Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
It has been documented that Forest Schools offer a number of benefits to students’ well-being. However, Forest School is not accessible to all students, and there are some distinct differences in the aims of public (state-funded) schools versus Forest Schools. Nevertheless, we argue that public schools could better support the whole child by applying principles from Forest Schools. This paper describes our work with a Forest School in a southeastern U.S. state, based on extended visits at Mountain Forest School (MFS) and interviews with adult stakeholders. Through this inquiry, we found strategies in each area of holistic education (interpersonal, affective, cognitive, and physical) that could be applied to public schools. For interpersonal strategies, we saw a village-based approach to learning and valuing multi-age interactions. Related to affective strategies, creating space for joy and wonder, and supporting student self-understanding were key components. Cognitive strategies at MFS included facilitating embodied, experiential learning and rethinking roles related to teaching and learning. And finally, physical strategies we saw at MFS were limit-pushing play and learning, and cultivating the well-being benefits of nature. We then detail ways in which mainstream public schools could take up these strategies in their own contexts to better support the whole child.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wenner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: