Anyone else hate GCSE Science for the 21st Century?

[ShrinkingViolet]

DD1 loathes the syllabus! Yesterday she had a Chemistry test, reading some text and answering questions. Text was about why we need salt in our diet (and stated that it was used by the muscles). One question asked "Why do men have a higher daily recommended intake of salt?" (or words to that effect). DD1, along wiht most of the class answered along the lines of "men in general have more muscle mass". Fair enough, you'd have thought, but no, that answer had to be marked as wrong becasue the answer sheet said "Becasue they are bigger". .
In fairness, her teacher said, that yes, they were all right, but for the actual exam, they need to learn what answers are required.
How on earth is this supposed to be producing scientists of the future?

What!

Stunned. I'd forgotten the riduclousness of the exam system. Personally I think the class did a far better job of explaining the reason than the 'proper' answer. Talk about dumbing down, and not only expecting but actively teaching our kids to do so.

Yes that's bloody ridiculous, isn't it? My dcs are not at school yet but I have a very serious fear that by the time they get to GCSE age the state schools (except the very good ones) will all be teaching the crap syllabuses like this one and you will have to go to a private school to get to do anything properly challenging.

In answer to your question - they are not trying to produce scientists. The potential scientists are viewed as being in such a tiny minority that they are not thought to matter. My dh is a maths lecturer and there are similar concerns in his subject. He reckons that in the future there will simply not be home-grown British scientists and we will have to buy them all in from India, China and Eastern Europe.

They are being schooled to be obedient parroters of official truths, aren't they?

shocked at the 'offcial answer'

It also makes you wonder if they are planning on using markers who have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever and therefore no capacity for discretion.

Kathy - my DH is an engineer and says much the same - his firm now largely recruits staff from abroad (Middle East/India/China with several from France as well) and it is likely that the British based scientists/engineers etc for the new nuclear programme that the government is proposing will come from abroad (the technology will mainly come from France anyway).

Is the teacher being a bit of a jobsworth here? Does sir or miss have any options in marking the paper, in using their initiative? Confused. It's clearly not happening everywhere as DD says she's not aware of this at her school. Ask the teacher about it.

Lilymaid - maybe the UK scientists/engineers think the new nuclear programme is a mistake and are going to work in other industries? The French, now they LOVE their nuclear power.

as far as DD1 can tell, the staff don't much like it either - her physics teacher has told her not to think about the questions too much, just go for the really obvious answer because the questions "are too easy" for students like her (top set).
She came home today quite excited as they're to be doing "proper chemistry" in their next topic and for homework need to find a clear copy of the periodic table. As she said, it's better than nothing.....

There aren't enough UK engineers and scientists. They are lured away by the far better pay of financial services. It took the UK 40 years to build up a knowledge basis in nuclear power and a very few years to disband it all. My DH is mentoring a French engineer so that she can work in the UK industry.

I don't know the 21st C specification - I teach Science 360, and also have experience of AQA.

The mark schemes usually have OWTTE - or words to that effect, and there is an allowance for a teacher's professional judgement.

I cannot see any way that 'more muscle mass' would be rejected at the examiners' meeting stage.

Resources have been rushed through, so it is possible that the mark schemes are incomplete.

ShrinkingViolet - you mean that they don't use a periodic table anyway? How can you do chemistry without?

well, everything they've done so far seems ot have been about climate change . So no, in a term and a half of GCSE, there's not been anything that you'd term "proper chemistry", nor "proper physics" either. She's been assured by her teachers that it does get better though.

I just had a look at the 21C website. What they are doing is using a concept-based approach to teaching science in the first year of GCSE. This means they take a theme, and then teach the science behind it. The rationale is that science will be more relevent to more kids. It looks like the first of three chemistry modules is all to do with the atmosphere, hence lots of mentions of climate change.

A lot of what we have to teach comes directly from the QCA (ie government), and the same major themes appear across all the boards. As with any change, there is good and bad. A good science department will do a fantastic job with the new material, but an unimaginative one will have a lot of trouble with the culture change.

The backdrop of modern issues is one of the elements of what is known as "How Science Works", and this is being introduced in A-levels and KS3 in September.

I have taught 21stC for 3 years as we wer epart of the pilot. It is a godawful syllabus. OK for the biology but dire for physics and chemistry esp the first few modules of each (C1-3, P1-3). The separate sciences for 21stC aren't too bad it's the core science that makes up the Y10 grade that is truly terrible. I am a chemistry teacher and spend a lot of my A-level time catching students up to basic chemical concepts like balancing equations. The mole has now been taken off GCSE syllabuses. I am hoping that one day we come round full circle and realise that these are unbelievably wrong for our best students. I am an examiner for the iGCSE which is a far better course but is generally only offered in private and international schools.

kritur,

I start balancing equations in Y8 now, and use symbols/symbol equations as much as possible. I don't expect them all to get it in one lessons, but at least by the time they need the skills, they are slightly better developed. It's like a language - it takes a few years to master.

I don'#t rate science for the 21c either.

Too much 'How would you feel if...' and no-where near enough actual science

Re the marking we have OWTTE. I would have marked that as correct. Because it is! And then argued the toss in the moderation meeting

Hi ScienceTeacher

The problem is as Head of Chemistry I am actually the only person in my department with a chemistry degree (various environmental science, biochemistry, engineering colleagues) and some of my colleagues who are teaching KS3 as non specialists can't even balance equations themselves. My timetable is heavily concentrated on KS4 and A-level but I think from this year I am going to have to do some serious training with KS3 colleagues teaching top sets.

at non science specialist not being able to ballence an euquation!

Goodness I can do that and I'm s biology specialist

That is shocking!

Granted mt degree was in Biochemistry, but even if they have A levels in Chemistry they should be able to do that!

and I only have a Chemical Engineering degree.

You don't really need to understand the chemistry anyway (although I do ). You need to be able to count to something like 3.

well, quite! We were doing it in the lower school when I were a nipper, back in the days of quills and parchment.

It amauses me that the current sixth form get part of their A level course from the book I used at O level!

ds1's teachers are appalled at the Science GCSE too and when I questioned it at Parents Evening were embreassed at its content.
The Chemistry teacher said the multiple choice format compresses the marks into the middle ground as there's no space for creativity or true science. So someone who is destined to be a scientist will be shortchanged by the whole thing.
But then scinece isn't valued in this country. DH is a mathematician/physicist and gets a paltry wage (we get full CTC, thats how crap the pay is). We even went to the US for 3 years to earn some money.
DS loves science but is mored rigid at school due to the awful curriculum.

It is shocking that they can't balance an equation but in a way that's why they've been bumped onto KS3. Some of them did A-level chemistry others not. We are a biology heavy department and I wouldn't mind but some don't admit to the weakness and just avoid doing the L7 and EP stuff. We have a new biologist who has been a breath of fresh air in some ways as at least she admits to not being able to do chemistry. It's like being in little britain some days 'the only chemist in the village'.

how can you be a good biologist if you can't do chemistry!!!!!!!!

And I ask that as a biologist.

How can she possibly teach the Biochemistry of the AS course? Let alone understand things like the action potential and muscle contractio and citric acid cycle that will only 'work' if you understand the chemistry behind it?

Last time I taught the action potential I accidentaly had one of our chemists in the room. At the end he congratualted me ona very interesting chemistry lesson! Biology is applied chemistry.....when it isn't applied physics!

We were told, in no uncertain terms, that if we weren't prepared to learn chemistry then there was no point continuing with biology at the start of our A-levels, not that many years ago. (Not in private school - at a large, rather unruly FE college in SE London)

The dumbing down of science drives me mad. When are the powers that be going to understand that having more people doing science isn't going to help if the science they are doing isn't real. It just sets people up for one hell of a time when/if they get to uni.

//rant over