Out‐of‐school learning: variations in provision and participation in secondary schools

Abstract

There is overwhelming evidence of the benefits of out‐of‐school learning. It is likely to be particularly important for disadvantaged students who have fewer material and cultural resources in the home to supplement their classroom work. However, despite the research evidence and political moves to promote out‐of‐school learning, it would appear that the provision of such activities is increasingly threatened by resource constraints, regulation and risk aversion. The research reported here set out to investigate how schools experience these and other difficulties and how they differentially affect the provision of and participation in out‐of‐school learning activities. Data, collected through a UK‐wide questionnaire survey and case studies in 12 schools, indicate that there is wide variation in the amount and quality of out‐of‐school learning opportunities that schools provide. The inequalities created by these varying levels and types of provision of out‐of‐school learning activities are compounded by uneven participation. Those schools reporting lower levels of participation were most likely to be those with the highest levels of free school meal eligibility. Particular groups of students that were seen to be ‘missing out’ on learning activities included those from poor homes and from minority ethnic communities (especially Muslim girls). In addition to self‐exclusion from out‐of‐school visits, it would appear that school ‘bans’ on pupil participation are commonplace. These variable patterns of provision and participation reveal significant inequalities in students’ experience of out‐of‐classroom learning.

Keywords:

• out‐of‐school learning
• field trips
• secondary education
• adventure activities
• curriculum enrichment
• supplementary learning

Notes

1. The Real World Learning Campaign is a partnership between the Field Studies Council, RSPB, National Trust, PGL, the Wildlife Trusts and the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust. Its objectives include the promotion of heritage and arts education, outdoor and adventurous activity as well as first‐hand sustainability and development issues.

2. There are different terms for the provision of structured activities which are conducted outside the classroom. These kinds of activities are often referred to as ‘Out‐of‐Classroom Learning’ (OoCL) and the DCSF currently uses the term ‘Learning Outside the Classroom’ (LOtC). However, both of these terms include activities that may be outside the classroom but within the school grounds. For the purposes of this project, we decided to focus on those activities defined by Rickinson et al. (2004) as ‘fieldwork and outdoor visits’ and ‘outdoor activities’ rather than ‘school grounds and community projects’. We have therefore used the term ‘out‐of‐school learning’ throughout.

3. Although such learning activities are also important for students at primary phase and in their further and higher education, it is in the compulsory secondary level that differences in provision and participation are likely to be most visible and have greatest significance. It is during this stage that students begin to elect which subjects they will take for further study and are increasingly channelled into different educational pathways.

4. Response rates for Scotland and Northern Ireland were relatively low which, because of the small size of the original sample, makes it difficult to do statistical comparisons across the four nations. However, our analysis of policies on out‐of‐school learning in each of these countries revealed few differences. For these reasons, we have aggregated the data to UK level for this paper. More detailed analysis of the responding schools and a discussion of differences within the UK can be found in the full report (Power et al. 2008).

5. Young people in the supplemental questionnaire were aged 11–15 and were randomly selected from households who completed the 2003 Citizenship Survey. A total of 1666 young people completed the Young Person Questionnaire from across England, Wales and Scotland.

6. Again, for further details on these schools and the sampling method behind the case studies, see Power et al. (2008).

7. Nil and missing responses to the number of activities organised against the range of subject‐related questions were removed when calculating the average number of activities provided. It is therefore the case that where the average number of activities organised is reported this is only for schools that actually report having organised activities – they are not the average number of activities organised for all schools. These figures would probably be considerably smaller.

8. Some schools identified more than one group.