The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 53

International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education

Copyright © North American Association for Environmental Education

ISSN: 2331-0464 (online)

This narrative review examines the history and future implications of Forest School, a pedagogical approach to early

years outdoor education. Forest School is considered a philosophical perspective towards learning outdoors that

values holistic development. There are numerous benefits to Forest School and the opportunities that it presents

for young children to learn within a natural environment and to engage with nature. Due to the significance of a

region’s culture and history, the consideration of education and outdoor learning differs greatly depending on the

geographical context. The theory of social constructionism allows for a more precise analysis of Forest School’s

education (OE), looking back at the history as well as towards future implications. This study will use both a historical

and conceptual outline to weave the story of FS from the very beginning up until the present day. Additionally, this

review will analyze the future trajectory of FSs and what implications this style of learning will have on OE, principally

within North America (NA). Because the pedagogy of FS is steeped within cultural and social norms, its history is best

analyzed through the social constructionist lens (Waite & Goodenough 2018). Thus, this study will address the

general inception of FS, and then follow its development within Scandinavia, the United Kingdom (UK), and NA. In

an attempt to portray both the forest and the trees, the details of FS’s history will be constructed alongside of the

general OE big-picture.

The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 54

Literature Review

and emphasis within various contexts (p. 3). There are clearly many underlying philosophies about OE that prevent

it from being homogenously defined across cultures (Nicol, 2002b). While the report of Rickinson et al. (2004) states

that the idea of OE is “broad and complex”, researchers also point out that outdoor learning can have distinctive

foci, outcomes, and locations while still being considered OE. In its most basic sense, many researchers quote

Donaldson and Donaldson (1958) when applying a wide meaning to the concept of OE as being “education in, for,

and about the outdoors” (p. 17).

Although OE is an agency that is difficult to define, FS is a much more clearly delineated approach that falls within

its parameters. Knight (2018) recognizes that “good outdoor and environmental education and experiences can and

should take many forms” (p. 23), suggesting that FS is one of these methods that is both valuable and appropriate

in nature, seeking to use the outdoors to develop the whole child, including character, social proficiencies, and

critical thinking ability (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012). Specific skills and competencies are intentionally targeted and

nurtured: self-esteem, self-confidence, independence, and risk-taking (Maynard, 2007). Experiential learning is a key

component of FS, as well as general environmental education objectives. FS pedagogy is not very recent, but until

lately, the majority of FS research was not available in English, making it difficult for many in NA to fully understand

this element of OE (O,Brien, 2007). Within the past couple of years, the quantity of and quality of FS research in the

English language has grown, making it possible for English-speaking countries to comprehend this particular style of

OE pedagogy: early childhood education and development within a natural, outdoor space.

FS, like other types of OE, takes place in an outdoor learning environment, allowing children many experiential

2009). Besides the multitude of health and mental advantages of FS, young people gain opportunities to develop a

love towards outdoor places and “close allegiances” as they grow in empathy towards the natural world (Sobel,

2008, p. 32). This leads to a nourishing connection to outdoor environments, allowing children to strengthen their

compassion towards nature. FS, a philosophy that emphasizes more than simply academic endeavors, has the

capacity to move children, teachers, and communities “towards the resolution of environmental questions, issues,

and problems.” (Davis, 1998, p. 118). Understanding FS will enable teachers with older students to incorporate FS

concepts into their own science classroom within the context of an outdoor setting. A firm knowledge of the FS

approach will also empower educators and policy makers around the world to advance their understanding of how

to best educate children in an outdoor environment.

The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 55

Theoretical Framework

theoretical framework, one can perceive how a community’s outdoor learning is closely connected with its

environment, established within interactions between people, places, and activities. As a type of OE, FS is a social

construction, unique to each culture based on how a distinct group of people actively and historically view the

outdoors (Leather, 2018). Waite and Goodenough (2013) propose the term cultural density to describe the

significance of place in impacting learning outcomes, particularly as it relates to OE. Because such educational

contexts are unique to a country and a region, models of OE, like FS, are heavily reliant on culture, social setting, and

geographic location (Bentsen, 2010).

The idea of social constructionism within OE is also evidenced by the scope of reports that individual nations have

commissioned, each focusing on particular aspects of the field relevant to the commissioning nation. These reports

outlook on land governance as well as its structural control of schooling (Leather, 2018; Waite & Goodenough, 2018).

According to the FS philosophy, outdoor interactions are meant to be an extension of everyday life – a cultural norm

– as opposed to a novel, adjunct experience. Despite major differences within cultural constructs of FS, there are

commonalities across cultures and geographical areas: a natural setting, experiential learning, and student-led

engagements. Understanding the social constructionist nature of FS properly frames this subfield of OE within each

culture, leading to a better understanding of its complex socially layered history.

History of FS

Tilling the Soil

and leisure in an outdoor environment once labor moved primarily indoors during this time of industry growth

(Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012). Shortly after Western nations began looking at nature as a free-time activity, early

childhood educators – Vygotsky, Paiget, Montessori, etc. – started exploring and writing about best practices in early

childhood education. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the work of researchers and philosophers focused on young

children’s cognitive development, helping prepare the way for the inception of FS philosophy. FS has been influenced

and “supported by numerous theorists from around the world” (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012, p. 9). It is significantly

rooted in the pedagogy of Friedrich Froebel, a German educator who felt that the early years should occur in natural

places, yet FS can also trace its ideas back to a variety of theories during this time. In this way, a combination of a

growing interest in outdoor engagements and a rising understanding of early childhood development through expert

educators laid the groundwork for FS to take root in many Western nations. The foundation for FS was established

The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 56

Tending the Seedling

woodlands as a childcare and educational site. Around the country, cohorts of three- to six-year-olds became the

first group of children to enter FS.

Additionally, since Denmark had recognized the general health and leisure benefits from an outdoor environment

from a very early period, FS became a natural extension of a cultural norm. (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012). Time spent

outdoors engaging in rest, leisure sports, and contemplation has been and continues to be a core value in Danish

culture. Placing young children in need of supervision and learning engagements into an outdoor setting was in line

with the country’s general outlook towards nature. Across Denmark, educators and stakeholders worked on

cultivating a place where young children could develop positively and gain an appreciation of a natural outdoor

setting.

and practice to spread to other parts Westernized nations, beginning first in the rest of Scandinavia, and then moving

to the UK and NA In the past few years FSs have extended rapidly within these Western nations (Knight, 2013), being

grafted onto to other cultural foundations within the realm of OE.

Grafting the Branches

Due to the nature of outdoor learning, its important to analyze the history of FS through the lens of social

construction. This allows one to see the individual components of FSs that differ between countries and regions. The

narrative of FS history is very place-dependent; each country’s interpretation of the original Denmark FS differs due

to geography, customs, and social constructs. This section will delve deeper distinct areas of the world, noting key

doing similar practices. This is not surprising, considering the closely connected cultural norms in Scandinavia This

region of the world has been heralded as the exemplary standard of school-based outdoor learning, and still serves

as a model for other nations seeking to emulate their practices (Bentsen et al., 2010). Both Norway and Sweden

have their own versions of compulsory school-based outdoor education, with many commonalities across the

Scandinavian socio-cultural context (Bentsen et al., 2010).

Since the 1970s all the Scandinavian countries have sought to educate children and the general public on the

outdoors, consistently producing OE research, some of which has focused exclusively on FS (Jensen, 1999). The 70s

saw the rise of the Energy Crisis, leading to an increased awareness of environmental issues (Williams-Siegfredsen,

2012). The progression of knowledge regarding the benefits of outdoor engagements encouraged the steady growth

The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 57

In the 1990s, it became clear that the strong outdoor recreational roots of Scandinavia were a critical component of

the culture that also helped promote environmental protection and awareness (Jensen, 1999). This was also when

In the early 2000s, Denmark placed into law a general curriculum for all preschools, yet gave each individual setting

the autonomy to create a curriculum plan based on specific areas of learning set forth by the government (Williams-

Siegfredsen, 2012). This autonomy allowed and supported freedom for Danish educators to develop an OE

curriculum that met the needs of each region and community (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012). Sweden underwent a

similar reform at this time; the decentralization of school led to free-choice for stakeholders and gave teachers more

independence in how to interpret curricular goals (Wermke & Forsberg, 2017). At the turn of the century, the relative

freedom of Scandinavian teachers guided the development of many grassroots educational ventures in the

respective school systems (Bentsen et al., 2010). Within these Scandinavian countries, FS continues to be a unique

construct that depends greatly on the area, context, and individual goals of both the parents and educators.

introduced national curriculum in the UK, offering an alternative to the outcome-centered approach (Forest School

Association, 2018). Thus, FS began to take hold in the country, beginning in 1995 with course offerings and

certifications at Bridgewater College (Forest School Association, 2018).

A couple years later, the UK government began a push to both understand and implement OE practices (Rickinson

et al., 2004 and O’Brien & Murray, 2007), which naturally led to a greater interest in FS. British policy makers

commissioned an extensive report covering the existing research on OE with intent purposes of reconnecting young

people back to the land and of understanding the value of learning in an outdoor environment (Dillon et al., 2005;

Rickinson et al., 2004). At the same time, NGOs sought to evaluate FSs in the early 2000s as they became more

prevalent and widespread around the country (O’Brien & Murray, 2007). The body of research focusing on outdoor

similar to National Curriculum already in place (Department for Education, 2018). In contrast with Scandinavian

countries, the UK has developed a highly structured, regulated construct of FS (Waite & Goodenough, 2018). At the

National FS Conference in 2002, the UK definition of FS was developed; six governing principles were agreed upon

to define this learning approach (Forest School Association, 2018). The principles that were developed in 2002 listed

the key features of FS as follows:

It is run by qualified level 3 practitioners.

It has a high adult:child ratio.

The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 58

Observations of the learners are key to enabling scaffolding of the learning.

Care for the natural world is integrated. (Forest School Association, 2018, “History of Forest School,

para. 6).

Since their formation, these governing principles have been reviewed and published, becoming part of the national

standards within the Forest School Association (2018) as a governing body (Leather, 2018). The UK developed a

system for regulating FS to ensure quality and conformity to the six agreed-upon principles (Leather, 2018), which is

very different than the non-hierarchical mindset of Scandinavia. Yet Waite and Goodenough (2018) argue that these

FS principles are still in discord to more conventional UK educational practices, the whole-child development

value of learning in the outdoors, but argue that a “drag-and-drop” approach for FS does not work; one must take

into account the “cultural-ecological context” and specific attributes to each geographical region (p. 46). From a

social constructionist perspective, it is evident that the development of FS within the UK has diverged from the

Scandinavian prototypes. For some, FS within the UK becomes a novel approach that is an alternative between more

traditional schooling methods. The disconnect between home and school in a British FS directly contrasts the

continuity experienced within the Scandinavian model and mindset (Waite & Goodenough, 2018). In March 2018,

the Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Research published a special issue focusing on FS, particularly within the

UK Multiple authors – Leather, Lloyd et al., Knight, Waite and Goodenough – addressed the growing concern that FS

within the UK had become commercialized and “McDonaldized”, deviating from the original Danish approach (Lloyd,

et al., 2018, p. 46). Although it continues to grow in popularity, the future of FS within the UK is unsure. Some

publications on FS appealed to other countries, like Canada (Knight, 2018). Before this, as early as 1982, American

researchers were identifying the need for wild places and natural spaces as a critical part of childhood development

(Hart, 1982). Although trailing the Scandinavian environmental conservation trend, the United States (U.S.) began

growing in its awareness of the changing environments and limited resources, particularly in the early 1990s (Jensen,

1999). While at first this led to an increase in outdoor educational pursuits, researchers identified that learning about

the environment does not need to be the only objective of OE (Munoz, 2009). By 2004, at the time of Rickinson et

al.’s OE literature review report (2004), the U.S. and Canada had produced a large portion of outdoor adventure

education research literature. Although adventure-based outdoor learning and FS are substantially different, both

exist under the construct of OE. This demonstrates a commonality between all three regions – Scandinavia, UK, and

NA – that OE is a much-needed and significant form of learning, regardless of its distinct format.

people’s history and current social norms (Child and Nature Alliance of Canada, 2018).

The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 59

While minimal FS research has come from the U.S., there is still a steady grassroot movement of FSs emerging around

American field of OE, growing out of a general concern of environmental issues. While FSs were appearing in

Scandinavian during this time, the NAAEE started using conferences, publications, and networking to promote

environmental education in NA (Disinger et al., 2001). Although the NAAEE began as a uniting force for OE within

NA, comparatively very little of its work has focused on FS. In comparison to Scandinavia and the UK, NA has been

years behind in acknowledging or adopting FS philosophy.

Finally, in 2015, the NAAEE recognized the need and importance of FS within this region of the world. The National

Start Alliance (2018), an offshoot of the NAAEE, very recently developed The Council of Nature and Forest Preschools

in response to a growing need and a growing trend of this style of OE pedagogy. “The Council for Nature and Forest

Preschools began to form in 2015 at a meeting at the National Conservation Training Center to explore how the

The history of FS is rich and nuanced, showcasing unique cultural characteristic as the idea has been grafted into

tracing the history of FS from its inception in Denmark, through Scandinavia and the UK, across the Atlantic, and

then to the continent of NA. Figure 1 illustrates the non-linear timeline of FS, showcasing its unique cultural

fluctuations and regional characteristics. Due to its social constructionist nature, FS has grown and changed as the

idea has been grafted into these other cultures. There are countries not mentioned in this review that have also

begun to incorporate FS concepts, and some that already have a large number of established schools. Australia has

a rigorous OE curriculum, so FS has naturally taken hold within the country. FSs can also be found in South Korea,

Japan, Germany, and New Zealand (Child and Nature Alliance of Canada, 2018; Chait, 2016). Covering the entire

history of FSs around the globe would be complex and time-consuming; the concept is growing and being assimilated

The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 60

Implications

As evidenced by its spread around the globe, FSs are becoming more popular in Westernized nations as they grow

in number and in influence. This can be traced, in part, to an international interest in the Scandinavian construct of

the outdoors as a place of adventure, education, leisure, and all-around connection (Bentsen et al., 2009). For

educators, the implications of this style of learning are prodigious – the benefit of education in the outdoors has

been documented extensively. Children who spend time outdoors involved in free play have greater physical

movement, more social interactions, and a more prominent nature-connectiveness (Munoz, 2009). Besides the

numerous health benefits of outdoor engagements, FS specifically helps build character, risk-taking, and both fine-

The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6(3), p. 61

In his book, Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv (2008) laments the severe decrease in time spent outdoors in

FS based on an in-depth 1997 study comparing an indoor kindergarten to an outdoor FS. Students who attended a

FS had: (1) “better concentration”, (2) “better physical and motor development”, (3) “more varied and imaginative

types of play”, and (4) were sick less often (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012, pp. 93-94). Advantages of FS are found within

a physical, social, psychological, linguistic, holistic, didactical, and parental perspective (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012).

Planting the Future

Although the importance of FS is clear, there are still many questions and gaps within the research regarding this OE

approach and how it might be specifically applied to the U.S. There have been numerous FS studies within

Scandinavia that are not available in English for the U.S. or other countries to access. Additionally, the social

campaign of 2009, later amended in 2013, demonstrates the country’s growing awareness in learning outside the

classroom. Future research needs to concentrate on FSs within the country and their relationship to other OE

endeavors.

There are some evident gaps within all the available FS literature, particularly when trying to apply it to a specific

nation, such as the US. First of all, how can we, as a country, incorporate the philosophies of a Danish FS without

pushing child development, as Waite and Goodenough (2018) mention in the UK model? There seems to be an

inevitable clash to the culture of schooling within highly standardized countries – the UK and US – as opposed to

Scandinavian countries wherein teachers have more autonomy. This “demand for standardisation” and “curriculum

objectives” can usurp the student-centered framework through which students have the locus of control (Waite &

school”, this form of OE is closely related to FS, but revolves around older students. Many of the same FS principles

apply: whole-child focused, experiential learning, etc. (Bentsen et al., 2010). Due to its grounding in cultural

constructs, an idea like udeskole would look very different if applied to an American setting. Further research is

needed to look at the implications for FS at an older age range, and how regular school-based outdoor learning

impacts achievement and attitude.

The future of FS is certain, yet also unknown. Across the globe, more and more FSs are being opened, yet

stakeholders still have countless questions regarding this unique form of education. FS began as a grassroots

movement and still continues to develop with little or no endorsement by departments of education or the national

curriculum. Some government organizations have recognized the connection between access to a natural