Memorandum submitted by the Council for
Environmental Education
ABOUT CEE
The Council for Environmental Education (CEE)
is the national strategic organisation for environmental education
in England. Founded in 1968, CEE's membership includes 73 national
organisations and an ever-increasing, diverse network of organisations
with interests in education, the environment and sustainable development.
Our work seeks to add value to the sector and create a supportive
policy climate. For example, CEE acted as special adviser to the
Environmental Audit Committee inquiry Learning the Sustainability
Lesson. CEE is grateful for this opportunity to contribute
to the Committee's inquiry.
OUT OF
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTAL
LEARNING
CEE is particularly concerned with educational
experience of natural and built environments, and educational
experiences in education centres, visitor centres, and museums
relating to the environment. This will be referred to throughout
this submission as "out of classroom environmental learning",
(OoCEL) reflecting elements of the useful categorisation of the
range of interests in education and the environment developed
by Scott and Gough (1).
AN HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE
Since the expansion of mass schooling, a strand
of educational thinking has stressed the importance of learning
outside the classroom. Patrick Geddes' Outlook Tower in Edinburgh
at the end of the 19th Century set out a model for the field and
urban studies centres that developed in this country, particularly
after 1945. Specialist provision for young people to study the
world beyond the classroom became widespread.
The Field Studies Council (FSC) noted in 1972
that between 1941 and 1969, the number of Local Education Authority
(LEA) field centres grew from about five to about 110. It identified
nearly 200 centres run by schools, the Youth Hostels Association,
FSC and other organisations.
However, at that time, as the authors of Out
and About (2) observed, many schools still reflected a belief
that school life and life in the "outside world" should
be separate:
"Windows were high, often frosted, so
that pupils should not be distracted by the outside view from
concentrating on the `essentials' taught within classrooms . .
. History, geography, science, English and mathematics were subjects
to be studied from printed books and blackboard summaries; they
bore no relationship to the town, the countryside, and the communities
of the children's outside life."
The CEE report to the Countryside in 1970
conference referred to schools "exploding into the environment".
Streetwork, the Exploding School (3) made a significant contribution
to thinking on OoCEL. "It is a book about ideas: ideas of
the environment as the educational resource, ideas of the enquiring
school, the school without walls . . ."
Throughout the 1970s the diversification and
development of opportunities and professional expertise continued
throughout a network of residential and day centres, and public
institutions supporting OoCEL. By 1980 it was common for LEAs
to have at least one centre, in the case of Birmingham, a dozen.
With budget restrictions, LEA provision began to wither; the introduction
of Local Management of Schools (LMS) significantly reduced the
number of LEA centres and advisers focusing on OoCEL. This decline
is demonstrated by the reduction in membership of professional
bodies, the Environmental Education Advisers Association and National
Association for Environmental Education. Education policies since
the start of LMS have continued to erode public provision of services
supporting OoCEL and the ability of teachers to make use of them.
Other local authority departments, NGOs, private centres, museums
and other providers have strived to replace or supplement LEA
work but coherent, professional and inclusive provision of OoCEL
is now patchy. Speakers and delegates at CEE's 2001 conference,
The Power of Place, argued persuasively for the necessity
of OoCEL to contextualise the curriculum, whilst reflecting on
barriers to its adoption and development: concentration on a limited
core curriculum and quantitative evaluation, low status in inspection,
funding changes, a decline in teachers' expertise and LEA support,
safety concerns and fear of litigation.
Recent attempts to support such learning fail
to address many of the barriers to more challenging, effective
and inclusive OoCEL. FSC, the British Ecological Society (4) and
others have raised the prospect that at least one aspect of OoCEL,
biology fieldwork, "risks extinction", and evidence
gathered by the Real World Learning Campaign (5) suggests a decline
in takeup of OoCEL in specific subject areas, at specific phases,
and amongst disadvantaged user groups.
THE VALUE
OF OUT
OF CLASSROOM
ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING
When highly valued by participants, integrated
into the curriculum, well planned and professionally supported,
OoCEL has great educational value. In A Review of Research
on Outdoor Learning (6), researchers at The National Foundation
for Educational Research and Kings College London conclude that
there is strong evidence that OoCEL has significant cognitive
and affective impact, and, critically, provides an opportunity
for mutual reinforcement of knowledge, understanding and affective
experience. Academic benefits include strong support of curriculum
requirements in geography, science, history, citizenship and significant
contribution to education for sustainable development (ESD). The
Government's Sustainable Development Action Plan for Education
and Skills (7), launched in 2003, has as its primary aim that
"all learners will develop the skills, knowledge and value
base to be active citizens in creating a more sustainable society".
Existing opportunities, including those provided by CEE members,
make a clear contribution towards this goal. A more supportive
policy climate would allow this contribution to be strengthened.
A recent Ofsted report (8), though concentrating
on adventurous outdoor education, draws attention to the role
of direct experience of new environments or new experiences in
familiar environments in contextualising aspects of the curriculum.
Research also points to the importance of direct
experience in valuing and developing understanding of the environment.
The Demos/Green Alliance report A Child's Place (9) concludes
that:
"Many children have a surprisingly good
grasp of environmental issues but gain their most powerful understanding
through exploration of their own natural environment."
Such understanding is empowering, and critical
to achieving sustainable development.
POLICY
Department for Education and Skills (DfES),
government agency, LEA and school policy needs to support OoCEL
if it is to be effective. There is little evidence that current
policy sufficiently supports integration of challenging, effective
OoCEL into the curriculum. Within the National Curriculum Geography
Programme of Study, "appropriate" fieldwork is required,
but no guidance is provided on its location or duration. Geography
is itself marginalised in many schools; Ofsted has identified
serious weaknesses (and evidence of schools failing to meet curriculum
requirements for fieldwork) in primary geography (10). There are
no curriculum requirements for fieldwork or educational visits
in other subjects, such as science, citizenship and history.
This low profile is also reflected in the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority (QCA) model Scheme of Work: a concern
when such a high proportion of schools are using the model as
the basis of their curriculum planning. OoCEL is not specifically
assessed in most school inspections, and is not specified by most
GCSE, A Level or vocational examination specifications.
There is limited guidance available for schools
and providers on quality in OoCEL is limited. Whilst good materials
are available, including those provided by some LEAs, CEE's Measuring
Effectiveness: evaluation in Education for Sustainable Development
(11), and Quality, Safety and Sustainability (12), published
by the National Association of Field Studies Officers (NAFSO),
further research is needed on the contribution of OoCEL and aspects
of quality provision.
Specific recognition within the Ofsted inspection
framework of the value of OoCEL and further guidance from QCA
on integrating OoCEL into the curriculum would be beneficial.
DfES has provided useful guidance aimed at minimising
risk to pupils' health and welfare, including Health and Safety
of Pupils on Educational Visits (13), Standards for LEAs
in Overseeing Educational Visits (14), Handbook for Group
Leaders (15) and Group Safety at Water Margins (16).
This welcome focus on minimising risk is not,
however, balanced by sufficient emphasis on the benefits of OoCEL,
on supporting teachers in developing relevant expertise, and in
protecting schools and teachers from financial risk when accidents,
regrettably, occur. This lack of support is understandably reflected
in the approach of teaching unions. NASUWT currently advises its
members not to lead educational visits; in response to HMCI David
Bell's statement at the launch of Ofsted's report on outdoor education
that "if teachers follow the recognised safety procedures
and guidance they have nothing to fear from the law", NASUWT
issued the following: "As NASUWT casework has demonstrated
time and time again, following the procedures and guidance is
no protection against litigation".
A more robust legal and practical framework
is required, within which teachers can feel confident to operate
and support OoCEL. The framework should allow for action commensurate
with risk, and reflect a consensus between government, providers
and the profession (including the teaching unions). Furthermore,
more research is needed on the efficacy of LEA and school policies
designed to support learning outside the classroom.
Teacher education has a vital role in developing
teachers' expertise and confidence in accessing, integrating,
and leading OoCEL. Anecdotal evidence suggests a decline in the
status of fieldwork and other OoCEL in BEd and PGCE courses, and
a decline in relevant experience expertise amongst teacher trainers.
More research is required to identify good practice and the extent
of relevant learning in initial teacher training and continuing
professional development activities. A commitment from DfES and
the Teacher Training Agency to ensure suitable support within
teacher education would be of great benefit.
FUNDING
Before LMS, subsidised LEA provision enabled
many pupils from low income areas to benefit from OoCEL experiences.
Currently some groups are excluded from such opportunities. Research
is needed to assess this trend and to explore models of inclusive
national and local support. Specific funding may be required to
allow inclusive access to opportunities, and Government needs
to research the possibility of introducing an entitlement to OoCEL.
Providers of OoCEL opportunities also require
support. Funding for so many activities is not currently available
directly from DfES or DCMS, and funding changes including the
end of education project funding from the Landfill Tax Credit
Scheme, changes to National Lottery funding programmes, and a
shift away from education in the latest round of Defra's Environmental
Action Fund, have left many providers facing great uncertainty.
DfES has funded some providers through the Growing
Schools scheme. The initiative, which "aims to use the `outdoor
classroom' as a context for learning, both within and beyond the
school grounds" has been cited by ministers (17) (18) (19)
in responses to Parliamentary questions on fieldwork and out of
classroom learning. CEE welcomes the initiative. However, an independent
evaluation of pilot projects carried out by CEE and Bath University's
Centre for Research in Education and the Environment (20), raised
generic issues on OoCEL, and questioned whether the scheme recognises,
or significantly addresses, barriers to challenging, effective
learning outside the classroom.
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
— DfES and agencies need to identify
and address barriers to OoCEL.
— Government, LEA and schools policy
needs to support OoCEL.
— A robust, fair, legal framework for
OoCEL is required.
— Research and action is required on
ITT and CPD for teachers.
— Central and local government needs
to adequately fund inclusive provision.
REFERENCES
1. Sustainable Development and Learning:
Framing the Issues; Scott W and Gough S, RoutledgeFalmer,
2003.
2. Out and About: A Teachers' Guide
to Safety on Educational Visits; Schools Council, Evans/Methuen,
1972.
3. Streetwork, the Exploding School;
Ward C and Fyson A, TCPA, Routledge and Keegan Paul,1973.
4. Teaching Biology Outside the Classroom:
Is it Heading for Extinction?; Field Studies Council/British
Ecological Society, 2003.
5. Personal communication, 2004.
6. A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning;
Rickinson M, Dillon J, Temey K, Morris M, Mee Young Choi, Sanders
D, Benefield P, Field Studies Council.
7. Sustainable Development Action Plan
for Education and Skills; DfES, 2003.
8. Outdoor Education: Aspects of Good
Practice; Ofsted, 2004.
9. A Child's Place; Demos and Green
Alliance, 2004.
10. Ofsted Subject Reports 2002-03 Geography
in Primary Schools; Ofsted, 2004.
11. Measuring Effectiveness: Evaluation
in Education for Sustainable Development; CEE, 2004.
12. Quality, Safety and Sustainability;
NAFSO, 2004.
13. Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational
Visits; DfES, 1998
14. Standards for LEAs in Overseeing
Educational Visits; DfES, 2002.
15. Handbook for Group Leaders; DfES,
2002.
16. Group Safety at Water Margins; DfES,
2003.
17. Science Teaching: Response by Baroness
Ashton; 10 Sept 2003: Column WA130.
18. Natural Environment: Response by Mr
Stephen Twigg; Hansard 16 Jul 2004: Column 1372W.
19. Non-Classroom Learning: Response by
Mr Stephen Twigg; Hansard 14 Sept 2004: Column 1566W.
20. Growing Schools—The Innovation
Fund Projects (2002-03): an External Evaluation; Council for
Environmental Education, University of Bath Centre for Research
in Education and the Environment, 2003.
October 2004
| 
