I have just listened to an old discussion between Baroness Mary Warnock and Andrew Hunt (until recently of the Nuffield Education Foundation), discussing Science Education to GCSE level (age 16) in the UK.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland (not Scotland) there is an examination at age 16 (the general certificate of secondary education or GCSE). In a typically british muddle there are at least three ways in which a student can take science to this level. The traditional approach was to take three science subjects, biology, chemistry and physics (each weighted as a single subject and requiring as much timetabled time as say history). However it is now much more common to take the three subjects as a unified science curriculum either weighted as two academic subjects or just one (single subject science and double subject science). Double subject science is now by far the most common approach to teaching science. In 2008 about 75,000 students took science as 3 separate subjects, about 430,000 took it as a double award and about 100,000 as a single award – giving a total number who sat a science qualification exam of about 600,000. For comparison about 730,000 students took maths and english.
I am bringing this up because yesterday I went to my eldest son’s school parents evening – he is in year 9 (age 14) and the GCSEs are 2 years away. his school is traditional and he will be taking 3 science subjects. But he will not be taking the traditional GCSEs set for most UK schools, he will be taking the International GCSEs, set by the same companies, but for the international market. I was told by my sons chemistry teacher that this contained less societal science. For example, the current GCSE chemistry course covers the effects of alcohol on the body and alcohol abuse. These are perhaps laudable subjects but is it appropriate to include them in a chemistry syllabus? It appears that science education is being used to further political/societal aims.
These issues are touched upon in the Warnock/Hunt discussion (from 2006) so the new syllabus under discussion is the one we are using now. It brings up interesting points. is the role of science education in High/Secondary School to educate a future generation of scientists or is it a tool to inform the general public about scientifically rooted topical/political issues?
I recently attended my daughter’s year 9 parents’ evening, too – she attends a “science specialist” state school so will do the three sciences for GCSE – though her elder sister could only do 2 sciences when she did her GCSEs at the same school – perhaps because it only attained the science status the year after she started her course? I was not told anything about any options either way for courses with “social” options or not – it is hard I suppose when one only has 5 minutes. I have been very disappointed in general with the science education curriculum – I make no comment about the particular school my daughters attend – but based on the textbooks they bring home, etc, it seems just so dull and so discouraging of any initiative. Unfortunately neither girl has been enthused by the science courses. It’s sad, and as they go to a good school with seemingly good teachers, I can only assume that the curriculum has something to do with it.
There is a new A-level called ‘science in society’ which is, as you’d expect, focussed more on science as related to societal issues. I don’t know what the function of this A-level is, except to cater to those who require heavily contextualized learning. Placing any of the sciences in a common context can make the subject more interesting/relevant, but wasn’t that just what a good teacher did with the material, rather than prescribed by the curriculum? I think that science classes have too short a shelf life if they focus heavily on issues in society, and the more broadly applicable points are easily lost.
I’m a little surprised by your figures Brian – I really thought (hoped?) the number of schools offering/student taking the three sciences at GCSE was higher.
@Katherine
Figures were from an Education Guardian Article.
Here is list from BBC website of most popular GCSEs
1 maths
2 English
3 English literature
4 science
5 additional science
6 design and technology
7 history
8 art
9 geography
10 French
Double Science is now taken as 2 GCSE exams (Science and Additional Science). Three separate sciences are now confined mostly to private schools and selective state schools (with a few noble exceptions). A lot of private schools think that the new model of GCSE (fully modular and unlimited retakes of modules to improve your score) are not challenging (see here).
Thanks Brian, I was just hopeful that science was less popular than the individual sciences. I should note that I went through the Scottish system where studying science was limited and picking from the three sciences was more common.
Well, as mentioned, my second daughter has to do 3 sciences (first daughter could do only 2) for GCSE. Same state school. Have to confess, science specialist status.
Brian, the first 4 on your list are compulsory (“my day” vernacular) or national curriculum (today’s vernacular). When people are allowed to choose, then, does this mean that “additional science” is the most popular subject in the UK? Or is “additonal science” compulsory for top sets, and hence “design and technlogy” is actually the most popular GCSE in the UK, if given a free choice?
I should add to those who are not familiar with the UK education system that D&T is what would have been called (in my day) cookery, needlework, metalwork and woodwork – but today is called “food technology”, “textiles” and “resistant materials”.
@Maxine. I don’t think number 3 (English lit.) is compulsory but single science is. If you look at the statistics above only about 1 in 6 do not take additional science so that isn’t too bad. Looking at students entering our first year in Manchester, their performance at A-level seems to be independent of whether they did 2-subject or 3-subject science.
Interestingly there was a report about International GCSEs on BBC breakfast this morning. There was discussion about whether the ordinary GCSEs have been dumbed down too much.
Two English GCSEs are compulsory at my daughters’ school (lang and lit), but I do not know if both are compulsory across the country, though I did think so.
Religious studies – it is compulsory for schools to teach it for a certain number of hours a week (I think perhaps one or two) to age 16, but not to make students undergo a GCSE in it. However, at my daughters’ school, the line is that as the students have to learn , they might as well do the exam in it, so a “half religious studies” GCSE is compulsory.
Same applies to ICT.
For me the issue is not the subjects themselves, as I believe that a good grounding in “core” subjects is an essential springboard for specialising in something else later on in life. It is the content of these courses that concerns me. English and Maths seem relatively interesting and engaging, compared with the content of the science syllabuses, which seem repetitive, dull, and to quell creativity by insisting that questions are answered in a certain way, containing precise words – very much like a straightjacket.