Iain Gray: Science is subject of falling numbers

FEWER pupils are choosing fewer sciences because of the curriculum structure, which will leave us short of graduates in vital areas, writes Iain Gray

With schools all over Scotland now settling in to the new session, the Curriculum for Excellence has reached third year in secondary schools. No doubt many teachers will be accessing “Studying Scotland” to ensure their teaching reflects Scotland’s heritage, as required by Scottish ministers. This online teaching resource is probably the only concrete outcome so far of last year’s sound and fury over whether “Scottish Studies” should be a new subject in our schools.

When that proposal was debated in parliament MSPs from all sides argued the importance of teaching Bruce, Wallace, Culloden and, above all, Robert Burns in our schools. With the exception of a passing mention of geologist James Hutton by Mike Russell, the education secretary, there was little concern shown that pupils learn about Scottish scientists and engineers. Yet, while there may be Scots leaving school ignorant of Bruce or Wallace, I think there are rather more who will never have heard of John Rennie, who designed and built London Docks, Waterloo Bridge, London Bridge and the Crinan canal or James Clerk Maxwell whose electromagnetic theory underpins the functionality of every TV, iPhone, satnav and so much else.

It is pleasing then that the Studying Scotland website does include a contribution from a Scottish physicist (and former weather presenter) Heather Reid, encouraging pupils to follow in the footsteps of Scotland’s great scientists.

After all, surely the purpose of our children studying past achievements is to inspire them to build on, and surpass them. If our future prosperity lies in renewable energy, life sciences and high tech manufacturing, then we had better be cultivating tomorrow’s Rennies and Maxwells in today’s classrooms.

That we are not was starkly illustrated in 2008 when the Trends in International Maths and Science Survey (TIMSS) showed us “standing still while other nations pushed by” to quote the then education secretary Fiona Hyslop. In fact the data suggested that we are not standing still at all, but rather going backwards.

A school science summit was convened, and an action plan published, and the Science and Engineering Education Advisory Group set up (SSEAG). Their role was to “take a strategic overview, facilitate dialogue and collaboration with lead partners and monitor and evaluate.” I have no idea what that means, but to their credit they have produced a long list of clear actions which could raise our game in schools science.

In particular, SSEAG recommend that we invest in training primary teachers in science teaching, and equip their schools so they can put it into practice. They also argue that we must widen the science base in secondary schools, to reflect good international standards. We need more pupils doing more sciences.

So, since those poor survey results in 2008 a lot of work has been done on how we can improve science teaching in our schools. We have a list of practical steps which have the confidence and support of the scientific community. They are now asking themselves whether they can have confidence in local and national government making those recommendations happen.

That nervousness is not only based on witnessing a debate which would seem to demonstrate that politicians, and the media, are far more interested in how we teach Culloden than how we teach Chemistry.

There is also the fact that while Ms Hyslop may have responded to poor performance in the science and maths survey with a summit, her successor Mr Russell has since then chosen to opt out of future TIMSS surveys, leaving educationalists wondering whether he would just rather not know if we are falling behind the rest of the world.

When a report says that “Scotland… could be bypassed economically and become more divided socially”, we cannot afford to put our fingers in our ears. Then there are also continuing concerns over the impact of Curriculum for Excellence on science in schools.

Science teachers are not opposed to the cross-curricular approach at the heart of CfE. They have been teaching integrated science for decades, and most revel in using practical applications of their subjects to bring them to life. Over 30 years ago as a physics teacher in Edinburgh, I was working with the English department to teach the importance of standard units using A Day’s Wait. In the Hemingway short story a young boy believes he is dying because he does not understand the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius when his temperature is taken. Great story, good science message.

But when CfE outcomes in mathematics and science were first published, they were roundly condemned by the scientific community for compromising rigour. The Royal Society said, “outcomes emphasise applications, ethics and the philosophy of science at the expense of fundamental principles. How and where will science be learned?” The Scottish Government dismissed their concerns, thanking them for their “engagement”.

Four years later, SSEAG are still pleading that care is taken to ensure that all science disciplines are underpinned by “rigorous and coherent pillars of knowledge” and the Royal Society of Edinburgh is still complaining that the evidence base for the CfE approach is “nowhere to be found”.

Yet the most immediate threat to science teaching, is a more mundane one. One of the great strengths of our school system has been the breadth of curriculum choice it provides. I once tried to explain to a Soviet teacher how Scottish pupils could choose their own curriculum, and study five or six subjects right up to university level. He did not believe it was possible, and indeed timetabling a Scottish secondary school is a complex skill.

Unfortunately CfE seems to have defeated it, and now when pupils choose subjects to study for the new national 4/5 exams (replacing standard grades), most will only be able to choose only five. Doing two sciences (never mind three) becomes very difficult, and teachers have told me that many pupils are dropping all sciences, with mathematics being counted as a “science” subject to provide a fig leaf of cover for this narrowing of course choice. Anecdotally I have heard of a catastrophic drop in pupils taking science beyond second year, not least by a physics teacher from that school where I taught three decades ago.

For all the summits, action plans and advisory groups saying that we need more pupils doing more science, it would seem that what is really happening in our schools is fewer pupils choosing fewer sciences because of the curriculum structure. If that is true then concerns about primary teaching or the rigour of courses will not really matter.

If left unchecked then this is a ticking time bomb under our future economic prospects. Only four years from now we will see a fall in school leavers with the qualifications to choose university courses in science, engineering and medicine. Four years later those crucial energy, engineering, and life science industries will find the graduates they need in seriously short supply.

The scientific community and science teachers are trying to sound the alarm, but it would seem no one is listening. Politicians who believe in Scotland as a powerhouse of science and engineering must listen and act, quickly, or Scottish science will become a thing of the past to be studied along with Bruce, Wallace and Culloden.


• Iain Gray is Labour MSP for East Lothian