WTF? The pro-formula science GCSE

[Longtalljosie]

The above is not me being sad. That's me turning the air blue...

www.nct.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/view/224

From KS 4 Programme of study (National Curriculum)see esp b

Applications and implications of science
Pupils should be taught:

a.about the use of contemporary scientific and technological developments and their benefits, drawbacks and risks

b.to consider how and why decisions about science and technology are made, including those that raise ethical issues, and about the social, economic and environmental effects of such decisions

c.how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time and about the role of the scientific community in validating these changes.

As I thought.

Whether this is a marketing conspiracy or not, or just an exam written without proper checking, it adds to the cultural (and erroneous) idea that formula is generally benign and has an important role in combatting malnutrition.

I don't want my kids learning things that are incorrect.

This is quite different from maths problems about improbable baths with improbable leaks.

frasersmummy - of course they are too busy answering the exam question. That's the whole point of the objection. The ethical issues don't figure at all, and they should - the curriculum even insists that they should.

How very odd. I suspect they were going for the idea that calcium carbonate is indeed a "natural" compound and you don't have to be scared of everything with a scientific sounding name, and that is an important thing for people to know, but the question is really strangely worded. I'm looking for the mark scheme to see what they would answer.

I have no beef with the SATs question though.

exactly tiktok it would be better if the point of the exam question was to debate the BF v FF idea, and picking holes in the labelling etc which AFAIK doesn't feature in the question.

Marking scheme and full exam papers are linked to in Longtalljosie's OP, thefallenmadonna.

It's particularly reprehensible because it's about bf and ff BUT would be wrong anyway as it is telling children to be suspicious of charities and do-gooders as if they have a nefarious agenda while manufacturers are neutral. Which is untrue and unfair. It also defames the NCT (and its chief executive).

Blimey. OK. Not the best developed bit of science I've seen...

I count 4 factual errors In the marking guidelines for that question.

Presumably this question relates to the syllabus requirement regarding ethics in science.

Ah now I certainly teach about possible bias. I'm not sure I'd use this example...

(In fact it presents the manufacturers as positively angelic, giving their products away for free to save the lives of malnourished babies...)

Why the hell would you want your child to be studying bf vs ff though MathsMadMummy? That's definitely not part of a secondary school education imo.
This was a science paper! Cultural debates don't feature.

Ethical ones do though.

Yes, and the charity as sanctimonious, ignorant do-gooders. Mrs I Am Right [snort]!

gosh, that is staggering.

Biology GCSE should certainly mention bf v ff. Just as we can vaccinate our dc against rubella before there is any chance of them being pregnant, I would also want them to be aware of the bf/ff debate and realities before they have babies.

No objection to learning about ethics in science at GCSE, but the question itself should be ethical!

this is an abomination!

i really question how an exam board came to allow this onto the paper.

that's not really what I meant pommedeterre - I meant that this would've been a better reason for the rubbish labelling etc as it'd draw attention to the fact that the info on the question was utterly wrong. rather than focusing on another issue and therefore making it seem like FF is better etc etc.

I wasn't saying in that post that there necessarily should be a question on BF v FF... but actually, why the hell not? they need to learn it somewhere don't they?

Good nutrition is part of the national curriculum and part of the science curriculum. Ethical issues in science are taught, and indeed examined.

Why would science students not be taught about appropriate infant nutrition? And if there is a question which uses infant nutrition as a context (as this one does), why would we not be concerned about the ethical issues connected to it? I would not expect 16 year olds to be examined on 'why breastfeed/formula feed?' - but they should not be given a question that shows commercial interests as solely benign or neutral, and with unquestioned statements about 'free' formula preventing malnutrition...

I really cannot understand why some posters here don't see this is something worrisome!

and IMO it's not entirely a cultural debate (though there are elements of it such as sexualisation of breasts etc), it could easily be included in biology as a scientific debate.

Discussed this with DS (9). Asked him 'Why do you think some people might think this exam question is bad?"

He replied, "Because breast milk is better. I know it's tiring work and so on, but it's good to breastfeed because then you don't have to have a baby every year".

That on earth do you say to that? How do they know this stuff?

oh bless! that's so sweet. and intelligent. although he should probably be told that BFing isn't a reliable contraceptive

I think if they want to look at ff it would have been reasonable to ask candidates to plot the comparative contents of different brands or something - palm oil, taurene, skimmed milk powders, vitamins, and so on. If you wanted to extend the question you could then plot out the ingredients of bm. That's a proper scientific task then. You could ask candidates about why total volume of required ff is usually higher than bm per kilo of infant body weight, or something like that, based on a short textual passage or WHO document. I should think that would be fairly neutral in terms of things kicking off.

This question is just utterly bonkers and clearly slipped through the net - I doubt AQA properly vetted it.

MMM, I think I'll leave the condom talk for a couple of years, if you don't mind. I am still recovering from the shock of his elder brother getting his first pubes!

ohhhh TMI