Why do the people who frame the curriculum and GCSEs want to take out the tough, scientific content (see entry below)?
It certainly suits politicians to make exams easier to pass. Higher grades give the impression of successful education. Also if they make science exams easier, they calculate that more children will chose them than otherwise. This is politically useful because it slows down any flight in state schools from hard subjects to soft ones. Politicians wish to slow down this flight because it reveals the way that state schools are underachieving and this reflects badly on them.
However, teachers would not - one hopes - want to be associated with such political calculations.
Some, though certainly not all, have come to think that teaching children to think about science - or other subjects - is more important than teaching them a body of specific knowledge. On the surface, the idea has its appeal. I remember when I was compelled to learn Latin that the justification most frequently given for the task was that it would help me to think logically. It is also true that knowledge that is considered useful, important or up-to-date keeps on changing. But in most subjects, there is plenty of knowledge that does not change and more still that will not change for a few decades, at least.
But how did many teachers come genuinely to think that rigorously learning a body of knowledge, particularly in science, is of secondary importance?
Did it start with some theorist of teaching who then got taken up by politicians because they could see the ideas would help them? What were the mechanics of the dismantling of educational standards?
How important was the idea that tough science (and other subjects) are elitist because they are too difficult for less bright students? For those who feel like that, the appeal of the idea of teaching more accessible stuff about evaluation and problem-solving would be strong. But what they did not consider properly was how the clever state school students would be disadvantaged. With the debased science GCSEs, those bright state school students have their career prospects severely damaged.
This is a re-edited version of an entry posted earlier today. My apologies for re-writing it:
Origin of the idea: "teach skills, the knowledge will be irrelevant".Unfortunately the dominant mode of thinking is that, if the argument makes sense, it is probably true. There is far too little "critical thinking" and use of evidence.
After hearing this line from the ATL union official a few years ago, I went through the GCSE science curriculum to see what could be "out of date" in 20 yrs.
Atoms? Elements? Cells? Expansion? Metals? Energy transfer? You get the picture: none of the basics will change. It's science!!! Its the way we explain the natural world.
On top of this there is clear and irrefutable evidence that trying to teach context-free "skills" does not work. They need to be learned in one context before they can be transferred somewhere else.
I detect an increase in "helplessness" from pupils who claim that the reason for their low marks is "the teacher was rubbish" rather than "I did no work".I did not expect the dependence culture to get all the way down to the learning process - but I now meet so many "learning disabled" (backed up by "my rights" parents) I despair for them.
Mike
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education
Comments (2)
TrackBack (0)
Comments
There is an old saying that you never know what you've got till its gone.
I believe that one contributory factor to this problem is that there once was a time when many students (particularly below average ones) knew a lot of facts, but couldn't apply them with reason. In an attempt to remedy this and in the knowledge that facts were becoming readily available, the emphasis switched to teaching reason. Unfortunately reason without facts is about as useful as an engine without fuel.
Posted by: Pat at February 6, 2010 11:35 AM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2010/01/what_were_the_m.php on line 339
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2010/01/what_were_the_m.php on line 339
"What were the mechanics of the corruption of science teaching?"
You are mistaken if you think that the changes in science have been driven by teachers. Science teachers are simply trying their best to impliment the constant flow of changes imposed from above by well meaning politicians and "educationalists".
The present situation was not "planned" it is the unforseen side effect of what looked like good ideas and from the interaction of the dozen or so bodies with some stake in science education.
There was a report published around 1999 called something like "Beyond 2000". This identified the fact (which most science teachers would agree with) that we were forced to teach a whole lot of abstract stuff to less able pupils which a) they could not get b) demoralised them and c)had no value for them.
There was wide agreement that there should be 2 routes through science: a "science for scientists" route which would lead to A-level and a "science for citizens" route which would equip young people to participate in our technological society.
So far, so good. We were all hopeful. It has not worked out that way. In trying to deal with the crossover area (and prevent pupils being locked into a non-A-level route) QCA decided to tell exam borads to create a joint "Core" science course for yr 10. This is where the dumbing down started for the "scientists".
On top of this (read more on the HowScience.wikidot.com site) exam boards bought publishers and were given freedom to create a diversity of courses. At no point are practicing teachers involved in this process. QCA also instructed exam boards to make a lot of the assessment multiple choice and done as unit tests (not terminal exam). Consequesntly we now see content which seems to be designed simply to give material for multiple choice questions!
There are not even checks on the reading age of the material - for example the Oxford Press OCR Applied 21st Century science texbook is unreadable by the pupils it is designed for.
But.. there is nothing teachers can do. When we approach exam boards they clam up. The OFSTED inspectors put pressure on Head teachers to improve "standards" (ie exam grades), so science departments are pressured into picking the exam and teaching method which is likely to give the highest score (rather than teaching the science well).
The only solution is a professionalisation of teaching to the point where there are established "experts" and where teachers are involved in the development of the curriculum. (see "professionalisation" on the wiki).
It is almost impossible to get teachers interested - they are all "heads down and stuck in" to trying to run this system, ignored by govenment, ridiculed by the press and all the time trying to do the job they love - helping young people.
Because it is not an easy, one line, headline explanation, this type of analysis gets little publicity.
In a few months another group of well meaning politicians will change the rules again and more chaos will ensue. Teachers will keep their heads down and do their best - and then be blamed for the consequesnces.
Ho hum
Posted by: Mike Bell at January 28, 2010 08:29 AM