Philosophers and scientists have debated the question through history, often violently disagreeing with each other. We’ve arrived at our own consensus view over at the howscience wiki:

Science is a never-ending and unique process of producing tested, evidence-based explanations for the full range of natural phenomena that we observe to occur around us.

Scientific theories have explanatory and predictive powers. They are are thoroughly and rigorously tested by comparing their predictions to the outcomes of observations (often via experiments). In this way they are shown to be ‘not false at this point in time’, but may well be honed (or even subsumed by more encompassing theories) in the light of future observations. As such, scientifically obtained knowledge should be considered far more valid than any ‘mere guess’ or opinion (or any untestable pseudo-scientific ideas), but should never be regarded as anything like “ultimate truth”. A “scientific fact” is a “conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement”.

Science is a rational approach to acquiring knowledge; its conclusions are based on logic and evidence.

Science requires imagination and creativity to invent hypotheses and then skill, patience and ingenuity to design and carry out the observational/experimental tests of them. This is often a collaborative process and often a process that takes many years. Scientific knowledge is recorded, shared and reproduced via the publication of peer-reviewed “papers” in scientific journals and via the internet.

There are two practical outcomes of the scientific process: A very large set of observational statements that summarise what we could call ‘discovered facts’ about the Universe, e.g. “antibiotics kill bacteria”, “the Sun appears in the same place in the sky every 365.25 days”, …

A set of (tested) explanatory models (scientific theories) that explain a wide range of these statements. The predictions of these models may include that some of the observational statements will only be true for a limited time.

The practical value of the outcomes of science is that the models enable us to make predictions and hence create new technologies, materials, products and methods, thereby allowing us to exercise some control over our environment.

The philosophical value of the outcomes of science is that the models help us to consider our existence in the wider context of the Universe.

Please add your own comments here or over at the howscience wiki.

Teachers are not aware of opportunities to contribute nationally and positively to science education policies, curricula and assessments. Having spent three years trying to impact on this debate and having talked to various people, I’m left with the dejected opinion that this is deliberate.

Education really does seem to be such a political cherry that government doesn’t seem to want to involve anyone beyond there own encampment. Indeed, Daniel Sandford-Smith (the IoP’s Education Manager for Schools and Colleges, at the time) remarked to me in an email a couple of years ago that he was surprised that I was of the opinion that teachers’ views should have any input into the curriculum at all! Add to this the time-constraints on teachers during term-time (and their running for the hills in holiday time) and the ever-dimishing set of specialist teachers in the physical sciences and you’re left with a bleak outlook indeed.

Some of us (and PTNC has hosted many debates over the past few years) are willing to be quite proactive, but we are few and dispersed across the country. Cohesion is much needed. I could go on with three years’ worth of anecdotal evidence, but I don’t imagine that it would be anything you haven’t already discovered for yourself. However, I can summarise a recent meeting I attended, which gives an unwelcome insight.

Perhaps you have heard of SCORE? They are an umbrella group representing all of the UK’s professional science bodies and they lobby government regarding science education. They seem to have formed in the wake of the introduction of the new science GCSEs three years ago. In July they held a meeting at the Royal Society to release their report on the fitness for purpose of the June 2008 Science and Additional Science examinations (all exam boards, all tiers, all papers). There were just over 50 attendees, of which 7 were practicing teachers. (I myself only received an invitation after word of mouth led me to contact the SCORE manager in a related regard. Some of the other teachers helped with the report — I don’t know how their involvement began.) The rest were an impressive raft of representatives from the SCORE partners and other parties with vested interests (representatives from each of the awarding bodies, the QCA, Ofqual, the DCSF, Gasby, Wellcome, Nuffield, the National Science Centres, the National STEM Centre, ITT provider universities, a couple of industry-based representatives).

The SCORE report was broadly similar in scope and in conclusions to the Ofqual report of a few months earlier. However, the SCORE report ends with a set of recommendations that, if adopted by QCA and the awarding bodies when setting future specifications and examinations, would avoid some of the most severe criticisms levelled at the new GCSEs to date.

The BBC summarised the written report for the public, but there were no press at the meeting and so they missed the bits I found most shocking. A representative from Ofqual was invited to add a summary of the Ofqual report after the SCORE report had been presented and she then remained on the panel during the Q&A hour that followed. During this Q&A, I took the opportunity to publicly thank SCORE (on behalf of teachers) for their proactive work and excellent recommendations and then to ask the Ofqual representative to indicate the likelihood of Ofqual pressing the awarding bodies to act on the recommendations in their future specifications (more a QCA thing — but they didn’t have a representative on the panel) and future examinations (which is Ofqual’s domain). She danced around the question somewhat, but to cut the story short she finally admitted that Ofqual would be doing no such thing. Her reason? Asking the awarding bodies to alter their specifications (that are currently at first draft stage, that won’t be released even for consultation until September 2010 and won’t be examined until 2013) “would place an unfair time constraint on them”. Unfair on them! My impression was that she was greeted by a lot of silence and disbelieving stares from the assembled audience, but perhaps I read too much into that. Really, just who are Ofqual representing here? UK education standards or the awarding bodies’ interests?

There followed some focus groups that will feed into SCORE’s future studies and recommendations (including proposals for how to better include in the GCSE science criteria guidance on mathematics and How Science Works), but I find myself wondering if any of it will actually lead anywhere if this is the opinion of the national bodies responsible for implementing the recommended changes..

I left the meeting with some optimism — clearly the UK’s professional science bodies were concerned and involved — but also disappointment that these very same bodies were being ignored and that teacher’s weren’t even aware of the process occurring, let alone being properly involved. Can you imagine an NHS that was run without ever properly consulting any doctors on policy decisions? I guess that this touches on your own reflections in your Guardian blog.

The last three years have stripped me of my naive idealism and let me feeling that the appearance of good education is more valuable to the UK government than actual good education (look at the SATs — withdrawn because of an administrative cock-up or because the graph had plateaued and it was no longer evidence for rising standards?).

While I have indeed replied to the QCA’s questionnaires (plural), I do not expect for one moment that it will achieve anything. As such, I am now spending my time wondering if we teachers need to write our own spec, SoW and exams and present it fait accompli to practicing teachers to use in their daily teaching and internal assessments (similar to what QCA did at KS2 and KS3 a decade ago). If it included as a subset the bulk of the science criteria and at least one awarding body’s spec it could be used while still allowing pupils to gain their GCSEs. The comparison to the government offering might then cause sufficient embarrassment in the press to cause substantial change.

(That said, I did notice a Conservative pledge last week to allow state schools to teach the IGCSE. Obviously, copious amounts of salt are required with this, but at least our predicament has made it to the top table, albeit briefly.)

I find it all to easy to become despondent when considering these issues and it is a regular battle to remain focussed on positive enterprise instead! As such, I found your recent comments and website very encouraging. Thanks once more.

Looking back over the decline of science education over 20 years, I think we have to conclude that the only solution is for practicing science teachers to form a new organisation and put forward well argued, evidence-based proposals directly. For some reason the professionals who should have represented us - IoP, RSC, ASE unions etc, - have all sat on their hands and allowed the current situation to develop.

The manifesto below is a distillation of ideas from various discussions and blogs. I do not put it forward as a “done deal”, but more as a discussion point. If such an organisation is created we could use our developed “manifesto” as the basis for creating the sort of science course we want.

Problems with current science education

1. Able pupils are not sufficiently prepared for A-level and careers which use science because GCSE courses are insufficiently stretching.
2. The curriculum is not sufficiently attractive to pupils.
3. Pupils following Foundation courses are receiving an education of little value.
4. The constant change created by government “reforms” is undermining the quality of science teaching and learning.
5. The established view of “what is science in school” is out of date. The decline in interest in science is linked to a view of science which will always be a minority view.
6. The curricula taught in school are drawn up by “awarding bodies”. The quality of the schemes is low due to the lack of teaching expertise by the authors.
7. Teachers are sometimes lured, by clever marketing, to purchase or use resources which appear “modern” but have no proven track record.

Principles

A science of science education

As science teachers we believe it is now possible to apply the scientific method to the process of science teaching.

Evidence based

The material made available to teachers shall be based on established evidence of successful teaching methods.

Logical order

Science knowledge is hierarchical: some concepts (atoms and molecules) need to be taught and understood before others (compounds and reactions). Before starting to learn science concepts, pupils must become familiar with the materials, names and equipment they will use. There is a natural, logical teaching order which is not being followed in current curricula.

Science is difficult

Science is a difficult subject demanding good abstract thinking skills. Most pupils do not develop these skills by 16yrs old.

The difference between “Science for scientists” and “Science for citizens” should be clearer. There is little value in teaching abstract science watered down. The citizens’ course should focus on concrete knowledge which will directly benefit all citizens: health, energy saving, the natural world etc.

Science content

The curriculum in science should be closely related to the skills and knowledge which will really be needed in the world of work which science graduates will actually occupy. The curriculum is stuck in the past “pure science” focus. The science concepts should, as far as possible, be taught with reference to familiar objects and events: iPods, weather, cars, computers, fridges rather than in isolation.

Shared resources

That the course be developed as a shared resource, using web-based, tested resources based on sound, proven practice.

Science policy

The current decline in standards results, in part from the fact that, unlike in medicine, science policy is mostly made by non-practitioners. Those making policy and advising government are out of touch with the realities of the classroom and industry. This manifesto will be drawn up by practicing science teachers in consultation with “end users” of science education.

Renewal of science: proposals.

1. That a group be established to take these ideas forward.
2. That this manifesto be developed and amended to create a shared, consensus among a group of practicing science teachers.
3. That funding me sought to enable practicing teachers to take part in the process.
4. That support for the manifesto be sought among practicing teachers.
5. That the outline of a science course, based on these principles, be developed and shared.
6. That, when an agreed vision and clear proposals are available, the ideas be communicated by all routes: education and general press, Teachers and documentary TV, directly to teachers, to government and shadow ministers and the select committees etc.

Science is one of the most important subjects children can learn these days, specifically because everything we have relies on science. The UK is losing scientists at an alarming rate not just because they leave the country but because fewer and fewer students are continuing with science at higher levels.

Looking at the science curriculum I have had to teach, the new GCSE courses are nowhere near good enough to support students’ interest and imagination. In year 10, the science is dumbed down and does not challenge them scientifically. The exams challenge them in their understranding of ethics and english and therefore there is no real test for the scientific knowledge that they have acquired.

In year 11, although the biology part of the additional science courses does link to AS level, there is no consistancy up to AS level in the chemistry and physics. The continuity is atrocious and most science AS teachers have to assume that students know nothing when they start their AS courses. This is the same for all courses and, at the moment, it is up to teacahers to ensure that students have a grounding that will see them well at AS. If we were to teach simply by the course, the students will know nothing.

The whole point of the new GCSE that was brought in a few years ago was to improve continuity to AS level and to improve interest in science and this has not been done. Students feel let down by the exams after all of the hard work that they put in. They become disheartened with the subject and lose interest much more quickly especially in cases where AS and A2 level is touched upon but, due to the lack of time to complete the course, cannot be looked at in any depth. This really infuriates students, particularly the higher ability ones.

Something needs to change and the government needs to listen to the people that actually do know best - us science teachers. We know best of all how students work, what they find interesting and how to stimulate their interests.

Point1: We have steadily seen a decline, over the past 10 years or so (since Curriculum 2000) in the ability of our students to work independently. (This is a generalisation as there are always excellent students.) I have often wondered if this is due to the pressure on schools to spoon feed their pupils with endless easy worksheets and ‘fun’ activities meant to stimulate them to think, but sadly not to work - by themsleves, concentrating and focusing on a tricky topic.

We have a Taster Day in July for the just finished kids to come and try out their chosen subjects to see if they will really like them after all. They come from schools all over our region and vary tremendously in terms of their science experience - from schools that only offer the Applied Science GCSE (which it NOT suitable preparation for A level Science courses!) to those with triple sciences and Core and Additional. They were very happy playing with enzymes and classification but the crunch always seemed to come when they had to do calculations or apply themselves to a problem - just as previous writers have noted.

We also teach Environmental Studies (still a science!!) and I must say that many of the students who came along to experience this really faultered with the maths and in fact, more importantly, did not seem to want to apply themselves to the task. Sadly they still will try to do the subject and struggle from start to finish.

Point 2: class size. I know many teachers feel that they can deliver stimulating and demanding lessons to 30 students where all will gain from the lesson. I am not one of those, sadly, and find at A-level, with 22 in a class, that the individual student is often lost in group activities. The best thing that government and the education depatment could do to spark our children into science would be to have classes of max 18 at GCSE with loads of opportunity to experiment, problem solve and explore with a teacher that is fresher and motivated to encourage them. Make each pupil feel they are an individual!

Fully in agreemant with the comment about a single exam board. I am getting fed up with the emphasis on teaching “skills”, particularly “Thinking Skills” in the absence of any specified content. Read Daniel T Willilngham to find out more about the importance of content.

I fequently get angry at departmnent meetings when we have this year’s version of “what the chief examiner really meant about the internal assessment criteria” explained to us. Surely if they print a specification, that’s what we use. A particularly annoying one this year was about using 2mm square graph paper, something about it being easier for the moderator to judge accuracy.

There’s a lot of potential in Chemistry for the students to gain lots of knowledge (and skills!) while having a really enjoyable time, but by the time they’ve got to year 9 most of out students are only interested in getting the next level - any enjoyment they ever had at learning something new for the sake of it, in whatever subject, has been knocked out of them. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that their school’s reputation is judged on their results, the pressure on the school is transferred to the teachers and the teachers don’t want to risk doing anything that might not succeed instantly. In fact it’s so bad that the last time I had to observe lessons as part of department reviews in my previous job, three out of four lessons had understanding the assessment criteria as part (all in one case) of the learning objectives.

A younger colleague who went on some lesson observation training recently said theat the video’d lesson they used, officially labelled “outstanding” by OFSTED, consisted of little after the first short task beyond the students looking at each others’ work, deciding what level it was and working out how to get to the next level. Admittedly it was a Geography lesson but if that’s outstanding teaching I think I’m in the wrong job. Perhaps Rick would like to give us a link to some emigration advice?

I’m partway through a science PGCE and am seriously thinking of going into the private sector having seen the present and impending assessment methods in the state sector.

As well as the obsession with peer assessment and the way science works, my present school has a policy of all staff teaching all sciences at all levels, on the grounds that it is the quality of the teaching that matters, not the content. As a result, pupils are being taught GCSE physics by a biologist who does not understand physics GCSE, while there are very good physicists teaching her subject. While this may be wandering off the subject of assessment, to me it perfectly illustrates the importance that this school (and presumably others) gives to a solid understanding of science, and why I am doubting my place within such a system.

I am a Science teacher who returned in 2008 after a break since 2000, and also specialise in Physics having taught to A level for 16 years. I left Science teaching in disgust at some of the practices identified in the SCORE report, and for associated reasons e.g., the farcical direction that Coursework practicals were taking. We used to teach Nuffield “O” level Physics, which was an excellent curriculum, and thoroughly examined both in theory and practical aspects.

I skim read the SCORE report when it came out and was delighted that an official report acknowledges the truth. This country is truly in a mess regarding Science education. Unfortunately, the draft proposals show that the “powers that be” have not understood the problem and are about to propagate it for at least another 5 years, maybe 10.

At the heart of the problem are a number of things:

1) the snobbery and anti-intellectual guilt of the English, who cannot accept and will not deal with the fact that children come in a wide range of abilities. GCSE was designed so as to blur these differences. The academically rigourous “O” level catered for the top 25% or so of the ability range on a five point scale, A to E. The CSE was less academic and had a six point scale, 1 to six, overlapping so that grade 1 CSE was like a “good” O level ie grade C. Between them they covered the top 60% of the ability range. GCSE was originally set to cover this whole range - no mean feat. However, political correctness at the time led to a last minute fudge where it was lowered to go right down, way below CSE grade 6, aspiring to cover the whole ability range (100%). The implications of adding the bottom 40% of the ability range were never acknowledged or thought about. You now had one exam trying to cover about 12 levels of ability, from higly academic to children with acute learning difficulties.

2) Partly as a result of the above (1), too few teachers, both Primary and Secondary, have a strong Physics (or Mathematics) background. A recent statement in the House of Commons revealed that nearly 70% of secondary Science teachers are biologists and the numbers training as and taking up posts in Physics are pathetically low. There is now a ground swell of Science teacher opinion, that can tend to perpetuate the status quo.

3) The privatisation and commercialisation of Exam boards has led, alongside massive bills and expense for schools, to a conflict of interest. Schools are their clients, and need to be pleased. Hence a range of poor practice has evolved. Exam questions are predictable and easily “crammed” for. Specifications imply higher standards than are genuinely tested. Exam boards define “correct” answers and pet examples, and publish their own “course guides” and text books. Teachers “guide” and help with childrens coursework. The whole charade.

4) The Science teaching community contains two strong but competing lobbies. Both get their way, leading to one overcrowded and muddled curriculum. The first lobby are the “my subject is important” group, who feel that every detail and difficult aspect of their subject should be included in a general exam for all. They have ensured that the Science National Curriculum for all contains a long list of topics needed for an academic grounding in their subject providing a secure path to “A” level. The second lobby are the “everyone is equal” naive lobby, who believe that every subject is equally difficult and can in fact be understood by every child. They have managed to so dumb down the exams that this is almost true, and are working at dumbing down the science content as well.

5) An overcrowded and muddled “National Curriculum” has never been radically revised and restructured (Tomlinson Diplomas were the missed opportunity). So we still have, at GCSE, virtually all the excessive content as before, but now with a lot of aspirational (and very good) ideas about How Science Works, impact of Science, applications of Science, etc, bolted on, and making , on paper, for an even more crowded curriculum. Luckily, the exam boards help teachers out by making the exams ridiculously easy. The solution in my view is to get back to reality, and design 3 levels of exam: separate Sciences for the academic; GCSE for the general citizen of moderate to high ability who is NOT interested in academic science; and some really good Science courses for the “bottom 40%” of the ability range. These BTEC type courses should not all be vocational. Some should specialise, for those interested in Science based careers (in health, animal welfare, motor mechanics, etc etc). But we also need popular, interesting, non-vocational courses for the bottom 40% so as to provide scientific literacy. These must treat Science in an engaging and relevant way to those who are “less able” but who are still deserving of an exciting and enriching curriculum, set at an appropriate level they can access and enjoy. But we English are too paranoid and class-guilty to allow this, despite the fact that children of all “classes” should be matched to all the levels as appropriate.

As for the “consultation”, I would like to know what IS their plan B, assuming the consultation excercise reveals widespread concern and dissatisfaction. I suspect that Plan B will be a win for the Conservatives at the forthcoming General Election, with the danger of a return to rote learning of a massive list of facts and some of the worst faults of the previous system; or else, a quiet acceptance of the current, heavily flawed , system with a few cosmetic tweaks. Call me a cynic?

I was blessed at my local all-boys comprehensive school with some exceptionally good science teaching, and some exceptionally bad. I was fortunate that the good outweighed the bad but, as you will read, many very intelligent people were sorely let down by bad science teaching.

TEACHER A The bad teaching was based on a misconception. The idea was that the class generally misbehaved because we didn’t understand the topic. The real reason was because we were bored (I should state that despite use of “we”, I didn’t personally take part in the misbehaviour, although I was very bored). The teachers response was to cover the topic again, but we’d understood it - and found it simple - the first time. We were the top set in a large school. The teacher, when he took over the class, decided to keep things elementary and simple and take it slowly. We found this patronising, and he didn’t realise when we told him “this is simple, sir” that we were telling the truth. So he kept taking things at an easy to comprehend pace, and we got bored and restless. Imagine, if you will, leading a maths professor through a second order inhomogenous differential equation, stopping to integrate from first principles every time, and you’ll get the idea. This led to a vicious cycle, where even the most teacher’s-pet type students got up to some sort of mischief at some point.

TEACHER B In contrast, the physics teacher we had immediately before this train-wreck was superb. She saw we were all top set and assumed that we’d all want to do A-levels in her subject (which was mostly true until the teacher in the previous paragraph took over). In her lessons we would fill pages with equations and worked examples and notes. She took us through topics in a level depth that we didn’t really need for the SATs she was preparing us for, and which stood us in excellent stead for GCSE. As a top set, she assumed we’d be able to keep up, and that those who couldn’t would either seek her out for further help - which was not unusual - and those who did neither didn’t show enough interest and would be dropped into lower sets.

While not everyone understood everything on a first pass, because we were doing real science and getting to the meat and bones of the physics, not one person had to be dropped a set. Furthermore, even the most troublesome of boys (to most teachers) were quiet, attentive, and would only speak out to ask intelligent questions. The major troublemakers of the school were model students because they were actually faced with material that they didn’t find patronising, but that they found challenging. They weren’t troublemakers because they were stupid, but because they were clever (in top set, at least). We didn’t mess around looking at practical situations where you have to calculate torque, but instead at exotic/esoteric situations where the torque was tricky to calculate.

I fear that the Governments constant move to making science more accessible by making it more applicable to real life all the time will have the effect that teacher A had. Furthermore, students with a real interest in science will find science teaching unstimulating and uninteresting. Teacher B showed me that if we want more people to take science to A-level and University, we must make it challenging and forget about real world applications. Very few major physics break-throughs have many obvious real world applications. But, to quote a Nobel prize winner “physics is like sex. Sure, it gives practical results, but that’s not why we do it.” We do it to satisfy our curiosity and to see what the limits of things are. The greatest scientific achievement of the century was launched with the words “we do this, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.”

The students we want doing science at A-level and beyond are the students who do it because it is hard, because they want to challenge themselves, and because they are interested in it. In trying to make science more vocational, more applicable to the real world we only patronise those who really want to do it out of the subject.

I would suggest, then, making science GCSE significantly more mathematical, more practical based, and also teach students about the history of the philosophy of science (i.e. empericism, the idea of submitting falsifiable theories and then throwing out those which do not stand up to testing) at a much earlier age, because it is my belief that the single must useful thing a non-scientist can learn from science is how to tell the difference between an excellent idea and an eloquent con.