Sureena Brackenridge MP’s recent article in these pages was an encouraging sign that education policymakers are aware of the importance of STEM. However, government will need to do more than fix workforce issues to get it right for learners and the economy.
The fact is that how we teach and assess science is deterring high numbers of students from these subjects. It’s no surprise to me, for example, that although 85 per cent of the students we recently surveyed chose to engage with science through traditional and social media, only two per cent of combined science students progress to A-level sciences.
Too many feel science is ‘hard and boring’ or not for them. And the problem isn’t science; it’s school science. More specifically, it is our curriculum and qualification pathways.
Our research shows that teachers, students, employers and expert groups all point to substantial reform being essential, long overdue and broadly welcomed.
The curriculum and assessment review’s interim report has rightly acknowledged the pressing need for curriculum change, including reducing content volume, increasing the relevance of subject material and updating assessment models.
The recognition that education must reflect technological and societal changes, including climate change and AI, supports our desire for a modernised approach to GCSE science.
To that end, here are some practical and implementable approaches to widen the pipeline for what Keir Starmer has called the ‘rocket fuel for our stagnant economy’.
Accountability and equity
The interim report highlights the need to reduce barriers to progression and ensure that all learners, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have access to high-quality science education.
Currently, schools are incentivised to enter students for triple science rather than combined because triple carries more weight in results.
We know that triple science has good progression routes to A-level, but because it involves additional content and is more demanding, it tends to appeal to (and is often only available to) academically higher-attaining students – those already more likely to continue with A-level science before advancing to STEM careers.
This reinforces selective practices around triple science that create and perpetuate social inequalities when we know progress is best served by a diversity of skills and perspectives.
The solution lies in creating a single, equitable route through science learning. Whether our starting point is combined or triple science, our priority must be to allow students to demonstrate their relevant knowledge and skills at all levels.
Diverse, relevant content
Creating a curriculum that’s fit for purpose means sparking interest in the subject and encouraging more students to engage with it. Yet today’s curriculum is overloaded and outdated.
Teachers are forced to start GCSE science early, sacrificing a well-rounded and engaging key stage 3 experience, while students miss out on references to modern issues like climate change.
The interim report’s recognition that an overburdened curriculum can hinder depth of learning is crucial, and we welcome discussions on content reduction. What’s more, opportunities are missed to highlight diverse scientists and perspectives that resonate with different learners.
We know the gaps here. We must address them.
Practical and project work
Ninety-eight per cent of science teachers say they observe students struggling to engage in learning. Meanwhile, 70 per cent of Year 7 to 11 students want to do more practical work in science lessons. And yet today’s science curriculum prioritises substantive knowledge at the expense of the development of crucial practical and enquiry skills.
Our analytics platform found that problem-solving, analytical skills and data analysis are among the UK’s top 25 trending skills, based on over 1.8 million job listings. Similarly, uniquely human capabilities such as creativity and collaboration are increasingly valued by STEM employers.
These should be integrated into science qualifications, not only to prepare students for STEM careers but to challenge the false divide between ‘a science person’ and ‘a creative person’.
What better way to do this than through a thoughtful integration of practical and enquiry skills into the curriculum, along with a revision of the assessment model to prioritise this?
As a subject, science gives us significant scope to increase the applied knowledge and practical skills recommended in the review.
By integrating project work in science, for example, we could allow students to not only increase their science capital and confidence, but explore areas of personal interest and relevance to their communities, reinforcing the real-world applications of scientific study.
Student-centred developments
To be truly effective, a new science curriculum needs to centre on a model that compassionately meets the needs of students.
By reducing the volume and increasing the relevancy of curriculum content, and combining this with assessment methods that empower learners to effectively demonstrate their knowledge and skills, we can take the necessary steps to ensure the subject is inclusive and accessible to all.
There is a consensus within the sector that rethinking qualifications is crucial to driving more and broader success in the sciences.
Along with the government’s focus on sustaining and improving the nation’s scientific standing, the case for prioritising reform in science is clear: it underpins the UK’s future economic growth, technological advancements and global competitiveness.
We know what needs doing. Let’s come together to do it!
2 thoughts:
1. Anyone looked into why students like practical work in Science? They don’t do practical work in many other subjects and yet they still enjoy and succeed in those.
2. Which part of the overcrowded and out-dated curriculum will we leave out?