Proposed programme of study: ages 5 11

As noted earlier, this analysis concentrates on KS3 and 4, but it is helpful to provide a brief review and short analysis of why the NoS is not included in KS1 and 2.

Within an enacted NC, the PoS is the legally enforceable aspect of the curriculum (DES, 1989). This specifies the essential broad coverage for each subject curriculum.

The level of difficulty for the investigation ATs is, as would be expected, higher. Children were expected to explore phenomena and undertake surveys, test ideas, models and predictions, make comparisons and evaluate materials, structures and devices (DES, 1988, p.128). These are nominally linked to AT17 and AT18. The testing of ideas is part of the NoS – Theme E.

Across the primary curriculum, there was an intention to focus on investigation and practical skills. The idea of the NoS as a core and intrinsic element of teaching and learning was left to later in the curriculum. It was, perhaps, the view of the SWG that trying to deliver aspects of the NoS at such a young age would be problematic. Elsewhere in the consultation proposal (DES, 1988b, p.121) the SWG noted that research conducted by the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) showed young children’s conceptual understanding of scientific ideas was not good. It would have been reasonable to extend this, therefore, to an understanding of the NoS. The ability of non- specialist primary teachers, with few, if any, science qualifications beyond O level, also adds weight to the exclusion of the NoS from KS1 and 2.

6.8 Summary

The first proposal for consultation was a departure from the concept of science as the three separate sciences of biology, chemistry and physics. Given that the 1960s, 70s and 80s had been characterised by major science curriculum initiatives such as Nuffield Sciences and the work for the Secondary Science Curriculum Review (SSCR), which produced several integrated or combined science courses, often on a topic or modular basis, this is no surprise.

The idea of taking the three separate sciences was still a dominant force at O level and the idea of a ‘double science’ award for the forthcoming new GCSE examinations at age 16 concerned teachers who were worried about progression to A level, which had remained almost unchanged and unaffected by curriculum developments lower down (Jenkins, 2000).

The other key reform that came with the first proposed SNC was the importance of the NoS. This was not a feature of previous public examination syllabuses and, as shown in Chapter 2, was not really a feature of the development of science as a subject to be studied in schools. The NoS, with its references to the history of science and the philosophy of science was not seen as an important aim for teaching and learning in science up to this point. The fact that it was to be taught as part of the ‘normal science’ content meant teachers were more likely to concentrate their efforts on teaching what was to be assessed – the scientific content – rather than the NoS. How teachers, who

were unused to teaching the NoS would integrate this into ‘normal science’ was also an issue.

The first consultation curriculum provided a good view of the NoS, given that there is no universally common or agreed definition that satisfies all those involved in this area of research and study.

If we consider Posner’s (2004) questions in the analysis of this consultation we can draw some conclusions about the purpose, content and organisation of the curriculum. 6.8.1 The purpose and content of the curriculum

The nature of science was important as it was established and defined quite early into the consultation document. The content was extensive and covered all the three main science disciplines as well as Earth science, astronomy and environmental science. This was problematic organisationally. The sheer volume of content required was too much for the space available within the school timetable, something that was part of the Dearing Review (see section 5.4.5). Too much content was bound to cause issues. As Huxley observed, ‘I do not mean that every schoolboy should be taught everything in

science. That would be a very absurd thing to conceive, and a very mischievous thing to attempt.’ (Huxley, 1899, p.71). Although the curriculum did not deliver all the scientific

knowledge of the day, what was included was too much. There was within the curriculum a strong element of a training in science (practical skills and experimentation), with a view to increasing the uptake of science beyond age 16.

6.8.2 Curriculum organization

The structure and organisation of the curriculum was fixed. It followed a pattern repeated across all subjects, with a programme of study, attainment targets and statements of attainment that were, in effect, the teaching objectives. The statements of attainment were seen as the most important aspect of the curriculum by the teachers as any assessment would be based on these content statements. In Posner’s (2004) terms this was an ‘ends’ curriculum (see Chapter 1). There were some underlying assumptions to the curriculum and its organisation.

6.8.3 Curriculum assumptions

Firstly, the content was not arranged by discipline (biology, chemistry, physics) but in the form of broad topics, e.g. human influences on the earth, forces, making new materials. There was an attempt to develop a coherent and integrated curriculum that delivered a holistic understanding of science, albeit through atomistic statements of content or knowledge.

A second assumption was that the NoS that should bind the different disciplines could be delivered through the subject content. It may seem axiomatic that if you study a subject you should gain an understanding of the ontology and epistemology of that subject. This could be delivered explicitly through direct teaching about the NoS or through integration within the teaching of other topics (what was intended). There is evidence, however, that even after the curriculum came into effect, the NoS was not planned for in teaching by science teachers either explicitly or in an integrated way (Nott and Wellington, 1996; 1998; 1999).

A third assumption was that children’s progress in scientific understanding would be linear and common across the disciplines as the levels of attainment (initially 10 levels, with 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest level of achievement) were linked to the content.

A fourth assumption was that it would be possible to track children and their progress via the levels. Politically this was important as it made the schools and teachers more accountable as their efforts and effect on children could be systematically measured and comparisons made between schools or even between teachers of the same subject within schools.

Chapter 7 details how, after the consultation on this proposal had concluded, the new curriculum was developed, slimmed down and continued to evolve over the next ten years.