Nuffield Curriculum Centre

General issues

The STEM Programme – in danger of perpetuating isolation?
Author: David Barlex

The STEM advisory Forum meeting at the DCSF on 24th January gave those interested in STEM (Science – Technology – Engineering – Mathematics) education the chance to hear about the developments in this increasingly important area.

There was no shortage of heavy hitters, John Holman (National STEM Director), Helen Williams (Director, School Standards Group, DCSF), John Landeryou (Director, Improvement Group DIUS) Audrey Brown (Schools Analysis and Research) plus a brief appearance by the Schools Minister Jim Knight.

The day saw a large emphasis on Science and Mathematics – almost a SM programme rather than a STEM programme and it is clear that improvement in science and mathematics education at 14 – 19 and beyond into FE and HE form the major drivers of the programme. This includes making three separate science GCSE qualifications an entitlement for pupils wishing to pursue such a programme on the basis that this will provide greater uptake at A level.

The minister announced a £140 million package for STEM (DCSF Press Release) including the following
• £31 million for recruitment and retention of more science teachers
• £50 million for continuing professional development
• £34 million to boost the number of young people studying STEM subjects post 16, including £9 million so that more pupils can take three GCSEs in physics, chemistry and biology
• £9 million to improve enhancement and enrichment activities including doubling the number of science and engineering clubs from 250 to 500

The STEM Action Programme has four components:
• Recruitment of teachers and lecturers
• Continuing Professional development of teachers and lecturers
• Enhancing and enriching the curriculum, both inside and outside the classroom, to motivate students towards STEM
• Improving infrastructure and delivery mechanisms

Running across this programme is an emphasis on science and mathematics with the teaching of technology and engineering receiving much less attention.

In the world outside school, where there is a shortage of STEM qualified employees, there is a dynamic relationship between the contributing disciplines particularly through technology and engineering activities. Yet the STEM programme does not seem to want to engage specifically and significantly with this reality in terms of the school curriculum.

The need for pupils to be made more aware of aware of the wide variety of STEM careers open to them has been recognised by the DCSF. They have commissioned the Centre for Science Education at Sheffield Hallam University to improve guidance on STEM courses and careers. In their presentation they described some of their resources which will include:-

• STEM related careers resources related to the secondary curriculum
• CPD including resource packs for teachers and trainers supported by TV programmes
• A Work Placements, Mentors and Role Model Pack

The challenge will be to deliver this information in a way that recognises where pupils are in terms of their understanding of themselves and their understanding the world in which they live. There is also the challenge to prepare young people for careers that do not yet exist.

The new Key Stage 3 curriculum actively promotes cross-curricular activities yet the 14 – 16 curriculum as envisaged by STEM does little, if anything, to promote this. To be sure the science and engineering clubs could promote a dynamic relationship between the disciplines but this will reach only a minority of students. It seems that the STEM programme lacks the vision to mirror the reality of authentic activity. From a curriculum standpoint design & technology is well placed to enable young people to use their mathematical and scientific knowledge and skill in the pursuit of purposeful activity and whilst two of the eleven Action Programmes mention technology and engineering there is no specific mention of cross curricular activity.

So with regard to STEM it appears as if we have a discontinuity at the KS3/KS4 boundary and a seriously lost opportunity to engage young people with the richness of cross-curricular approaches at KS4 and beyond.

There is concern that even the opportunity to develop STEM cross-curricular projects at KS3 may be lost. Because there is still uncertainty over the nature of assessment in Science and Maths for 2011, many schools will see it as too risky to make radical changes to their curriculum or mode of delivery. Alternatively some schools will see the reduction in content in the Programmes of Study as an opportunity to “teach fast” to enable an early start to GCSEs in Year 9. In fact a National Strategy document (“A condensed Key Stage 3: Supplementary guidance – science) written in 2005 is designed to advise schools on delivering the science curriculum in two years. If schools elect this option it could mean that many of the good intentions of the Big Picture could be given short shrift. At the very least it appears that schools are being given mixed messages about what kind of STEM education we should be offering. Are we working towards a more collaborative and cross-curricular approach to STEM learning, or are we seeking early specialisation in to discrete subjects?

It will certainly be important for those concerned with STEM to develop a dialogue with head teachers and senior management teams to explore ways forward in the currently confused situation.

Comment

Your Comments

Thu, 13 March 2008 : jan stapleton

Excellent article - would like to discuss further