Mark Jones is a Science Teacher and Education Consultant
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?