Dearing has suggested a slimming down and a simplification of procedures
that has brought relief all round. But so far he has given only an interim
report: the details come later. Thus, as he ponders further, let me suggest
how he could make the science National Curriculum a lot more satisfactory
for students, parents and teachers.

First, science should remain at the core of the National Curriculum.
There is little dispute about this in principle, but some disagreement about
how much science children should do between the ages of 14 and 16 in the
final stage of the national curriculum, Key Stage 4.

The annual crop of headlines proclaimed the excellent A-level results
but lamented the proportion taking science A levels. Why sciences are so
unpopular at A level is another story, but one thing is certain: we will
get more young people doing science after the age of 16 if more of them
continue with it up to 16. The National Curriculum requires all students
to study a ‘balanced science’ course up to 16. That means they must study
all three sciences (physics, chemistry and biology) – and in general they
must study them for 20 per cent of the timetable. This means that at the
age of 16 they take the equivalent of two GCSE subjects, but spread over
all three sciences.

These so-called ’20 per cent balanced science’ courses have attracted
criticism especially from those who believe standards have fallen since
the days when students took O-level physics, chemistry or biology. What
they overlook is that under the balanced science system, every student has
studied a substantial amount of all three subjects to the age of 16. In
years to come, when the National Curriculum has worked its way through schools,
people won’t be able to say at cocktail parties ‘Oh, I never did science
at school’ (though they may still be able to claim they were no good at
it). And most students – girls as well as boys – will at the age of 16 be
in a position where they can study science at A level if they want. They
won’t have burned their boats at 14 by dropping physics (as many girls have
done) or biology (ditto boys).

So, please Sir Ron, resist the pressure to allow 14 to 16-year-olds
to reduce balanced science to 10 per cent of the timetable if they want.

But Dearing has said that even core subjects like science need to be
slimmed down to allow time for optional subjects. I agree – there needs
to be scope for those people who want to study, say, a second modern language.
And within science itself, there needs to be scope to allow, say, a rural
school to study agricultural science.

If we are going to have some slimming of content, I suggest earth sciences.
I realise that such a proposal will be anathema to many readers, so let
me explain my case. When the original science National Curriculum was written
there was tremendous pressure, from the Royal Society and elsewhere, to
include earth sciences alongside the physics, chemistry and biology that
had traditionally been taught in schools. There was support for this from
primary science specialists and from some secondary specialists, especially
those with a background in earth sciences. But in practice, at secondary
level at least, earth sciences in the National Curriculum just hasn’t worked.

The trouble lies with the chemistry teachers and the geography teachers:
the chemists have got earth sciences and don’t want it, the geographers
don’t want to lose it. The earth science components – rocks and weather
– were incorporated with the part of the science curriculum dealing with
chemistry (the so-called ‘Attainment Target 3: Materials and their properties’).

Many chemistry specialists, knowing little about earth sciences, resented
the way it has taken up time for what they see as real chemistry. In many
schools, the result has been a few perfunctory lessons on rocks and weather
stuck on at the end of the course – hardly doing justice to the subject,
particularly when geography teachers are already covering it pretty well
and have years of experience of doing so. The result is bored and puzzled
students – hardly the best way to motivate more of them to study sciences.
So, in any slimming down operation, I would suggest that Dearing’s science
specialists look carefully at whether earth sciences should really be a
compulsory part of the science curriculum.

While they are at it, I hope they will look carefully at the way science
practical work is treated. The practical component of science, called ‘Attainment
Target 1: Scientific Investigation’, is given a high profile, with its own
Attainment Target (the other three Attainment Targets cover physics, chemistry
and biology). All agree that this emphasis is very desirable, especially
in primary schools, where the emphasis is more on doing things scientifically
than on learning a lot of information.

The problem lies in the word ‘Investigation’. The practical component
of National Curriculum science emphasises ‘complete’ scientific investigations
– the whole thing, from thinking of a question, through planning its investigation,
performing experiments and evaluating results. As part of National Curriculum
assessment, science students have to be tested on their ability to carry
out such an investigation. The problems are obvious as most secondary schools
have only about 70 minutes available for a practical lesson.

Instead of students asking their own questions, planning their own investigations
and duly evaluating the results, as the National Curriculum expects, they
often end up being heavily steered by the teacher. Add to that the obscure
jargon that teachers have to follow in order to assess the level of students’
practical work (to get to Level 7, just below a GCSE pass, students have
to ‘manipulate or take account of the relative effect of two or more independent
variables’) and you see why many teachers find the National Curriculum approach
to scientific practical work and its assessment difficult to follow. As
for the students, they just end up confused.

What is needed is something much simpler and less mechanistic, in which
teachers are given scope to assess their students’ abilities in key scientific
skills such as measuring accurately, observing carefully and working out
results. The National Curriculum for science has been a great advance in
getting all students from 5 to 16 studying a balanced science programme.
It has laid the foundations for a renaissance in the popularity of science
in schools. If Dearing can maintain this principle, and at the same time
sort out the problems outlined here, we may yet have one.

John Holman teaches science at Watford Grammar School.

But the battle is really won and lost in laboratories and classrooms
over the previous five years of schooling. And statistics suggest that the
sciences are not faring well. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of entries
for A level physics declined by 13 per cent, significantly more than the
decline in the total number of 18-year-olds. In 1989, the ratio of applications
to acceptances to read physical sciences at university was lower than it
was for any other subject group.

These statistics are discouraging to teachers, whose greatest satisfaction
always comes from motivating young people to further study. But, as a report
last week from the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology pointed
out, they are also bad news for the country. Industry needs a rich supply
of scientifically trained young people, and we would all benefit from a
higher level of scientific literacy. So what can be done to improve science’s
market share of A-level students?

In 1965 the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) was introduced.
Designed to stand alongside GCE O Level, it was intended at the time to
provide a qualification for those below O-Level ability. The trouble was
that as long as O level, with its high academic status, continued, it was
this examination which attracted all the attention.

The two-tier system was abolished in 1988, and O level and CSE combined
in a single system, the GCSE. As a result, all candidates are now classified
on a single scale.

Many claims are made for GCSE. For example, some suggest that it has
enabled students to develop a wider range of skills than in the past, such
as those required for solving problems and designing experiments. Others
argue that GCSE has had a damaging effect in lowering academic standards.

As yet, there is little to substantiate either of these claims. But
one effect of the introduction of GCSE does seem clear. Many teachers agree
that GCSE courses, with their emphasis on what students can do rather than
on what they cannot, are more attractive and practical than O level. As
a result, the new courses appeal to a wider range of students, and more
students are motivated to continue studying science past the age of 16.

Why has this not resulted in a big increase in numbers studying science
at A level? Part of the problem is the mismatch between GCSE and current
A-level courses. As a result, A level is failing to pick up the good work
started by GCSE, and is thus failing to meet students’ expectations.

The first mismatch is in style. GCSE courses are lively and varied,
with an emphasis on the practical applications of science. Students become
accustomed to a variety of learning approaches; they expect to be involved
in discussion, data gathering and designing experiments, not just note-taking
and prescribed practical work. Most A-level courses, in contrast, are theoretical
and factual, and allow students little autonomy in their own learning.

The second mismatch concerns the ability range for which A level is
intended-roughly speaking, the most academic 15 per cent of the ability
range. Yet many teachers are succeeding in motivating far more than 15 per
cent of their GCSE students to continue the study of science beyond the
age of 16. For many of these students, the feeling of success they experienced
at GCSE quickly disappears as they grapple with A level.

Such students may find vocationally-oriented courses, such as those
of the Business and Technician Education Council (BTEC), with their emphasis
on practical applications and the development of skills, more appropriate
to their needs. But vocational courses still suffer from inequality of esteem
when compared with A level. To many students and their parents, vocational
courses remain the inferior option. Can this be right when employers would
agree that the best BTEC students surpass many A-level students?

The best plan would be to abolish A level altogether, and start again
with a new, broader system which is closer to that followed in other European
countries. For the time being, however, the government has made it clear
that there is no question of removing A levels.

So how might the existing framework be modified, and what would the
consequences be? I propose the following contingency plan.

Firstly, make A-level courses more lively. This means a greater emphasis
on the practical applications of science, a greater variety of learning
styles, and more autonomy for students. This is the approach taken in the
Salters Advanced Chemistry course which is currently under development at
the University of York.

Secondly, make A-level courses accessible to a wider range of students.
This does not necessarily mean lowering academic standards; we have been
mesmerised by the idea of the academic gold standard for too long. There
is no reason at all why standards at the top end should not be maintained
while at the same time widening appeal and accessibility, allowing more
students to tackle A-level courses successfully.

Finally, improve the linkage between A-level and vocational courses.
Some steps are already being taken in this direction, for example in the
Wessex science scheme now being piloted in Gloucester. But a great deal
remains to be done to bridge the culture gap between the academic and vocational
systems.

The idea of a unified diploma for both systems would help. However we
also need to make it easier for students to transfer between them. The indications
are that a modular system is needed, allowing credit transfer between the
different systems.

Science has always been perceived as difficult by students. Perhaps
it really is. Even so, there is much that can be done to increase the appeal
of science subjects in the competitive marketplace of post-16 education,
and to make it attractive to more than just the academic few.

John Holman teaches science at Watford Grammar School, writes textbooks,
and directs the Salters Advanced Chemistry project at the University of
York.