Contributions of Forest School to outdoor education can be enhanced by deep explorations into its cultural and theoretical meaning

This paper presents a critique of Forest School as implemented in the UK. The Forest School approach to outdoor education originated in Scandinavia, where using the outdoors – or the forest – for educating young children is widely accepted. Three major issues relating to the importation of the Forest School model into the UK are addressed. These areas of concern focus on (1) how Forest School as a form of outdoor education is culturally, socially and historically situated, (2) how the pedagogy of Forest School is undertheorized, and (3) how Forest School practices are being institutionalized and commodified.

An understanding relating to the first concern relates to the idea that Forest School is a social construction significantly informed by the Scandinavian philosophy of Friluftsliv (“free air life”). Friluftsliv refers to a lifestyle philosophy based on experiences of freedom in nature and spiritual connectedness with the land. This lifestyle philosophy is complex and culturally rooted. Aspects of it can get lost when implemented in other countries. Forest School educators in the UK need to be aware that Forest School is socially constructed and that one of their challenges is finding ways to navigate cultural differences. The second concern relates to Forest School pedagogy, especially regarding play and the adult role in children's play activities. While the concept of child-initiated play may be new and potentially exciting for some outdoor educators, a pedagogy of play needs to be more clearly articulated. In discussing the third concern – the institutionalization and commodification of Forest School – the author challenges some of the stated claims about outcomes of Forest School, using claims related to self-esteem as an exemplar. His concern relates to how unchallenged outcome statements are being used to promote and market the Forest School model.

The author recognizes the positive contributions Forest School is making to the development of outdoor and environmental education programs. His critique is offered as an invitation to engage in robust discussion about the theory and practice of Forest School so that difficulties can be addressed and contributions enhanced.