Ideas for excellence lost in translation

"Science has changed, is changing and will continue to change the way in which we live and is a key tool in global and national attempts to achieve sustainability. It is crucial that Scotland is able to develop both practising scientists able to contribute to these developments and a population able to understand and help govern them through democratic processes.

"Mathematics and numeracy are vital in supporting these aims and in providing part of the skill-set needed for everyday life. The school curriculum, the schools and their teachers are the fundamental bedrock on which much of this rests. It is in this context that we respond to the consultation on science, mathematics and numeracy.  

The Society has three major areas of concern which, if not addressed, will 'rubbish' the  potential of a new curriculum.
 
 The role of the disciplines 
There appears to be no recognition that there is a structure to human knowledge that has been built up over centuries, and is the means by which we understand the world around us and ourselves. In the last two centuries, the evolution of 'disciplines' has been the means whereby the nuts and bolts of reality have been analysed and understood. They are still powerful drivers of new knowledge.

• The “outcomes” do not contain this knowledge, and cannot alone be used to develop a curriculum.
  There must be an interplay between discipline-based knowledge and desired outcomes if a coherent
  and effective curriculum is to be developed. The current curriculum matrix confuses outcomes, with syllabus and recommendations for teaching method.  Within modern educational thinking, all these are important, but not interchangeable.

•  Cross-disciplinary understanding will lack rigour and utility if it is not part of a structure in which the disciplines are columns, with cross-disciplinary work, best developed through issues and applications, as the lintels. Without the columns, the lintels fall.

• The statements of experiences and outcomes contain hardly any mentionof fundamental concepts, laws and methods. Where will the bedrock of understanding come from whereby the next generation of scientists or even of scientifically aware lay-persons will be developed?

"Competence requires deep foundations of experiment- or experience-based knowledge within a logical conceptual framework. In mathematics, the “outcomes” are all about consequences of mathematical learning, not about learning mathematics.
"Numeracy, is not defined in the document, nor how its content will be determined. In science, the outcomes emphasise applications, ethics and the philosophy of science at the expense of fundamental principles. How and where will science be learned? 
Many of us have been deeply involved in and strongly support efforts to create the greater cross-disciplinary understanding that the modern world needs. In achieving these aims, it is crucial to encourage and create teaching opportunities that break down the barriers that frequently exist between traditional subjects and their teachers.

We applaud the Curriculum for Excellence in its aspiration to do this. However, we are also aware of the dangers of casting off the disciplinary frame on the assumption that an entirely cross-disciplinary structure of understanding exists that can readily form the framework for learning.

Many powerful cross-disciplinary syntheses have been forged from deep disciplinary awareness, between, for example, mathematics and computing or psychology and genetics. In a similar way, psychological research suggests that coherent disciplinary frameworks support the learning process and can also be creatively articulated as pillars of cross-disciplinary understanding.
 
 Developing and implementing a curriculum
It is intended that trials of the draft experiences and outcomes will be run by Learning and Teaching Scotland in collaboration with schools and education authorities. For the reasons given above, we are highly sceptical that the experiences and outcomes could be productively absorbed into the curriculum, as appears to be intended,
without a major conceptual effort.

If, however, a new curriculum is to be produced, the current documents provide an inadequate framework for doing so. Very substantial further work will be required if the outcomes are to be made compatible with the structure of knowledge as it exists or is likely to develop, and if the deliberations of the separate teams that have been working on 3-15 outcomes and the new 15-18 structures are to be brought together.

It would also be helpful to know, for example, what examination questions would look like at level 4 and above, not because a curriculum should be driven by assessment, but because well-designed examination questions make precise the necessarily general statements of intent in a curriculum policy.

 If major curriculum development is required of local authorities or schools, it would be a major, resource-intensive task, involve excessive duplication and have the potential for a confused and confusing curricular structure across Scotland.
 
The Society regards the issues in The role of disciplines to be of fundamental importance in developing a  curriculum, but recognise that the Scottish Government is unlikely to want to restructure the process in its entirety.
 
A way forward from an unsatisfactory position might therefore be to re-engineer the process by developing two strands of activity.

• First would be to exemplify how outcomes could translate into real learning tasks. 

• Second would be for a team of teachers and other educators to create documents  that offer guidance to teachers on logical conceptual frameworks that could link  outcomes to a stronger learning journey.

 
There is a real need for transparent national leadership in the exercise. Curriculum for  Excellence suggests a greater extension of school autonomy, with a move towards a more flexible system in which schools and teachers have significant input into the direction of learning, which we welcome.

However, we have grave concerns that, if not properly worked through, it could lead to different agendas being set in schools throughout Scotland. There is a pressing need for continuity in the curriculum and a common experience for all users. The development of common understandings of the structure and details of a curriculum is not the same as centralisation of control of the curriculum.

 A consensus could be reached by teachers of each specific subject, consulting with disciplinary experts from other sectors such as universities, research institutes and business. Government and its agencies, however, do have a role in encouraging the development of these common aims.
 
 Implications for the teaching profession
The OECD Review1 noted the high degree of dedication and proficiency of professionals in the Scottish school education system. Teachers are a key priority for a successful education system. Teaching effectively requires the prior deep knowledge of a discipline, of the skills associated with it, of the characteristic pedagogy of the discipline and of the cognate areas of knowledge that are typically introduced at each stage of learning.

However, current debates about schooling appear to dismiss such expertise as no longer particularly important, allegedly generic teaching skills being given far greater prominence. Indeed, the current proposals appear to devalue expertise (the proposals for science for example would potentially give as much opportunity for “creation science” as for natural science). 
 
 The aim that “all science staff look for opportunities to develop and reinforce science knowledge and skills within their teaching activities and work with their colleagues in other subjects to plan inter-disciplinary studies and a coherent approach to the development of literacy and numeracy skills, and to themes such as citizenship or enterprise” is encouraging, but will require an unprecedented cultural change in the teaching profession. This challenge will not be met without a major injection of support and resource.

 Although the curriculum is important, an excellent cohort of teachers is arguably more important. It is vital  that the current process of curriculum development neither alienates teachers because of their distance from the process (and after all, they are the experts), nor imposes an oppressive burden of implementation on them.

The Society would argue that an equally important current priority should be to review implementation of the McCrone proposals, which, had they been implemented fully, could have had a major impact on Scottish education.

If a common understanding of each curricular area is to be developed by teachers  themselves, then a great deal more time and resource must be given for the  continuing professional development of teachers in their areas of disciplinary  expertise and in fostering of interdisciplinary working. This renewal and  enhancement of subject skills for teachers should have equal prominence with the welcome new opportunities which have been provided for the development of pedagogical and management skills."

The Royal Society findings, writes The Herald is the latest in a string of concerns voiced by key players in Scottish education. Teaching unions have long complained that documents published by the curriculum body Learning and Teaching Scotland, which outline what pupils should know at key stages of their school career, are vague. In 2005, history teachers voiced concerns individual subjects could be under threat because of plans to teach in a cross-disciplinary way. And last year, Matthew MacIver, chief executive of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, said the review was at risk of undermining key subjects and, therefore, the "underlying rationale and logical framework" of education.

Is anyone out there listening?

Sources: http://www.theherald.co.uk
http://www.rse.org.uk/