Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360-379)
PROFESSOR DEREK
BELL, CLIVE
BUSH, DR
RITA GARDNER
AND PROFESSOR
GORDON STOBART
3 NOVEMBER 2008
Q360 Chairman: But some people
in your field tell me that.
Professor Bell: And there is a
dispute. Science is not black and white.
Q361 Chairman: Do fewer people
study science than before?
Professor Bell: That is what some
of the figures indicate, but whether that was a direct result
of the change or not is debateable. Certainly, in the past three,
four or five years, people have started to address the issue of
how we tackle that to make sure that you have people coming through
to do science. We need to ensure that the curriculum allows schools
to move forward in that way, as well as meeting the needs of the
other students who will perhaps never move into science.
Q362 Chairman: It was the SCORE—Science
Community Representing Education—document to which I was
referring. It has just been highlighted for me that the SCORE
document—and there are arguments for and against the national
curriculum—suggests that some evidence shows that where
schools are maintained by private grant, the individual sciences
are more successful in recruiting post-16 children to physics.
Would you disagree with that?
Professor Bell: No, I would not
disagree with that. Where schools were able to create three lots
of science, the number of students coming through were not more—that
figure is fine. However, the question is whether you have got
all of the students that would come through or whether you have
just selected a smaller group. The introduction of the triple
science programme by the Department for Children, Schools and
Families has started to encourage schools to enter more students
for three sciences. That has only really come in in the past 12
or 18 months.
Q363 Chairman: That is comparatively
recently is it not?
Professor Bell: That is right.
Q364 Paul Holmes: I am not clear
about the figures, because you said that some of them indicate
that fewer children went on from double science to do science
at A-level and then at university. After we had that conversation
in the previous Select Committee meeting, someone contacted me
to say that the figures showed an increase after double science
was introduced. Surely, we know one way or the other whether there
has been an increase?
Professor Bell: That is one of
the issues that has been raised in other places: the figures are
not always consistent. They have been collected and interpreted
in different ways, so sometimes the problem has not been clearly
defined by the figures that are available.[18]18
Q365 Chairman: So as part of your
rather positive way of explaining where we are going in the national
curriculum, you think science is getting a much better chance
to be appropriate and relevant to the people who are coming into
the secondary stage of their education?
Professor Bell: I think the moves
were in the right direction to encourage that and to widen the
base of students who might come through to do science. There are
certain students who will do science whatever you do, because
that is what they want to do and what they are interested in.
Such students are keen to follow science full stop—whether
it is physics, chemistry or biology. However, we have tended in
the past to lose other students, who do not respond to that academic
approach, but who respond to a more practical-based approach.
What you find is that once you have encouraged them in, they start
to develop and can perform and achieve as well as some of the
other students, because they are used to the practicalities. We
have started to loosen up on that to allow that to happen.
Q366 Chairman: Can this be totally
separated from the way in which young people learn mathematics?
This is totally anecdotal and not based on anything I have read,
but when I visit schools I get the feeling that if a child is
good at mathematics, there is a natural step to studying physics
and the other sciences and that they thrive. However, even if
a young person has a like or love of mathematics, if it is badly
taught, it can put them off maths and the rest of science altogether.
Is there a problem in relation to that?
Professor Bell: We need to consider
carefully that if you can do maths, science obviously comes easier
in many respects. We need to look at that relationship and understand
it better. These days, what is the relationship between mathematics
and not just physics and chemistry but biology? Biology is much
more mathematical in a whole range of ways—for example,
we are moving into more molecular-based biology. Even some of
the ecological stuff is much more mathematically based—not
just in terms of statistics, but in terms of the mathematical
modelling that goes on to understand ecosystems, which are probably
the most complicated systems we know.
Q367 Chairman: So, Clive, what
I am getting at, I suppose, is that if we look at the subjects
individually, we get a different picture than if we look at them
as clusters. The quality of maths teaching—the quality of
that early experience with maths—is important, because if
you get it wrong you stop a large number of people going on to
maths-related subjects. Is there not a case to be made for that?
Clive Bush: Yes, I think there
is. I should like, if I may, to make just a couple of quick observations
on science. With the development of triple science across the
country, in spite of the hegemony of double science—20%
double science—which was the understood model, a number
of schools were building triple science in, and that became a
groundswell. That is positive. A kind of selected group was able
to take on triple science, because predominantly it was done in
double science time. But we have seen, as an outcome of that,
the increasing uptake of science, particularly among girls at
A-level and beyond. There are some encouraging positive stories
to tell in that regard, not the least being the new triple science
model that is being developed and the "How science works"
model, which is also being developed. Returning to the notion
of the interrelatedness of the disciplines, which is important,
we have learned, certainly over the last three years looking at
maths teaching, that there are some positive stories to tell about
maths teaching in secondary schools and there has been some real
progress, particularly at higher levels, with over 50% of young
people achieving Level 6 and beyond at Key Stage 3 when Level
5 is the expected level. Those are strong, positive messages.
We know maths teaching works at its best where there is application
of the mathematics and where young people understand that application.
That is not dumbing down mathematics at all; it is not about saying,
"Design your bedroom and measure all the bits and pieces,"
but about understanding the language of mathematics and how that
language applies to the world around us. That is the interrelatedness
with science; it is about understanding the connectivity, because
you need the language of mathematics to engage with key aspects
of science. Another positive thing that sits within the national
curriculum and within our remit in respect of the secondary strategies
is the development of functional skills or applied learning. We
are now developing strands of disciplines within the secondary
curriculum that are about the application of learning. There are
some positive messages. There has been a good response from young
people in terms of how that is used. That is important. In terms
of our understanding of curriculum development and the pedagogy
that goes with it, it gives us a renewed focus on how we support
teachers in classrooms.
Q368 Chairman: We are going to
move on in a second. But I should like one little bite at this.
Gordon, what is your view on this? Later in this session we are
going to drill down into transition and how the earlier curriculum
is taught up to the age of 11 and how that meshes with what is
taught as a child gets into secondary education.
Professor Stobart: It suddenly
swings into 10 different subjects with different teachers.
Q369 Chairman: It does, but even
taking the item that we were discussing with Clive just now, is
the way in which we teach numeracy, for example, in the early
years stimulating enough for children who might be stimulated
into maths and then science? I am not going to be obsessive about
science in this session, but as a non-scientist, I think I owe
it to the Committee to draw out some of these things. Are we doing
things in early years numeracy that put kids off mathematics later
on?
Professor Stobart: I would not
have the evidence to say either way.
Q370 Chairman: Anybody?
Clive Bush: I do not think that
there is evidence to support that assertion.
Q371 Chairman: It would be interesting
if there were evidence about the way in which we teach. Surely,
there must be some evidence in our educational establishments
of how well the two mesh. Much of the stuff that we are reading
about the curriculum deals with how it works through transition
periods.
Clive Bush: Yes, that is important.
We await with some interest Sir Jim Rose's review of the primary
curriculum, because it will touch on that. We already know that
there is an understood and agreed need for subject specialists
in the primary curriculum, perhaps in a way that we have not had
them before. That is a reflection of the increasing demand on
the primary curriculum and, indeed, how it is driven by the increasing
demand on the secondary curriculum. Those things indicate that
we are moving in the right direction, because we are driving down
the requirement for higher levels of understanding within the
primary curriculum. The primary curriculum is not my remit, but
I do not know of any evidence to suggest that the way maths is
taught in primary schools impedes progress in year 7 in secondary
schools. However, it is an area that is worthy of further investigation.
The whole transfer and transitions issue is a wider area for discussion.
We know that there is a summer learning drop and we also know
that in many schools—not all, but many—there is a
year 7 and a year 8 learning drop. We need to look carefully at
what is happening to ensure that those things do not happen.
Q372 Chairman: In the Department,
is there anyone or any part of the Department—it is a vast
Department—that looks at the curriculum thematically and
right across the age range, from early years through to 18 and
beyond? Does anyone look at the curriculum in that holistic sense,
or is it chopped up, as it is chopped up at 11 and at 16?
Clive Bush: No. For example, my
Department colleagues who are curricular leads in English, maths,
science and information and communications technology have a brief
to look from early years right through to 16, so there is a holistic
view of the curriculum. When we present to the project boards,
as they are called when those leads chair the meetings, I do that
in maths and English with my primary equivalent, so there is an
agreed view across the whole curriculum.
Chairman: That is very interesting. However,
we must move on to look at the new secondary curriculum. Douglas
will open up the questions.
Q373 Mr Carswell: I have a question
for all four of you, and I would be grateful if you could answer
it in turn. I know that you have huge professional expertise in
this field. For example, Gordon was talking about his expertise
as an assessment specialist, and others among you have academic
backgrounds. I was just wondering if you could perhaps put aside
your professional outlook and take a step back to explain to me,
as a layman, why we need a national curriculum in the first place.
We do not have state-sanctioned food recipes or restaurant menus,
we do not have a state-run music charts hit factory, yet we have
innovation in an amazing range of food and music. Our food and
music are innovative and cater for all tastes. Can we not allow
choices, professionalism and teacher talent to shape what is taught
in our schools, without top-down state dictation?
Dr Gardner: We argued in our evidence
that we fully and strongly supported the idea of a national curriculum.
That is because we feel that there should be a core learning entitlement
for all and so that we can identify the core knowledge and skills
linked to a specific range of disciplines that we think all young
people should have experience of. We feel that entitlement for
all of core knowledge and skills outweighs the argument that there
should be no national curriculum so that you give teachers a wider
range of opportunities to teach what they want. We think that
we have got the balance not too far wrong at the moment, in the
sense that there is a core of knowledge and skills. With the new
curriculum—I know geography best, obviously—there
is greater flexibility for teachers to determine what they teach.
It is less content-specific and less content-heavy, so it enables
teachers to personalise the curriculum and to localise it. For
us as geographers, localising it is very important. However, that
of course puts a substantial demand on teachers to shape and fashion
their curriculum to meet personalised and localised learning needs.
That is something that some teachers are extremely good at and
well-trained to do, while others need much more support to do
it. I am strongly in favour of a core entitlement for all young
people.
Professor Stobart: In the sense
that I take the entitlement reading of the story, I think there
was some other politics going on as well at the time, but the
entitlement idea is that all students should receive teaching
of the core curriculum, or whatever it is. What is happening now
is an attempt to back off that. The talk is of a lighter touch
as we go through. To pick up Rita's earlier point, it is almost
as though policy makers do this and then lose their nerve again—you
back off certain things, but then you start pulling other things
in and filling it all up again. The issue is how much room for
manoeuvre there is for the good professional. With the Michael
Barber type of rhetoric of "informed prescription" and
moving towards "informed professionalism", there is
always a danger that you give over some of the informed professionalism
but then take a little bit of it back and put some more controls
on it. We are trying to do it, but sometimes the move towards
letting schools and teachers decide is quite hesitant.
Dr Gardner: I just want to make
sure that it is clear that when I talked about core curriculum,
I was not talking about it in the sense of the core subjects as
they are currently defined.
Professor Bell: You could do away
with the national curriculum, but then we would have the whole
issue of what happens when your child moves from London to Birmingham,
or of what happens when somebody says, "We haven't got enough
scientists". A whole raft of arguments moved us towards the
notion of a national curriculum at the time, and I therefore agree
with Rita and Gordon about having a national curriculum for students.
It is an entitlement for them and something that society should
be able to support and move forward. The question is how we do
that and how we get the balance right. It is important that teachers,
and not just them but the rest of the school work force, are able
to use their expertise to the best in order to meet the needs
of the students who are with them at a particular time.
Clive Bush: It is nice to come
at the end. There was a time when we effectively did not have
a national curriculum.
Q374 Chairman: When was that,
Clive?
Clive Bush: Pre-1987, before the
curriculum audit in the late '80s.
Q375 Chairman: So there was a
golden age when there was no national curriculum and it was all
designed locally, and no one could move their kid from one school
to another?
Clive Bush: There was an agreed
structure based on a set of traditions that had sat within schooling
for quite some time—several hundred years, in fact. We then
developed a set of curriculum orders that we felt made some sense
of that and went some way towards predicting the kind of young
people 20 years hence and the kind of education that they would
need. We have done that systematically ever since. Christine Gilbert's
2020 Vision report is very useful, because it is an attempt
to describe the economy and society we will need for young people
in 2020. It tells us a bit about what that future might be. What
we know more than anything else is that the future is volatile
and unpredictable, and that it changes extremely rapidly. Somewhere
in that, we have to create a core entitlement for young people
to acquire, so that they can cope with the demands, volatility
and change the future will bring, and provide the kind of young
people who will make a stable and productive society.
Q376 Mr Carswell: You have all
said that we need a national curriculum. If we are to have a national
curriculum, by definition, as Derek said, the question becomes
what to put in it. Derek thinks that we should have lots of science.
Rita thinks that we should have lots of geography. I know some
Conservative politicians who think that we should have something
called "proper history", whatever that might be. We
hear that Christine Gilbert, who is a state planner, thinks that
in 2020 we should have these skills or those skills. Do you think
that the QCA is the way to do it? If we are to have a national
curriculum, can we ever decide what goes in it to everyone's satisfaction?
Professor Bell: No, and I think
that we need to learn lessons from the past. The first national
curriculum had 17 volumes—and they were volumes. We have
been coming back from that, because when it was first set up there
was demand from every subject area to have their bit in, and there
have been new subject areas since. They wanted to define all their
bits very precisely, so the curriculum started to be atomised
and therefore became overcrowded. A lot of the original idea for
a national curriculum was to define a core entitlement. That was
not about me fighting for science or Rita fighting for geography.
It was about there being certain things that students should be
entitled to. I think that you could do a lot of those things through
science, and I am sure that Rita would say that you could do a
lot through geography. I am not fighting for science. I am a teacher—that
is where I started life. I am about trying to give students the
best education possible, and I believe that subject—science
in particular—is one way of doing that, but it has to be
in balance with other things.
Q377 Mr Carswell: I have one final
question about science. Am I right in thinking that some London
boroughs have had no secondary schools that offered the range
of science options that would be a prerequisite for a student
to go on to become a doctor?
Professor Bell: I honestly do
not know. I have not seen those figures.
Q378 Mr Carswell: Looking at the
science programme for Key Stage 3, it has plenty of stuff about
cultural relativism and "recognising that modern science
has its roots in many" blah, blah, blah—multi-culty
relativist claptrap. Surely there is a real danger that the curriculum
does not do what it is meant to do, which is to offer children
from every background, particularly those from socially and economically
deprived backgrounds, the opportunity to study medicine and go
on to become doctors. Instead, we have something that is subject
to the capture of political correctness and people with a culturalist
agenda.
Professor Bell: If you look behind
that, at the programme of study, it specifies that "How science
works" is the key approach. That approach is about investigation
and understanding how to gather evidence, how to interpret it
and how to move forward using it in both a practical and theoretical
sense to develop the concepts of science. The other part of the
programme of study—one of the only statutory bits—specifies
what you should be doing, in terms of science, in relation to
the biological, physical and chemical worlds we live in. The problem
with the new curriculum, and to a certain extent the 21st century
science approach, was that what was picked up, which you have
just identified, is what I would describe as the froth on the
top. Underneath that, there is an awful lot of rigour and substance.
You cannot teach photosynthesis without talking about chloroplasts,
chlorophyll and plant structures, but people seem to think that
all you are going to do is debate whether you should chop down
a tropical rainforest. That is not what the science curriculum
is about, and nor was it intended to be.
Dr Gardner: I trained as a scientist—as
a geologist and a physical geographer—so I come from a science
background. Where I sit at the moment, I think that I agree with
Professor Alan Smithers that the key issue with the national curriculum
is the core curriculum's major bias in favour of the sciences
at the expense of the humanities and all that they bring as humanising
subjects. We risk spending too much time on sciences, partly because
there is a very strong science lobby, which I think is an excellent
lobby—this is not aimed at Derek; but young people equally
need to understand the historical and geographical context of
the world in which they live and for which they are responsible.
I would love a properly evaluated and decently costed survey of
the contribution that those who have trained in the social sciences
and the humanities make to the economy, so that we can start to
have a counter-discussion about the important contribution to
a knowledge-based economy that other disciplines make in their
training of young people.
Q379 Fiona Mactaggart: Following
on from that, one of my anxieties about the curriculum is the
gap in the science curriculum; for example, between how it is
experienced in schools and what is happening in the science-based
companies in my constituency. One difficulty with developing the
science and mathematics curricula well is that they seem to be
treated as subjects that are separate from how science is used
in work—even more, in some ways, than other curriculum subjects
where one actually uses those subjects as a tool in the same way
that people do in work. For that reason, I have been working with
my education business partnership to try to use the many science
companies in my constituency to create a science club for school
kids, but I wonder how involved companies that use science, engineering
and mathematics in their day-to-day operation have been in the
development of the curriculum. My sense is that there is a gap
between the two worlds that is potentially worrying. An interesting
thing that you were saying, Derek, was about the range of abilities
that we are able to engage with. I seem to hear a lot of impressionistic
stuff—"We think". Someone said that they thought
that places with separate sciences were taking more children on
beyond 16, but you said that we do not have the numbers to prove
that—a very scientific answer. I have a sense that there
is a scientific world in business and a scientific world in education
and that they are not connecting early enough for our young people.
Is there any truth in that?
Professor Bell: Yes, there is
a lot of truth in that. There is no question about it, because
we all come at things from different perspectives or with different
agendas and needs. We will stick with science for a minute, but
I would like to try to broaden this out. There are certain issues
around making science engaging for students. Clearly, part of
that is getting them engaged with what is going on in real life,
but as soon as that happens, people say that you are dumbing down
science because you have not taught Ohm's law.
Fiona Mactaggart: But if you are teaching
friction, getting Lewis Hamilton to talk about what happens when
he puts his foot on the brake is presumably a more effective way
of getting students to understand the concept.
Professor Bell: I would agree,
but that is what I am saying. That is what causes a frenzy in
the media. The real task is to marry the two together. You talk
about friction, or a whole raft of scientific concepts, but you
relate them to things that students can link with. Some students
link with a subject because they see the beauty of the concept.
They are probably the bright academic students. They see that
and that is all that they need to turn them on. Other students
need Lewis Hamilton to come in, or somebody else—I cannot
think of a woman racing driver off the top of my head, but there
is one. You bring those people in, and students think, "Wow!
I didn't realise that happened." They start to understand
the science because of the experience, not just the beauty of
the concept itself.
Chairman: I am afraid that we have to
break for a Division. I am sorry about this.
Professor Bell: I was hoping you
would.
Chairman: As soon as four of us are back,
we will be quorate and will restart. It would be very helpful
if Fiona was one of the first.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—
18 18 Note by witness: The Royal Society have
produced what they call the state of the nation reports on science
education. The first one, which was published last year, deals
with the issue of data reliability, and one of their conclusions
was that data available is variable and it is difficult to make
reliable comparisons. See The Royal Society A "state of
the nation" 2007: The UK's science and mathematics teaching
workforce December 2007 on www.royalsociety.org Back
| 
