Forest School mapping

Brief

We were requested by workforce development to map the practitioners who have received FS training across the district (Tier 1) and to provide CPD and mentoring where needed (Tier 2)

The diagram below is the break down of when and how many practitioners where trained and passed

Fig 1 Number of practitioners trained at each level

Level 1

Year / No of level 1 practitioners
2007/08 / 17
2008/09 / 17 + 15 childminders = 32
2009/10 / 13
Total / 62

Level 3

Year / No of level 3 practitioners who were on the course initially / No completed the level 3 training / No passed the level 3 course
2007/08 / 17 / 14 / 14
2008/09 / 18 / 17 / 7
2009/10 / 16 / 16 / 12 (one person deferred from 2008/09)
Total / 51 / 47 / 38

We were asked to find out

  1. Where they worked when they originally attended their training and if they are still employed there and if so what their current role is
  2. Whether they carry out FS or FS type activities in Bradford and if so where, when (including frequency) and with whom they do FS with
  3. What are/have been the barriers to implementing their training and what have been the gateways to enable FS delivery
  4. If they would like to enhance their existing FS knowledge, skills and experience and if they would like to proceed to Tier Two

Method

We received information from both Julie West – Play officer Bradford West (with lead on Forest Schools) and from workforce development of who had registered on the course. From this the information was drawn together with a name and place of work. Then we looked in to whether they had passed or not. This information was found through our knowledge and by contacting Archimedes who were the trainers whether they had passed the course or not.

Once the basic information was drawn together we came up with a questionnaire that each person was asked to fill out (Appendix 1). This was emailed out via the Forest School network list, which holds 59 names on. Then e-mailed out to everyone’s place of work (from when they undertook the training). In addition to this paper copies were sent out to via the post. This was then collated on to a excel spreadsheet.

Findings

Limitations and assumptions

  • Because every group is different we took it that there were 10 children in each group.
  • People were asked to mark the frequency of the groups and then these were put in to 3 categories
  • Short term – 1 to 4 sessions
  • Medium term 4-8 sessions
  • Long term 9+ sessions
  • Localities are defined as to where the child is from (best fit) as there are a lot of district practitioners (unless otherwise stated)
  • ½ a day equates to 1 Forest School session and a full day is 2 Forest School sessions
  • Practitioners didn’t always fill the questionnaire out as intended.
  • There was a very poor reply from level 1 practitioners with only 6 of the 47 practitioners responding (this does not include the child minders as we had no contact details fro them) this equates to 8%
  • Level 3 we had 25 replies to a possible 38, this equates to 92% return rate
  • Because of the timings figures were based upon all participants of the third round of training passing.

Completion of the course

  • Going back to figure 1 we note that all level 1 people passed the course.
  • There was a 92% success rate of people completing the level 3 training but only a 74% completing the assessment. This is broken down by:
  • 2007/08 – 82%
  • 2008/09 – 39%
  • 2009/10- 106% (1 person deferred from 08/09)

Locality of person trained

Figure 2 Location of where the level 3 people were when they trained

Total number of level 3 practitioners / Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 3
West / 13 / 7 / 1 / 5
East / 3 / 2 / 0 / 1
South / 6 / 0 / 2 / 4
Shipley / 2 / 0 / 0 / 2
Keighley / 2 / 0 / 2 / 0
District wide / 9 / 2 / 3 / 4
Not complete / 12 / 3 / 9 / 0
Moved on / 4 / 3 / 1 / 0
Totals / 51 / 17 / 18 / 16

Figure 3 Number of children who have had an experience of Forest Schools

Localities / Introduction / Short / Long term / Totals per locality
West / 1200 / 640 / 140 / 1980
East / 100 / 180 / 50 / 330
South / 260 / 130 / 70 / 460
Keighley / 300 / 50 / 40 / 390
Shipley / 1070 / 140 / 80 / 1290
Totals per length / 2930 / 1140 / 380 / 4450

Figure 4 – Comparison of children to location of practitioners

Please note with the above graph district wide practitioners are not included.

Figure 5 – Requests for additional Forest School’s training

Need / Times noted
Sharing of activity ideas / 4
Short refreshers / 1
Green wood working / 5
Making things / 1
Woodland Care / 1
Using different resources willow, elder / 1
Practical training / 1
Making things with and using ropes/ knots / 3
Outdoor cooking / 2
Plant ID / 2
Bushcraft / 1
Up to date practices and policies / 1
Portfolio / 1
Linking to curriculum / 2
Networking / 4
Session planning / 1

Figure 6 – Barriers faced

Barrier /

Times noted

Lack of enthusiasm / 1
Time / 6
Solitude / 1
Equipment / 1
Lack of general awareness of the benefits of Forest Schools / 1
Funding / 3
Cover at my setting and or staffing / 4
Other work commitments / 1
Parents reluctance / 1
Being unable to have a permanent setting / 1
Transport / 1
Risk averse staff / 1

Conclusions

There is a greater participation level from the level 3 practitioners in comparison to the level 1 practitioners, in responding to questionnaires and being part of the Forest Schools network.

Bradford West had the greatest number of children participate in Forest Schools. Which correlated with the fact they also had the greatest number of trained practitioners. The number of children would have been higher in Bradford west but 1 school that is known to run a lot of Forest School session did not send in their reply.