Independent curriculum review: “secure foundation in the sciences is pivotal for now and the future”
Today the government has published the interim findings of an independent review of the curriculum and assessment system in England, with statistical analysis – we welcome the assertion that a secure foundation in the sciences is pivotal for now and the future.
The panel has rightly referenced the rapid global and social change taking place, and the need for any curriculum to keep pace to ensure young people are prepared for life and work. The call for a renewed focus on digital literacy, alongside sustainability and climate science, which is echoed in our own recent research into the future chemistry-using workforce, are both aspects we would welcome in a revised chemistry curriculum
Our own Science Teaching Survey has previously highlighted the issue of an overstuffed chemistry curriculum, and how it has been impacting student outcomes. Our existing expert-led curriculum framework outlines our vision for 11-19 chemistry education. We intend to supplement this through our role as a Science Education Policy Alliance (SEPA) partner, with a series of expert roundtables involving key figures across the science community, to provide the panel with further evidence and guidance on what a reformed curriculum in chemistry (and the sciences) could look like.
The review panel's initial findings on diversity of content and representation align closely with our own work on global perspectives and diverse representation. Like the panel, we're of the view that richer context and representation will inspire students and help them see themselves as scientists, see the benefits of working as diverse teams and own a richer view of what chemistry can do. We welcome the panel's intention to ensure the curriculum facilitates inclusivity.
Despite a focus from the panel on equity, opportunity, and difficulties in delivering the curriculum, there is no acknowledgement in the report of the impact of having multiple pathways through the sciences at GCSE on these key factors. We want to see the panel seriously explore a single route through the sciences in the next phase of the review. A single route for the majority would both increase equity and access to science, and provide some additional space/time in the curriculum for other subjects.
We agree with the panel's findings that pathways at 16-19 are not working well for everyone. Although we are supportive of T-levels, they should not be the only technical/vocational option. Applied vocational qualifications in the sciences have historically provided a route for 25,000 young people per year, enabling further study and work in the sciences, including those from low socioeconomic and minority ethnic backgrounds. Applied vocational qualifications are well understood and valued by employers and should be an available pathway at level 3.
Finally, we would welcome opportunities to work with the panel alongside our partners in SEPA, as they conduct closer analysis to diagnose each subject’s specific problems and explore and test a range of solutions. It's crucial that the final recommendations make the most of the expertise in our community and the invaluable insight from those who will be responsible for delivering the changes and inspiring future students.