Nuffield Curriculum Centre

Science issues

Who owns the science curriculum?
Author: Angela Hall

This question was debated by a panel at the January 2008 annual meeting of the Association for Science Education. It was hosted by the Nuffield Curriculum Centre and SCORE (Science Community Representing Education) and chaired by Angela Hall, Director of the Nuffield Curriculum Centre (AH).

Four speakers representing the different interests in science education gave a brief presentation on the question of who owns the science curriculum, before the discussion was opened to the floor. The panel members were:
John Crookes – Head of Curriculum Partnerships and Evidence, QCA
Sheila Curtis – Head of Science at Haggerston School, London
Robin Millar – Salters’ Professor of Science Education at the University of York
Kay Roberts – Manager, Education Programmes, GlaxoSmithKline

Here are the key points made by the speakers and others present (contributions are indicated by the speaker’s initials or A for session attendees).

Key points

The National Curriculum is collectively owned but is ultimately for children and young people to prepare them for the future. The Government therefore has a key role, although not a monopoly, and must listen to stakeholders and balance all their interests. (JC)

Involving teachers in curriculum development can happen and gives them a sense of ownership, as demonstrated by the pilot of Twenty First Century Science. But teachers need the time to do so. (SC)

The science curriculum has not been rationally planned from first principles, but has evolved from what has gone before. It is therefore ‘owned’ by no one, but influenced by many individuals and groups. Discussion of the science curriculum has tended to focus on the contribution of education to economic productivity (rather than to social cohesion or personal development), though only a minority of students will progress to higher science education. (RM)

Over the past few decades the target group for both secondary and tertiary education has been expanded enormously and this has inevitably produced tensions, in matching courses to students, and in examining students of a much wider range of abilities. (RM)

In thinking about the curriculum and who ‘owns’ it, it is helpful to distinguish between the intended curriculum (as outlined by policy makers), the implemented curriculum (as delivered by teachers), and the attained curriculum (what is learned by students). Each of these may be quite different. We need perhaps to reflect more on the last of these, rather than on the first – and try to find better ways of discovering if students have learned the things we think are the most important in a subject area. (RM)

It is reasonable for employers to be seen as key stakeholders, since part of the role of education is to prepare people for the world of work. But many companies are not involved in curriculum development due to their size or a lack of time. Any consultation with employers will need to recognise that they may not know a great deal about science education. (KR)

It is not the job of the curriculum to deliver to pre-trained workers, but it should deliver people with a strong grounding in science, including practical skills, and with other attributes such as initiative, teamworking, communication and maths skills. (KR)

Questions

Do policy makers have too much control over what happens in the classroom because of their role in setting assessment? (SC)

How do we involve a larger number of companies, including small and medium sized businesses? (KR)
• Spend time briefing employers about what goes on in science education. (KR)
• Set up a standing panel to consult, but the time commitment needed could still be a problem. (JC)

Is there an advantage in having multiple awarding bodies? (A)
• This is the system we have and there is no political will to change it. (JC)
• Boards are in competition and ultimately need to balance their books. (A)
• Having multiple bodies encourages the production of qualifications that are easy to teach and to examine. (RM)
• Variety is a strength – without a central authority to take the blame if things go wrong there is less nervousness about making change. (A)

To what extent should university lecturers influence the curriculum? (A)
• Any influence must take into account the multiple purposes of the curriculum. (A)
• University lecturers are concerned about the shortage of specialist science teachers and the number of students without the right background (for example, wanting to study chemistry with only GCSE maths). If the curriculum does not address these issues then professional science courses will need to be adjusted and possibly made longer, which will come at a cost. (A)
• The changes being made to the curriculum should make science more exciting, which will we hope will lead to more students take science, and when they do they will have a greater understanding as they will not be rote-learned. (SC)

Given the number of interest groups involved in curriculum development and implementation, can the science curriculum be made coherent? (AH)
• The challenge is for the different organisations involved to work together and to stimulate the appetite for change and innovation. (JC)
• Could one body be in charge of coordinating the curriculum? (AH)
• The public policy developed by Government is based around the DCSF Children’s Plan, with recognition that departments cannot work in isolation. (JC)

We are grateful to Geraldine Treacher of the Royal Society for compiling these notes.

Comment