Memorandum submitted by SCORE (Science
Community Representing Education)
SUMMARY
— As a guidance framework to ensure
all young people have equal access to quality education in the
sciences throughout their statutory schooling, a National Curriculum
can be a positive influence on teaching and learning.
— The effects of a high-stakes assessment
system have distorted the positive influence of the National Curriculum,
leaving a legacy of rigid adherence to its content by many science
teachers whose practice would be much improved if they were more
confident in using recent flexibility to meet the needs of their
pupils.
— If we accept the dominant role played
by the National Curriculum, then we need to better understand
how what is intended becomes reality in the classroom. We should
ensure that all significant change is thoroughly piloted before
introduction and sufficient support is available to teachers in
order that they make positive impacts from the change.
— The Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority (QCA) have made welcome efforts to reduce the prescription
of the National Curriculum, but there has been a tendency for
that prescription merely to be shifted onto test papers and qualification
specifications.
— Changes to the English system of
testing and assessment—learning lessons from change elsewhere
in the UK and involving teachers from the start—could lead
to significant improvements in science teaching and learning,
and in the value of the National Curriculum.
This response has been prepared by the SCORE
partnership and therefore represents the combined views of the
following organisations: Association for Science Education, Biosciences
Federation, Institute of Biology, Institute of Physics, Royal
Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, and the Science Council.
The SCORE partnership aims to bring collective
action and a strategic approach to strengthening science education,
and believes that the key to maximising the impact of its efforts,
especially their influence on government, lies in a greater degree
of collaboration and in having a sense of common purpose. Through
this collective action, the partnership aims to increase its influence
over the direction of science education in the years to come,
in particular over teacher supply and retention, curriculum development,
assessment, delivery of support to teachers and students, and
strategies for reaching all young people regardless of age, background,
level of ability, gender, ethnic origin and geographical location.
Association for Science Education www.ase.org.uk
Biosciences Federation www.bsf.ac.uk
Institute of Biology www.iob.org
Institute of Physics www.iop.org
Royal Society www.royalsoc.ac.uk
Royal Society of Chemistry www.rsc.org
Science Council www.sciencecouncil.org
Arguments for and against a National Curriculum
1. SCORE considers that the provision of a National
Curriculum gives schools a framework to ensure all pupils have
an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum in the years
of statutory education. However, whilst such provision can do
much to promote equality of opportunity, such as ensuring all
girls have access to the physical sciences, it can constrain flexibility
in teaching and learning.
2. As the National Curriculum is enshrined in
law and bound by a high-stakes assessment system, changes have
been difficult to pilot and therefore have had unpredictable consequences
which a thorough system of trialling might have revealed before
blanket introduction. For example, despite a much greater number
of students being exposed to physics between the ages of 14-16
when the National Curriculum was introduced, there was a drop
in the numbers taking the subject post-16.
3. The move towards science as a single subject
across the 11-16 age range as opposed to separate sciences has
had a profound effect on the recruitment and retention of specialist
science teachers. It has also had a significant effect on the
management of science within schools, where some head teachers
do not appear to recognise the breadth that is covered by the
sciences and the consequent challenge for teachers, support staff
and students. There is some evidence to suggest that where schools
have maintained the profile of the individual sciences they are
more successful in recruiting to post-16 physics.
4. We would recommend that for the 14-16 age
range the subject named Science in the National Curriculum becomes
"The Sciences" and explicit reference is made within
any curriculum documentation to the nomenclature commonly used
in the scientific community to name these subjects eg biology,
chemistry and physics. SCORE also recommends that the importance
of mathematics for science is made explicit in the teaching of
both subjects.
The purpose of a National Curriculum
5. A National Curriculum should provide a basic
framework for subject knowledge, skills acquisition and conceptual
development within which teachers have the freedom to explore
the subject and enthuse their pupils. There should not be an assessment
"straitjacket" forcing teachers either to teach to the
test or to narrow the emphases of their teaching because of the
demands of league tables.
6. For a number of subjects, including science,
it is not unreasonable to ask what is meant by the National Curriculum.
Currently at Key Stage 3 many teachers use the QCA Scheme of Work
to develop their teaching programmes. We understand that this
is not being replicated for the new programme of study but that
further guidance material is being produced by the Secondary Strategy.
At Key Stage 4 the science that young people learn depends more
on the specification chosen by their teachers than the stipulations
of the National Curriculum. Whilst there is considerable consultation
about the contents of the statutory National Curriculum there
is much less opportunity to comment on the material that effectively
determines the curriculum taken by young people.
The balance of central prescription and flexibility
at the school/classroom level
7. In the sciences, the need to balance the
development of a scientifically literate population with the provision
of an adequate supply of scientists and engineers is worthy of
careful consideration. The National Curriculum (and the way it
is used in the classroom) needs to respond to individual and local
needs, as well as those of the national workforce. This "dual
purpose" is well known in the science education community
but has not been straightforward to reflect in the National Curriculum.
8. The right balance between prescription and
flexibility can only be maintained by having confident and competent
specialist teachers in place, and supporting them through professional
development and adequate resource. Whilst SCORE is agreed that
all pupils across the 5-16 age range should be exposed to teaching
across the sciences, we are also convinced that this content should
be delivered by subject specialists to students above the age
of 14.
The impact of the current testing and assessment
regime on the delivery and scope of the National Curriculum
9. Testing and assessment clearly have impacts
on the teaching and learning of all subjects in the curriculum.
However, we feel that the current system has had a particularly
detrimental impact on science, and may thwart recent attempts
to reflect the fact that science is as much about process as content.
These positive changes to the science curriculum, associated with
increased support for enquiry-based pedagogy, are undermined by
a system which values factual recall and superficial conceptualisation
over deeper understanding and engagement.
10. In particular, we are concerned that the
assessment system has played a major role in the current perception
among many young people that the sciences, along with some other
subjects including mathematics and foreign languages, are more
difficult than other subjects at A level. SCORE has recently commissioned
some work from the Curriculum, Evaluation and Management (CEM)
Centre at the University of Durham and we would be pleased to
share this with the Committee once it is complete.
11. The resource-intensive assessment system
adopted in England yields very little information of value in
relation to improving achievement and explaining differences,
for example on the basis of gender or socioeconomic status.
12. The pressure on teachers in both Primary
and Secondary phases to "teach to the test" and focus
on increasing the number of pupils getting Level 5, 6 or 7 in
Key Stage tests and gaining 5 A*-C at GCSE is immense. This has
led to a severe imbalance between assessment for learning (formative
assessment) and assessment for accountability (summative assessment),
which represents an impoverishment in the quality of science teaching
and learning.
13. Time which could otherwise be spent on long-term
scientific investigations, enrichment and enhancement activities,
debates about the wider significance of science and discussions
about career prospects with science qualifications are to a considerable
extent taken up with class revision, test administration and data
management. Concerns have been raised that while the National
Curriculum may be in part responsible for setting and raising
standards at the lower end of the ability spectrum, it has at
the same time capped expectations of those at the higher end.
We note that the private sector is protected from statutory testing
and therefore has much greater freedom to provide more tailored
learning, especially regarding stretch and challenge for more
able students.
The likely impact of the single level tests currently
being piloted
14. Given that these tests are currently being
piloted we feel it is somewhat premature to comment on their impact.
We can only expect that should the pilot show serious deficiencies
and unintended consequences of this proposed reform, particularly
if they increase the burden and pressures of testing in England,
the proposals will be amended or even rejected.
15. We are surprised that not more attention
has been paid to the experiences of Wales and Northern Ireland
in reducing external Key Stage tests, and suggest that these should
be closely monitored and weighed against the proposals in the
Making Good Progress consultation.
16. We question the value of blanket testing
at Key Stages 2 and 3 and suggest sampling a statistically significant
proportion of the cohort allied with a national requirement for
teacher assessment, noting the efforts Scotland is making in this
area through their "Assessment is for Learning" programme.
How well the National Curriculum supports
transition to and delivery of the 14-19 Diplomas
17. It is difficult to comment on this until
we have a clearer view of the contents of the proposed Science
Diploma. However, we are unsure of how the statutory content of
the National Curriculum will articulate with the aims identified
for science at level 1 & 2 within the Science Diploma. A related
issue is how the recent drive to increase the numbers studying
triple science can be incorporated within the Diploma structure,
particularly at level 2.
18. There is also an issue about the relationship
between diplomas with significant science content and existing
science qualifications. For example will an engineering diploma
at level 2 provide sufficient preparation for level 3 science
qualifications?
The role of the new style Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority in relation to the National Curriculum
19. We hope that the new arrangements increase
clarity regarding which agency is responsible for improving the
system of testing and assessment. We have been disappointed in
the past with QCA's commitment to significant and ongoing attempts
to moderate standards between awarding bodies and ensure equality
across subjects and qualifications, and hope that, once operational,
Ofqual will succeed where QCA have failed in this regard.
20. While the moves to a reduced National Curriculum
have the potential to yield many benefits, we are increasingly
concerned about the market forces operating in national qualifications
at Key Stage 4 where awarding bodies attempt to sell their qualifications
to schools keen to optimise their league table positions, particularly
when those awarding bodies increasingly also operate as, or in
close association with, commercial publishers.
21. While the competitive market in qualifications
would be dissolved by creating one awarding body, it has been
claimed that the current situation has advantages in maintaining
a diversity of offer and ensuring a continued investment in curriculum
development and innovation. We feel that this ongoing question
about the optimal number of awarding bodies needs further discussion
and prompt resolution.
22. We propose that the regulatory authority
carries out a review of the current arrangements for the unitary
awarding bodies to explore what impact the reduction in the number
of awarding bodies has had in terms of value for money and innovation.
We believe that reduction should have led to improved comparability
across examinations without losing the benefit of the curriculum
development through different specifications with their own particular
flavour. But we are concerned that this curriculum development
is being stifled by the awarding bodies' engagement in publishing.
The fact that awarding bodies are in competition and are also
generating revenue as publishers of educational resources casts
some doubt over the whole examination system. In the current system,
there is nothing to prevent an exam board from positioning itself
as easier than its competitors with virtually no method of ensuring
that they are not. It is difficult to see the benefits of competition
in this environment.
23. We would also recommend that the Department
for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the QCA agree and
publicise a best practice model of curriculum development—from
initial research and consultation through to implementation and
evaluating impact—which could be used as a quality standard
for future change. We believe that Government must give more consideration
to how concepts and skills are developed at different stages of
science education. The current piecemeal approach to curriculum
reform makes it almost impossible to provide a coherent approach.
The role of teachers in the future development
of the National Curriculum.
24. The system of testing and assessment should
be reviewed, in close consultation with teachers, in order to
increase the positive role of assessment for learning. We have
been disappointed with recent attempts from the QCA regarding
teacher consultation which have seen mediocre use of technology
severely constrain the number and diversity of respondents.
25. Positive results from any significant change
in the nature and assessment of the National Curriculum will be
dependent on equally positive developments in the culture of teaching.
School and college teachers emerging from a period of centralised
prescription will need more relevant, high-quality continuing
professional development (CPD), and adequate time to develop and
implement better practices, in order to feel confident about making
decisions about what is right for their students and their school.
26. It is disappointing that the Government
still does not seem to have accepted the fact that proper piloting
and evaluation before national roll out is essential for effective
curriculum change. It has been shown time and again how valuable
this process is in ensuring that new qualifications are effective
and we would be very disappointed to see any reduction in piloting.
Indeed, we deeply regret that it was not possible to pilot aspects
of the proposed national curriculum at KS3 before its implementation
this September.
27. We note that, in 2007-08, science teachers
are attempting to implement some or all of the following changes:
— teaching the second year of new GCSEs;
— preparing to teach separate award
sciences at GCSE from 2008 in response to the non-statutory entitlement
for pupils who attain level 6 at KS3 in science to be able to
take triple science at GCSE;
— preparing for the new A level courses
to be taught from 2008;
— preparing to deliver some science
elements in the new diplomas.
March 2008
| 
