
citizens, effective contributors) and a number of other Authorities made indirect mention of this or mentioned
subcategories of ‘the four capacities’ that could be achieved by outdoor learning. The holistic, active, hands
on, experiential approach of outdoor learning (Smyth, 1995) was recognised as fitting in well with the
current move in ACfE towards a variety of learning opportunities and styles.
A number of Authorities mentioned devolving decision-making, and the creativity of teachers, as important
in allowing them to decide on the way the curriculum was delivered. Eight Authorities felt this would
automatically mean an increase in outdoor learning opportunities, five others were more cautious and simply
suggested this would mean it became more in the teachers’ hands and would therefore depend upon their
likes and dislikes. One Authority suggested there was lots already happening and because of this saw little
room for further development.
21
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
4.3.1 Summar y
A Curriculum for Excellence is seen by representatives of all Authorities as a real opportunity for outdoor
learning in and about the natural heritage. This is because outdoor learning is seen to have the potential to
develop all four of the capacities that provide the structure to ACfE and because ACfE is seen to encourage
a variety of learning styles and provide room for the experiential approaches commonly found in outdoor
learning. Some Authorities felt that outdoor learning would automatically develop as the curriculum is
‘loosened’, others felt it would become the prerogative of the individual teacher and therefore development
would depend on the interest and skills of the individual teacher. This difference in opinion was also
identified in Higgins, et al., (2006). In terms of future developments there is a danger that these different
opinions will result in a stalemate where the teacher will not act without guidance and the manager will not
give the guidance because they see it as the teacher’s role. The stalemate is characterised by the absence
of leadership which is a finding consistent with Nicol, et al., (2006) which recognised a need for leadership
from senior managers, civil servants and politicians at all levels of governance. These are precisely the points
made by research elsewhere in the UK where the House of Commons Committee stated they had ‘become
convinced of the value of education outside the classroom in its broadest sense’, that ‘outdoor learning
supports academic achievement’ and that neither the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) nor Local
Authorities have provided strategic leadership (House of Commons, 2005, p3).
4.4
How do Local Authorities develop and evaluate oppor tunities to use the natural
heritage and the outdoors as a resource?
Officers talked about a variety of development strategies for outdoor learning, three of which were
mentioned repeatedly.
Continuing Professional Development (CPD), mentioned by 10 Authorities, was seen as crucial at all levels
(teachers, senior management and Local Authority officers). The focus of this varied from Authority to Authority
with four focusing on curriculum content, three on health and safety and one on a case study approach,
detailing good practice through specific case studies of programmes that are currently running. One officer
thought CPD was more of a ‘hit and miss’ approach to development as it tended to attract individuals who
were already interested and those with time on their hands.
Secondly, outside agencies with specific expertise were seen as useful for developing school practice. These
ranged from national organisations like SNH, initiatives like ‘eco-schools’, individuals with expertise such as
rangers, Local Authority based outdoor education units and Local Authority based officers (eg quality
development officers). Another Authority countered this strategy suggesting although outside agencies were
useful, unless expertise was within schools the amount of outdoor learning taking place would remain minimal.
The third main development strategy was through the production and dissemination of information. The
proposed content of this varied including; curriculum development, health and safety, raising awareness of
outdoor learning and its potential, case studies, links to the four ACfE capacities and the national priorities
and practicalities of curriculum delivery. Cautions expressed about this approach included the ‘place
specific’ nature of some resources and the amount of resources already existing that teachers did not have
enough time to read or review. This finding is consistent with Higgins, et al.’s, (2006) investigation Teachers’
approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural heritage through the curriculum where time was
identified as the second highest barrier to the development of outdoor learning.
22
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Despite some words of caution these three strategies were popular among nineteen of the Authorities. There
were also a number of strategies used by singular Authorities which included encouraging staff to be
comfortable outside the classroom, giving them confidence through providing positive rather than negative
guidelines and advice. Also developing good logistical practice, from dealing with health and safety to
staffing, transport, cost and permission issues were seen as important. Using others including student teachers,
support staff and parents to either free up teachers to spend time on development or with pupils was seen
as supporting development. Concentrating on training for all probationers in one Authority was seen as a
long-term strategy for developing expertise within all schools. Sharing good practice already happening is
an important developmental tool, and secondments were detailed by one Authority as a strategy for this.
There was very little clarity in the descriptions of evaluation strategies. None of the Authorities asked seemed
to be concerned about this lack of clarity and some suggested that the flexibility was good and should be
maintained. In fact one Authority specifically said they did not want another inspection structure. Seven
Authorities mentioned HMIE but there was confusion as to how they fitted into the picture, most thought they
would take outdoor learning into account but that they didn’t have a specific remit for it.
Self-evaluation led by teachers, schools or Local Authorities was the most common form of evaluation
mentioned. The structures used to form this self evaluation were varied but included; quality indicators,
‘the four capacities’, national priorities, ‘how good is our school’, performance indicators, 5–14 guidelines
and the LTS survey of outdoor education. These are interesting findings because in research into school
provision there is little evidence that such evaluation is taking place (Higgins, et al., 2006). Indeed in Nicol,
et al.’s (2006) research entitled Outdoor Education: the views of providers from different contexts in Scotland,
93% of respondents did not or could not provide robust evidence of the learning outcomes of their
programmes (p7).
Two Authorities felt the two hours of PE would have an impact on outdoor learning as schools would be
including a lot of outdoor learning in order to provide this in two hours. One Authority felt evaluation by
the consumers of education, the pupils and parents, would become more central to evaluation procedures
in the future.
4.4.1 Summar y
Development of opportunities to use the natural heritage as a resource for outdoor learning occurs through
three main strategies: CPD, involvement of outside agencies with specific expertise, and the production and
dissemination of information. Other strategies employed by individual Authorities include encouraging staff
to view outdoor learning in a positive light, using students and support staff, sharing good practice,
supporting secondment and the development of probationers.
Evaluation of outdoor learning was taking place within a very confused picture; there was little consistency
within responses other than the understanding that there was no standard procedure in place. There is an
apparent discrepancy between what ACfE officers say is happening and what is actually happening with
regard to evaluation. Whilst this may seem a fairly negative finding in terms of the promotion of outdoor
learning and the natural heritage it is important to note that officers are expressing strong support for outdoor
learning, and whilst their aspirations are not being delivered in the way they express, the comments they
provide are nevertheless good indicators of what they feel needs to be done to link their ability to provide
strategic direction with the support required at the point of delivery.
23
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
4.5
What are the real and perceived oppor tunities for and barriers to Local Authorities
using the natural heritage and the outdoors as a resource?
The primary opportunity, currently, is the change in approach that ACfE officers envisage will bring to
Scottish education. They feel that ACfE will help to blur the subject categorisation currently dominating
education, encouraging a more holistic approach, involving learning experiences that achieve more than
one aim at a time. Outdoor learning was seen as being suited to these changes as well as being capable
of delivering learning opportunities in keeping with ‘the four capacities’. A variety of learning experiences,
appropriate to the needs of the learner, was also emphasised as being part of ACfE. Again outdoor learning
was seen as offering learning experiences that varied from the current majority of indoor learning experiences,
therefore contributing to a diversity of teaching methods and learning outcomes in the new curriculum.
Two Authorities mentioned ‘dedicated outdoor education units’ as providing opportunities, one suggested
their lack of a dedicated unit did not help but also did not hinder opportunities. One Authority suggested
their geographical location was an opportunity, however two Authorities suggested their location was a
barrier to participation. Although the general first impression of the data was one of opportunity, on detailed
analysis there were more barriers cited than opportunities.
Health and safety was cited as a barrier by eight Authorities. In keeping with other research (Higgins, et al.,
2006 and Nicol, et al., 2006) barriers were reported as both ‘physical’ (eg paperwork and red tape) and
perceptual (fear of litigation). As these research reports show the issue is not just with risk itself but perception
of it. This point is important because barriers such as fear of litigation existed in more than half the
Authorities. Preventing this being a barrier to new provision will require awareness-raising amongst ACfE
officers and Local Authorities generally of the benefits of outdoor learning as opposed to the perceived risks.
As Nicol, et al., (2006: 36) state providers of outdoor education ‘are not saying that accidents will not
happen but they are saying most strongly that as a result of a history of good practice together with rigorous
procedures and staff training the provision of outdoor learning is safe and robust’. This is consistent with a
sector which is highly regulated and has an excellent safety record (see the Adventure Activities Licensing
Authority (AALA) website (http://www.aala.org.uk) for general comment).
Resources were also mentioned by six Authorities as a barrier, particularly the short term, unstable nature of
funding (3), lack of expertise in schools (2), the reliance on transport (1) and the limited time available (5)
for both preparation and completion of outdoor learning. Time was felt to be limited by the overcrowded
curriculum, the exam-driven culture and specifically in secondary schools the subject based timetable.
Ensuring progression over the lifespan of the child was considered difficult and hampered further by a
confused and disparate structure to outdoor learning. It is important to note that whilst the ACfE officers are
able to point out these barriers they are also in positions of seniority that enable them to address the barriers
they identify.
Although good practice, for example school grounds development, was acknowledged it was recognised
this existed in isolated pockets, without an understood structure for sharing this. Conceptual barriers were
also mentioned during the interviews, especially the focus on attainment rather than achievement and an
understanding of outdoor learning as a bolt on extra. Finally two Authorities cited their geographical location
as a barrier to outdoor learning. This is consistent with Higgins, et al.’s, (2006:5) research Teachers’
approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural heritage through the curriculum who found that
‘outdoor study depends very much on the immediate locality of each school’.
24
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Interestingly the autonomy of schools to devise their own curriculum was seen as both an opportunity and a
barrier. Most Authorities assume this autonomy will lead to an increase in outdoor learning, however some
felt this may mean schools choose to leave outdoor learning alone altogether.
4.5.1 Summar y
Although officers see a role for outdoor learning within the curricular review a number of significant logistical
barriers to the development of outdoor learning opportunities remain. Primarily these are: a pessimistic health
and safety culture, limited resources (mostly cost), personnel (staff training), time and a disparate, confused
structure to outdoor learning. All of these barriers are consistent with other recent research into outdoor
learning (Higgins, et al., 2006 and Nicol, et al., 2006).
There also remains uncertainty surrounding the argument as to whether more autonomy in schools would
result in more or less opportunity for outdoor learning.
4.6
How can such oppor tunities be developed or such barriers be overcome?
The qualities of outdoor learning that are appreciated by officers are; connectedness (10), holism (7) and
the focus on learning as experience (3) and they suggest that any developments in outdoor learning in
relation to ACfE should also reflect these qualities. Demonstrating how outdoor learning can contribute to the
current or new curriculum and specifically how it can achieve a number of different targets in one learning
experience (multi-dividend) was seen as epitomising the goals of ACfE. This they claimed would maintain a
high standard of achievement in education and free up space (by doing more in less time) and link learning
in a coherent way for the learner.
There was also a view that rationalising outdoor learning’s disparate structure would help to demonstrate to
non-specialists the potential impact for the whole curriculum, including the ‘hidden curriculum’. This could be
achieved where examples of good practice and case studies could be shared rather than developing
prescriptive curriculum content. If as officers believe that learning how to learn rather than accumulating
information is part of the ACfE then future developments of outdoor learning should demonstrate its capacity
to help learners develop good learning strategies. ‘The four capacities’ (of ACfE) were seen as central to
future developments and therefore information that showed how outdoor learning could contribute to each
of ‘the four capacities’ would be particularly useful. This raises the issue of whose responsibility it is to do
this work as officers appear to be steering the responsibility away from themselves. Two officers believe that
finding ways to assess outdoor learning, possibly through accrediting experiences can encourage its
acceptance within the mainstream curriculum.
Maintaining any development was itself seen as a barrier, parachuting staff in for short periods of time and
using specialist expertise was seen, by two officers, as beneficial in the short term but was unsustainable
and therefore potentially detrimental in the long term.
One officer saw simplifying the maze through health and safety regulations as vital, but it appeared that this
was not simply an administrative task (eg providing guidelines) but a cultural task as well. It is interesting to
note that the Scottish Executive has already published such guidelines (although they were not referred to) in
2005 called Health and safety on educational excursions: A good practice guide. However it does appear
that work remains in encouraging teachers to view education outside the classroom as a positive worthwhile
experience.
25
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
‘Eco-schools’ was seen by nine officers as a good initiative as it provides ideas for how outdoor learning
and the natural heritage could fit together. Developing a website as a way of disseminating good practice,
and holding a day conference for all ACfE officers addressing ‘outdoor learning and the four capacities’,
were two practical examples of development opportunities suggested by specific Authorities.
4.6.1 Summar y
Officers believe that greater emphasis needs to be placed on the promotion of outdoor learning as a
structured form of learning that connects learners to their learning. Its holistic approach needs to be
emphasised as a way of delivering a variety of curriculum aspirations in singular learning experiences and
its relevance to all ‘four capacities’ of ACfE needs to be demonstrated. The current educational climate of
fear outside the classroom needs to be reversed by Local Authorities encouraging and supporting their staff
in outdoor learning experiences.
26
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
5
CONCLUSIONS
Perhaps the most easily overlooked conclusion from this study is that there is no consistency in the ‘job title’
(or ‘seniority’) of those with responsibility for learning in and about the natural heritage within Scottish Local
Authorities. This is highly significant in that it reflects the current status of outdoor learning (most seem to be
in favour of it but few take responsibility for developing policy or delivering it), and it both poses difficulties
and offers potential opportunities for the future. The absence of a clearly identifiable officer in each Local
Authority led to the pragmatic decision to approach ACfE officers, though this also had the advantage that
they are working on the new Scottish educational agenda.
It is notable that all of the ACfE officers interviewed welcome curricular reform and see an important role for
outdoor learning. However, there is no sign that ACfE officers are committing themselves to this through
written policy. There is no clear distinction between policy that is written specifically for outdoor learning and
policy that is written about education generally. Whilst ACfE officers provided no evidence of the former,
the latter exists in such a general and inferential manner that references to outdoor learning remain
unspecified and vague. Without written commitment it is difficult for providers of outdoor learning to work
to a Local Authority education brief. Without this link between policy and strategy that officers can provide
and the development of front line services outdoor learning is likely to remain marginalised, a point also
identified in Nicol, et al., (2006).
Very little policy specifically relating to educating about the natural heritage out-of-doors currently exists within
Local Education Authorities. Health and safety policy dominates and any policy on curriculum content is lost
between the gaps in the current departmental structures of Local Authorities. These structures are unlikely to
change as a result of the current curriculum review and therefore this lack of policy is likely to persist.
There was overwhelming agreement that ACfE was an excellent opportunity for developing outdoor learning
in and about the natural heritage. Philosophically the underlying pedagogy of the two was seen to be in
harmony, through their holistic and experiential approaches. Practical outdoor learning was seen as being
able to contribute to developing ‘the four capacities’ of ACfE. However as ACfE seeks to move away from
a prescriptive curriculum and shift the focus of evaluation from external to internal, the opportunity for outdoor
learning to be written into curriculum guidelines does not appear to exist. Instead officers believe that
teachers should be the arbiters of what are appropriate experiences, for their pupils, in their learning
environment. Although most of the Authorities asked assumed this would mean an increase in outdoor
learning opportunities, there is no evidence of leadership in this area.
In order for outdoor learning in and about the natural heritage to develop within the Scottish education
system ACfE officers believe it must be able to contribute to the delivery of the revised curriculum guidelines
rather than delivering its own prescriptive ‘bolt-on’ curriculum. Simple methods of delivering learning
experiences without complicated logistics (such as cost and transport) that provide multiple dividends will
encourage teachers to use outdoor learning in their everyday repertoire of teaching tools. Substantiating the
ability for outdoor learning to provide holistic experiences that draw together the disparate parts of the
hidden curriculum with parts of the revised current prescriptive curriculum will be the most productive way of
encouraging teachers to use outdoor learning with their pupils.
The current culture of risk-aversion is a barrier to outdoor learning as is the complex paperwork for accessing
time out of the classroom. Local Authorities need to be encouraged to take a lead in reversing this culture
27
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
through a pro-active, ‘can-do’ attitude, which will need to include national agencies and government. Time
is a greater barrier, especially within the subject-driven secondary curriculum that is focused on exam results.
Increased staffing levels and intense planning simply add to these time constraints.
However the disparate and confused structure of outdoor learning is the greatest barrier to further
development. This ironically stems from its holistic nature that fits so well with the current educational thinking
that has led to ACfE. Outdoor learning does not fit easily within one niche; it therefore is poorly represented
at a policy level because there is not one department writing policy for it. It is difficult for officers to evaluate
the contribution of outdoor learning experiences because they offer the potential to provide multiple
dividends. It is difficult for schools and teachers to find resources efficiently because there is a range of
sources for them to apply to (and all this takes time, which plainly teachers don’t have). The most crucial
development therefore is to rationalise this disparate structure without losing the holistic strength inherent in
outdoor learning experiences. All of these findings are consistent with those of Higgins, et al., (2006) and
Nicol, et al., (2006).
28
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the data from this study which set out to look at the policy
agenda of Local Authorities in regard to education in and about the natural heritage.
Recommendation 1
SNH should work with LTS and other relevant partners to organise a series of workshops with all
ACfE officers addressing:
●
Outdoor learning and ‘the four capacities’ of ACfE.
●
Health and safety issues versus learning opportunities.
This research suggests that outdoor learning is viewed as a safety issue rather than a learning opportunity.
This recommendation is an important approach to reversing this perspective, so that the potential of outdoor
learning is fully realised.
Recommendation 2
SNH and its partners should build on the outcomes of the workshops identified in
Recommendation 1 to provide a means by which Local Authorities can deliver the ‘four capacities’
(of ACfE) through outdoor learning. We suggest a three-stage process involving:
●
●
●
Encouraging the development of written policies, perhaps by providing a template for
adaptation by individual Local Authorities.
Supporting the production of development plans to implement these policies. These plans
would help providers plan and deliver locally-appropriate provision.
Local partnerships involving Local Authority and external providers to help implement the
plans and support delivery.
It is clear from this research that those responsible for policy and strategy within Local Authorities and those
responsible for the delivery of outdoor learning services do not communicate in any systematic manner.
Added to this is the issue that the delivery of services takes place across a range of different departments
within each Authority and an even greater range of departments across all 32 Authorities. Consideration
should be given to the value of action research which can help to address the geographic specificity of
schools and the nuances that make each Local Authority different from another.
An approach based on the above recommendation would help to bridge the gap between on the one hand
the providers of service already disposed to outdoor learning and on the other the ACfE officers in each
Authority. These are the experts in respectively provision and policy. The strength of this model is that it
will be developed by those already disposed (ie those used to overcoming barriers) to include those who
experience such barriers.
Recommendation 3
SNH should identify with partners and Local Authorities how best to develop and make available
appropriate information and resources to support natural heritage-focused outdoor learning
through the new curriculum.
29
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
It is suggested that this should include:
●
Written and web-based resources.
●
A web-based forum for sharing good practice.
While this might be done at individual Local Authority level, there is merit in exploring at least a core national
provision which could be augmented locally.
Recommendation 4
SNH should consider initiating, with partners, research to provide evidence of the extent to which
learning experiences of the natural heritage outdoors relate to learning outcomes consistent with ACfE.
The present study shows that officers provide strong support for the notion of learning outcomes being
achieved based on outdoor learning; however such opinions are largely based on belief rather than
empirical data. If outdoor educational experiences become a policy issue ACfE Officers would be being
asked to make decisions on initiatives for which evidence is not extensive. There is therefore a pressing need
for investigations into evidence of young peoples’ experiences of natural heritage-based outdoor learning.
Such research should encompass the notion of holistic learning that aims to produce multiple learning
outcomes consistent with the ACfE. There is no suggestion here that policy should wait until the evidence
is obtained. Indeed a lot of empirical work has already been gathered in this area (see work into the
development of pro-environmental attitudes through so-called ‘significant life experiences’ (Palmer, 1998;
Palmer and Suggate, 1996,1998)). However, this work does not appear to be widely read.
Recommendation 5
SNH should agree with Outdoor Connections partners how best to sustain the focus on outdoor
learning beyond the life of the current Outdoor Connections project.
This study has highlighted the important role which SNH can play, with partners, in encouraging and
supporting natural heritage-based outdoor learning through partnership with local authorities The present
study is the 4th in a series of research work we have been commissioned to undertake by SNH and LTS:
●
Teachers’ approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural heritage through the curriculum
(Higgins, et al., 2006) (for SNH).
●
Outdoor Education: the views of providers from different contexts in Scotland (Nicol, et al., 2006)
(for LTS).
●
Recognition of young people’s achievements in outdoor learning activities (Ross, Higgins and Nicol,
2006) (for LTS).
There are remarkable consistencies in the findings of all four showing that if the barriers to outdoor learning
can be overcome then the learning potential is great, but currently unfulfilled. If this potential is to be realised,
the current commitment shown by the Outdoor Connections partners and others will need to be sustained
beyond the life of the current two-year project, and develop from its existing focus on policy and research
to the promotion, implementation and delivery of outdoor learning across all sectors.
30
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
REFERENCES
Amos, R. and Reiss, M. (2004). Field Studies Council London Challenge Residentials. April–July 2004.
Pilot Evaluation. Unpublished Report. Institute of Education: London. 17p.
Cheesmond, J. & Yates, J. (1979). Research Report of the Outdoor Education Programme in Lothian
Region Secondary Schools. Dunfermline College of Physical Education: Edinburgh.
Dawson, J., Boller, I., Foster, C. & Hillsdon, M. (2006). Evaluation of changes to physical activity
amongst people who attend the walking the way to health initiative (WHI). The Countryside Agency:
Cheltenham.
Department for Education and Skills (1998). Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational Visits. HMSO:
London.
Dillon, J., Morris, M., O’Donnell, L., Reid, A., Rickinson, M. & Scott, W. (2005). Engaging and
Learning with the Outdoors – The Final Report of the Outdoor Classroom in a Rural Context Action Research
Project. National Foundation for Educational Research: Slough.
Higgins, P. (2002). Outdoor education in Scotland. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning,
2(2), 149–168.
Higgins, P. (2005). Nature and people: Outdoor education and outdoor recreation in Scotland.
In: D. Thompson, ed. The Mountains of Northern Europe: Conservation, Management and Initiatives.
Scottish Natural Heritage: Perth. pp349–358.
Higgins, P., Nicol, R. & Ross, H. (2006). Teachers’ Approaches and Attitudes to Engaging with the Natural
Heritage Through the Curriculum. A Report for Scottish Natural Heritage. Scottish Natural Heritage: Perth.
Commissioned Report No. 161 (ROAME No. F04AB04).
http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/outdoored/research/teachers_ approaches.pdf (Accessed 8 December 2006)
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (2005). Education Outside the Classroom.
Second Report of Session 2004–05, The House of Commons: UK.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary committees/education _ and _ skills _ committee.cfm, (Accessed June
7th, 2005).
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (Second edition). Sage: London.
Nicol, R. (1999). A survey of Scottish outdoor centres. Horizons, 6,14–16.
Nicol, R., Higgins, P. & Crowther, N. (1999). Outdoor education for sustainability: historical and
contemporary perspectives. In: M. Allison, J. Horne & L. Jackson, eds. Sport, Leisure and Society, 3,126–132.
Moray House Institute of Education: Edinburgh.
Nicol, R., Higgins, P. & Ross, H. (2006). Outdoor Education – The Views of Providers from Different
Contexts in Scotland: A Report for Learning and Teaching Scotland. Learning and Teaching Scotland: Dundee.
(http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/takinglearningoutdoors/images/OE%20Providers _ tcm4-391133.pdf)
(Accessed 8 December 2006)
Palmer, J.A. (1998). Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress and Promise.
Routledge: London.
31
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Palmer, J. & Suggate, J. (1996). Influences and Experiences Affecting the Pro-environmental Behaviour of
Educators. Environmental Education Research, 2(1), 109–121.
Palmer, J. & Suggate, J. with others (1998). An overview of significant influences and formative
experiences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in nine countries, Environmental Education
Research, 4(4), 429–444.
Ross, H., Higgins, P. & Nicol, R. (2006). Recognition of Young People’s Achievements in Outdoor Learning
Activities: A Report for Learning and Teaching Scotland. Dundee: Learning and Teaching Scotland.
(http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/takinglearningoutdoors/images/Awards%20Report _ tcm4-391142.pdf)
(Accessed 8 December 2006)
Scottish Environmental Education Council (1996). Outdoor Education: Issues and Priorities. Scottish
Environmental Education Council: Stirling.
Scottish Executive (2004). The Report of the Review Group on Physical Education. Scottish Executive:
Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive (2004). Health and Safety on Educational Excursions. Scottish Executive: Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive (2004). Health and Safety on Educational Excursions – Supplement 1: Standards for
Local Authorities in Overseeing Educational Excursions. Scottish Executive: Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive (2005). Health and safety on educational excursions: A good practice guide.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/hsee-00.asp Accessed 24 May 2006.
Smyth, J. (1995). Environment and education: a view of a changing scene. Environmental Education
Research, 1(1), 3–19.
Tabbush, P. & O’Brien, L. (2003). Health and Well-being: Trees, Woodlands and Natural Spaces.
Forestry Commission: Edinburgh.
TCRG/The Curriculum Review Group (2004). A Curriculum for Excellence. The Scottish Executive:
Edinburgh. Available at: http://www.acurriculumforexcellencescotland.gov.uk/ (Accessed 14 February
2006).
32
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Websites accessed
Adventure Activities Licensing Authority
http://www.aala.org.uk (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Aigas Field Studies Centre (Strathglass near Beauly)
http://www.aigas.co.uk (Accessed 24 May 2006)
DfES Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto (published document)
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/resourcematerials/outsideclassroom/
(Accessed 30 November 2006)
DfES Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto (Consultation)
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conDetails.cfm?consultationId=1370 (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Eco Schools
www.ecoschoolsscotland.org/ (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Field Studies Council (Kindrogan, Scotland)
http://www.field-studies-council.org/kindrogan (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Isle of Arran Field Studies Centre
http://www.fieldstudies.co.uk (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Learning and Teaching Scotland – Education for Citizenship
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/citizenship/evaluation.asp (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Minister for Education and Young People (Peter Peacock) response to the Report of the Review Group on
Physical Education (Scottish Executive, 2004).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/rgpecl-00.asp (Accessed 24 May 2006)
National Trust for Scotland Centre (Kintail)
http://www.nts.org.uk (Accessed 24 May 2006)
New Opportunities Fund
http://www.nof.org.uk (Accessed 24 May 2006)
‘Paths for All Partnership’
http://www.pathsforall.org.uk/partnership.shtml#History (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Scottish Executive – National Priorities in Education
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/education/nationalpriorities/default.asp (Accessed 24 May 2006)
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/citizenship/evaluation.asp (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Scottish Executive News Releases
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/10/08131557 (Accessed 24 May 2006)
Scottish Parliament
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/pqa/wa-05/wa0817.htm (Accessed 24 May 2006)
SportScotland Active Schools Network
http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/ChannelNavigation/Our+activities/TopicNavigation/Active+Schools/
(Accessed 24 May 2006)
33
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Appendix 1
Telephone enquir y brief
Working with Local Authorities to deliver first-hand experience of the
natural heritage through the formal education sector
Telephone enquir y brief – Director of Education
Use this brief when contacting Directors of Education, their PA or other delegated person.
In addition to this brief you will need:
1
List of Local Authority names and addresses
Name of Local Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ask to be put through to the Director of Education (note their name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
Good morning/afternoon Mr/Ms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My name is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I work for the University of Edinburgh and we are conducting
research on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage about Local Authorities delivering first-hand educational
experience of the natural heritage. Can I ask you a few questions which will take no more than 5 minutes?
1
Is there someone specifically responsible for outdoor education?
If yes who? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contact details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Is there someone specifically responsible for the ranger service?
If yes who? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contact details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Is there someone specifically responsible for field studies?
If yes who? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contact details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Is there someone specifically responsible for relevant subject disciplines such as geography or biology?
If yes who? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contact details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Is there anyone else you can think of who has responsibility for delivering first-hand educational
experience of the natural heritage?
If yes who? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contact details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you have any written policies about any of the above services? (Y/N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
If yes can you post or email to:
Dr Robbie Nicol, Outdoor and Environmental Education Section, Moray House School of Education,
St Leonard’s Land, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ. Robbie.Nicol@ed.ac.uk
Note how many times you tried to contact . . . . . . . . . . Date finally contacted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Appendix 2
Pilot questionnaire
Questions
1
Do you see a role in ACfE for Local Authorities to provide outdoor learning opportunities for young
people?
2
Who will do this work? ie is the present educational infrastructure sufficient to provide these opportunities?
3
What is the timescale for implementation?
4
Do you see ACfE as an ‘opportunity’ or ‘threat’ for the provision of outdoor learning?
5
How will Local Authorities be held accountable for outdoor learning of the natural heritage?
6
What support do schools and teachers need to develop their capacity to deliver outdoor learning
specifically relating to the natural heritage?
7
As co-funders of this research SNH and LTS are keen to promote more outdoor learning. Is there anything
they can learn from the way in which the following initiatives have been developed?
●
Active schools
●
Eco-schools
●
Paths for all
●
Health promoting schools
●
Schools community partnership
●
PE
●
Residential education
●
Any others you can think of
8
It appears that one of the intentions of ACfE is that it will ‘loosen up’ the curriculum. Given that
SNH and LTS are keen to promote outdoor learning about the natural heritage how would you advise
them to pursue their agenda?
9
Did your Local Authority have anything written (eg a policy) about outdoor learning before the
announcement the review of the curriculum was to take place? Please send to Robbie Nicol at address,
fax or email on the covering letter.
10 Since the announcement of the review of the curriculum has your Local Authority written, or is it about
to write such a policy? Please send to Robbie Nicol at address, fax or email on the covering letter.
35
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Appendix 3
Amendments to pilot questionnaire
Final inter view schedule
Good morning/afternoon
My name is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and I work for the University of Edinburgh.
We are conducting research on behalf of Learning and Teaching Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage
about first-hand educational experience of the natural heritage.
We sent you a letter about this recently. Can I ask if you got it and are willing to participate? If the answer
is ‘no’ then ask if we can send the questions by post. If the answer is still ‘no’ ask if there is someone else
who could answer on the Authority’s behalf who is familiar with their strategy in relation to ACfE?
The questions should take around 20 minutes.
Questions
1
Do you see a role in ACfE for Local Authorities to provide outdoor learning opportunities for young people?
No prompts first, then prompt: As a place of inspiration/place to learn about the natural world/place
to cross boundary disciplines.
2
Who will do this work? ie is the present educational infrastructure sufficient to provide these opportunities?
3
What is the timescale for implementation?
4
Do you see ACfE as an ‘opportunity’ or ‘threat’ for the provision of outdoor learning?
5
How will Local Authorities be held accountable for outdoor learning of the natural heritage?
No prompts first then prompt HMIE/quality indicators.
6
What support do schools and teachers need to develop their capacity to deliver outdoor learning
specifically relating to the natural heritage?
No prompts first then prompt revenue – non revenue.
7
As co-funders of this research SNH and LTS are keen to promote more outdoor learning. Is there anything
they can learn from the way in which the following initiatives have been developed?
●
Active schools
●
Eco-schools
●
Paths for all
●
Health promoting schools
●
Schools community partnership
●
PE
●
Residential education
●
Any others you can think of
36
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Appendix 3
(continued)
8
It appears that one of the intentions of ACfE is that it will ‘loosen up’ the curriculum. Given that SNH
and LTS are keen to promote outdoor learning about the natural heritage how would you advise them
to pursue their agenda?
9
Did your Local Authority have anything written (eg a policy) about outdoor learning before the
announcement the review of the curriculum was to take place? Please send to Robbie Nicol at address,
fax or email on the covering letter.
10 Since the announcement of the review of the curriculum has your Local Authority written, or is it about
to write such a policy? Please send to Robbie Nicol at address, fax or email on the covering letter.
On behalf of ourselves, SNH and LTS thank you very much for providing your comments.
37
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 224 (ROAME No. F05AB05)
Appendix 4
Introductor y letter
Outdoor and Environmental Education Section
The Moray House School of Education
The University of Edinburgh
St Leonard’s Land
Holyrood Road
Edinburgh EH8 8AQ
Telephone 0131–651 6520
Facsimile 0131–651 6521
Email Robbie.Nicol@ed.ac.uk
Thursday 13 April 2006
Working with Local Authorities to deliver first-hand experience of the
natural heritage through the formal education sector
Dear Curriculum for Excellence Officer
The University of Edinburgh is conducting research on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage and Learning and
Teaching Scotland, about Local Authorities delivering first-hand educational experience of the natural
heritage. This research is supported by the Scottish Executive Education Department through its Outdoor
Connections programme.
This research is in two parts. Part one has already been completed and we have been in touch with all
32 Local Authorities to find out about current provision for outdoor learning. Having done this we now need
to establish what plans Local Authorities may have for the future development of outdoor learning experiences.
In order to provide depth to the study, and cognisant of the significance of the development of A Curriculum
for Excellence the method we have chosen is to contact the Curriculum for Excellence officers in all 32 Authorities.
This therefore is a courtesy letter to let you know that we will shortly be telephoning you to ask if you will
participate in this study. It will involve a telephone interview and will last around 20 minutes.
Can I also take this opportunity to let you know that we have recently completed another study called
Teachers’ approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural heritage through the curriculum which also
looked at Local Authority provision. This report will soon be available through Scottish Natural Heritage.
Yours sincerely
Dr Peter Higgins/Dr Robbie Nicol
38