By Jon Cree,  Forest School Association Chair

There are a number of proposals in the latest education white paper for England. (see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508447/Educational_Excellence_Everywhere.pdf )  For a bulleted summary see page 5 of the schools week bulletin, edition 62 see http://schoolsweek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SW62-digi.pdf.

I have picked out three key aspects that I feel most relevant to Forest School (FS);

1. This white paper was further proof of the governments agenda to bring all schools out of local authority control and increase school autonomy.

According to the paper, by the end of 2020, the government intends all state-funded schools to be academies or be in the process of becoming academies. It proposed that as of the end of 2022, local authorities (LAs) would no longer maintain schools.

In May, as a result of massive parent demonstrations and opposition from a number of quarters, especially those areas where schools were supported by the local authority and deemed to be good or outstanding, the government announced it will not be bringing forward legislation to require “blanket conversion of all schools”.

Instead, legislation will be brought forward that will require conversion of all schools in a LA when either:

• It is clear that the local authority can no longer viably support its remaining schools because a critical mass of schools in that area has converted; or
• Where the local authority consistently fails to meet a minimum performance threshold across its schools

This will actually mean that the government will enable the increase in Multi Academy Trusts (MATS).  Paragraph 4.10 on page 56 of the white paper says that all failing schools are required to become sponsored academies. The Department has not changed its position on this.  The DfE expects most schools to form or join MATs and is establishing a MAT growth fund to create new MATs and support existing ones to expand.

Paragraph 4.21 says that regional schools commissioners (RSCs) will encourage high-performing schools to “extend their influence” and grow the MATs in their region.

The key duties of local authorities will be safeguarding, pupil placements, ensuring the needs of vulnerable pupils are met and acting as champions for parents and families.

Along with this the government proposes a number of measures to increase school accountability such as academy league tables and the growth of teaching school alliances.

The main implications for Forest School are;

• FS providers and trainers will need to be working more with academies and MAT’s.
• It will mean there will be many more organisations to try and work with and less co-ordination at a local level and outdoor learning may well not be a priority for the individual institutions.
• With budgets getting tighter and academies in charge of their own budgets it may well see a squeeze on programmes such as FS.

2. The second aspect covers teacher training – qualified teacher status will be replaced by accredited teachers.

Decisions about teachers’ proficiency will continue to be based on the Teachers’ Standards, although these decisions will now be made largely by schools and head teachers.  The big issue with this is without independent oversight, trainees and their future careers will be at the mercy of the personal preferences of one or two senior teachers during their first years in schools. So, in principle, a good idea, but how can we be sure it is going to be fair?  Also there seems to be a reduction in training.  School Week (edition 61) reported earlier in the year that 80 per cent of training providers said uncertainty over numbers meant they were reconsidering the courses they could offer.

There was quite a bit of referencing to continuing professional development – the key aspect of this being the establishment of an independent expert group of teachers, leaders and academies creating a new standard for teachers’ professional development. The DfE says this will set out a gold standard for effective CPD (see paragraph 2.45).

The implications of this is that teachers could be qualified within a few months with little time to look at teaching and learning in different contexts such as the outdoors.  It has been reported in some places that this will see less money put into teacher training and if the gold standard for CPD does not recognise how important outdoor learning can be then Forest School could be diminished.

3. Assessment and Curriculum is the third key area for development and the area that may well provide most succour to Forest School.

The areas of curriculum that the white paper highlights for change that are particularly relevant to FS are ‘building character and resilience’ and ‘Provision for PSHE, Citizenship and Mental Health’.  One of the things we need more of is research in are the promotion of character and resilience at FS and the health and well-being benefits of FS.  A collation of the research to date would be one of the things that the FSA and research community could embark on.

There is to be a review of alternative curriculum provision which will include a duty on OFSTED to inspect providers in the future in order to inform commissioning decisions.  This could have implications for those FS providers who are working with secondary schools in particular.

One of the opportunities for Forest School is the use of pupil premium.  There is now a need to show how this has impacted each individual and ‘targeted’ pupil premium and specific interventions have to be justified – see the new FSA guidance note on the use of pupil premium.  This is where the observations that are made at FS, an integral part of FS practise, may prove fruitful.

So should the FS community be concerned about this white paper?   My largest concern, and this is not necessarily the view of the FSA, is this is a further step to a ‘quasi market driven and neo-liberal education system’.  Having just stepped down as a governor of a school that has now moved to a MAT, my biggest fear was the loss of parent governors, a community focus, and a strong Forest School and outside the classroom learning presence.  That is not to say this has happened but it was a very real fear. There are opportunities for MAT’s to articulate their own values as the government has given academies, and by implication in the white paper – MAT’s, more autonomy and therefore a chance to develop their own values.  One would hope academies will give staff, students and parents a guaranteed say in their school and it’s development and that learning (rather than teaching to standards and tests) is one of the top values.  Chris Watkins at the London Institute of Education (2010) challenges us in his paper – “which do you think happens more often – teaching without learning, or learning without teaching?” (see http://mkx20bvs5a2cy6u43bq2jqtp.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Watkins-10-Lng-Perf-Imp-MLou-L2L.pdf )  I know where my answer lies, and we witness so much learning at FS which can and does result in attainment that demonstrates improved character, cognition and well-being.

In a system that prizes simplistic, narrow and easily measurable outcomes over harder to measure sets of performance indicators it is hardly surprising society has been wooed by the current assessment system.  So the inclusion of character, resilience and increased mental health will hopefully provide for a more nuanced assessment but also a challenge for us all, which the FS community should welcome and be willing to meet.  This creative and resourceful community, I believe, has the capacity and will to work with this white paper for the benefits of pupils, teachers and schools alike.