You are on page 1of 5

Whats the point of this?

by Mark Levesley The new draft National Curriculum for science is a missed opportunity. Whats the point of this? That was the sentence, delivered with an overly dramatic teenage sigh, which told me that I had failed in an important aspect of my teaching to inspire and motivate students in every lesson that I taught. Id have to try a different approach the next time I taught this particular aspect of science. Its difficult though. As people we all have our likes and dislikes and, as teachers, we can easily enthuse about certain parts of the curriculum and find other parts just plain tedious. Its hard to be motivational about things that you dont find interesting. It is, however, the job of the teacher to try to engage students in all lessons. Teachers therefore look upon the introduction of a new curriculum with some trepidation. What parts of it will I enjoy teaching? What parts will the students enjoy? What parts will we find dreadfully dull? How do I go about organising it into lessons? At first glance the new draft National Curriculum (released on 7th February) looks like a national curriculum should. It sets out the material that students are expected to study in schools across the country in given periods of time. A national curriculum should allow students education to be less disrupted by a move of school and should set recognised standards and aims for students to allow progression and development. I am in favour. So, whilst I applaud the desire to continue with a National Curriculum, I dont think that those responsible for this draft have sat down and asked the fundamental questions about its purpose: What is a National Curriculum for? Why do we place such importance on the teaching of science in the UK? For the draft science curriculum, it seems that its content has been distilled out of our existing curriculum and those of other countries. But distilled by those making moonshine rather than a quality brand. It is not valid to say that because Country X does well in international league tables and teaches 13-year olds about Topic Y, that we must also teach Topic Y to 13-year olds. But thats what seems to have happened. By now we should be able to design a science curriculum that best meets the needs of our young people, one that will help them in their lives as active participants in society and one that is best suited to the challenges of the world around them. More than all of this, however, is that we should be able to design a

Page 1 of 5

science curriculum that has a structure that allows students to grow and develop as scientists (as opposed to repositories of information) over their years of study. Why teach science? Science is about developing key thinking skills. We teach students how to look at evidence and interrogate it. We help students understand some of the ways in which data can be manipulated to prove a point. We develop students confidence to question what they are being told in the media and by their peers. We encourage students to make their own minds up about things, based on good evidence. Whether they continue to take any interest in science or not, they should leave school equipped with these life skills. We also teach science so that we can create a more scientifically literate population, one in which individuals can have an informed say on the technological and ecological issues of the day, be it climate change, species extinction or electricity generation. An important aspect of biology (my own field) is to educate students about health and their bodies. Helping young people to understand how their bodies work, how to stay healthy and what to do if things go wrong is important; it allows people to take responsibility for themselves and can help to reduce the burden on the state. Biology also teaches students about variation and the underlying reasons for it. This, I hope, creates young adults who are better able to cope with the demands of living and working with people who do not behave, think or believe the same things. Chemistry and physics give students an understanding of the pace and direction of technological change, ever more important in our world. Rote-learning In the new draft curriculum there is a healthy focus on the key skills of evidence analysis. For that, I am grateful. However, there seem to be rather a lot of facts, which risks raising the spectre of a return to mindless rote- learning. Im not against rote learning per se; it can be a valuable skill. I do, though, object to the rote-learning of facts for the sake of it facts that students will find difficult to put into any sort of a context outside of the classroom. To take an example, throughout the draft curriculum in Key Stages 1, 2 and 3, there is no mention of the germ theory of disease (that microorganisms like bacteria and viruses can make you ill). With the removal of PSHE (personal social and health education) from the new curriculum, this means that students are left without important information about health and disease until they start studying for GCSEs. In Key Stage 3, instead of the germ theory we have pupils should be taught about the structure of Amoeba and Euglena. I am at a loss to
Page 2 of 5

explain why students in Key Stage 3 need to know this. It is pointless rotelearning with little obvious application to everyday life. Why is this more important than knowing about germs and diseases? Some might argue, that you should introduce the concept of microorganisms in Key Stage 3, using Amoeba and Euglena. Then in Key Stage 4 you use this foundation in order to teach germ theory. For me, this is the wrong way around. I believe that you need to take something that is familiar to students (e.g. diseases) and then break it down further. This is, after all, the order in which science works. We take everyday observations and then try to explain them. Others might point out that teachers are free to supplement their teaching of KS3 with other topics, including germ theory. If, however, this is the case then why not cut the National Curriculum down to a bare minimum, rather than stuff it with rote-learning? A related issue here, is that by introducing concepts that are too difficult too early, students are forced to rote-learn material rather than really understand it. The teaching of evolutionary theory in Key Stage 2 is a case in point. Key Stage 2 students will just learn what they think is required of them to provide an answer because the concept is just too alien for them to fully take on board at this age. The same is true for interference in Key Stage 3 physics. At this stage students are only just starting to learn about waves. Interference has been taught at KS4, and not KS3 for a long time, and for very good reason. The content of a science curriculum needs to be about the teaching of life skills, together with topic material that has a direct relevance to their lives and interests. And all this needs to be sewn together in a way that allows a steady development of scientific understanding and confidence over the years of study. In that way we can inspire the next generation of students to continue with their studies of science. If we simply create a curriculum with lots of facts to learn we will be faced with many more students asking Whats the point of this? Problems with the last curriculum One of the chief problems with the last National Curriculum for science was that it lacked enough information for teachers to make informed decisions about the amount of detail required. The statements were just too broad and so a raft of new directives had to be produced and circulated to teachers. This is a golden opportunity to prevent that having to happen again but it looks like history will just repeat itself. For example, from the KS3 chemistry it says Pupils should be taught about the composition of the Earth and the atmosphere. Thats it. But what does that mean? The percentage composition of the different elements in the Earth? The structure of the Earth? Mineral composition of rocks? If this sort of statement is reflective of the final curriculum, we will end up in the same position as for the last curriculum.
Page 3 of 5

Balance It seems that the different teams writing the three sciences have had little to do with each other. The biology and physics are organised in one way and the chemistry is organised in a different way. But it goes deeper than mere ordering of statements. The chemistry builds on the same general statements in Key Stage 4 as those used in Key Stage 3. This is sound planning for development. The biology, on the other hand, seems to have taken all possible measures to avoid mentioning anything in KS3 that would be later covered in KS4. This is tantamount to saying that much of the material in KS3 isnt actually that important for your biological education. Whereas, looking back at Key Stage 2, the Key Stage 3 curriculum is awash with repetition from Key Stage 2. I fail to see the overall logic behind the proposed development of biological knowledge from KS2 through to the end of KS4. Another problem, caused by what I can only assume is a lack of communication between the different groups of curriculum writers, is that the full implications of removing a topic from one subject area have not be taken into account. For example, the rock cycle has had a wholesale removal for chemistry. There are many who, I know, will welcome this. However, the implications of its removal dont appear to have been thought about. It will now be left to the biologists to have to explain fossil formation and sedimentary rock formation in order for students to learn about the strength of fossil evidence for evolution. This adds to the burden placed on biology and creates a lack of balance. Nor, do I think that the chemists and physicists have really sat down and thought about how they tackle the kinetic theory coherently. Random and sometimes duplicitous bits of kinetic theory seem to have been thrown into the mix for both subjects, without any real logic. Students own interests and imagination Students learn well when they can apply their scientific learning to everyday experiences. They also learn well when their scientific imaginations are stretched. But the curriculum writers seem to have lost sight of this. So, gone is space from KS3 physics a subject that many students love and one that is very well supported educationally by many first class organisations (such as ESA, NASA and the Faulkes Telescope project). Gone from KS3 biology is behaviour. Yet students very much enjoy this and at KS3 students should be getting an introduction to behaviour and its implications for our society (not only in terms of how our brains work and mental health but also in the use of psychology all around us, in every piece of marketing that we see). The uses of metals also seems to have disappeared from chemistry at KS3 for reasons unknown. Science and society There is a lack of any formal connection being made between science and society. Doubtless this is to avoid criticism for being wishy-washy. But one of the points of teaching science is to create a scientifically literate population that knows how to debate the scientific issues of the day and knows how to interpret
Page 4 of 5

what others have to say about those issues. And without teaching students how to debate, they are less likely to question the facts presented to them. Science has a profound effect on our society. And our societys voracious appetite for new technology has a profound influence on the direction that scientific research takes. Factual mistakes In its current form, the draft curriculum is also factually wrong in places. For example, from the KS3 chemistry reactions of acids with bases and metals to produce a salt, plus water. Acids react with metals to produce a salt and hydrogen. In my view, the new draft National Curriculum for science doesnt solve any of the problems of the last curriculum, it has too much in the way of material that will demand rote-learning, its unbalanced, it doesnt seem to connect the different key stages together in any meaningful way and takes very little account of students lives and the science that is around them. So I find myself asking Whats the point of this?

Mark Levesley is a science author and editor.

Page 5 of 5

You might also like