Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
[Amendment No. 91B not moved.]
Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 92:
(za) personal and social life skills,The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to move this amendment but perhaps I may meet the Minister to see whether it is possible to craft an amendment that would help to bring more certainty about the teaching of relationships and communication skills.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I shall be delighted to meet the noble Lord.
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 95:
( ) A pupil in the fourth key stage is entitled, if he so elects, to follow a course of study in science that leads to separate qualifications in-
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. I am pleased that we begin our debate on the curriculum today with the two most important groups of amendments tabled for your Lordships consideration: the group before us now, which will give all children the right to study three separate science subjects until the age of 16; and the second group, which will give all maintained schools the right to offer the rigorous IGCSE as an alternative to the current option.
Taken together or separately, the first cluster of amendments would reform science teaching in our schools. Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 seek to confirm the policy pledges of the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his science and investment framework initiative from this years Budget. Amendment No. 96 attaches an entitlement to study
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1106
Noble Lords will be extremely familiar with this debate. I was hugely encouraged by the support for this topic from all Benches in Committee and I have followed the recent media interest in giving an entitlement to study the three sciences with great interest, not least because I am so pleased that it has been given a place in the national debate that it deserves. We are at the pinnacle of that debate today. We have an opportunity to make a difference to our childrens future opportunities and to our childrens future place in the world economy.
We face a threat to the future of science in this country. The problem is not a new one, but it is acute. We live in a world where our competitors will stride far ahead of us. The Economist recently ran a 15-page special report on the The Search for Talent: Why its getting harder to find. It tells us of the problems facing a world that is not educating its scientists adequately; and it tells of a world where our competitors in Shanghai have established a human talent market and where a Singaporean statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, recognises that,
Yet our teaching of the most important subjects outside numeracy and literacy has been demotedit is the privilege of those who must prove their achievement at a young age.
It is not acceptable to segregate children from a proper science education should they seek one, purely because they do not get the grades when they are 14 years old. Whatever a childs ability, the children whom we are educating for the future need to have the option to undertake a rigorous course of studya course that teaches the learning of hard, empirical fact, that teaches how to analyse that fact, that teaches how to formulate an argument based on that analysis and, what is more, that teaches young adults how to assess rigorously the success or otherwise of that process of learning, application and analysis.
The relative meritsor lack thereofof this new single science course are widely publicised. The narrowing of the curriculum is patronising at best, and incredibly damaging at worst. The rector of Imperial College London, Sir Richard Sykes, stated on BBC news that,
Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not today analyse the virtues of studying a module entitled You and your genes. It sounds rather like a fashion module that has found its way on to the science curriculum. I was appalled to read the words of Andrew Hunt, who has personal overall responsibility for developing the new so-called Twenty First Century Science curriculum, including the single science course. He stated in a public e-mail:
What Twenty First Century Science also offers in Science is an engaging course for students who will not take their Science further.
I do not accept that the amendment will incur a spending commitment. The study of the three sciences will take up a maximum of 10 per cent extra curriculum time over and above the 20 per cent taken up by the dual award, or the new single-plus additional science syllabus. I do not see why an extra science could not be chosen in lieu of another subject. Furthermore, in answer to the Ministers concern about teacher numbers, I accept that there is a dearth of science teachers today, and applaud the creation of new incentives. However, all schools offer the dual science awards now. There is much that can now be achieved on the available resources.
We know from an Answer in another place over a year ago that Her Majestys Government expect that at least 80 per cent of students should do at least two science GCSEs. That is to say that, at the very least, 20 per cent of pupils will study the single sciences course. This is a course whose own creator has acknowledged it to be is useless outside the classroom; it will do nothing to prepare our children for the realities or facts of a world that will demand far more scientific attention on the environment and energy provision than ever before.
Aldous Huxley got it right when he said:
Let us not ignore the facts today. I hope that the Minister can act in the spirit of consensus with noble Lords from all Benches, and allow this important entitlement into the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we are minded to support this amendment. We accept that it does not make all three sciences compulsory, but it gives children a choice in how to study science.
I am afraid that we do not agree with comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the Twenty First Century Science curriculum. It is a perfectly appropriate option for some young people. We are, however, concerned about the drop in the number of young people choosing science at A-level. For certain young people, studying separate sciences would be preferable. While the new science curriculum is so young and new, it would be dangerous to get rid of the three sciencesnot allowing young people to make that choiceas it is evaluated.
There may be some practical difficulties. Not every school currently has people suitably qualified to teach the three separate sciences. However, if the Government are serious about encouraging schools to work together in federations, in groups within a trust and with colleges in the local environment, I see no reason why the
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1108
What we really should do is train more properly qualified science teachers, but will we achieve that by taking away the option to study the three separate sciences? I am not convinced about that. In the early stages of the Twenty First Century Science curriculum, until we are sure that it will increase the number of young people taking separate sciences at A-level, which they will need if they are going to go on to science careers, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is why we are minded to support this amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I apologise to the House because this is the first time I have addressed it on the Education and Inspections Bill. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber earlier will realise that I do so with a particular interest in the new science syllabus, Twenty First Century Science.
I have taken the Times for all my adult life, although I try to read other papers as well. I think some of its front-page headlines have become pretty silly, but when I read its headline on Wednesday, 11 OctoberScience elite rejects new GCSE as fit for the pubI exploded. I thought of cancelling my subscription, but my wife said she enjoys other parts of the newspaper.
Twenty First Century Science has been a long time in gestation. It fits admirably with the chapter about science education in the report of the Science and Technology Select Committee, Science and Society. I chaired the sub-committee, and we did not initially intend to have a chapter about education. However, we received so much evidence from all sides that much of the problem of the alienation of the public from science starts in the schools that we decided that we needed to address the subject as part of our wider study. I am very glad we did, because the people who devised this new syllabusthey were working independently from ustold me very early on that they applauded us for addressing the subject. We agreed that, as the new syllabus emerged, it would closely reflect the philosophy of the Select Committee.
My noble friend Lady Buscombewho let me know five minutes before Questions that she does not agree with me on thispraised Sir Richard Sykes for his view. I have enormous respect for Sir Richard, and I had two long meetings with him in the past week. In the end, he agreed that we are fundamentally trying to achieve the same objective. However, not for the first time, Sir Richard is a bit out on a limb. When the Times reported that the science elite opposes this syllabus, it seemed to ignore that the Royal Societyits former president, the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford,
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1109
My noble friend suggested to me that the new syllabus fails because it does not meet the need for pupils to study the three sciences separately. I must say to my noble friend, with the greatest of respectas they sometimes say in the courtsshe has misdirected herself. I have a note from the Nuffield Foundation, which with the University of York has been the main intellectual powerhouse behind the new syllabus. It states clearly:
Science education in schools has two jobs to do: to provide a worthwhile education for all preparing them for adult and working life,
Twenty First Century Science does both in ways that is attracting international interestnot least because the approach is based on a ten year programme of research and development backed up with trials and evaluation.
Those promoting the syllabus have engaged the scientific community right from the startnames that are nationally known and others who are specialists in their special subject and may not be so well known. They have been a source
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I want to intervene briefly, as my noble friend has suggested that I am wrong. I hope that I made it clear in Starred Questions earlier this afternoon that, in relation to the Twenty First Century Science syllabus, the separate sciences will be offered only to high achievers from 2008. I am asking this afternoon that we give all children, whatever their academic ability, the entitlement to learn the three separate sciences up to GCSE. I do not think that I can make myself clearer.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I do not think that there is much difference between my noble friend and me on that. What I say from my study of this subject is that for many pupils the academic study of three separate sciences would be difficult.
The Nuffield Foundation writes:
Alongside our scientific literacy GCSE we are offering two versions of additional science to prepare for more advanced study. One is more academicthe other more applied and work related. The applied science GCSE has turned out to be very successful in many schoolsincluding schools in deprived areas. In London there are a lot of schools in Hackney, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets that have adopted the programme. Haggerston School in Hackney was a particularly successful pilot school.
A very important point is that by offering a separate, academic science GCSE we have been able to make it more conceptually coherent and intellectually challenging
I stress the words intellectually challenging
and this is where perhaps my noble friend has not fully understood the nature of the new syllabus
Who can quarrel with that? It seems an immensely sensible approach. My noble friend shakes her head. You cannot teach the rigours of the separate sciences unless pupils are motivated to take them and understand how they will fit into their lives. That is the principal benefit of this new syllabus and it relates to why so many of us have shared concerns about the reduction in the number of pupils taking science A-levels and those going to university, and the decline in the number of university courses available. We have all been concerned about this and, as we pointed out in the Science and Society report, the disenchantment starts in the schools because the syllabus has not encouraged children to understand the nature of science.
The new syllabus does that and it should be roundly supported. I do not disagree with my noble friends second amendment, Amendment No. 96, which seems to express it perfectly. It states:
That sounds very sensible. We certainly need the rigourthe hard graftnecessary in physics, chemistry and biology if we are to create the next generation of scientists to take over from those who are currently carrying the load.
That syllabus has a great deal to commend it. I was grateful for the support of the Minister and from all parts of the House this afternoon at Question Time, because this is a notable advance. If I may say so, it is not presented in a way more suitable for the pub than the classroom. Unfortunately, that was a sound bite that the press found themselves totally unable to resist, so it was repeated in a great many newspapers and other media sources, but it is not true. The new syllabus simply would not have the support of so many eminent scientists and scientific bodies if that were all it was. It is much better than that and it deserves our support.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. I find myself extremely confused. In the letter just read out from the people at Nuffield, the word alongside was usedalongside the new syllabus, as I understand it, there will be two further grades: one that is more applied and one that is more academic. As I understand the letter, all of those will be offered at GCSE alongside one another. What does alongside mean? Does it mean that people may choose whether to take the syllabus intended to make them scientifically literate but not scientists or take either a more practical application of science or the full, rigorous, three separate subject academic and experimental science to which we are accustomed? Or is it that, in some schools, it will be legitimate to offer only the scientific literacy syllabus, which seems to be more a matter of discussion than laboratory work?
I need that cleared up straight away before I can decide whether to vote with the noble Baroness.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I confess that I lack any expertise in this area and my mind is rather transfixed on modern foreign languages right now, but I was involved in this matter when I was chairman of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. I have great sympathy with the concern of the noble Baroness to develop our capability in sciences at the highest level. I should like to clear my mind on some points.
Reference has been made to A-levels. One can take the individual sciences at A-level. The three amendments concern key stage 4. They state that if a pupil has reached level 6 at key stage 4, he or she may have the option of pursuing not general science but the individual sciences. My understanding is that the only duty of the school in relation to key stage 4 science is that the pupil should have followed the programme of study in the 21st century science curriculum. There is no obligation to take the GCSE in it, but they must cover the programme of study. The expectation is that they will do the single-science paper, but they can take any other single science they wish at GCSE. They can, for example, take a single science as an additional science, which can be in an individual science.
If the pupil chooses at the end of key stage 3 to study the individual sciences, as I understand it, there is nothing to stop that pupil taking the GCSE in all three sciences, provided that he or she has covered the syllabus of the 21st-century science. In doing those three sciences, apart from some geology and astronomy, he or she will have done so. It therefore seems that the opportunity is there for the pupil to do an individual science, and I am keen that there should be that opportunity.
When I was chairman of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, I used to knock respectfully at the door of the Royal Society and ask about the individual sciences. There is such a gap between general science at A-level and individual sciences that we are not getting the through put to A-level from the other sciences. The Royal Society used to tell me that it was so important for pupils to have a general understanding of science and that it was worried that, if individual sciences were offered, girls would choose biology and not do physics or chemistry. I used to leave abashed and defeated and say that I could not contest against the Royal Society. I understand that the situation has changed since then and that the only obligation now is to have covered the syllabus for the general sciencethe 21st-century science. Provided the pupil does that, they can do all three sciences or take the syllabus for the general science for one and do one or two of the others. There are many options.
There is nothing between my objectives and those of the noble Baroness, who says that the cut-off point should be whether the child has reached level 6 at the end of key stage 3. That is a bit above average, but nothing spectacular. When I was revising the national curriculum, there were 10 levels. I recommended reducing it to eight levels, because the high levels were covered by the GCSE. The noble Baroness proposes
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1112
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |