ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

IT SEEMS like an enormous rolling boulder which, if you can’t understand
and analyse it, will flatten you,’ commented one primary school teacher
who was attempting to describe the task of coping with the national curriculum.
His sentiments are echoed in classrooms throughout the land as teachers
face some of the biggest upheavals ever in the education system of England
and Wales.

It all started last year when parliament passed the Education Reform
Act. This decreed that, for the first time, children who attend state schools
in England and Wales should follow a national curriculum. Science, like
mathematics and English, was one of three core subjects to which the government
attached particular importance . This elevation of status pleased the science
fraternity, who welcomed the idea that, at last, school children would be
forced by law to study science until the age of 16 years.

Generally, teachers have praised the ‘programmes of study’ for science
– the part of the curriculum that dictates what children should be learning.
‘They give good guidance to teachers and represent quite a good approach
to the curriculum,’ says Kate Hinton, the chairperson of the national science
advisers’ and inspectors’ group of the Association of Science Education.
‘A particularly positive aspect is the weight given to the process of ‘being
scientific’ as opposed to simply accumulating scientific knowledge and facts.’

The science curriculum was one of the first of the 10 foundation subjects
to be issued and teachers began attempting to implement it in September.
The National Curriculum Council (NCC), the body responsible for formulating
curricula for all 10 compulsory subjects, issued copies of the science curriculum
to teachers in April this year (This Week, 1 April 1989).

A key problem that has emerged is that teachers have to make vaguely
defined assessments to monitor the progress of each child towards complex
‘attainment targets’, in all 10 foundation subjects in the curriculum. ‘It’s
a daunting prospect for primary teachers. They face total overload once
they have to assess attainment targets right across the curriculum,’ says
Hinton. ‘We are likely to have a system that is not workable,’ she warns.

Many other educationalists share her anxieties about assessment. ‘Most
teachers are worried that they don’t know enough about assessment,’ says
Mike Coles, the science specialist at the National Curriculum Council.

Echoing this anxiety, one teacher adviser in Waltham Forest in London,
who wished to remain anonymous, said: ‘On assessment, it’s clear the whole
thing is a nightmare. So far they (teachers) have had no guidance. One informed
estimate is that assessing one child on the science curriculum alone would
involve 3000 separate observations spread over 10 years.’ Multiplying that
by the number of children in a class, and by the number of subjects inthe
curriculum, gives some idea of the problem.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate noted late last month in a report on the
implementation of the national curriculum in primary schools that ‘there
was considerable uncertainty and anxiety in most schools about the statutory
requirements for assessing and recording children’s progress’.

The authors of the report visited 500 primary schools this summer to
see how far teachers were prepared for the demands of the core curricula.
They noted that ‘in approximately half the classes inspected, there was
no significant evidence of assessment of work in science’. Moreover, ‘the
great majority of schools fell short of whatis required to fulfil the requirements
ofthe National Curriculum, particularly in science . . . The problems of
assessment, recording and reporting loom large.’

The same fears emerged in a study done by groups representing teachers
of the three core subjects, and published by the Association for Science
Education. The authors of the report monitored the implementation of the
curriculum to date in the three core subjects – English, mathematics and
science – by sending questionnaires on the matter to 183 schools. Further
reports will follow each term.

The answers to the questionnaires confirmed that assessment and record-keeping
create most concern among teachers, and in some cases have led to ‘a high
level of anxiety’. Many respondents felt overwhelmed by the sheer weight
of written material relating to the curriculum. Half the respondents said
that in science, resources were lacking. Across all three core subjects,
one-third of teachers said they needed more computers.

On assessment, Kate Hinton questions the very balance of what is proposed,
particularly with regard to primary schools. ‘What is an accurate assessment?’
she asks. ‘We would say that watching children undertake practical science
provides a more accurate assessment (of attainment) than the paper-and-pencil
tests that the government seems to favour.’

Hinton fears that teachers’ assessments of pupils will lead on to assessments
of teachers themselves and of the schools where they teach. And this might
even yield ‘assessments’ that make distinctions between geographical areas.
‘Nor is there any agreement about how to weight assessments to allow for
the effects that poverty, health, parentage and living conditions have on
the performance of a pupil. These appear to have much bigger effects on
performance than the quality of teaching. So it seems at present that at
every twist and turn, assessment is fraught,’ she says.

Hinton points out that ‘some pupils who don’t read or write well are
very good at science and display all sorts of understanding and ideas that
are not ‘textbook’ in nature’. She fears that teachers might lose the leeway
to capitalise on the spontaneity that springs naturally when children’sinterest
is kindled. They might have to rely on an inferior approach anchored to
the rigidity of assessment. Also, says Hinton, the sheer size of classes
in some areas may limit the capacity of the teacher to attend to and assess
every child adequately.

A spokesman for the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC),
which has the task of gearing the curricula prepared by the National Curriculum
Council to gradings and assessment, says that the SEAC is aware of the anxiety
that some teachers are experiencing, and is to launch three publications
on 12 December to assist with assessment. However, they are not specifically
geared to assessing science; they are more general, said the spokesman.

Hinton fears that some parts of the science curriculum demand that children
understand complex issues prematurely, while other parts are postponed unnecessarily.
‘At 10 years old, children are supposed to recognise that weight is a force
and to measure it in newtons. That is, they should distinguish weight from
mass. I think that is a sophistication that could be added later.’

She also doubts whether many children aged 10 years to 11 years, even
if they are armed beforehand with a knowledge of mammalian reproduction,
will fully grasp the concept that it is the information in genes that passes
from one generation to another. ‘It’s a difficult notion. I’d be more inclined
to mention this capacity in terms of chromosomes, if at all,’ she said.

Another problem with the science curriculum is that some primary school
teachers fear that their knowledge of science is too superficial to allow
the kind of teaching and assessment required. The report by HMI identified
this problem: ‘Most (primary school teachers) expressed concerns about taking
the work to sufficient depth to ensure that the appropriate levels of the
statements of attainment were effectively covered. Many teachers spoke of
their own uncertain knowledge of science and their need for sustained report
in this respect.’

The Department of Education and Science says that it is aware of the
problem and has made provision for in-service training where necessary.
Yet some educationalists fear that the money, in as much as it is available,
is not being profitably spent.

One inspector from a local education authority in the south of England
said that in his area, as elsewhere in the country, the Department of Education
and Science will only pay for in-service training of small groups of primary
teachers over 20-day courses at local institutes of higher education. The
inspector, who wished to remain anonymous, said that under this formula,
only 50 teachers in his district would be retrained this year, though there
were 450 schools in the region.

‘Since the grant only runs for three years, it’s clear that only a third
will be trained by the time the grant comes up for renewal,’ he said. The
inspector also identified what he saw as shortcomings in the refresher courses.
‘They teach teachers about science, not how to teach science,’ he said.

Perhaps more seriously, curricula for other subjects such as history
and art will be materialising during the next three years, so teachers will
have new and challenging commitments on top of grappling with the science
curriculum. In these circumstances, said the inspector, some teachers at
primary schools may never quite overcome problems with the assessment and
content of the science curriculum.

The most urgent problems appear to affect primary school teachers, who
have to teach across a broader subject range than counterparts in secondary
schools. Most educationalists contacted by New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ said that there
is less air of panic among secondary teachers, mainly because at that stage
teachers are reasonably specialised and familiar with the material anyway.
However, the option within the curriculum for children of 14 and over to
reduce the time they spend on science is worrying the teachers of older
pupils.

David Moore, the chairman of the Association for Science Education,
fears that as educationalists compile curricula for other compulsory subjects,
they will not be as concessionary as the scientists who, he believes, made
many sacrifices in order to cram their subject matter into one-fifth of
total lesson time. ‘Other areas, such as the humanities, the arts and the
languages, ought to give a little as well,’ he said.

He, like many other science teachers and educationalists, fears that
before long we may start to see children, particularly girls, opting for
less science (12.5 per cent of lesson time instead of 20 per cent) at the
age of 14 years. ‘It’s likely to become an issue in about two years’ time,’
he says.

Like many others, he stressed the importance of being able to modify
the curriculum if bits of it turn out to be unworkable. This is the responsibility
of the National Curriculum Council.

* * *

What the curriculum is supposed to do

THE INTRODUCTION of a national curriculum is a major plank of the British
government’s policy for education and forms the central thrust of the Education
Reform Act of 1988. The Department of Education and Science expects this
legislation to ensure that all children at state schools (apart from children
with special needs) in England and Wales study essential subjects and receive
a broad education.

Another stated goal of the curriculum is to prevent children from prematurely
dropping subjects that might help them to secure jobs. A spokeswoman at
the DES says that the act does not apply to private schools, although City
Technology Colleges must follow the curriculum. Despite this, the CTC Trust
wants to develop a curriculum specifically for CTCs (This Week, 2 December).

The national curriculum comprises three core subjects – English, mathematics
and science – and seven other subjects: technology; history; a foreign language;
geography; music; art; and physical education. The formula for developing
curricula is the same for all subjects. First, the Secretary of State for
Education and Science appoints a working group which compiles a draft curriculum
in a given subject. The authors publish the draft, then revise it in the
light of comments from interested parties.

The revised document then goes to the Secretary of State who, even at
this advanced stage, can introduce changes. The previous education secretary,
Kenneth Baker, brought in the provision for 14-year-olds to drop some of
their science – to widespread disapproval.

The curricula also include definitions of ‘attainment targets’ which
allow teachers to assess and upgrade the skills of pupils on a scale from
1 to 10. ‘You have to be very bright to reach level 10 in the national curriculum,’
said the DES spokeswoman. ‘The brightest pupils will do the hardest courses
and take the General Certificate of Secondary Education exam in the subjects
in which they excel. But pupils will be graded on coursework as well, so
it’s a combination.

‘The GCSE exam will still be the main way of testing attainment (in
science). The idea is that all children will be able to study subjects up
to the age of 16 years – but this does not mean that all pupils have to
take GCSE in that subject.’

The confusing thing for teachers – particularly in primary schools where
teaching covers a broad range of subjects – is the rate at which they have
to absorb the requirements of curricula as these are gradually finalised
in each subject. The curricula are being introduced on a ‘rolling basis’,
and the whole system is unlikely to be complete until 1997.

At present, the national curriculum for English has been introduced
only to pupils aged between five and seven years. The curricula for mathematics
and science were both introduced to all but the oldest band of pupils covered
by the Education Reform Act. Some subjects, such as art and physical education,
are barely off the drawing board as regards the process of drafting a curriculum.