House of Commons - Children, Schools and Families Committee

National Curriculum - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents

Memorandum submitted by the Association for Science Education (ASE)

SUMMARY

The Association for Science Education (ASE)[1] welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Select Committee on its Enquiry into the National Curriculum. ASE has consulted widely with its members who are drawn from all phases and areas of science education in order to bring together a range of evidence from a variety of perspectives. In particular ASE's Council, 11-19 and primary committees and Special Interest group of National Advisers and Inspectors Group for Science (NAIGS)[2] have contributed to this response.

We have also drawn on ASE's previous recent consultation responses; in particular The Primary Review: the condition and future of primary education in England (April 2007)[3] and Testing and Assessment summary of evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Skills (June 2007).[4] This submission also draws on the findings of a series of nationwide seminars with primary and secondary science teachers during 2006 under the heading of Engaging teachers, Engaging pupils, Engaging Science.[5] In addition ASE has contributed to and fully supports the joint statement as submitted by the SCORE partnership to this enquiry.[6]

The Association's submission focuses on some of the questions raised on the principle and content of the National Curriculum and its fitness for purpose, and the management of the National Curriculum. The key messages are summarised below:

— It is appropriate for all children, regardless of circumstances, to have an entitlement to certain opportunities to learn through a broad and balanced curriculum within the years of statutory education and that this should not be left to interpretation, resources and expertises of individual teachers and schools.

— The National Curriculum should provide a basic framework of objectives for the development of subject knowledge, skills and conceptual understanding, around which teachers have the freedom to make decisions on how to achieve these objectives and to explore the subject with their students.

— Science, with its focus on enquiry, objectivity and rationale, provides a unique contribution to the cognitive development of young people, from their early years onwards; and so fully justifies its core subject status within the whole curriculum.

— With the current government emphasis on the need for top quality scientists to maintain our position amongst the world economic leaders for science and technological innovation, a science National Curriculum that is an entitlement to all and appeals to our future scientists, as well as an increasingly scientifically literate youth population, is now more necessary than in previous years.

— Although the issues relating to testing and assessment are generally generic and apply across all subjects the impact of some practices has had a particularly detrimental effect on the teaching of science and has, in turn, contributed to the disaffection with the subject expressed by pupils across all phases of education.

— ASE fully recognises that testing and assessment must meet a range of demands but would argue very strongly that in the current climate the balance is wrong with too much emphasis being placed on the demands for accountability to the detriment of the quality of pupils' learning, as a result of a narrowing of the curriculum experienced by pupils. Broadly teachers support the need to redress the balance in order to put more emphasis on formative assessment, often referred to as assessment for learning (AfL).

— Any positive changes to the National Curriculum and its testing and assessment regime need to involve close consultation with teachers. Adequate time to fully consult on, pilot and evaluate the effect of proposed changed is required. Teachers are vital to the successful delivery of any curriculum change and they will need time to prepare for such changes. Relevant CPD is required so that teachers are able to implement the changes with confidence based on sound subject knowledge and professionalism.

— Teachers have an important role in developing and taking ownership of the curriculum that they teach so they are instrumental in making it (science) engaging for their own pupils in their own circumstances.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST HAVING A NATIONAL CURRICULUM

It is appropriate for all children, regardless of circumstances, to have an entitlement to certain opportunities to learn through a broad and balanced curriculum within the years of statutory education and that this should not be left to interpretation, resources and expertises of individual teachers and schools.

1. Many of the arguments in favour of a National Curriculum, leading to the original National Curriculum still apply. For instance, it is appropriate for all children, regardless of circumstances, to have an entitlement to certain opportunities to learn through a broad and balanced curriculum within the years of statutory education and that this should not be left to interpretation, resources and expertises of individual teachers and schools. Additionally mobility across schools is aided by a common understanding of what "knowledge, skills, understanding and aptitudes |children should be expected to have acquired at or near certain ages".[7] A National Curriculum also facilitates public discussion and consultation on children's education and is a guard against the curriculum being determined by groups with particular interests or political persuasions.

2. To this we might add the pragmatic point that, having had a National Curriculum for 20 years, to remove it might risk leaving teachers feeling either unsupported or that "anything goes" with reversion to the undesirable situation of an overly wide range of science provision that gave rise to the National Curriculum in the first place.

THE PURPOSE OF A NATIONAL CURRICULUM

The National Curriculum should provide a basic framework of objectives for the development of subject knowledge, skills and conceptual understanding, around which teachers have the freedom to make decisions on how to achieve these objectives and to explore the subject with their students.

3. Assessment which is fit for purpose to make teaching, learning and progression more effective makes a valuable contribution to such a framework; but summative assessment to evaluate school effectiveness, set targets or monitor national standards is largely ineffective and has negative effects on both teachers and students.

4. The arguments against, and indeed those in favour of, a National Curriculum depend upon how "curriculum" is understood. Some authors and commentators on the curriculum take it to mean all the experiences of learners—the "how" as well as the "what" of teaching. The intention of the original National Curriculum was to identify objectives (attainment targets) and the content through which they could be achieved (programmes of study) but leaving "scope for teachers to use their professional talents and skills to develop schemes of work, within a set framework which is known to all".[8] However, since the publication of the National Curriculum the government and its agency (QCA) have gone beyond this by providing schemes of work and, in the case of literacy and numeracy at the primary level, the "strategies" which invade the areas where teachers' professional skills ought to be paramount. This has turned teachers into technicians instead of professionals.

THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE AS AN AREA OF LEARNING WITHIN THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM

Science, with its focus on enquiry, objectivity and rationale, provides a unique contribution to the cognitive development of young people, from their early years onwards; and so fully justifies its core subject status within the whole curriculum.

5. ASE believes that science is a distinctive form of creative human activity that involves a way of seeing, exploring, understanding and explaining the natural and physical world. In science, ideas are exposed to refutation through experimentation and as such science has a unique contribution to make to education within the purpose of a National Curriculum. All pupils, therefore, should experience, and have access to, a broad, relevant science curriculum, which puts understanding of scientific concepts and their applications in a social and ethical context. Pupils should be encouraged to evaluate the nature of evidence from science and elsewhere in making judgments about the use of science. All pupils have an entitlement to a broad, relevant science education.

6. The unique contributions that science makes to the cognitive development of children starts from the early years and it is important that time and emphasis in the primary curriculum is maintained or ideally increased (to have parity with the other two core subjects) to enable the development of hands on scientific enquiry skills in particular, as a solid grounding for smooth progression into secondary science and which research shows clearly engages young children with science and its concepts.

7. ASE fully supports the principles underlying the current National Curriculum aims from the "Big Picture of the Curriculum" which draw out the essential skills, attitudes and attributes plus knowledge and understanding that science uniquely brings to developing successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens.[9] We recommend that these principles are reflected in any developments to the National Curriculum, including the current independent reviews of the primary curriculum, to provide coherence and consistency to the experience of children throughout their years of statutory education.

8. Additionally ASE continues to argue the following, based on our earlier evidence to the Primary Review:

— Enquiry and hands-on activities are central to teaching and learning in primary science but it must be well planned and resourced appropriately.

— If the core curriculum is to be maintained the core subjects, including science, should have genuine parity in terms of status, curriculum time, support, access to CPD and funding.

— Work needs to be done to more clearly identify what characterises primary science and the experience for pupils, and how these contribute to seamless transitions with true continuity and progression through and between phases or key stages, which have their own identities and contribution to make to the whole experience of pupils throughout their life in compulsory education.

— There is a need for the primary science curriculum to follow the lead from the secondary science curriculum in more explicitly relating ideas to contemporary contexts and to introduce, at an appropriate level, some of the major issues of this century such as global citizenship and sustainability.

— Making science more relevant to children's everyday lives is key to engaging them with science and helping them to become active and informed citizens, who understand and take decisions about the impact of scientific and technological developments.

— More effective links are required between numeracy, literacy and science at primary level, and between science, mathematics and design and technology at secondary level in order to maximise the synergies and opportunities that such links support; and to address government targets for the STEM agenda at secondary level in particular.

THE BALANCE OF CENTRAL PRESCRIPTION AND FLEXIBILITY AT THE SCHOOL/CLASSROOM LEVEL

With the current government emphasis on the need for top quality scientists to maintain our position amongst the world economic leaders for science and technological innovation, a science national curriculum that is an entitlement to all and appeals to our future scientists, as well as an increasingly scientifically literate youth population, is now more necessary than in previous years.

9. The effect of a science curriculum taught through hands-on, investigative activities with a good balance between process skills and appropriate science content makes a significant contribution to pupil engagement and enjoyment of learning.

10. To meet pupil needs we must build flexibility into the curriculum, otherwise risk ending up with another "one-size fits all" model and many of the problems we face today will simply return at some point in the future. Providing that the curriculum is envisaged as providing a framework of objectives in which teachers can make decisions about how to achieve them, the balance of argument is in favour of having a National Curriculum. Hopefully, it is in this way that the terms of reference given to Sir Jim Rose for the independent review of the primary curriculum will be interpreted ie "to enable schools to have even greater flexibility to meet pupils' individual needs and strengths| The content should be reviewed, reducing prescription where possible."[10]

11. Central prescription should be kept to a minimum, stating for example that pupils should be given the opportunity to develop the ideas and skills expressed in the objectives (ideally, paragraphs) for the end of certain years (Y3, Y6, etc). Schools and teachers would be free to choose topics and contexts. Schools can be expected to develop their more detained plans that provide for continuity and progression from year to year and exploit local opportunities that make their work relevant and interesting to teachers and pupils alike. The result will be a programme of which teachers feel ownership and understand the underlying rationale, rather than receiving a package and delivering it passively.

12. An important argument against the over-detailed curriculum is that it inevitably becomes overcrowded. Subject interest groups guard their territories and are reluctant to omit reference to any area. Less detail would mean identifying the important over-arching skills and concepts, which can be developed through a number of alternative experiences to suit various circumstances, rather than a prescribed set confining all to the same pace and activities.

13. However, reducing the National Curriculum to general principles would probably not improve (science) education. There is evidence that when there are only broad principles, teachers take their lead from what is assessed. Since there are so many tests already available to serve as a ready source of guidance as to what to teach, this would be severely limiting to children's experience. The alternative need not be "detailed" aims and objectives. The degree of detail is a crucial decision. The objectives must be so expressed that they encourage integration with other subjects and cannot be attained through a diet of formal teaching. Objectives can be identified as the knowledge and skills that pupils should have developed at the end of certain periods, say every three years (Y3, Y6, Y9), and expressed in terms that identify progression in inquiry skills and scientific ideas linked conceptually to the "big" ideas that will be the attained later in secondary education. Objectives at more frequent intervals (eg Y2, 4 and 6) would restrict schools' freedom to work towards them at the pace that suits the children and fits into plans to develop other areas of the curriculum. It is also doubtful that there is the empirical evidence to set out progression at closer intervals.

To be specific, some "big" ideas in science are:

— That all matter is made of tiny particles

— That living organisms are adapted to the physical and biological environments in which they are found.

14. Each of these can be expressed as what is it appropriate for pupils to know and understand, for instance, at Y3, Y6, Y9, etc., preferably expressed in terms of a paragraph indicating the kind of explanations expected at these points.[11] For years 3 and 6 these paragraphs could combine ideas from two or more science subject domains, thus encouraging links between curriculum areas.

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE NATIONAL STRATEGIES ARE EFFECTIVE IN SUPPORTING THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM

15. Our consultation with members suggests a picture of wide regional variation. There is a general consensus that the National Strategies are less effective at supporting the full National Curriculum at primary level. For subjects other than numeracy and literacy the strategy impact has been detrimental, as it has reduced attention to the full breadth of the curriculum by not making the natural links between different subject areas more explicit. Others comment that:

— "At secondary level support has been uneven, and has been subject to regional variations. Some useful materials have been produced but many are underused", and "Changes in the strategy approaches over time have reduced effective support for science as whole school issues have had greater prominence".

THE IMPACT OF THE CURRENT TESTING AND ASSESSMENT REGIME ON THE DELIVERY AND SCOPE OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM

Although the issues relating to testing and assessment are generally generic and apply across all subjects the impact of some practices has had a particularly detrimental effect on the teaching of science and has, in turn, contributed to the disaffection with the subject expressed by pupils across all phases of education.

ASE fully recognises that testing and assessment must meet a range of demands but would argue very strongly that in the current climate the balance is wrong with too much emphasis being placed on the demands for accountability to the detriment of the quality of pupils' learning as a result of a narrowing of the curriculum experienced by pupils. Broadly teachers support the need to redress the balance in order to put more emphasis on formative assessment, often referred to as assessment for learning (AfL).

16. There is overwhelming evidence that testing in the core subjects has a narrowing effect on both the content and teaching methods for the core subjects and the coverage of the other foundation subjects, which are marginalised particularly at the years where national tests take place. The latest evidence of this comes from a study of science teaching in Y6, funded by the Wellcome Trust which shows that in England, the Y6 curriculum is largely replaced by revision and practice testing which teachers find of no value to pupils' education.

17. There are two interconnected factors which bring about this strong impact of the tests. The first is the use of the test results for teacher and school target-setting and accountability, which makes the tests "high stakes". It is undeniable that we need good assessment to summarise learning in order to report achievements and progress in learning to parents, pupils and other teachers, for tracking pupil achievement and, at the secondary school level, for certification, accreditation and selection. These are uses that have direct importance for individual pupils. But the use of aggregated results for pupils in a class or school for other purposes, such as the sole basis for evaluation of school effectiveness, target-setting and monitoring national standards, is at the heart of the negative impact of summative assessment on teaching and learning. Although assessment for these purposes is not used to make decisions that directly affect individual students, nevertheless using the results of summative assessment for accountability and monitoring can, and does, affect students through impact on teaching and the curriculum and the loss of learning time through practising tests. There are also negative effects on teachers, some of whom feel constrained in the choice of teaching methods and content by what is tested, to the detriment of providing experiences which they value but which are not tested.[12]

18. The second factor concerns the reliability and validity of the tests. Because of their high stakes, priority is given to accuracy in marking and so to aspects of the curriculum that can be accurately marked. This reduces the range of items and consequently the validity of the tests. Items requiring application of knowledge and problem solving where there may not be a single and simple correct answer are rarely included. Even when they are, their validity is reduced by the pressure to practice and memorise so that pupils correctly answer test items even though they may not have the understanding that the items purport to assess.[13]

19. Further, a test can only sample the curriculum content. A different selection of items could easily produce a different result for particular pupils. For example, it has been estimated[14] that, in the case of the national tests at age 11 in England, even if the measured reliability of the test is 0.85, about 35% of students will be awarded the wrong grade level. If teachers' judgements were used instead of tests, taking evidence from across the whole range of work, this source of misclassification would be removed. Thus the tests fail to provide accurate information whilst distorting pupils learning experiences.

20. The reported rise in test scores is not supported by evidence that this really means a rise in standards of achievement. Comparison of national test results between 1995 and 2003[15] with results from international surveys carried out at the same time suggest that initial changes from year to year were followed by no increase. The initial rise can be accounted for by a combination of technical changes in procedures for determining cut-off scores for levels and teaching to the test. There is no support for the notion that "testing drives up standards".

21. These statements are echoed by many teachers during our discussions with comments such as:

"Assessment needs to be considered separately from the broader National Curriculum issues. Assessment of the National Curriculum has given rise to many diverse areas for concern. Our position is that teachers need to know how to help pupils progress. Current assessment policy and practice are not supporting this function."

"We welcome the moves by QCA towards empowering teachers to assess pupils' progress lesson by lesson, but these aims are being overshadowed by a preoccupation with summative assessment. Currently summative assessment is governing children's curricular experience. This effect in primary schools has disenfranchised some pupils from science before they enter secondary education and meet specialist science teachers."

"There needs to be more reliance on teacher assessment—teachers need to increase their expertise and their confidence to believe in their own judgements. Over the years various events and measures have eroded the credibility of teachers and their professionalism. Teachers need to know, in every lesson, what pupils have learned—this simple statement makes the use of long-term assessment redundant in the learning process."

22. Based on our earlier evidence on Testing and Assessment, ASE continues to argue:

— in order to encourage learning pupils' progress needs to be assessed, both in order to help learning (formative) and to report on learning (summative). Using assessment to help learning should be central to education and there is substantial evidence as to the effectiveness of formative assessment.

23. Whilst it is relatively easy to state the essence of the problem, finding solutions is not so straight forward. ASE argues that:

— there is a need to reduce the overall burden of testing and assessment on teachers and pupils as well as to redress the balance between summative and formative assessments;

— steps should be taken to remove the culture of "teaching to the test" in favour of genuine support for learning through formative assessment approaches;

— greater investment is needed for developing assessment strategies and pedagogy which use a wider range of styles and improved feedback which instils a greater sense of achievement and progress for students;

— teachers and other staff need to be supported, through appropriate CPD, and the necessary time made available in order to develop and implement appropriate processes to ensure the value of testing and assessment is maximised to the benefit of students.

THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THE SINGLE LEVEL TESTS CURRENTLY BEING PILOTED

24. As long as the results of tests are used for evaluating schools and rewarding the attainment of targets based on test results, the potential advantages of single level tests will not be realised. The advantages include the potential for information to be used formatively as well as summatively, the matching of pupils to tests and the improved provision for tracking pupils' progress. However, there are serious concerns that the proposals in their current form will not contribute to the realisation of the goals they seek to achieve. Instead the amount of testing will increase. Although the formative use of assessment is intended, the assessment practice proposed is not formative assessment but frequent summative assessment. Repeated testing de-motives lower achieving pupils, thus increasing the gap between the lower and higher achieving pupils.

25. It is evident that the task of deciding which pupils to enter, and at what times, for the single-level tests, requiring extra summative assessments and consultations about every pupil, will add a new pressure on teachers' time. In such circumstances teachers will turn to tests rather than have to defend their own judgments. School managements may judge that they must press teachers to make as many entries as possible in the light of the rewards, in public status and in cash that will be at stake.

26. High-stakes uses of individual pupils' results are likely to distort teaching and learning. The use of single level tests is not a low-stakes "assess when ready" model based essentially on teachers' judgments, but a high-stakes external assessment, conducted every six months in every school year, in which tests are seen as being "underpinned" by teachers' assessment, but are nevertheless a mechanism for awarding levels without any use of such assessments. There is a grave risk that this will exacerbate the current narrowing influence that national tests have on teaching and learning. Instead of this influence being concentrated in years 2, 6 and 9, the frequency of testing will mean that the experience of pupils in every year will be dominated by these single-level tests which will be even narrower than those currently used at the end of key stages.

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM

Any positive changes to the National Curriculum and its testing and assessment regime need to involve close consultation with teachers. Adequate time to fully consult on, pilot and evaluate the effect of proposed changed is required. Teachers are vital to the successful delivery of any curriculum change and they will need time to prepare for such changes. Relevant CPD is required so that teachers are able to implement the changes with confidence based on sound subject knowledge and professionalism.

Teachers have an important role in developing and taking ownership of the curriculum that they teach so they are instrumental in making it (science) engaging for their own pupils in their own circumstances.

27. The Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training[16] makes this point strongly "The curriculum should be seen as a creative act within schools, not something handed on. Hence the teacher should be a curriculum developer, not a transmitter, translating the national framework into planning in classrooms and at school', Many teachers agree with these sentiments as discussed during the Engaging teachers, Engaging pupils, Engaging Science seminars[17] and have aspirations and valuable ideas to help create this ownership whilst overcoming the traditional barriers to doing so.

28. Lack of time is one such barrier. At this moment many science teachers are already engaged in teaching the second year of new GCSEs, preparing to deliver separate award science GCSEs and new A levels from 2008 as well as some science elements in the new diplomas. Any further curriculum changes will need to take this into account.

APPENDIX ONE

THE ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

The Association for Science Education is the largest subject association in the UK, with approximately 18,000 members including teachers, technicians and others involved in science education. The Association plays a significant role in promoting excellence in teaching and learning science in schools and colleges. Working closely with the science professional bodies, industry and business, ASE provides a UK-wide network bringing together individuals and organisations to share good ideas, tackle challenges in science teaching, develop resources and foster high quality continuing professional development.

The objects and purposes of ASE are clearly stated in its Charter of Incorporation as the promoting of education by the following means.

— Improving the teaching of science;

— Providing an authoritative medium through which opinions of teachers of science may be expressed on educational matters; and

— Affording a means of communication among all persons and bodies of persons concerned with the teaching of science in particular and education in general.

In a more modern context,

The Association for Science Education aims to promote excellence in science teaching and learning by:

a. Encouraging participation in science education and increasing both new membership and the retention of existing members.

b. Enhancing professionalism for teachers, technicians and others through provision of high quality continuing professional development and promotion of chartered status.

c. Working in partnership with other organisations, thus maintaining and strengthening its position in influencing policy and its reputation for delivering cutting edge initiatives for its members and, through them, to the wider science education community.

Further details of the ASE and its regional, national and international activities can be found on its web-site (www.ase.org.uk).

APPENDIX TWO

NATIONAL ADVISERS AND INSPECTORS GROUP FOR SCIENCE (NAIGS)

This Special Interest Group of The Association for Science Education exists to:

— further the aims of The Association for Science Education;

— support the work of Science advisers, inspectors and others working in a science advisory or support capacity throughout the UK;

— facilitate the exchange of ideas about science education, and alert national agencies to issues of concern to the membership.