The Telegraph is reporting on the new, better science that British youths will be required to study:
The science that all pupils study from the age of 14 is to focus more on "lifestyles", general knowledge and opinion and less on chemistry, biology and physics, says the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It published a "revised programme of study" that will govern the content of GCSE from 2006, to "ensure increased choice and flexibility for pupils so that they can study science relevant to the 21st century".Instead of learning science, pupils will "learn about the way science and scientists work within society". They will "develop their ability to relate their understanding of science to their own and others' decisions about lifestyles", the QCA said...
Science content of the curriculum will be kept "lite".
Ken Boston, the QCA chief executive, said: "It is essential that the curriculum keeps pace with the changing world."
If the changing world is one that is scientifically illiterate, I'd say this'll work. I have to say, though, that unlike Ken Boston, I haven't been kept up nights obsessed with the thought that the UK was going down the tubes because its young citizens were too scientific, and not concerned enough with the softer sides of science.
What do you know? Some actual scientists have a problem with this new curriculum:
Rosemary Davies, from Save British Science, welcomed the fact that "communication issues and ethics" were on the curriculum but said: "It could well be seen as a soft option or a waste of time." Pupils might think that "all they have to do for homework is read a newspaper". She said ethical issues might be better taught in personal and social education classes than science lessons.
There's that proper British restraint for you. The Save British Science website is more blunt:
Fed up with low-paid, short-term contracts? Tired by the media portraying scientists as the baddies? Disappointed with the quality of science education? Annoyed by the government expecting more and more, while failing to provide the necessary resources?Posted by kswygert at May 4, 2005 06:12 PMWE ARE!
And we're campaigning to change it all.