Some of you may have read the article that appeared in this morning’s Guardian “I’m all for the concept of ‘forest school’ – just not the kind I pulled my kids out of” by Emma Brockes. (Here on Twitter)
Whilst the article wasn’t directly about Forest Schooling UK, our Head of Forest School, Stephen Simpson, said:
“I found this article disrespectful to children and staff who attend our sites and, as such, felt it needed a response. Ms Brockes clearly thinks Forest School is something different to what we and many reputable organisations do every day. I invite her to come and see what we do and talk to the children, then maybe she will understand what it is that we do and be better informed”
He has written an open letter to the publication copied below:
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to an opinion piece published in your newspaper on the 16th August 2024 by Emma Brockes entitled “I’m all for the concept of ‘forest school’ - just not the kind I pulled my kids out of”.
As the head of a not-for-profit community-interest full-time alternative provision that uses the forest school methodology as our guiding principle, I feel compelled to respond in order to debunk several misguided and potentially damaging assertions made by the writer of the article.
Whilst Ms Brockes may have expected forest school to provide her children with “a crash course in wholesomeness” she should be made aware that within the ethos of forest school lies a process and as such, I’m afraid there simply is no such ‘crash course’. Her fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts underlying forest school is further evidenced by her patronising description of it as a “laudable push to get children learning outside”. Any time spent researching the forest school movement would reveal it to be nothing of the sort, but I would also implore Ms Brockes to examine her own interpretation of the word “learning”. Furthermore, Ms Brockes determines the very name “forest school” to be a preserve of “the middle class lexicon”, and by extension casts the damaging aspersion that many forest schools exist purely as a cynical marketing exercise cooked up by state schools. I am presuming the same state schools who, in my 25 years’ experience working in education, struggle to afford pencils, let alone think about marketing.
The families we work with are spread all across the socioeconomic spectrum, but the common thread is that their children all have difficulty participating in a mainstream classroom setting. Many have suffered significant childhood trauma, or bereavement, or in some cases may have been witness to atrocities that no child should ever be aware of. Many may not be neurotypical or are simply not understood or supported by an ever-narrowing education system that has been squeezed to breaking point. The children are referred to us by their school or the Local Authority Educational Inclusion team, and usually comprises those most at risk of permanent exclusion. Our practice follows the guiding principles of forest school to provide nurture and understanding at the children’s pace, while they work out what works for them. And gradually, over time - not in one day - their emotional resilience and self-belief starts to emerge, and they are better able to cope with the pressure they find themselves surrounded by. And, once they are ready, they may return to their school setting or sometimes go onto a new setting that might support or understand them better.
Through our early intervention, we have seen the outcomes of countless primary-aged children to be transformed or significantly improved by our forest school practice. Maybe this is because they are given some respite from being impelled to “catch up” with arbitrary attainment levels that take none of their individual experiences into account. Maybe if they are given a bit of space to lead some of their own learning they might begin to flourish and see in themselves that they can make a difference.
With regard to Ms Brockes’ personal experience of forest school, it would probably be fair to recognise that there will inevitably be examples of “good” and “bad” practice within every professional sector, and maybe she was unlucky in choosing the wrong holiday club for her children. However, her piece raises so many red flags in terms of her own basic misconceptions about the very purpose and ethos of forest school that, as printed in your newspaper, only serve to undermine the movement as a whole. This, in turn, is hurtful to the vulnerable children that I work with every day.
If Ms Brockes is “all for the concept of forest school” she would be very welcome to visit us for a day or two and learn about how our particular brand of “bullshit” is changing our children’s lives for the better.
Sincerely,
Stephen Simpson
Head of Forest Schooling UK
Comments