| We are glad of the opportunity to see and respond to the Secretary of State's
proposals and the consultation materials. Broadly, we agree with the aims of the review
and welcome the changes to the school curriculum and specific subject areas. The
documentation is generally clearer and easier to use than previous versions.
Within the
aims, we particularly welcome the desire to raise standards of numeracy and literacy and
to allow teachers to exercise more professional discretion about the depth to which they
teach some topics. We are also glad to see an emphasis on developing the whole person.
However, there is no mention of the low take-up of science subjects post 16 and the
associated falling number of good science graduates. We feel that correcting this
continuing decline should be amongst the government's top priorities.
We agree that standards have been maintained in the level descriptors and welcome this.
Not only is this important for maintaining the quality of education that young people can
expect but it is also useful in giving continuity in qualifications, allowing employers to
equate the pupils' attainment before and after the reforms.
Whilst there has been a reduction of prescriptiveness for the whole curriculum, giving
schools more flexibility in the way that they arrange their timetable, there has not been
a reduction of prescriptiveness within the core subjects. It is not necessarily the case
that teachers will be given more flexibility to teach subjects to a greater depth. The
science curriculum, for example, is as full as ever. The review will only give science
teachers more flexibility if the school's management allocates more time to science (at
the expense of a non-core subject). As this is unlikely, we expect that adventurous
science teachers will be as tightly bound as before by the National Curriculum.
We welcome the proposal to provide guidance on the teaching of gifted children. This is
an issue that extends beyond the National Curriculum into the way that these children are
challenged after GCSEs. We also welcome the inclusion of the study of food at Key Stage 3
to improve pupils' knowledge of health and hygiene matters.
Science
The biggest change to the National Curriculum for Science is the inclusion of ideas on
the nature of science. We agree that this is an important change and support the aim of
producing educated and informed consumers of science. However, once again, it is difficult
to see how this will be properly fitted into an already crowded curriculum. There is a
danger of it becoming a hoop jumping exercise (as has happened with the investigative
skills) in which pupils’ carry out token activities that lack depth and educational
value but can be fitted into the available time.
It might be useful for the QCA to produce further guidelines and sample material to
support the teaching of the Ideas and nature of science. The ABPI would be glad to
help in developing materials within our area of interest.
We note that the Key Stage 4 Programme of Study on Ideas and evidence in science
includes no positive statements about science. Even the 'power of science' has been
tempered with its limitations and uncertainties. It would be good to see a more positive
statement that encourages teachers to talk about the achievements of science and the
enormous effect it has had on this century and will have on the next one. The Key Stage 3
Programme of Study has a slightly more encouraging statement about the technological uses
of science but even this feels quite low key.
The level descriptors for the Ideas and nature of science are very helpful. However, as
with the descriptors for Investigative skills, they can be interpreted as being extremely
difficult - much postgraduate work is 'synthesising data from a range of sources and
identifying possible limitations in secondary data'.
We welcome the aim of putting a greater emphasis on contemporary science. However,
there are very few concrete examples of statements relating to recent or contemporary
scientific ideas.
We welcome the reduction in the Earth Science content at Key Stage 4 and acknowledge
that this makes some room in the curriculum. However, this pruning could have gone
further, both in Earth Science and throughout the curriculum.
We congratulate the authors on making the wording much clearer throughout the document.
We were also pleased to note that the Secretary of State’s covering letter
referred to "Keeping National Curriculum Science in step with the changing world of
the 21st century". We would welcome the opportunity to work with the QCA to ensure
this happens.
ICT
Whilst most young people these days are very literate in ICT, we welcome the aim of
strengthening its teaching in school - particularly if this is backed up with the
provision of hardware.
The ICT curriculum still seems quite vague and unspecific when compared with other
curricula - for example there is no statement like 'can use a spreadsheet to calculate a
tax return…’ Although spreadsheets and databases come up as examples, there is
no mention at all of using a word processor.
Maths
The changes to the handling of data will help teachers and pupils. There might be
opportunities here and elsewhere for links with science to ensure that these ideas are
being taught in the same way throughout a school.
English
The layout of the reviewed National Curriculum is much clearer and easier to use. It is
good to see the inclusion of contemporary authors and also something on group discussion.
However, there is nothing (in any part of the review) on teamwork as opposed to group
work. Much work in industry is based on people having specific and different roles in a
team.
Personal Social and Health Education
We strongly welcome the framework for PSHE. We would like to see the involvement of
parents in this aspect of children's education and would also like to see the inclusion of
teamwork (see above).
We would like to see a clear distinction between the abuse of drugs and the use of
medicines. It should be clear that all pharmaceutical products, when used properly, are of
great benefit. For example, vitamin supplements, antibiotics, painkillers et al.
We welcome the statements that refer to improving children's knowledge and
understanding of health issues.
|
