Is Cross-Curricular an End in Itself?

Being a subject in a National Curriculum offers science a great deal in that teachers, even reluctant ones have to teach science (though this very little about its quality!).  Its inclusion guaranteed science a time allocation and systematic coverage. At the time, pre 2005,  when Year Six pupils were subject to Science SATs testing some found themselves on an increasing diet of cramming, of past papers and virtual practical work. Since the removal of the science SAT science has slipped in terms of the priority given to in schools but the cramming appears to be a thing of the past.

It is important to make the distinction between science itself and science education which occurs in schools and other places. They are not mutually exclusive but there is a difference, it is often assumed that we want children to do science as part of their science education. Science itself is cross-curricular (Popper). Will a meteorologist draw on different aspects of science as well as usiing a great deal of mathematics when dealing with data and English when communicating findings to his or her peers?  Does this mean that science education has to be cross-curricular? Surely yes? Would be possible to teach about cross-curricular science within discrete science subject lessons? Clearly it would so do we need any other approach?  What some schools and teachers adopt is a overtly inter-disciplinary approach to planning the curriculum with the intention that different subjects make, utilise and benefit from links? It is perhaps worth considering whether the curriculum itself will guarantee links are recognised and used? Or is it still down to how it is presented and utilised in the classroom?

Which is most important? The cross-curricular approach? What does it guarentee? Perhaps more valuable is the committed teacher looking for ways to improve learning who utilises a cross-curricular approach in his her search for more effective approaches?

New Assessment Arrangements or Not?

With a new National Curriculum comes new assessment arrangements. The present arrangement of 8 levels against which pupils achievement is compared forms the basis of the present arrangements. The government claims that these create a glass ceiling, but yet the design of the level system avoids this. When a pupil achieves a level the teacher is already preparing to move them to the next level. Thus we could have a child working twards level 4 in Year 4 because they have achieved level 3. This surely can only be percieved as a glass celieng by those who don't understand it? The TGAT team who devised the levels were very well aware of this possibility. Appointed by the then Conservative government I suspect they were much better qualified than some of those extolling the virtues of  the proposal. So the proposal to avoid a glass ceiling, is to introduce age ralated targets. Did I mis read that? Would these be sets of educational objectives or targets linked to a particular age range? This appears to be the plan. So a Year 4 pupil would work towards the targets, perhaps achieve them in May and then....  ooops  they've hit a ceiling.  Or would the child move to a Year 5 class? this system is used in parts of north America and other contries. Alternatively the teacher could be asked to teach towards the Year 5 targets? very sensible and frankly not so different to the system of levels we have now so ....   ....we spend a lot of money to change a system from one we have to one we have?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/03/england-curriculum-review-debate-controversy

A New National Curriculum

So there is a proposal for a slimmed down National Curriculum here in England? So how slim is slim and what do you remove? We are I suspect all in favour of simplicity and ease of access but less so of dumbing down? What will be the basis of the changes? We could, for example, remove much of the content and focus very much on what we have come to call Science One - Exploration and Investigation of Science. If primary science is about enthusing and engaging young people in the fascinating world around them, what better way? I understand this has been the approach in countries around the world without diasterous results. Perhaps all of this is dependent on what you aims are? Do you want engaged citizens? or studnets who can pass an exam? Do we want informed consumers and other inspired to make a contribution to science and the world? or compliant individuals who don't appreciate the need to question?
We need to look at any curriculum with the same challenging eyes of the pupil who asks why? but why? The last National Curriculum was a product of those who wrote it and their ideas of what was a world view, the next no doubt will be the same. As ever we need those professional challenging eyes to take it and form it into a digestable whole. Lets hope the years of increasing control from the centre are over and that teachers are given some real space to teach.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/03/england-curriculum-review-debate-controversy

primary

Playground Science

Science on the playground is not new but not perhaps as common as it might be? Learners often repeat activities from lessons after the lesson. If they participate in science activities such as role play on the playground in lessons we have found that they continue the lesson by repeating the activity with friends on the playground.

Year 2 pupil sketches a life cycle

Jon, a local Manchester teacher and part-time science tutor at the University of Manchester and I have trialled a number of ideas for lesson activities on the playground including science topics such as habitats, Earth in Space, light, forces and more. A typical example would be reflection modelled by the children kicking a ball against a wall. They can see the path of the ball and the angle at which it strikes the wall and the resulting bounce at a similar angle. Pupils are asked to draw, in chalk, arrows to show the path of the ball and to describe what they see. The teacher emphasises words such as path, straight linne, bounce, travel, travel to etc. back in a darkened classroom pupils recount what they have just seen on the playground and watch a demonstration of light bouncing and reflecting of a mirror. They then discuss the similarities to what they observed outside.
If you would like to hear more about playground science do get in touch with alan.cross@manchester.ac.uk

What Does ICT do for Primary Science?

I learned a lesson a few years ago when I wrote a chapter called   'ICT Essential in Primary Science' and a reviewer challenged this assertion. He was right, I did not make the case and just assumed it was a good thing. Perhaps I was caught in the same headlights experienced by all teachers as a jugernaut curriculum bears down upon them and they ask, what do I need to do? One answer to that question may be, ensure you include lots of ICT. But does it really help? and who does it help? Are we talking about that well timed video clip which shows plant growth in slow motion and captures the interest of learners and illustrates beautifully the complexity of the natural world? or are we talking about the a poorly presented magnets simulation which a class labour over whilst a set of magnets accumulate dust in the science cupboard?
Well I guess there is every shade of grey in between? But how should we justify the time and expense of computers?