In 2009, the Ministry of Education revised its publication: EOTC Guidelines: Bringing the Curriculum Alive, Learning Safely.
Following the release of the revised guidelines, the Education Review Office evaluated how well schools were using them in their provision of Education Outside the Classroom (EOTC) activities, and how they used EOTC activities to support teaching and learning of the national curriculum, and to promote continuous improvement of education and safety. This report of the evaluation is for schools to use in developing and reviewing their EOTC programmes and activities.
ERO surveyed schools that had been reviewed 12-15 months earlier, and selected some schools to visit because of their involvement in a range of EOTC events. These were schools that included EOTC, as a regular part of the school’s curriculum, to enrich learning for students and provide opportunities for students to develop personally and socially. They connected their EOTC programmes to The New Zealand Curriculum through the curriculum’s vision, values, principles, key competencies, and specific learning areas.
The selected schools usually had an overall EOTC plan that provided progressive development of EOTC experiences as students moved through the school. In the planning process teachers identified student needs and tailored EOTC to address these. These schools specifically considered Māori and Pacific students, those with special needs, and the capacity of families to meet the costs involved.
In most of the selected schools there was an agreed understanding of the responsibilities of people in key roles. Boards recognised their legal responsibility for the safety of students and staff. Principals provided professional leadership, and allocated resources to make sure activities supported learning and were carried out safely.
Eighty percent of secondary and 40 percent of primary schools surveyed had a designated EOTC coordinator. Most of the principals and EOTC coordinators in the selected schools had relevant training for this role and were aware of the revised Guidelines. These coordinators usually had responsibility for developing and documenting safety procedures and templates, for identifying and managing risks, for supporting teachers, and for checking that procedures had been followed.
In the selected schools, most teachers had relevant experience, training and qualifications for the EOTC activities they led. Inexperienced teachers were paired with experienced teachers to develop their knowledge and confidence. Teachers were responsible for documenting the learning objectives and curriculum links with particular EOTC events and activities. Schools used a range of volunteers to support EOTC and set up procedures to make sure their involvement was useful.
The selected schools used outside providers for events that required particular expertise, experience or equipment. Teachers selected suitable providers and worked with them to design activities to match learning intentions and student needs and interests.
The selected schools were aware of risks involved in EOTC activities. They managed potential risks through the use of comprehensive guidelines, robust procedures, detailed planning templates, and monitoring that these were followed.
Most of the selected schools had used the EOTC Guidelines to review and amend their current procedures and templates. They had used the guidelines more often to improve safety than to improve connections between EOTC and learning.
When the selected schools reviewed EOTC, the review usually focused on procedures, school templates, and the safety of particular events, rather than the effectiveness of individual events in promoting learning, or the overall EOTC programme across the school. The reviews were often informal and were not always documented so they could be used in future planning. Most schools identified outcomes or benefits for students but these were usually assessed informally.