From
Soft fall to bush school: A shift in pedagogical thinking
Hayley Handler
Pre- Sevice Student at University of New England, Armidale,
Australia and Early Childhood Educator
Introduction
The
natural environment is extremely important to the health of our country, however
Australia’s children are spending less time engaging in the outdoors. Australia
prides itself on outdoor adventure, which is why it is surprising that a study
of 1,975 Australian children found that 37% of those surveyed spent less than
half an hour outside each day (Passi, 2007). This has led to educators looking
for ways to engage their children in the outdoors, specifically the natural
environment. This article will explore how educators can include the natural environment
into their programmes and why educators are engaging children with risky play
and ecological sustainability through the development of Bush, Beach and Forest
Programmes in Australia.
Changes in Australian
Educational Policy:
Traditionally
risk was not a word used in curricula in Australia. In the SACSA Framework
Early Years Band the
word was not used once. Early childhood settings in Australia were stuck on
soft fall regulations and natural environments were replaced with soft fall.
(See Figure 1)
Figure 1 Doolandella Childcare with
Hopscotch Insert, Running Track Insert, Court Insert (Solution Concepts
Australia, 2014)
Morrissey,
Scott, & Wishart, (2014) describe that it has been observed that many
childcare centres have removed nature from their outdoor spaces, and began
offering the children in their care restricted exposure to the natural environment.
These limitations emerged from to concerns about avoiding litigation, which
resulted in the exclusion of 'risky' elements such as trees, rocks and sticks
in childcare and their replacement by artificial soft-fall surfaces, plastic
and low-challenge fixtures.
With
the implementation of the Early Years Learning Framework, educators have thrown
of the proverbial shackles of previous curricula, looked outside the fence
boundaries of their centres and family day care locations and looked at the
local environments as a world of possibilities. The move towards natural outdoor
play spaces and acknowledgement of the significance of children’s connection to
nature (DEEWR, 2009; Elliott, 2008; Gamson-Danks, 2010; Greenfield, 2011) is embodied
by international forest schools (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012). A variety of names
are used including nature kindergarten, forest school are applied to the
services that include a forest school method to their curriculum and in
Australia, we use the colloquial term of Bush Kindergarten. The principles and
practices of the Being Belonging Becoming document (Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations and Council of Australian Governments [DEEWR
& CAG], 2009, p. 16) encourage the use of natural environments and engaging
in the natural world through trees, plants, rocks, edible gardens.
Characteristics of
Nature Play/ Bush Beach and Forest School programmes:
Play
as defined by Alward, Van Hoorn, Nourot, & Scales, (2007, p.4-6) is a
fundamental human activity. It has the distinguishing features of intrinsic
motivation, non- literal behaviours, attention to means rather than ends, active
engagement, and freedom from external rules. As Little et.al. (2012) describe
play that is challenging has a certain element of risk. It is these principles
upon which most Bush, Beach and Forest school programmes are founded.
It
was upon a change of directors in 2012, that my centre embarked on the journey
of incorporating Bush and Beach Kindergarten into our programme. This took our
risk adverse centre out of its comfort zone of rules and regulations, a centre
which went to the same excursions for the past ten years, to embracing risk. It
was once I had read Maynard (2007) that I began critical reflection on our
programme, I discovered many similarities to the initial implementation of our
Bush and Beach Kindergarten programmes in my own centre to the feelings felt by
the educators in the article. It was only once our centre engaged in reflection.
I
reflected on my career in the early childhood field. Once I had done this I found
that I stepped back from the risk aversion that I have seen in the past.
Initially I was like the educators in the article, but once I had implemented
bush kindergarten I noted that children the who engage in Bush, Beach and
Forest school, generally are more relaxed. When they return to the indoors
classroom there is a tone of tranquillity to the children in their environment.
What does a bush
kindergarten programme look entail?
Each
site for bush, beach or forest education poses its own challenges. Our centre
uses the Local Scout grounds to base our bush kindergarten programme, and
our local beach for the Beach Kindergarten programme. At first we had no
access at bush kindergarten to toilets while we were there posing the problem
of where do the children go to the toilet, as the Scout grounds are
across the road from the centre we would have to ring the centre to get the
children walked back to use centre facilities. It was upon our reflection as a
team (and my lack of comfort with this situation) that we found that this was
not practical and we now have a partnership with the scout group which allows
us to use their toilet facilities.
We
found that the less we take with us to bush kindergarten, the more the children
engaged with their natural environment. The children engage in fishing all be
it, placing a string on a stick and pretending to catch the mosquito larvae
that live in the pond. As with the Danish Forest schools tools such as saws,
whittling tools, rope, string and fire are used regularly. We implemented the
tools into our programme supported by Williams-Siegfredsen (2012), who portrays
tools as ‘an essential ingredient of everyday life’ in Danish forest schools. Our children have learned to choose and use
tools safely for specific tasks. We have found that this is critical learning
which can foster the children’s fine-motor skills and risk management.
Research behind the
benefits of engaging in risky play and ecological sustainability:
There
is growing concern that young Australians are developing a disconnection from
their natural environment and are not being given the opportunities to play in
such environments. Researches have
agreed that parents have become more risk adverse (Louve,2005; Little,
Sandsester & Wyver 2012; Maynard ,2012). Posing a challenge to educators,
as to how to advocate for children engaging in risks in their play
environments.
Researchers
agree that becoming risk averse is due to sensationalised media, which makes
parents more paranoid; leading to children’s independence and outdoor play
being more restricted and controlled. This has lead to the term “Nature deficit
disorder” being coined by Louve, (2005) as cited in Passi, (2009).
White
and Stoecklin (1998) ponder play of the past, musing that years once children
were able to delight in free play. Children had broader access to the world.
They could play in streets, allies and vacant lots, play in fields, forests,
streams. They could explore the natural world with little to no supervision.
Children are now being kept in controlled environments the consequence of which
is that children are being denied the skills which should come to them
naturally. They are less able to respond to risk in outdoor play.
Why
educators advocate for more risk in childcare
Engaging
in Bush, Beach and Forest school programmes have many positive benefits. Researchers
have found that children have more motivation, increased confidence and concentration, deeper conceptual
understandings, better physical, social and language skills, and appreciation for the environment around
them (Borradaile, 2006; Massey, 2004; Murray, 2004; Murray & O' Brien,
2005; O’Brien & Murray, 2008; O’Brien, 2009). Children who are engaged in
these types of play are better at engaging in varied types of adventurous activities
(Waters & Begley, 2007). Children seem to show less negative traits whilst
engaged in these programmes (See figure 2)
Figure
2 Benefits of Nature (Fojut, 2011)
These
programmes have positive effects for teachers. Researchers have found that
Teacher have deeper understandings of the children and their relationships are
deeper (Borradaile, 2006; Knight, 2009; Murray & O’Brien, 2005; O’Brien,
2009). These relationships become reciprocal and the children trust the
teachers more in the indoors classroom.
There
are also positive outcomes for several diverse communities including children
with autism, underprivileged
or challenging youth, and drug addicted adults (Borradaile, 2006; Knight, 2009;
Murray & O’Brien, 2005; O’Brien, 2009). Although families and broader
community approaches towards natural outdoor areas for children to play and meaning
that children’s management of risk can be improved.
Conclusion:
In
summary, the implementation of the Bush and Beach Kindergarten programme at my current centre, as with many centres throughout has led
to a considerable rise in the variety of challenges that the educators and children
have been willing to undertake. Bush and Beach kindergarten has offered the
children with an environment that offers new challenges in their play, and
positive engagement in the natural world. The transformation in risk taking
amongst the children was dramatic, providing children and staff with calming
natural environment in which to spend their days, as opposed to the previous soft
fall covered pre-manufactured playground. The observations of educators have
shown that incorporating the natural environment provide experiences for young
children that support their learning, development and wellbeing.
References:
Alward, K. R., Van Hoorn, J. V.,
Nourot, P. M., & Scales, B. (2007) Play
at the centre of the curriculum . New Jersey: Merrill.
Elliott, S. (Ed.). (2008). The
outdoor playspace: Naturally. Sydney: Pademelon Press. Knight, S. (2011).
Forest schools for all. London: Sage Publications.
Gamson-Danks, S. (2010). Asphalt
to ecosystems: Design ideas for schoolyard transformation. Oakland, CA: New
Village Press.
Greenfield, C. (2011). Outside
is where we need to be. [Manukau] N.Z.: Social Sciences Dept., Manukau
Institute of Technology.
Louv, R. (2005) Last child in
the woods :saving our children from nature-deficit disorder Chapel Hill, NC
: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill
Massey, S. (2004). The benefits
of a Forest School experience for children in their early years. Primary
Practice 37, 31-35
Maynard, T. (2007). Encounters
with Forest School and Foucault: a risky business?. Education 3-13, 35(4),
379-391. doi:10.1080/03004270701602640
Murray, R. (2004). Forest school evaluation project: A study in
Wales. Retrieved from www.neweconomics.org
O’Brien, L. (2009). Learning
outdoors: The forest school approach.
Education 3 - 13, 37
(1), 45 -60.
O’Brien, L. & Murray, R.
(2008). Forest school: A marvellous
opportunity to learn research
summary. Farnham, UK: Forest Research. Retrieved from:
Solution Concepts Australia,.
(2015). Doolandella Childcare with Hopscotch Insert, Running Track Insert,
Court Insert. [Image]. Retrieved from:
http://www.scaonline.com.au/kidz-grass-synthetic-grass/
Waters, J. & Begley,
S. (2008). Supporting the development of
risk taking behaviours in the early years: An exploratory study. Education
3 - 13, 35 (4), 365 - 377.
Williams-Siegfredsen,
J. (2012). Understanding the Danish forest school approach. Oxon, UK:
Routledge.
