Outdoor Education
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-765, in the name of Elizabeth Smith, on extra-curricular outdoor education for every school pupil.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the vital contribution that taking part in extra-curricular activities makes in developing our young people; notes that extra-curricular programmes help our young people to learn new skills, to enjoy new responsibility, to appreciate the work of other people and to learn about leadership; notes the success of projects such as Crieff High School's Community Awareness Project, and considers that, in an age when too many of our young people are in the headlines for the wrong reasons and when there are increasing concerns about school discipline and the numbers of youngsters involved in incidents of antisocial behaviour, extra-curricular activities in schools and five days outdoor education for every school pupil in Scotland should be supported.
Earlier this month, the chamber debated the educational challenges that confront Scottish schools. It was an important debate for all sorts of reasons, but perhaps most of all for one question that went largely unreported. I hope that the focus of today's debate will be that question: what is education for?
Today, I choose to praise the contributions to that earlier debate made by Robin Harper, Margo MacDonald and Peter Peacock, each of whom, in their different ways, dealt with the intrinsic values of education—an issue that I discussed originally with the headteacher at Crieff high school. In the difficult and, perhaps, perplexing quest for the answer to that question, we need to stand back and ask ourselves from an holistic perspective what we should expect our schools to do.
I believe that extra-curricular activity—which is perhaps better named co-curricular activity—with all its many definitions, should be an integral part of the process. That view is not popular in some quarters. After all, extra-curricular activity is not measurable in the same way as the scores in a maths test or the A passes that the Scottish Qualifications Authority awards are. There is no national framework for such activity, which often appears on a school timetable only because of the personal and voluntary interests of an enthusiastic member of staff, not because it has been forced on the school by the strictures of the normal curriculum. Extra-curricular activity is often time consuming and irregular in terms of time allocation, and it does not lend itself to inclusion in league tables. Thank goodness for that, as I do not believe that such activity can or should be condemned to obsessive quantitative measurement.
Extra-curricular activities can be more important and more enriching than what I dare to call the run-of-the-mill education in the classroom, important though that is. I believe firmly that part of that quality is the deeply personal experience that the individuals who take part in it encounter. Some of my most rewarding days as a teacher were spent many miles away from the classroom, on the mountains beside Loch Ossian or in Wester Ross, working with children who had been taken well outside their comfort zone—I, too, was outside my comfort zone—and learning how to survive in an environment that was totally alien but richly educative. There are many thousands of teachers in Scotland just like me.
In the build-up to this debate, I was privileged to receive a huge response from the many groups and schools who do outstanding work in the area. I take this opportunity, as I did when I submitted their names to the press this morning, to put on record the debt that the Parliament and all Scotland owes them for the work they do, especially with children who may be denied such opportunities elsewhere.
It is impossible in seven minutes to do justice to all of that work, but I will summarise the essential qualities that it brings. It enables young people to take decisions in difficult situations, builds confidence and self-esteem, helps them to understand what commitment and responsibility mean, teaches them to work in teams—which is not always the most popular theme these days but is fundamental to the successful development of young people's skills—and, perhaps most important of all, allows them to start out on the journey of finding their inner selves. The groups that help children in that way do as much for our young people's social and spiritual well-being as anything else, which is a priceless asset in this day and age.
I have lodged the motion for the simple reason that I do not believe that enough of our youngsters are able to experience such activities and that many of those who do are unable to experience them for a prolonged period, when the benefits are at their greatest. Whether the school that someone attends offers such opportunities is often a lottery; extra-curricular activity does not feature as a top priority for far too many people in education officialdom.
I understand why. There is no doubt that one of the most damaging influences on such activity is the increasing reluctance of teachers, especially headteachers, to take responsibility for ensuring that pupils are able to participate in it. We are told that the risks are far too great and that the effort is not worth it, if one considers the mountain of paperwork and potential litigation that goes with it. My extensive questioning of those involved suggests that, sadly, that has become a major issue. I have great sympathy for them, but it will be an indictment of education if we decide that there is nothing we can do about the matter. Have we really arrived at the stage of allowing political correctness and the doom merchants to override our logic and deep-rooted educational values?
I fully appreciate that there is no easy answer, but I believe that, as well as encouraging all headteachers to ensure that they have a diverse and extensive extra-curricular programme in their schools, we as parliamentarians have an obligation to ensure that the legislation that covers risk is as simple and straightforward, and as supportive, as possible. We need clear guidelines that are based on common sense rather than bureaucracy. Above all, they should be based on the good practice of practitioners rather than of civil servants or people who have never been out on a hill or in a canoe. One of the difficulties that we face when it comes to extra-curricular activity is that that has often not been the case.
The Scottish National Party manifesto made it clear that the Government believes that every child has the opportunity to experience the extra-curricular domain. As a politician who is a former teacher, I am passionate about the responsibilities that we have in that regard. With the exciting prospects that the curriculum for excellence offers, we now have the opportunity to enshrine such activities in the curriculum for every young person in Scotland, and I firmly believe that we can do so at a relatively low cost.
As I said in my opening remarks, extra-curricular activities are worth their weight in gold when it comes to what real education is all about. Depriving pupils of that experience deprives Scotland of the ability to make the best use of the undoubted talents of our young people. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to do something about that state of affairs.
I apologise in advance for needing to leave the chamber before the end of the debate, which I congratulate Liz Smith on securing. She has provided a welcome reminder of how useful it is that many members bring extensive expertise to the Parliament's business.
I am sure that everyone will agree on the importance of extra-curricular activities in providing the rounded education that our children need and the health benefits that come from being out of doors.
The motion mentions the community awareness project that is run by Crieff high school in my constituency, in the town in which I live. I am delighted to have the opportunity to echo Liz Smith's praise for the people behind the project—which is essentially about building links between school and community—and, in particular, the young people who are making it a success. I am confident that the community of Crieff will respond to the pupils' efforts and I look forward to more local businesses getting involved in helping the project.
As I have mentioned the extra-curricular activities of Crieff high school, I am sure that other members will agree that now is an appropriate time to pay tribute to the actions of the three young Crieff pupils on a school skiing trip in the French Alps who saved the life of their ski instructor when he was involved in a fall. Fifth-year pupils Jamie Henry, Bruce Coull and Alex Wilson showed great composure and resourcefulness after their instructor was injured. They are a credit to their families, their school and their town. Without their actions, the situation could have become much more serious. Given that young people are often vilified in the public domain, we should remember young people such as those three boys.
Crieff high school is not unique, of course. The dedication of teachers means that most schools will provide a range of outdoor extra-curricular activities that allow pupils to engage positively with local and global communities. For example, David Gardner and Mari Evans, two senior pupils at St Columba's high school in Perth, have recently returned from India, where they visited the Association of People with Disability in Bangalore. Pupils from St Columba's were chosen to participate in the trip because of the school's years of continued support for that project, for which it has raised more than £30,000.
The community school of Auchterarder has been designated as an integrated community school, which means that it aims, through partnership with a variety of agencies, to achieve closer involvement with local communities and to provide precisely the more co-ordinated and holistic approach that Liz Smith talked about. I should also mention that Perth high school has been taking part in the John Muir awards scheme, the slogan of which is, "Discover, Explore, Conserve, Share". Nothing as exciting as that was ever available to me when I was at high school.
Far too often, the image that we have of our young folk is of a disenchanted, disengaged youth who hang around the streets smoking and drinking and causing nuisance and vandalism. The truth is far from that stereotype.
We tend of necessity to concentrate on the things that are wrong, because we are concerned with trying to fix them and put them right. Unfortunately, such a focus can sometimes mask the fact that by far the vast majority of our young people are extremely decent, conscientious and concerned human beings who are determined to be useful members of society. Indeed, we have seen some examples already this afternoon.
I congratulate Elizabeth Smith on securing this debate and thank her for her kind comments about my colleague Peter Peacock, who sends his apologies for not being able to be present this evening. She is absolutely right to say that outdoor education is important in ensuring that all our children and young people have a fully rounded educational experience. I also thank those who have provided us with briefings, particularly Peter Higgins, who has made a major contribution to this debate.
Outdoor education clearly has many benefits, including showing children how to work in co-operation, how to assess risks and how to develop their knowledge and understanding of our environment. Moreover, as members have pointed out, it is also socially inclusive and allows children to take part according to their abilities.
Forest schools have been mentioned, but I want to highlight an example of such a school in my constituency. In September 2004, staff from Forestry Commission Scotland and Falla Hill primary school in Fauldhouse started a forest school with primary 6 and primary 7 children. It involved regular visits, usually one day a week, to a local wood over an extended period. The idea behind a forest school is what it suggests—it is a school located in the forest—and, in building on mainstream education, it provides a different, enjoyable and child rather than content-led approach to the delivery of curriculum as well as carefully structured outdoor learning delivered through first-hand experience in a natural habitat.
The results show positive changes in the children's attitude and behaviour. More important, parents' support for the forest school has been very positive. Indeed, the concept is now being extended to other schools in Fauldhouse and the fact that, as an ex-mining village, it is still dealing with certain economic challenges has not prevented the children from experiencing and benefiting from outdoor education.
Linlithgow's Low Port centre, which is administered by West Lothian Council and is in a more prosperous part of my constituency, is considered to be one of Scotland's premier outdoor centres. For more than 30 years, it has organised outdoor activities such as sailing, kayaking, canoeing, windsurfing, climbing, biking and multi-activities. Indeed, anything one can care to name, the centre seems to cater for, and all the courses are graded to suit a range of ages and abilities. Moreover, the centre continues to work with excluded and disadvantaged children. For example, it is looking forward to forging a positive partnership with Donaldson's College.
There are questions about how we can involve every child in such activities, but I will finish by highlighting a couple of other challenges. The first involves finance. I hope that the local example I cited shows that it is not necessary to spend a lot of money on travelling to foreign places to have a meaningful outdoor experience. The outdoors are all around us, but I suggest to the minister that Governments and councils must provide adequate resources if children are to use them in this way.
Secondly, as Elizabeth Smith said, we need to think about safety issues. The fact is that we have become risk averse. Moreover, we do not want our children to take risks. Although I would never want to put my children or anyone else's children at risk, we do them a disservice if we do not allow them to take calculated risks. We must ensure that the people who are with them are properly trained and able to assess such matters. It is only by doing so that we can ensure that our young people can grow into the adults that we wish them to be.
As other members have done, I congratulate Elizabeth Smith on lodging her excellent and relevant motion, which is one of the best that we have had for a members' business debate for some time, and on making a very good speech. I, too, pay tribute to the people who support outdoor and extra-curricular activities in education and youth work.
The debate raises many key issues, including the nature and purpose of education, which Elizabeth Smith touched on; the most effective ways of including all children; how we inculcate a sense of place in children; and, as many members have mentioned, how we deal with our risk-averse society.
I was particularly struck by the Woodland Trust's observation in its briefing that
"just as green space is free at the point of delivery for health benefits, it is also available for education."
Against that background, I will touch on three issues.
The first is the importance of protecting green space, which was often handed down to us by far-sighted forebears and philanthropists but which is often under threat from developers, from philistinic—if there is such a word—councillors or from public neglect. It is time we considered a modern common good law that would protect our heritage, set limits on what councils, as trustees of our parks, can do in our name and develop a more dynamic philosophy of the public interest in key natural assets.
The second issue is facilities. There is a place for unorganised play, but in our risk-averse society we must build, preserve and organise outdoor education facilities. We have the considerable assets that that are run by local authorities, the Scottish Youth Hostels Association, the Scottish Environmental and Outdoor Education Centres Association, the Scout Association and others. They can provide the resources and the expertise that can reassure parents and guarantee high standards. However, we must ensure that we know what exists, that we use the resources fully and that they contribute fully to our bank of social assets.
The third issue is play and communication. I read somewhere—I think that it was from I Can—that 50 per cent of children who start school cannot communicate properly. The play opportunities of outdoor education and other extra-curricular activities can make an incalculable contribution to overcoming such a restricted start in life. When I was the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, I visited Denmark to see its education system; I visited a nature kindergarten some distance outside Copenhagen, which was attended by children with additional support needs and other children. The day on which we went was particularly cold and miserable and I must say that the children looked distinctly underwhelmed by the experience. However, the concept of nature kindergartens—the idea that being outdoors in all weathers is natural and beneficial—is widespread in the Nordic countries and is successful.
I ask the minister for a commitment from the Government on several fronts. First, I ask the Government to recognise and support the importance of first-class facilities and of the organisations that provide and run such facilities and provide expertise. Secondly, I seek a commitment to tackle barriers to outdoor learning, whether the barrier is the cost of courses, the restraints of the curriculum, the need for expertise or the drawbacks of a risk-averse approach and the need for guidance. Young people need challenge and excitement and they need to experience risks and have the opportunity to show leadership. Thirdly, I ask the Government to ensure that all young people can access the opportunities. As Elizabeth Smith mentioned, we should see those opportunities as being universal, as schools are universal, even if we need targeted provision for some young people who have specific needs and challenges.
Connection to the world around, having a sense of place and having opportunities to explore, develop and learn are central to widening the life chances of many young people. Young people are our future—they are the people who will change our world. Extra-curricular activities give huge opportunities for personal development, to build leadership qualities and resilience, to widen horizons and to learn new skills and taste new interests. They add to CVs and to informal learning, which complements more formal provision in the education system. I enthusiastically support Elizabeth Smith's excellent motion.
I, too, thank Elizabeth Smith for bringing the debate to Parliament. She knows, as do many members who are present, that I am as passionate as she is about outdoor education. At every opportunity in the past eight and a half years in debates on education, I have tried to bring the issue to members' attention.
I will expand a little on the reasons why outdoor education is such a good thing. As Elizabeth Smith said, it provides benefits that cannot and should not be measured. I thank Dave Spence, who heads the Scottish Environmental and Outdoor Education Centres Association, for providing a list of 13 ways in which children develop through outdoor education. They develop confidence and the ability to make decisions in the face of complex and daunting challenges. They gain motivation, which leads to an increased likelihood of their being successful learners, and they learn positive attitudes to problem solving. They develop resilience, tenacity, determination and adaptability, which so many employers want. They develop an understanding of risk, risk assessment and risk management and they gain creativity and the ability to initiate and be receptive to innovation. They develop knowledge and appreciation of healthy and more active lifestyles, the ability to reflect on their potential and their contribution to society, which is so important, and an appreciation of others and their place, contribution and potential in the world, which relates to responsible citizenship. They also develop teamworking skills, strong communication skills, leadership qualities and the ability to delegate, which makes them effective contributors. My goodness—every single child in Scottish education could benefit from those qualities.
Such education should not be restricted to those who can afford it. Only the other night, a television programme about Easterhouse showed that the experience of 16-year-olds in gangs could extend no further than the 13 streets of which they had control. That is their environment; that is all they live in. We have got to get our children out into the environment.
I want to follow up on Robert Brown's entreaties on what the Government should be doing, and to follow up on what Elizabeth Smith said about gathering together people who are engaged in outdoor education to see how we can make progress. I would love to be involved; I was once an outdoor educator.
Making progress need not be incredibly expensive. Dave Spence has given us outline figures that suggest that the roughly 50,000 children in each year's cohort in primary schools in Scotland could all get five days of outdoor education for about £8 million. The education system does not normally provide lodging and food for free, so it would be quite reasonable to expect the parents to pay for lodging and food, in which case the cost to the state would be reduced to £3 million. In the great scheme of things, when we consider the benefits to young people, that figure is absolute pennies. That sort of thing should be our starter, but we should be looking much further.
In the 1970s, every school in Lothian Region had an outdoor education teacher. Benmore outdoor education centre is still going and I pay tribute to all the people there for the wonderful work that they do. If the City of Edinburgh Council in its wisdom is thinking of reducing the centre's funding, it should not be. Benmore should be getting more funding.
I hope that the minister will respond positively to the debate, so that we can all take the issue much further over the coming months.
I, too, congratulate Elizabeth Smith on securing tonight's important debate. The benefits of outdoor activities and education to young people are many. They help with good health, increase self-esteem, develop the brain and open up the imagination of young people.
Capitalising on children's curiosity at primary school age as a learning motivator is not complicated—brains are designed to learn. By providing young children with experiences, we give learning potential a helping hand. As the Lib Dem environment spokesman, I want to focus on that subject.
Through learning through play in places such as nature kindergartens, which Robert Brown mentioned, children figure out not only how the world works but how it can work for them. Nature kindergartens on the continent have even been used successfully to help the children of drug addicts. Frau Kutsch's project in Germany, fully supported by Chancellor Merkel, celebrates its 10th anniversary this year. We have a lot to learn from such projects. In the south, campaigner Sibylle Alexander has fought for many years for nature kindergartens to become part of our national curriculum, and I have full sympathy with that.
I was lucky enough to be brought up in the country. Being 12 miles from the nearest town I may have missed out on being able just to go down the park to play football with my mates, but I had the benefit of living with nature all around and, of course, of understanding it fairly well. However, this past generation has changed. A distance has appeared between urban and rural lives; no longer do most urban kids have a relation who works on the land and understands it. It is therefore up to us to ensure that the gap is bridged.
It is not always possible to take kids out to the environment, but it is possible to bring the environment to the kids. Among many other innovative projects, Borders Forest Trust, which works throughout the south of Scotland, runs a successful playground initiative—I declare that I am a past trustee. The initiative encourages school kids to plan and fund their own playgrounds that include indigenous trees and furniture made with local craftsmen under another initiative called butts to benches, in which local wood is made into highly imaginative pieces of furniture. If anyone is interested, they can see a red squirrel shaped bench, leaf shaped benches and even one in the shape of a dolphin. Those playgrounds, of which there are 35 to date, can also include wildlife gardens, ponds, sensory plantings, special needs gardens and murals. All of them are different and all are fired by the children's imagination, which is in turn fired by the initiative. That project is proven to improve understanding of the environment, increase urban green space and raise awareness of local issues.
As Liberal Democrat environment spokesman and a South of Scotland MSP, my focus in this debate has rightly been on the benefits that the south has derived from environmental outdoor education, with some local initiatives from which all should benefit—urban and rural. That is echoed in Elizabeth Smith's motion. Understanding our environment better, learning new skills, seeing a lump of wood turn into a dolphin shaped bench and acorns grow into great oaks can only better prepare kids for an holistic understanding of the planet on which we live. Parliament must learn from existing good practice and push for further environmental education to enhance understanding of how we can all make a positive difference to the places where we live and for our future generations.
I thank Elizabeth Smith for lodging the motion and for the kind words at the start of her speech.
I will concentrate on what I know most about—physical education—and talk about the big, beefy sports, such as high-level walking, climbing, orienteering and mountain biking. I will link them to a particular interest of mine: trying to recruit from the ranks of people whom we stupidly describe as NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—thus categorising them in a pejorative fashion. A great number of young people from the ranks of those who are not in education and who perhaps did not find school a satisfactory experience could be recruited because of their skills in sports, usually football. They are the sort of people who, if they were encouraged to gain certification from the governing bodies of sport—this goes for all sports because, once somebody is into one, they are into umpteen—could work with children from Easterhouse, for example, in outdoor physical education. That would be worth trying, so I would like a pilot or two to be attempted. It would not cost much money.
Money is one of the things that holds back programmes and implementation of the intention behind the motion. Local authorities might take up the sort of ideas that they took up in the 1970s and to which Robin Harper referred, but they say that they are strapped for cash, so they are unlikely to spend a lot of money on such initiatives. However, they could declutter the school timetable. The terms "outdoor education" and "extra-curricular" imply somehow that such activities will be done outwith the school day, but such education should be incorporated into the school day or the school week. Local authorities should be helped to declutter their timetables to achieve that.
The extraordinary thing is that, in the 1970s and 1980s, there were more young people in education and less was spent on it but we still found the money for outdoor education. Now, we have fewer pupils, more money, but no outdoor education.
I reiterate my points about where we might find coaches to take young people in hand and how we might find time for them to do that.
Robin Harper referred to Glenmore lodge. I was there—not as a school pupil but as a physical education student—and have never forgotten the experience. I had to write a diary at the end of the stay. When I look at it now, I cannot believe that I was that person and that I derived from it what I did. It was a wonderful experience. I remember doing high-level walking and passing Utsi's reindeer. They were going down the hill because they knew what we did not know—a storm was coming. We were all nipping over corries. I did things that I never thought I would attempt in my lifetime: I would like every young Scot to get the same opportunity.
I thank Elizabeth Smith for securing this important debate and I thank all the members who have taken part in it. This Government agrees that outdoor learning has an important role to play in the development of our children and young people. As a former teacher, I remember my time under canvas in the peak district. Like Jim Hume, I had the benefit of a rural, farming background.
As Elizabeth Smith knows, one of the outcomes in the concordat with local authorities is that our young people should be successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens. Achieving that outcome is important in its own right and it will make a major contribution to the other outcomes. We need every young person to have those qualities and to develop them to their full potential. As Robin Harper made plain, outdoor learning in its widest sense has a clear contribution to make to that national outcome in helping to engage young people at risk of negative outcomes and harnessing Scotland's natural resources to broaden their horizons.
As Elizabeth Smith said, there are examples of good work in Perth and Kinross. She mentioned Crieff high school and Roseanna Cunningham mentioned Perth high school, which has developed a successful programme of outdoor activities, on which it is to be congratulated.
As a parent, I too have seen at first hand the benefits of taking young people out of their normal environment for a residential experience. They come back walking that bit taller, having expanded their horizons, developed their confidence and formed more positive relationships with not only their fellow pupils but their teachers, which can only be a good thing when they get back into the classroom.
Outdoor learning in which pupils experience enjoyment, support and challenge, with clear links to the curriculum, is beneficial in helping young people to learn about the environment and promotes cross-curricular learning and physical activity. The vital element for pupils is to link the outdoor experience to their school work, so that they can take back the new skills they have discovered and apply them in their learning.
Outdoor learning is not just something that is done in five special days of schooling; it should be part of where and how children and young people learn on a day-to-day basis. That view is supported by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which has emphasised the value of well-planned outdoor education experiences. It has noted that the best examples are a combination of school-based and residential programmes that progressively develop pupils' experience.
The Scottish Government is providing leadership and direction. Our curriculum for excellence guidance makes it clear that the outdoor learning environment offers motivating, exciting, different and relevant activities from pre-school years, to which Mary Mulligan and Robert Brown referred, through to college.
Local authorities and teachers are best placed to decide how to deliver the benefits of outdoor learning in ways that meet their local circumstances and which contribute to our national outcomes. For example, in my constituency of North East Scotland, Banff and Buchan College works with local schools to develop a range of children's skills in the local wooded environment, which is much like what happens in Mr Hume's constituency. Primary 7s use band-saws, which shows that Health and Safety Executive concerns can be addressed. Teachers and headteachers have to be more focused on transitions, of which vocational and outdoor education forms a part.
We know that there is wide variety in the duration and type of outdoor learning opportunities that are provided by schools and that a number of barriers can contribute to the problem. Those include timetabling, staff competence and confidence and differing views on the benefits of outdoor learning.
The curriculum for excellence sends a clear signal about the value of outdoor learning, but there is work to be done to develop teachers' skills and encourage them to use the outdoors as an extension of the classroom. The flipside of that is that outdoor education specialists must understand the demands of our new curriculum, including the development of the four capacities and the focus on skills, and ensure that they tailor experiences to meet those demands.
As many members have said, Scotland has a wealth of outdoor education providers. We need to explore ways of supporting them to form better partnerships at national, local authority, community planning and school community level, for the benefit of our children and young people. Margo MacDonald made interesting points about how community planning and community partnerships could do much more in that area. Already, the money that is being made available as a result of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is being used to provide opportunities for young people who are in need of more choices and chances.
It just needs someone at a local level to organise it.
I agree that it requires the leadership that we all talk about.
On Robert Brown's points, officials are currently developing proposals on how we might build on best practice and strengthen the opportunities for young people to participate in a range of outdoor education opportunities. I look forward to sharing those proposals with members in the coming months.
Meeting closed at 17:57.