The perception, management and performance of risk amongst Forest School educators

Abstract

This paper investigates how risk perception amongst teachers within an outdoor educational initiative, Forest School, both shape and are shaped by their understandings of childhood, pedagogy and their own professional identity.Drawing on a social constructionist perspective in theorizing risk and childhood, the paper argues that contemporary, hyper-sensitised concerns regarding children s vulnerability emanate from both fears of the modern world and the proclivity towards over-protection which these fears precipitate. Rather than treating this hyper-sensitivity as irrational or paranoid, the paper draws on socio-cultural theories and qualitative methods to interrogate how risk is perceived, managed and performed by teachers within an initiative which aims to reintroduce risk into children s lives. The research found that while these teachers motivations to participate in Forest School were derived from a desire to expose children to formative risk-taking in the outdoors, the hegemonic cultural and institutional risk aversion which they were attempting to counter, aligned with their contested occupational identity, created tensions in how they managed and performed risk which militated against the full realisation of a Forest School pedagogy. permeates the childhood in crisis thesis: that children are at risk from the absence of risk itself-particularly risk-taking behaviours within outdoor play. This denial of formative risk exposure is the consequence of both children s technologically-mediated, indoor, sedentary lifestyle, and adults overprotection, caused by fears of the modern world: thus parental hyper-sensitivity to risk, and the protectionary impulses this engenders, is itself limiting children s freedom and having a negative impact upon their physical and psychological wellbeing. This highly reflexive, self-reinforcing, concern about concern proceeds: children are at risk and childhood is under threat, primarily from social changes wrought from technological advancement, and, thus, need to be protected from the encroachment of the adult world; adult (over)protection is itself corrupting childhood through denying children formative, risky, experience; adults attempts at protecting children and preserving childhood are part of the problem, rather than the solution; childhood is at risk, from both the encroachment and the protection of the adult world. This hyper reflexive concern is evidence for Beck s general reflexive individualization thesis Beck, 1992), and his and Beck-Gernsheim s 99 illustration of how such reflexive individualisation colonises even the most intimate inter-personal relationships.As an antidote to both technological over-exposure and this perceived overprotection, there have been shifts amongst parents, campaigners and advocates (organisations such as Wild Nature, Playing Out and Project Wild Thing); policy

Learning while playing: Children's Forest School experiences in the UK

“…Despite its increasing popularity, there is little published evidence to support the use of FS as a tool for facilitating learning (Leather, 2016). Recent FS literature explores practitioner and parental perspectives about the values and impact of FS in early and primary education (Maynard, 2007;O'Brien & Murray, 2007;Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014;Connolly & Haughton, 2017) and the broader aims of FS programmes (Waite et al, 2016), with limited engagement with children's perceptions about their FS experiences (Slade et al, 2013;Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014). The available evidence suggests that FS has a positive impact on children's perceptions about play in natural environments, their environmental awareness (Ridgers et al, 2012;Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014) and their enjoyment (Slade et al, 2013).…”

“…The available evidence suggests that FS has a positive impact on children's perceptions about play in natural environments, their environmental awareness (Ridgers et al, 2012;Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014) and their enjoyment (Slade et al, 2013). FS practitioners report that engagement increases confidence, self-esteem and independence (Maynard, 2007;O'Brien & Murray, 2007) and promotes better social interaction (Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014) and improved child-adult relationships (Slade et al, 2013), whilst also minimising risk aversion (Connolly & Haughton, 2017). However, the available literature does not explore how children interpret their experiences when faced with a fusion of learning environments.…”

“…FS is an approach to learning which is considered ‘informal’ or ‘alternative’ but is blended with traditional curricula to create opportunities for children to experience learning outside of the classroom. In the 2006 Learning outside the classroom manifesto , it was branded as the gold standard in outdoor learning and has been recognised for easing ‘parental hypervigilance and a narrowing of the focus of education’ (Connolly & Haughton, : 112). FS uses natural environments to engage children in a range of play‐focused learning activities (e.g.…”

Turning heads: The impact of political reform on the professional role, identity and recruitment of head teachers in Wales

“…A consequence of these changes to HTs’ professional practice has been the intensification of their perception of risk and heightened individual reflexivity (Beck, ). This risk perception has been accentuated by contemporary hyper‐anxiety in relation to children's lives and safety (Connolly & Haughton, ).…”

Love letters to services past: risk and outdoor education in youth work

“…Secondly, as alluded to in the abstract, given that the contemporary climate, described above, is one where risk aversion is hegemonic, youth workers and others could be seen to be too cautious and over protective of the young people in their charge (Connolly & Haughton, 2015). These societal and cultural concerns can, ironically, put children and young people more at risk by not giving them enough experience of managing risk successfully; further a lack of opportunity to access the outdoors can, it is claimed, impair hild e s development (Gill, 2007;Humberstone & Stan, 2009;Prince et al, 2013).…”