Yorkshire

1
Yorkshire Humberside Waste Education
Feasibility study Recycle North - Summer
Meeting - 20th July 2006
2
Introduction

• A waste education feasibility study for the
  Yorkshire Humber region
• Survey of current waste education provision in
  the region
• Development of a regional waste education
  framework
• Main focus on school-based waste education.
• Work carried out by Waste Watch and Save Waste
  Prosper (SWAP) for
• Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (lead
  authority)
• Yorkshire Forward
• Yorkshire Humber ESD Co-ordinator
• North Yorkshire County Council.
• Funded by the WIP Regional Support Fund

3
The scoping study

• Designed to
• Provide an audit of waste education work in the
  region
• Evaluate programmes against Key Success
  Indicators
• Provide an evaluation of the regions waste
  education in comparison to that in other parts of
  the UK
• Highlight best practice within the region
• Identify gaps in provision
• Provide recommendations for improvement

4
Initial research

• Collation of information on known waste education
  providers
• Local authority waste management departments
• Local education authorities
• Known members of waste education networks
• Other known voluntary sector organisations
  businesses
• Structured telephone interviews
• Aims type of education programme being
  delivered
• Target groups geographical range
• Curriculum links
• Recycling and composting provision to schools
• Monitoring evaluation
• Funding
• Links to other providers

5
Case studies

• 4 selected providers
• North East Lincolnshire CD ROM resource
• Rockware Glass Education Centre site based
  resource
• Calderdale Council incentive scheme
• North Yorkshire Schools Waste Action Club
  schools waste
• 3 elements
• Face to face interviews
• Feedback from schools
• Feedback from parents

6
Key Success Indicators

• Links to the curriculum
• Involvement of the school community
• Provision of recycling facilities to schools
• Follow up support for schools
• Monitoring evaluation
• Partnership working links to strategies

7
Waste education providers

• Sixty one organisations were initially identified
  as potential waste education providers.
• Of these, 32 answered yes to the question, Do
  you deliver waste education in activities to
  schools in the Yorkshire and Humber region?
• 28 of these were able to answer the questionnaire
  in full it is mainly on these that the report
  was based.

8
Types of providers
9
Distribution capacity

• Concentration of waste education providers in the
  main cities and large towns, in particular Leeds,
  Bradford and Doncaster.
• Provision in more rural areas more limited and,
  where it exists, is thinly spread.
• Only two waste education providers focussed
  solely on waste education with the remaining 26
  having other areas of responsibility.
• Only 7 of the providers employed more than one
  full time member of staff on the delivery of
  waste education with a further 6 having just one
  full time staff member delivering waste
  education.

10
Aims of providers
11
Type of activities
12
Curriculum areas

• Most common curriculum areas to which waste
  education work is linked are
• Geography
• Citizenship
• Science
• Fewer (but still significant) links to
• Maths/numeracy
• PHSE
• Design technology
• Art
• 7 providers said that their work related to all
  areas of the curriculum.

13
Age groups
14
Provision of school recycling facilities

• 17 out of 27 waste education providers
  interviewed were able to provide schools with
  recycling facilities, either themselves or
  through a third party.
• The most common material collected was paper (15
  organisations).
• Other relatively common materials were cans (7
  providers) glass (6 providers)
• Fewer than 5 providers interviewed were able to
  collect any of the following card, plastic,
  textiles, shoes, yellow pages, inkjet cartridges
  and mobile phones.

15
Monitoring evaluation
16
M E in Waste Watch projects

• North Yorkshire Schools Waste Action Club
• Over past two years comparisons of initial and
  repeat waste audits have shown cuts in school
  waste of up to 82 with an average reduction of
  around 40
• Taking Home Action on Waste (Rotherham)
• On average, children know 4 to 5 ½ times more at
  the end of the programme than they did at the
  beginning
• Set out rate increased by up to 16 with an
  average increase of 6
• Paper collected for recycling increased by up to
  36 with an average increase of c.15
• Blue box tonnage increased by up to 33 with an
  average increase of c. 11
• Residual waste fallen by between 3 and 20 with
  an average decrease of c. 10

17
Funding sources
18
Conclusions the regional picture

• Wide variety of provision, particularly from
  voluntary sector.
• Some best practice work which could be showcased
  nationally.
• No truly regional projects but some work across
  large part of area.
• Coverage of schools across different parts of the
  region is variable.
• Effective partnerships between LAs and vol sector
  in some areas.
• Involvement and interest shown by LEAs is very
  limited.
• Concrete evidence of links to local waste
  strategies is limited. Links to local education
  strategies are even less frequent. There is also
  limited linkage to regional ESD work.

19
Conclusions project aims delivery

• Most projects have the primary aim of increasing
  recycling and this is more targeted at home waste
  than it is at school waste.
• Provision of recycling facilities to schools is
  generally good but there is scope to take a
  greater range of materials and to expand
  provision in more rural areas where schools might
  act as recycling centres for their local
  communities.
• Although a number of projects focus on reuse and
  reduction as well as on recycling, few embrace
  broader aspects of sustainable consumption and
  this, at least in part, relates to the nature of
  currently available funding.
• Although there are a few exceptions, monitoring
  of the impact of waste education delivery on both
  school and home waste is very limited tends to
  be restricted to feedback from school staff.

20
Conclusions - work with schools

• Significantly more waste education work takes
  place in primary schools than in secondary
  schools.
• Main curriculum areas into which waste education
  in the region is currently linked are Geography
  and Citizenship.
• Most providers use a range of methods to educate
  about waste e.g. assemblies, class-based work and
  site visits.
• Because funding and staffing is limited, there is
  a tension between providing intensive work with a
  relatively small number of schools and relatively
  superficial work with a larger number of schools.
• For similar reasons, follow up support for
  schools is also limited. Much is done on an ad
  hoc basis with a need for a more planned approach.

21
Conclusions networking, training support

• With the exception of the CRN regional waste
  education network, partnership links are
  generally local rather than regional in nature.
• Training and support for practitioners is
  available but, although there has been some
  uptake, this has been somewhat limited.
• Regional and national networks are available but
  membership of these by organisations active in
  waste education within the region is limited.
• Teacher training is provided by a significant
  number of providers but this is piecemeal with
  each organisation developing their own training.

22
Conclusions - funding

• In keeping with the general picture across the
  UK, current availability of funding for waste
  education is limited. Much of it is short-term
  and this can have detrimental effects on project
  stability, staff retention and opportunities for
  planned development.
• The loss of LTCS funding for waste education
  means that more funding comes from local
  authorities than any other source. Although this
  funding is welcome, it can have restricted aims
  and limit the capacity of projects to develop
  work in broader areas relating to sustainable
  consumption.

23
Aims objectives for a regional waste education
framework

• Any regional framework for the Yorkshire Humber
  region needs to
• support and strengthen existing projects
• strengthen partnerships and networks across the
  region
• enable the sharing of the existing best practice
  within the region
• facilitate further development of waste education
  in the region, either through the new projects or
  the development of existing work, thereby
  addressing some of the gaps in provision that
  exist
• allow the regions waste educators to learn from
  work elsewhere in the UK and provide a means by
  which to showcase best practice work in the
  region to other parts of the UK

24
Option 1 direct delivery

• What would it involve?
• Direct education officer delivery to schools
• 4 waste education officers plus centrally placed
  co-ordinator
• Extra bodies to be deployed on request from local
  providers
• Standard programmes for delivery across region
• Follow up telephone support termly newsletter
• Pros
• Would help to address currently uneven provision
  across region
• Exemplar programmes standardised delivery
  across region
• Cons
• Risk of treading on toes of existing providers
• Programmes insufficiently local
• Monitoring and evaluation would be limited

25
Option 2 support for wasteeducation providers

• What would it involve?
• Network led by co-ordinator build on existing
  CRN led network
• Termly network meeting with a specific theme
• Link to national waste education network
• Training and support to existing and potential
  providers
• Pros
• Capacity building training sharing of good
  practice
• Flexibility to be responsive to needs
• Links to national picture
• Cons
• Doesnt create additional capacity i.e. doesnt
  work in schools

26
Option 3 teacher training

• What would it involve?
• CPD i.e. training of practicing teachers
• 2 officers flexibility to deliver individually
  or together
• Sustainable waste management at school
  Composting at school
• Comprehensive resource pack for all teachers
  attending courses
• Pros
• Builds capacity amongst teachers there for the
  long term
• Could be used to address imbalance in provision
  across region
• Relatively cost effective
• Cons
• Opportunities to standardise what is delivered to
  children is limited
• Limited opportunities for monitoring evaluation

27
Option 4 a regional resource

• What would it involve?
• Regional waste education toolkit for schools
• Background info how to audit action plan
  lesson plans resources
• Regional flavour with regional case studies plus
  local info at back
• Made available to schools through local
  authorities other providers
• Pros
• Common element across region recognisable
  regional brand
• Would build capacity amongst teachers
• Goes some way to addressing imbalance of
  provision
• Cons
• Resources only fully effective alongside other
  support/training
• Printed toolkits can collect dust and go out of
  date quickly
• Not sure how much a web-based toolkit would be
  used
• Monitoring of impact would be difficult

28
Recommended regional framework

• Integrate these four elements.
• Employ
• a regional waste education co-ordinator
• supporting waste education officer.
• In first year
• Continuation development of existing regional
  network
• Six training courses for waste educators
• 6 teacher training days total 90 delegates
• Develop produce 500 copies of regional toolkit
• Direct delivery of a basic waste education
  programme to up to 10 schools in areas with
  no/limited existing provision