Debate contribution: Curriculum Mainstreaming and Strategy for Outdoor Learning in Schools
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Curriculum Mainstreaming and Strategy for Outdoor Learning in Schools
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5254009
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will cause a shock wave by saying that I agree entirely with the Alliance Party motion, and I am glad to support it. Outdoor learning, and the development of an outdoor learning strategy, is not a luxury. It is essential, more than ever, because we are seeing real challenges with mental health, addiction to screens, development, children being sociable with other young people and physical health. We have also seen the exponential rise in children with special educational needs. I read an article in yesterday's 'The Sunday Times' in which teachers talked about having children coming to their schools who can swipe a screen but cannot speak. Outdoor learning is, therefore, vital. Outdoor learning is also vital in helping us to change our perception of the education system. It is not just a conveyor belt of children with the grades to go on to university. It is about them developing life skills that will help them navigate the world personally, in their families and communities, as well as in the workforce. I will also link the issue to the recent shocking statistics around young men who are ending their lives in Northern Ireland. Suicide is the greatest cause of death amongst men under 50. It is vital that we learn how to interact with nature to deal with things like depression. Of course, there are challenges. We talk about money, capacity and capability, but those are things that you get over and sort out. They do not cost a lot of money. That is something that the Forest School Association was keen to say: you can do a lot with very little. We have a lot of natural resources. With regard to capacity, we have a workload review and a curriculum review, so there are opportunities to carve out more time for our teachers. There is a lot of bureaucracy. Teachers tell me about the various portals to which they have to log in. Those could be streamlined to create extra capacity for teachers to deliver outdoor learning.
I was particularly struck by an article in the paper at the weekend about the impact that opportunities for outdoor experiences and thus a more-rounded education have on academic ability. James Parkinson, the Pearson National Teaching Awards winner of the head teacher of the year in a primary school award, introduced a not dissimilar initiative in a struggling school to give children experiences in the outdoor world, and the school's results went from the bottom 10% nationally to the top 13%. Doing that did not cost money. Rather, it required a little bit of emphasis and focus. We therefore need to summon our inner MacGyver or Bear Grylls and put outdoor experiences at the heart of the curriculum so that our young people learn skills that will stand them in good stead for years. Our teachers yearn for that. I have met teachers and unions over the past number of weeks, and they are very keen on the idea. All the obstacles that we talk about, such as capability and capacity, are easily dealt with. We also need a healthier attitude to risk, and outdoor learning can help with that. We have become a society that worries about children bouldering on a river but that lets them go upstairs to be subjected to a world of, frankly, evil, often without any supervision. There is huge risk online. A healthier attitude to risk comes from learning how to do outdoor activities safely. Teachers also need to have a healthier attitude to risk. If they have support and training and know that someone will stand by them, they can enjoy outdoor activities safely and healthily. I support the motion. Outdoor learning is not a luxury but an essential that should be mainstreamed in our curriculum. The outworking of that will be healthier bodies and minds and more-rounded students, who will benefit Northern Ireland in the years to come.
655 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.69 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.15 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:52 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.