2017-2018 Annual School Forest Survey Results

2017-2018 Annual School Forest Survey Results

Response Rate: Sixty-nine individual schools or districts provided responses to the survey out of 241 individual schools or districts that received the survey. Sixty-nine (69) district responses were received from 67 public school districts, 2 private schools, and 0 higher education institutions. This is a 29% response rate. The survey was sent to 234 public schools, 6 private schools, and 1 higher education institution with registered school forests. Overall, it was distributed to over 390 contacts within the school forest database. Interestingly 62% of the districts that participated in the survey this year also did so last year. That means that 38% of the school districts that responded were different from last year’s participants and 47 of the districts that did complete the survey last year did not fill it out this year. As a result, this survey serves as a “snapshot” of school forest activity in Wisconsin, not as a comprehensive report. Ironically, even as the district participation changes each year, the survey completion rate and responses seem to stay consistent. That consistency is seen in a few of the charts that show comparative data. However, due to the fact that not all school forests submit data and that not all of the same school forests submit data every year, we can observe general trends throughout certain questions that were asked in the survey, but do not assume that these are precise and final numbers. This report is merely a representation of Wisconsin’s School Forest Program over the past year. The schools/districts who responded include: Alma, Antigo, Athens, Baldwin-Woodville, Beecher-Dunbar-Pembine, Black Hawk, Black River Falls, Bonduel, Bowler, Burlington, Butternut, Cambria-Friesland, Cambridge, Cedarburg, Chequamegon, D. C. Everest, De Soto, Elcho, Gilman, Goodman-Armstrong Creek, Granton, Green Lake, Greendale, Hartland Lakeside, Highland, Iola-Scandinavia, Ithaca, Kenosha, La Crosse, Lac du Flambeau, Lake Country, Laona, Lodi, Marathon, Marshfield, Merrill, Mishicot, Montello, Necedah, Newman Catholic Schools, Nicolet High School, Oconto Falls, Osseo-Fairchild, Owen-Withee, Pardeeville, Pittsville, Prentice, Princeton, Reedsburg, Rhinelander, Rib Lake, South Shore, Southern Door County, Stevens Point, Tigerton, Tomahawk, Tomorrow River, Trinity Lutheran School, Unity, Valders, Verona, West Salem, Weston, Whitnall, Wild Rose, and Wisconsin Rapids.

Survey Respondents: EE/SF Coordinator = 21 Building & Grounds Coordinator = 1 Community Volunteer = 4 Pupil Services/Guidance Dept. = 2 Curriculum Secretary = 1 Administrator = 14

Principal: 9 Superintendent: 6 Curriculum Director: 0 Director of Special Education: 1

Teacher = 41 GRADE LEVELS TAUGHT:

Early Childhood: 1 Elementary: 12 Middle School/Jr High: 19 High School: 31 Post-Secondary: 0

SUBJECTS/CLASSES TAUGHT:

All subjects (elem. teachers): 6 Art: 0 Agriculture Education: 11 English: 0 Math: 3 Physical Education: 2

Science: 22 Social Studies: 2 Special Education: 2 Technology Education: 3 Other: 3 (PBL, AP Psychology, field day studies)

Survey Respondents within Institution

Administrator

Env.Ed Coordinator/SF Coordinator

Teacher

Community Volunteer

Buildings and Grounds Coord.

Other

n=69

School Forest Success: Greatest School Forest Accomplishments Responses indicating the district’s greatest school forest accomplishments in the 2017-2018 school year:

Administrator interest-22%, Community involvement-30%, Facility development/improvement-38%, Completed a grant-13%, Implement new curriculum-27%, Increased use of the school forest-52%, School Forest educational development planning-3%, Forest management plan completed-3%, Staff development opportunities-3%, manage natural resources-11%, register as a school forest-3%, and a few others seen below.

The comparative data shows which school forest accomplishments were identified over the past 9 years. Certain trends have begun to emerge with the challenge of increasing or maintaining the use of the school forest as the top accomplishment recognized by school forest programs across the state. Other top accomplishments include implementing new curriculum or lessons at the forest and improving or developing facilities at the school forest.

22

30

38

13

27

52

3

3

3

11

3

3

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Administrator Interest

Community Involvement

Facility Develop/Improvement

Completed a grant/raised or accepted funding

Implement New Curriculum/lessons

Increase/Maintain Use of School Forest

SF Educational Development Planning

Forest Mgmt Plan completed

Staff Development at the forest

Harvested timber/managed the resource

Registered as a school forest

Planted trees

Increased Communication/Awareness of the forest

Percent

Greatest Accomplishments in the 2017-2018 School Year

n=63

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Per

cen

t o

f R

esp

on

ses

Comparative Data: School Forest Accomplishments

2009 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Goals for the next 1-3 years The main school forest goals cited by the schools for the next three years are to develop or improve the facilities and trails, to maintain or increase the use of the school forest, to develop or implement curriculum at the school forest, and manage the forest’s natural resources. The chart below shows school forest goals listed in each category by the sixty (60) schools that responded.

Indicators of school forest success for 2017-2018 Sixty (60) schools responded. Results are listed as percentages.

n=84

40

30

13

4

19

3

1

3

6

0

3

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Develop/Improve Facilities & Trails

Maintian/Increase SF Use

Develop/Implement Curriculum

Develop SF Education Plan

Manage Natural Resources

Staff Development

Increase Funding/Write grants

Increase Community Use

Harvest Timber

Create/Grow a SF Committee

Create/Hire Ecologist/Coordinator Position

Aquire additional forest property

Number of Responses

School Forest Goals for the next 1-3 years n=60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

The school forest increased students’ connection to community resources.

The school forest increased attendance in school

The school forest increased student learning

The school forest involved students in community action projects

Teachers recognized the school forest as a valuable learning environment

Students indicated the school forest is a place where they enjoy learning

The lessons presented at the school forest increased students’ knowledge of natural resource management issues

The school forest was used by more people in 2017-2018 compared to theprevious school year

Indicators of School Forest Success

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

School Forest Utilization during the 2017-2018 School Year:

Student Visits The following data has been calculated based off of the number of school districts that responded for each grade level. More comprehensive data is available upon request.

• School Forest Use. Respondents indicated that 69% of the forests had visits from PreK-5th grade students, 73% had visits from 6th-8th grade students, 74% had students in 9th-12th grade that visited, and 8% had post-secondary students.

• Number of Students. A total of 32,533 students visited their school forests during the last school year. In reality, this total number is much higher. Many school forests that have daily field trips to the forest did not respond to the survey. The average number of students from each grade level that visited their school forest can be seen in the chart below. * The number of students per grade level reported is as follows: 1449 Pre-Kindergarten, 2591 Kindergarten, 2980 1st grade, 3123 - 2nd grade, 3005 - 3rd grade, 3144 - 4th grade, 2935 - 5th grade, 2834 - 6th grade, 2390 - 7th grade, 2030 - 8th grade, 2210 - 9th grade, 1216 - 10th grade, 1263 - 11th grade, 1208 - 12th grade, and 155 Post Secondary students.

• Number of Trips. Respondents reported a total of 2,056 field trips to school forests in Wisconsin. The average number of times (trips) each grade level visited the school forest can be seen in the chart below.

6973 74

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PreK-5thGrade

6th-8thGrade

9th-12thGrade

PostSecondary

Percent of School Forests that had Student Visits from the following Grades

n=49,48,47,48

Comparative data regarding the total number of students who visited school forests each year is a minimum estimate of the actual number of students who visited. This figure is calculated from the survey results submitted by school forest educators, however it is known that not all schools who had students at the forest completed the survey. Comparative data shows a trend in the decrease in the number of students that visit the forest as they increase in age. There has been a consistent drop in the middle school and even more so in the high school years. Middle and high school class schedules limit the amount of time a teacher is able to spend with each student and many teachers are not able to make it to the forest and back during the bell schedule with their class. Another difference is high school students are visiting the school forest with a specific course and not necessarily as an entire grade-level as is common in the elementary grades.

32533

46081

41766

33329

3681736875

48828

13312

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

2017-182016-172015-162014-152013-142012-132011-122010-11

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

Comparative Data: Reported Number of Students that Visited the School Forest Each Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Pre-K Kinder 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

Avg

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

Grade Level

Comparative Data: Average Number of Students per Grade Level that visit the School Forest each year

2007 2008 2009 2010-11 2012-13

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

What are students learning at the school forest? Evidence of Student Learning as a Result of School Forest Experiences The following examples were recorded by respondents as both formal and informal evidence of student learning that has taken place because of student field trips at the school forest.

Timber Cruising, Species Identification, Survival Skills practice Students learned how to tap trees for maple syrup production. Learned to identify signs of wildlife using the Snapshot

of WI program and trips to the school forest. Students learned to identify trees and plants within the school forest. Students learned how to trim trees.

Forestry students won the 2018 FFA regional and state Forestry Career Development Event. Students learned about habitat/grouse relationships (cause & effect) HS students learned tree identification, understanding of board ft, and use of Biltmore sticks. Students in

environmental science describe leaf and plant structures more accurately. Appreciation of forest resources in general is increased.

Implementation of state-of-the-art maple sap production facility with student input and help. Student-led tours of forest. Student assistance in harvesting and maintenance of forest.

Each of our 7th-10th graders have learning targets and corresponding worksheet/project that receives a summative grade. The programs that we deliver at the school forest augments what is learning in the classroom.

My students can identify various tree species and diseases that they learned about in the classroom. They also can do many forestry measurements as a direct result of having the school forest here.

Ecology classes learned how to use dibble bars and helped the elementary plant over 300 seedlings on Earth Day. Student wellness improved (goal of district) Students have learned a lot about camping and spending time outside. Students have also learned about the removal

of invasive species that is taking place at the school forest. Students love the hands-on learning connecting real life environment to curriculum. Students submitted data collected to worm watch. Students learned and were tested on frog i.d. and calls. Students

were tested on tree i.d., both leaf and winter stem. Students who are taking a forestry virtual class completed activities for their class at the school forest this past

semester. Students are also working on putting up signs to identify species of trees and plants in the school forest. Teachers who took classes to the forest for full day instruction saw increased focus on activities due to lack of

distractions and increased access to the outdoor spaces. Students in science classes demonstrated an ability to improve their application of forestry and biology principals as measured by reflections and formative and summative assessments.

Sustainability through School Forests The school forest was used to help students understand the forest’s economic, social, or environmental importance in the community in 45 (or 74%) of the schools that responded. The following examples are a shortened list that indicate how the school forest was used to help students understand the economic, social, or environmental impact it has in the local community.

Students have participated in a local ski race that takes place mostly on the school forest trails in conjunction with Forest Springs. Students have learned the importance of tourism to the community and help maintain trails and infrastructure for walking, snowmobiling, ATV use, and cross-country skiing.

Students learn the value of proper forest management both economically and environmentally. Students measure standing timber to estimate amounts and board feet. The value of this lumber is then calculated. Students discuss the conflicts between competing groups of society who use the forest resources.

Contribute to citizen science research such as Worm Watch and Snapshot Wisconsin Constructing a single-track mountain bike trail. Approximately 7 miles were built in the last 3 years. Managing the forest for grouse habitat and it’s hunting relationship to economics and culture of our community High school students commented on pursuing careers in forestry. Industry experts presented lessons to 5th graders

and high school students at a logging day demonstration Students worked to trim trees to help with growth of new plants as well as improve health of trees. Students also

tapped trees to learn how maple syrup is made. New emphasis in district on social and emotional learning. The school forest was a site used to showcase the impact

of nature on well-being. Hosted community events such as a moonlight snowshoe activity, Trail of Terror fundraiser, a 'storybook school

forest' event Fall Forest Festival, clean-up day, and tree planting

Products created from school forests… Thirteen (13) of the school forests (or 21%) had students involved in making value added forest products from the school forest that are sold or donated to the community. They indicated those products included firewood, maple syrup, benches, lumber, woodchips, plaques, and bird houses.

Concepts Students Learned about while at the School Forest

Respondents were asked to identify which ecology and non-ecology concepts students were learning about while visiting the forest. The following chart displays the concepts learned by early elementary, middle, high school and post-secondary students at the school forest. The following concepts were grouped in these topic areas: General Ecology (adaptations, biodiversity, living/nonliving, ecosystems, habitat, energy transfer, food webs/chains, succession, etc), Forestry (trees, management, tree ID, measurement, forest history, chainsaw safety, etc), Soils (also rocks and minerals), Water Ecology (ponds, lakes, streams, etc), Wildlife (animals, species ID, management, etc), Outdoor Recreation (hike, snowshoe, ski, bike, etc), Orienteering/Mapping (compass, GPS, etc), Team Building (includes ropes/challenge course). Other concepts taught at the forest included hunter education, service learning, and world languages.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

General Ecology

Forestry

Soils

Water Ecology

Wildlife

Invasive Species

Careers

Outdoor Recreation

Orienteering/Mapping

Citizen Science /Env. Research

Nature Literature

Nature Writing

Nature Art

Nature Observation

Team Building

Leadership Skills

Restoration Projects

Astronomy

Archaeology/Fossils

Environmental Educ. Methods

Maple Syrup Production

Measurement/Graphing

Phenology/Seasonal Changes

Geology

Weather

Other

Percent

Co

nce

pt

Concepts Students Learned while at the School Forest

PreK-5th Grade 6-8th Grade 9-12th Grade Post Secondaryn=35,38,38,5

Subjects Covered by Lessons at the School Forest Respondents identified which subjects were covered in lessons students were learning about while at the forest. Respondents could choose from the options found on the charts below. The following chart compares and contrasts the subjects covered throughout each grade level. Science is the most commonly covered subject at the school forest for all grade levels. All subject areas were covered by at least one grade level! This validates that school forests are not only a place to learn about the forest resource itself, but it also serves as an outdoor classroom where students can learn about other subjects and concepts along with science and forestry.

PreK

Kinder

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

Subjects Covered by PreK-12 Grade Lessons at the School Forest

Agriculture Art Business Educ. English/Lang. Arts Foreign Language Math

Music Physical Ed/Health Science Soc. Studies/Hist. Technology Educ.

n= preK-5th grade 32,

6th-8th grade 32, and

9th-12th grade 36

Community Use of the School Forest

• Community members used 47 (or 77%) of the school forests in the school districts that responded.

• Collectively, 10,877 community members utilized the 47 school forests that responded to an inquiry asking how many community members used their school forest.

• The number of community members that used the school forests ranged from 1 to 2,500 people.

• Utilization of the school forest was highest from the general public, including recreationalists but not hunters. The districts indicated boy scouts, girl scouts, church youth groups, hunters, school clubs, local organizations, parent volunteers, government agencies, and school athletic teams also used the school forest.

• Community members or local community organizations were involved in helping manage the forest’s natural resources on 31 school forests, or 54% of the school forests that responded.

• Community events were hosted or provided by 28 (or 46%) of the school forests that responded. The type of community event is seen in the chart below. Other various special topic events listed: maple sugaring days, moon walk, a wedding, toddler hikes, Men’s Club dinner, listening session, book walk, yoga retreat, and training for sheriff canine dogs.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Comparative Data: Percent of School Forests Used by the Community

40

28

21

74

13

34

28

62

38

55

11

0 20 40 60 80 100

Boy Scouts

Girl Scouts

Church Youth Groups

General Public

Hunters

School Clubs

School Athletic Teams

Parent Volunteers

Government Agencies

Community Organizations

Other

Percent

Community Members who use School Forests n=47

26

43

21

4

19

19

11

40

32

4

2

27

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Fun run/cross country/track sporting events

Snowshoeing or skiing

Bird identification

Invasive plant workshop

Forest festival

Earth Day event

Parent’s night

Arbor Day tree planting event

Trail/Site maintenance

Haunted Forest

(Boy/Girl)Scouting Events

Other various events

Percent

Community Events at School Forestsn=47

School Forest Management • Sustainable forest management activities, lessons, events, or

programs have occurred on 49 school forests or 80% of the districts that responded.

• Sixty-one people responded to the type of sustainable forest management that occurred on their school forest. Invasive species control and trail additions or improvements were the most common management activities sited. Other management included forest restoration, timber harvest, tree planting, a timber cruise, prairie restoration, and wildlife habitat projects.

• 73% of the respondents indicated the next management activity would take place within the next year, 11% indicated 1-5 years, and 0% indicated more than 5 years. 16% of the respondents indicated a management activity, but did not list a date for it to be completed.

Comparative data shows that the most common management activities implemented at school forests are invasive species control and trail additions or improvements. Harvesting timber or preparing for a future harvest is a critical part of sustainable management at school forests and occur at approximately 20% of the responding forests each year.

51

20

26

11

52

36

33

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Invasive Species Control

Timber Cruise

Forest Restoration

Timber Harvest

Trail Addition/Improvement

Tree Planting

Wildlife Projects

Prairie Restoration

Percent

Forest Management Activities in the 2017-2018 School Yearn=61

0

20

40

60

80

100

Comparative Data: Percent of School Forests that Implemented Sustainable

Management Activities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Invasive Species Control Prairie Restoration Timber Harvest TrailAddition/Improvement

Tree Planting Wildlife Habitat Projects Preparing Site forHarvest

Per

cen

t

Comparative Data: Sustainable Management Activities on School Forests each year

2007 2008 2009 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

LEAF and School Forest Assistance • The LEAF School Forest Program was indicated as helpful or has provided assistance to 75% of the school districts that

responded to the 2017-2018 school forest survey.

• LEAF was most commonly stated to have helped with curriculum resources (57%), information via the LEAF/School Forest website (61%), professional development (27%), through providing consultation services (48%), assisting with school forest education plans (18%), providing information about funding resources (14%), assisting with forest management plans (7%), and visiting school forest sites (11%).

• School districts identified further assistance is needed through consultation with the School Forest Education Specialist (31%), to develop curriculum resources (44%), find funding opportunities for school forests (44%), provide professional development opportunities for staff (36%), networking between school forest educators (31%), and visiting school forest sites (31%).

Comparative data in the charts below indicate that school forest educators rely heavily on LEAF’s services and that there is still a great need for the services LEAF provides.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Site Visits Professional Development Networking between SFeducators

Funding Opportunities Curriculum Development

Comparative Data: Type of LEAF Assistance Requested by School Forest Educators

2007 2008 2009 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Assist with SF EdPlans

Consultation CurriculumResources

Info aboutfunding

resources

LEAF/SF website ProfessionalDevelopment

Forest MgmntPlan Assistance

Site Visits

Comparative Data: LEAF Assistance Utilized

2009 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

School Forest Personnel: School Forest Committees:

• Found in 52% of the responding districts while 48% of the respondents did not have a committee

Does the district have an official School Forest Coordinator or person in charge of school forest programming?

• 48% do have a school forest coordinator while 52% do not • Position is a full-time paid position in 6% of the school forests that responded,

part-time positions in 20%, and volunteer position in 30% of the school forests.

School Forest Budgets 2017-2018 School Forest Expenditures The following school forest expenditures were reported on the survey:

• School districts spent a total of $46,155 on education materials for their school forest programs. This calculates to an average of $1,282 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of $0 to $20,000 was spent on education materials for the school forest. 39% of the school districts reported that no money ($0) is spent on school forest education materials.

• School districts spent a total of $409,817 on education personnel for their school forest programs. This calculates to an average of $11,709 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of $0 to $150,000 was spent on education personnel for the school forest. 51% of the school districts reported that no money ($0) is spent on school forest education personnel.

• School districts spent a total of $121,900 on facility construction for their school forest programs. This calculates to an average of $4,203 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of $0 to $40,000 was spent on facility construction at the school forest. 79% of the school districts reported that no money ($0) is spent on school forest facility construction.

• School districts spent a total of $75,020 on maintenance for their school forest programs. This calculates to an average of $2,143 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of $0 to $40,000 was spent on maintenance at the school forest. 34% of the school districts reported that no money ($0) is spent on school forest maintenance.

• School districts spent a total of $84,445 on transportation for their school forest programs. This calculates to an average of $2,559 per school district who responded. School districts indicated a range of $0 to $25,000 was spent on transportation to and from the school forest. 48% of the school districts reported that no money ($0) is spent on school forest transportation.

No48

Yes

52

School Forests with an Advisory Committee in 2017-2018

$-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

Education Materials Education Personnel Facility Construction Maintenance Tranportation

Comparative Data: School Forest Expenses Reported Each Year

2007 2008 2009 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

n=43

2017-2018 School Forest Income Twenty-three percent (23%) of the school districts in the survey reported their school forest had generated income in the 2017-2018 school year. A combined total of $97,665 was generated from school forest land or programming. Income from the school forest was generated from the following categories: timber sales occurred at 45% of those forests and generated a minimum of $36,300; eighteen percent (18%) of the school districts generated money for their school forests through fundraisers and raised a total of $29,770, thirty six percent (36%) of the districts generated $26,275 through donations, zero (0%) of the districts raised money through facility rental, and 27% of the these districts reported gaining $5,320 through grants.

Yes23%

No77%

School Forests that Generated Income in

2017-2018n=47

3

$36,300

$26,275

$5,320

$29,770

$0 $0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

Timber Harvest Donations Grants Fundraiser Facility Rental

Income Reported by School Forests during the 2017-2018 School Year

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

Amount

Comparative Data: Total Timber Sale Revenue

Reported

2007 2008 2009

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

2016-17 2017-18

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

Comparative Data: Timber Harvest Revenue Reported

n=11

Desired Annual School Forest Budgets The following information is what school districts indicated would be their desired annual budget for school forest programming:

• School districts would like a range of $0 to $50,000 to spend on education materials for their school forest programs. The grand total desired for school forest education materials from all of the districts that responded is $119,159. This calculates to an average of $3,310 per school district that responded.

• School districts would like a range of $0 to $200,000 to spend on education personnel for their school forest programs. The grand total desired for school forest education personnel from all of the districts that responded is $830,700. This calculates to an average of $25,959 per school district that responded.

• School districts would like a range of $0 to $500,000 to spend on facility construction for their school forest programs. The grand total desired for school forest facility construction from all of the districts that responded is $970,300. This calculates to an average of $28,538 per school district that responded.

• School districts would like a range of $0 to $75,000 to spend on maintenance for their school forest programs. The grand total desired for school forest maintenance from all of the districts that responded is $187,350. This calculates to an average of $5,677 per school district that responded.

• School districts would like a range of $0 to $25,000 to spend on transportation to and from their school forest programs. The grand total desired for school forest transportation from all of the districts that responded is $100,950. This calculates to an average of $3,155 per school district that responded.

$3,310

$25,959

$28,538

$5,677

$3,155

$1,282

$11,709

$4,203

$2,143 $2,559

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Education Materials Education Personnel Facility Construction Maintenance Transportation

School Forest Budget: 2017-2018 Average Spent vs Desired Budget

Average Desired Average Spent n=43, 40

Portable Sawmill and Kiln Inquiry The following set of questions were included on this year’s survey for the first time to attempt to gather information and inform stakeholders regarding the availability and use of portable sawmills and kilns at school forests and their inclusion in school forest programming. This information will not be gathered on a yearly basis.

Portable Sawmills at School Forests School forest educators were asked about the availability of portable sawmill use and ownership by districts with school forests. School forest educators responded that none of their districts owned portable sawmills. Respondents indicated that they have community members or guests bring a portable sawmill for the district to borrow at 10% of the forests. Interestingly, 24% of the respondents indicated they would be interested in owning a portable sawmill for use at the school forest.

Kilns at School Forests

School forest educators were also asked about whether their school or school forest had a kiln for drying lumber harvested from the forest. There were 2 (3%) school forest educators that responded that their school owns a kiln. A majority (76%) of the schools/forests do not own a kiln. However, 23% of the schools/forests who don’t own a kiln would be interested in building one.

Report Prepared by: Gretchen Marshall - Forestry & Outdoor Education Specialist - LEAF Program: 2018