This definitive work has reached the butterflies, all described and
explained – with up-to-date distribution maps – in one volume that even
inexperienced amateurs can use and enjoy. And as with all great reference
works, the deeper the knowledge the deeper the enjoyment. In a note accompanying
the book, the publisher writes, ‘It is hoped that this book will not only
enthral the butterfly lover but also become the standard reference work
on butterflies for amateur and professional lepidopterists and conservationists
as well as a benchmark for future recording.’ That the hope will be fulfilled
is one of the few certainties facing naturalists today. Peter Wrobel

Meanwhile, administrators and teachers still await guidance on how to
assess children’s work. They also want to know how much money the government
will allocate to cover the costs of training teachers to operate the new
curriculum.

Jeff Thompson, professor of education at the University of Bath and
chair of the working group that produced the basis of the curriculum, repeated
last week that there were still two ‘fundamental problems’: the possibility
that children could opt out of a full science course at GCSE; and the sharply
diminished priority accorded to the wider social and economic aspects of
science.

The working group’s report, Science for ages 5 to 16, appeared in August
to widespread support from the scientific community. The report called for
a comprehensive, integrated science curriculum for all children. The programme
culminated in the fourth and fifth years of secondary school, where children
would be spending 20 per cent of their time studying science for a double
GCSE.

In a dissenting foreword to the report, Kenneth Baker, the education
secretary, asked for an alternative programme ‘which some pupils might cover
in about 12.5 per cent of total curriculum time ..leading to a single GCSE
certificate’. The new curriculum meets Baker’s wishes.

It is, says Thompson, a ‘missed opportunity’. He insists that this lesser
option, known as Model B, ‘cannot fulfil the two objectives’ of his working
group: to protect the interests of future scientists, and to provide a ‘broad
and balanced’ course to raise the general understanding of science in society.

Thompson’s fears are echoed by David Moore, general secretary of the
Association for Science Education, whose members are science teachers. Moore
expressed ‘serious concern’ that Baker had allowed a choice between a full
science curriculum and the lesser one.

Moore’s worries centre on the advice children will receive where they
have the option of choosing between the two courses. He fears that girls
in particular will shy away from a full science course.

Peter Borrows, science adviser for the London borough of Waltham Forest,
called Model B the ‘cut-price option’ and said it was an ‘absolute disaster’.
He was sure that it would be largely girls opting for a single science GCSE.
His fears are intensified by Baker’s view that the alternative course might
be suitable for ‘pupils who may need, for whatever reason, to spend more
time on other subjects, for example, to develop a special talent in music
or foreign languages’. These subjects have traditionally been more popular
with girls than with boys.

Thompson is also critical of the decision to drop or change the parts
of the working’s party’s proposed curriculum relating to communicating science
and understanding the role of science in society and the economy. The worries
are shared by industrialists. According to a report in The Independent newspaper
last week, the Confederation of British Industry told the government privately
that it backed moves to give ‘full prominence to transferable skills and
to the ability to learn and perform independently of the teacher’.

Others are not so concerned. At the Association for Science Education,
Moore believes that these wider aspects of science will largely be covered
either within other parts of the science curriculum, or in the programmes
for English and technology. The plans for technology, and for the English
curriculum at seconday level have yet to be published, however. Thompson
is most worried by the image of science that parents, governors ‘and even
secretaries of state’ will now have. ‘If all we’re saying is that science
is an interaction between theory and practice, then the image of science
is what it’s been for decades.’

In Waltham Forest, Borrows says that the other aspects of the Education
Reform Act could have an enormous impact on the effect of the new curriculum
in the classroom. He singles out open enrolment (where classroom space is
virtually the only factor limiting the intake of pupils at a school), publication
of exam results and local financial management as key factors.

The government believes that open enrolment and publication of results
will encourage competition and lead to the raising of standards. Borrows
feels that with schools totally dependent for funding on the number of pupils
they have, they might decide to let children take the course most likely
to guarantee the best examination results.

At present, three-quarters of Waltham Forest’s secondary schools have
decided to offer only the double GCSE. In some schools, this policy has
seen the number of girls taking a full science course rise by 800 per cent.
But another consequence of the Education Reform Act is that individual schools
are free to decide whether to offer Model B. Market forces could well pressurise
schools to keep the option open. For many girls, a full science education
could continue to take a back seat.