Scrap the “dual science route” at GCSE, Association for Science Education proposes, in broad-ranging critique of curriculum and assessment regimes

Education Uncovered is looking ahead to the publication of the government’s final Curriculum and Assessment Review report, in the autumn, by covering responses from subject associations. Detailed subject-by-subject findings did not appear in the interim report, published in March. So it seems important to document what subject associations have been saying, especially as some of their conclusions appear to contradict the review’s overall pledge of an “evolution, not revolution” approach to reform.
In the first, then, of what I hope will be an ongoing series, I report below on the submission of the Association for Science Education.

England’s national curriculum for science suffers from a host of weaknesses and should be subject to radical change, including the scrapping of differentiated subject options and reduced content at GCSE, a "diploma-style" post-16 offer, more emphasis on practical work and reduced assessment requirements at primary level.

These were among the conclusions of a submission by the Association for Science Education (ASE) to the government’s Curriculum and Assessment review, which is due to report back in the autumn.

Although the review team, led by Professor Becky Francis, of the Education Endowment Foundation, has promised an “evolution, not revolution” approach to reform and was generally positive in its interim report about the effects of the last curriculum review under the Conservatives, the submission by the ASE suggests a more substantial departure from the status quo.

The ASE’s submission also footnotes research to which Professor Francis herself contributed, and which again might point towards more radical changes than the review appears to envisage.

Overarching critique

In its consultation exercise, the review has asked respondents what aspects of the curriculum and assessment systems needed improvement.

In response, the ASE said: “The curriculum is content heavy, outdated in places, prioritises rote memorisation over critical thinking, problem solving and practical skills and discourages cross-disciplinary exploration.

“This is compounded by an over-reliance on testing for external accountability at key stage 4 (GCSE level) and post 16 (A levels and equivalents), which fosters a culture of ‘teach to the test’ where educators prioritise exam technique over deep understanding and application of knowledge.

“This approach can exacerbate inequities in educational outcomes and stifle creativity and innovation.”

The submission then quoted a survey of more than 7,000 young people aged 21 and 22 which had found that “only around two fifths (39%) of young people said they had enjoyed school science, and 20% felt that school had put them off science.” Some 72 per cent of the young people surveyed, when asked what would have improved their science experience, said a curriculum which was more “relevant” to their lives; 59 per cent advocated more practical and problem-based learning; and 52 per cent wanted less exam pressure. 

In what seems a fundamental criticism of the current set-up, the ASE’s submission adds: “The curriculum is not developed from the science principles underpinning the science education of all young people, through the big ideas of and about science, to enable them to understand the scientific aspects of the world around them and make informed decisions about the applications of science…

“The substantive content heavy curriculum, particularly from KS4 [Key Stage 4], with little opportunity to develop the practices and ways of thinking about science, and the sciences, is designed principally to prepare students for further study in science, and so does not meet the needs of the majority of young people as critical consumers of scientific information and its applications.”

Proposals for change

The ASE proposes that the current GCSE structure, in which pupils choose between “double” and “triple” science, be replaced, with all to take what would appear to be a stripped-down version of “triple” science.

Currently, this “dual” route sees pupils either take “triple” science – biology, chemistry and physics, taken separately – or “double” science – all three subjects taken in one combined course, with a double grade awarded at the end.

The submission states: “The dual science route at GCSE…hinders progression and exacerbates/sustains social inequalities, with research suggesting that those who take Triple science are more likely to pursue the study of science post-16, whilst for those taking Double science the likelihood of future participation in science is significantly diminished…

“ASE strongly recommends a single route through the sciences for all students taking GCSEs: a single route that has all the features and benefits of the current ‘triple science’ route whilst not overwhelming and narrowing the curriculum by occupying the time of three full GCSEs, as it currently does.”

This would imply teaching a version of “triple science” to all, though on reduced time.

Intriguingly, the submission quotes two research papers on this subject of which Professor Francis was an author, including one from only two years ago, in which she was first-named author and which suggested that schools’ act of selecting pupils for “double” science immediately made it less likely they would take it at A-level, damaging their self-confidence and leaving many to think that the subject was “not for me”. The submission also quotes research that disadvantaged pupils are less likely to be entered for the “higher status triple science route”.

At A-level, the ASE is also putting forward radical change. It states that students specialise much earlier in the sciences (and other subjects) in England than is the case in countries such as France and Germany, but without great benefit in terms of better outcomes than these countries at post-graduate level. The age of 16 was early to be making such choices, it argued, leading to “mistakes” for some and consequent drop-outs at A-level and degree level.

The ASE would, therefore, “maintain breadth for longer,” advocating “discussion about the possibility” of a “more diploma-style qualification” for sixth formers, “with a fixed range of pre-defined combinations. For example, there might be a physical science route in which all students study maths, physics, chemistry and computing as major subjects and, in addition, three further (minor) subjects to provide breadth”.

The association also advocates a greater focus on practical and experimental work. It argues that “some students [currently] have an impoverished experience of practical work, in part due to the substantive content heavy curriculum, its assessment at GCSE, increased use of digital support for practical work [the paper cites research stating that the most common exposure of year 7 -11 pupils to practical science was via video] …alongside a decline in opportunities for student teachers and early career teachers to develop their pedagogies and practice for purposeful and effective practical work.”

Overall, the content of the curriculum should be reduced, the ASE advocates. Content could be cut so that there are “fewer more explicit statements outlining what students will know and understand…to better guide, support and direct teachers’ planning.”

The current key stage 1 and 2 teacher assessment frameworks are too detailed, the submission argues, “containing virtually the whole of the National Curriculum content” and could be cut back to a list of key concepts in each of the subject areas, “exemplified by a selection of statements from across the curriculum”.

The ASE says the current specification of the national curriculum in teaching requirements for individual year groups be replaced with a “whole key stage structure” – an issue which members of the last national curriculum review, in 2011-13 under Michael Gove, had also advocated. Indeed, it not happening contributed to their signing resignation letters. 

The ASE also advocates “adopting a social justice lens to curriculum,” recognising diverse contributions to the development of science.

It is concerned that teaching about climate change is currently “ad hoc, piecemeal across several subjects, repetitive and focuses on the causes and problems rather than on the solutions – contributing to ‘climate anxiety’.” It therefore recommends that “consideration be given to specifying content relating to climate change,” as the topic is given more emphasis.

The association is also concerned about the effects of setting in science, though it appears to stop short of recommending that the practice stops.

It states that “setting disproportionately negatively impacts working-class learners (who receive an impoverished curriculum, unequal allocation of teachers, etc)”. It adds: “Setting disproportionately disadvantages Black boys and Black students – who are disproportionately likely to be in lower sets with less access to high quality teachers.”

It cites seven research papers in support of these statements, all of which have Professor Francis as an author.

The ASE also recommends that the review should “explore” empowering young people in their interaction with science. Specifically, it should “cultivate student agency, with an expectation that students should be given to explore own interests in science/students using sciences and working scientifically skills to solve open problems and investigate practically, and to increase their understanding of the wide range of STEM related careers.”

A reminder that you can access ASE’s submission in full here.