The Future Of Science Education – Improving It For All Students
Lauren MᶜLeod
A proposal for redesigning the science curriculum to reduce content, promote hands-on experiences, and make science education more inclusive and relevant for all students.
The Royal Society of Biology (RSB) has been preparing for the next round of curriculum and qualification reforms in England since the last reforms in 2014. At the time, RSB and others raised concerns about the process, rationale and timescale for development of the new curriculum, and the consistency, coherence, sequencing and amount of content of the new GCSEs. It was an opportunity to bring the National Curriculum into the 21st century but we felt not enough emphasis was placed on the importance of practical experiences for all students, the inclusion of climate change and biosecurity, the impact of science on everyday life, and promoting a wider variety and span of scientific achievement and individuals.
Combined Science GCSE and Biology GCSE – are they the right pathways?
With the move towards a “knowledge-rich” curriculum, the curriculum for the sciences and GCSE specifications in Combined Science and Biology have become overburdened and almost impossible for schools to cover within the allotted timetable for the sciences in Year 10 and Year 11. As a result, the majority of schools either squeeze the Key Stage 3 programme of study for science into two years, or begin Combined Science GCSE and individual Biology, Chemistry and Physics GCSEs (or “triple science”) in Year 9.
We have also seen an increase in the perception that “triple science” is the only route to A levels in the sciences, creating an elitist route. Few students are given the option to choose between Combined Science GCSE and “triple science”, and some schools only offer one or the other. Those that do study “triple science” are usually expected to do so on a compressed timetable (over the same hours as the double award), while “triple science” classes often are treated preferentially when it comes to allocating fewer and fewer subject specialists across all three subjects.
The existence of two routes through GCSE has exacerbated inequities in the system, and doesn’t support the needs of students in either route. Combined Science GCSE and the “triple science” route were both designed to progress to A level, despite the students studying combined science rarely being encouraged to progress to this. One route is not designed to be more difficult than the other, nor does it go into more depth, there is simply more content in the “triple science” route (however, students may find it more difficult due to studying three GCSEs in the time of two).
So, how can we improve the situation?
Redesigning the science curriculum
People may be surprised that a Learned Society such as the RSB would call for a reduction in Biology content at GCSE – even if this means a reduction in time in the school timetable.
We support a broad and balanced curriculum with room for arts, languages, the sciences, Maths and English. We are interested in ensuring an accessible, manageable double award GCSE in science, one that prepares every learner for daily life, for work in and out of the sciences, and for any number of academic, technical and vocational routes post-16. We aren’t only interested in increasing the number of entries to Biology, Chemistry and Physics A levels and undergraduate degrees, and we want to ensure perceptions that science is “only for the best” are not replicated in a new set of GCSEs.
Over the past seven years at the RSB, I have worked with our Curriculum Committee, member organisations, and partners at other science organisations to develop a vision for biology education. We have collected evidence from research, looked at curricula in the UK and internationally, drawn on expertise outside our field, and spent many hours debating big questions and themes to develop an example of a coherent, consistent and cohesive learning progression across key stages.
In Evolving 5-19 Biology: recommendations and framework for 5-19 biology curricula, we set out an exemplification that aims to reduce repetition, address the gaps, make space for more practical experiences in the lab and the field, and create flexibility for a curriculum to include developments in biology, local contexts and a wide range of diverse and representative scientists. Reducing overspecified content on genetics, for example, could free up space to explore more timely development such as CRISPR or mRNA vaccines.
Making science more relevant to students’ everyday lives
The purpose of GCSEs in the sciences should be to prepare students either as non-scientist citizens (who study up to age 16) or potential scientists (progressing through technical, vocational and academic routes post-16). For biology, there are specific concepts we want all young people to be familiar with when they leave school: not least reproduction, an understanding of their own bodies and environments, and specific health issues relevant to their age group.
Equally important are the skills studying biology equips students with – understanding how data at local, national and global level can inform the decisions of an individual and of society. The curriculum must strive to embed scientific literacy and ensure all students understand that what they learn in a biology classroom can have a direct impact on their everyday life.
Hands on experiments vs digital skills, or both?
Since the pandemic, we’ve seen an increasing number of “practical” lessons that rely exclusively on video demonstrations or simulations. While we fully support the use of such tools to augment classroom experiences, hands-on practical skills must be emphasised in the GCSE curriculum. At a basic level, every student should leave school with an understanding of how to measure temperature accurately, or how to manipulate tools and equipment.
Beyond that, hands-on experiences can enthuse and inspire students. Recent research from Pearson showed that, in a course of a week, 98% of science teachers observed students struggling to engage in their learning. Practicals help students engage, visualise abstract concepts and understand the importance of studying living things in their environment. Digital tools can supplement this work; they should not replace it. The curriculum should be designed to encourage and support laboratory and field work, as well as develop digital skills.
Clear recommendations
Last year, the Labour government wasted no time in setting up a Curriculum and Assessment Review led by Professor Becky Francis, with a call for evidence taking place in late 2024. RSB welcomes this commitment to modernising the curriculum, however worryingly, although the core subjects of English and Maths and broader subjects are highlighted, there is a glaring absence of any mention of the sciences.
Our recommendations to Professor Francis and the panel are clear: the sciences must be included in a comprehensive review of 5-19 education. A single route at GCSE for the sciences will break down barriers to progression and prepare all students for everyday life; while a new GCSE in the sciences can have less content, but more time for engagement, depth and skills.
