{"id":6505,"date":"2015-11-16T07:57:29","date_gmt":"2015-11-16T07:57:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=6505"},"modified":"2015-11-16T07:57:29","modified_gmt":"2015-11-16T07:57:29","slug":"natural-disconnections-in-plymouth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2015\/11\/16\/natural-disconnections-in-plymouth\/","title":{"rendered":"Natural Disconnections in Plymouth"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is my second post about the Natural Connections event in Plymouth last week. \u00a0As I noted<\/a> on Thursday\u00a0morning, I set off for the\u00a0meeting\u00a0with a heavy heart, as the format of the programme suggested they'd learned nothing about organising a meeting from their East London near 'n' far<\/a>\u00a0disaster last summer. \u00a0And so it proved.<\/p>\n

It began with a scene setting, although this\u00a0had more to do with Plymouth and the ESRC than with natural connections. \u00a0We were meeting in an up-market tent while the wind bashed and crashed outside. Hey, it was almost LiNE!<\/p>\n

The first speaker said that outdoor learning\u00a0was an opportunity to encourage teachers and schools \"to teach and learn the curriculum\u201d, and I wondered if anyone knew what that meant. \u00a0I\u2019m still wondering, but I now know that outdoor learning is an opportunity to \"bring children and nature closer together.\u201d \u00a0If only.<\/p>\n

After the scene-setting, the next speaker provided\u00a0some data. \u00a0The project has worked with 1600 teachers and 1450 teaching assistants in 130 schools (>90% were primary) and has reached 31,000 students. \u00a0It has been based around the idea of hub leaders and beacon schools, with every beacon being the inspirational core of a cluster of other schools.<\/p>\n

There was then a film, but this mostly repeated what the speaker said. \u00a0I wrote down that the project had led to \"acclimatising children to learning out of doors\" \u2013 although\u00a0learning what<\/em> exactly, was still vague. \u00a0It\u2019s fair to say there wasn\u2019t a lot of emphasis on the what,<\/em> but, hey, being outdoors is fun \u2013 unless you\u2019re cold and wet, that is, when you can get grumpy. \u00a0More on grumpy, later. \u00a0But does it really matter what<\/em>, I hear you say, especially if it's fun<\/em>. \u00a0Well, I bet the DfE thinks it matters quite a lot. \u00a0More on the DfE tomorrow.<\/p>\n

A key session (the third) was about what the evaluation revealed. The headline outcome is that, as a result of an injection of countless \u00a3zillions of tax-payer cash, \u201cmore teachers and TAs are doing more outdoor learning\u201d. \u00a0I have to say that I was relieved. \u00a0There were then a lot of before and after percentages which I didn\u2019t follow all that well. That might not have been entirely my fault, as it wasn\u2019t always clear when the before was, or, indeed, if it really was before.<\/p>\n

For example, the mentions of outdoor learning in school documentation had gone up from 68% to 75%, and the number of teachers doing outdoor learning-focused CPD had gone from 55% to 67%. \u00a0But school spending on outdoor learning fell\u00a0from 76% to 64% (2014 to 2015), which seemed to be a good thing, so maybe before was after after in some cases \u2013 or after, before. \u00a0Confused? \u00a0Me too. \u00a0I hope the final report is clearer.<\/p>\n

There were survey results about why there should be\u00a0more outdoor learning, but we were not shown the questions. \u00a0No matter, because the results are impressive in an East German election sort of way. \u00a0Here are the percentages of teachers giving these as reasons for engaging in outdoor learning:<\/p>\n