Tag Archives: curriculum

What you thought should follow a two year key stage 3 Science curriculum

Posted on by
Reply

I posted a request for feedback asking people what they thought should follow a two year KS3 course (in my case Wikid Science).

Thank you those people who took the time to respond – I’ve posted a brief summary of the responses below.

  • Only 14% of respondents took three years to complete KS3
  • 57% of people who responded already followed a two year KS3
  • 64% of respondents thought starting KS4 was the better option to follow a two year KS3
  • Of people who thought a skills year was best, most thought fun experiments and applying science were the most important things to include.
  • Project work and KS3-KS4 bridging units were suggested as important for either KS3 or K4 work.
  • One school talked about doing BTEC in Y9, then Diploma or more GCSE in Y10/11
  • Two schools had negative experiences with a two year KS3, one was reverting to a three year KS3

 

So what did I decide to do?

I decided to take the best of both models and take the more skills based parts of the BTEC and spend more time on them, enriching students’ experiences through year 9.  We will then complete physics, chemistry and physics KS4 modules through year 10 to 11.  Students will complete more modules than required for Certificate but no where near enough for Diploma.

Key stage 3 in two years–what then?

Posted on by
Reply

I followed Wikid Science thinking it would be a three year course but it evolved into a 2 year course because many people are starting GCSE in year 9.  I teach in a special school (which ability wise isn’t that far removed from the lower ability end of a mainstream comprehensive) and I’m now in a position where we have year 9 to fill – either with accredited courses or something else.

I’m torn between stretching the BTEC level 1 course over three years (with suitable enrichment and development activities) or writing a skills-based course for year 9 to revisit the skills/content which didn’t get the time they deserved in a two year course. 

With a fluid population my instinct is to keep the BTEC as short as possible (possibly easier to manage coursework since our students have to do everything at school and with support) and go for a skills based year – but I’d be interested to hear what others have to say :)

I’d be grateful if you could complete the brief questionnaire here – it’s anonymous and won’t take more than a few seconds of your time.

 

question1

Science teaching in England–an overview

Posted on by
Reply

crisp1The intention of this post is to give an introduction to the state of science education in England.  I am interested in how science education works in other countries and was hoping that this could be the first in a series of blog posts comparing science education around the world.

(Since devolution of power to regional assemblies Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have slightly different arrangements).

School education in England is divided into 6 phases – starting with Early Years and Foundation stage (0 – 5 years) and finishing with key stage 5 (16 – 19 years).  A summary of the main phases can be found here.  Science starts off with play based investigations and builds into more open ended projects/topics in the primary phase.    Secondary education builds on this and leads to GCSE qualifications at age 16 then A-levels (needed for university) at 18.

 

  Early Years and Foundation stage Key stage 1 Key stage 2 Key stage 3 Key stage 4 Key stage 5
Age 0 – 5 5 – 7 7 – 11 11 – 14 14 – 16

GCSE Exams

 16 – 18

A-level Exams

 

In 1988 we saw the introduction of the National Curriculum.  This gave the minimum curriculum entitlement that every child should receive.  With the prescriptive National Curriculum came a set of assessment criteria divided into ‘National Curriculum levels’ detailing progression in scientific enquiry, biology, chemistry and physics.  This would be used until the end of key stage 3 when examination criteria would be used instead.

 

The National Curriculum for primary education can be found here and secondary education here (these links seem to change on a regular basis)

 

The publication of a scheme of work by the QCA (who created the curriculum) and the introduction of high-stakes testing at the end of each key stage polarised the curriculum and put increasing pressure on teachers to be getting good results.  The original curriculum was very content heavy and teachers struggled to cover all the material.   The National Curriculum has been slimmed down several times, and the levels tinkered with repeatedly but the function of the curriculum remains the same.  The latest revision of the curriculum at key stage 3 (11-14) was intended to remove lots of the mandatory content and move to a more skills based approach, with teachers having more flexibility to teach what they want (together with the abolition of statutory testing).  This mirrors a similar approach taken with the key stage 4 curriculum previously (but in this case the examination boards chose most of the examinable content rather than it being specified in the curriculum so there is still little freedom for the science teacher).

 

More and more secondary schools are choosing to condense key stage 3 into 2 years, and spend an extra year doing examination course (since the exam results are one of the measures used to compile school league tables and judge the effectiveness of schools).  The GCSE exam (taught from 14 – 16) is in the process of being made more rigorous, and course that are perceived to be easy (like the modular multiple choice course) have been discontinued.  There is little content at this level that cannot be taught by any competent science teacher and so many teachers teach across all disciplines of science until A-level where the increased subject depth needs more extensive subject knowledge.

 

The exact content and style of the science GCSE depends on the examination board the school has chosen to accredit the qualification (there are several to choose between).  With much of the content being selected by the exam boards there can be significant variation between them and schools tend to select courses that suit the skills and ethos of the department.  We are also seeing a shift towards vocational science qualifications for students unlikely to follow science past compulsory education.

 

Other issues that affect the quality of science education include deteriorating behaviour (which can limit practical work in lessons), large class sizes, staff absence, number of students with special educational needs, shortage of specialist physics teachers not to mention the constant change and interference from politicians into the teaching in our schools.

 

I would be interested to hear how our system compares with other countries, and answer any questions about the way science is taught in England.

Wikid Science KS3 – my reflections on the new Year 8 units

Posted on by
3

upd8-wikid-logo[1] Having taught almost three of the new format Wikid year 8 units I had to post an update on my progress with Wikid, and my thoughts about the scheme.

In terms of organisation the new year 8 modules are a huge leap forward.  Lessons are organised into folders by lesson which makes a huge amount of difference when it comes to locating resources and lesson plans.  The content of the lessons is much the same, although they aren’t as heavily dependent on the power points to make them work which is a relief because the novelty of showing presentations soon wore off, both with myself and the pupils! The new modules have supporting video from Teachers.tv (anyone can download these from the teachers.tv website) which the Wikid team have skilfully woven into their topics, helping maintain the theme that runs through each.

The structure of the topics and activities makes it easy to add APP criteria to an activity turning it into an APP assessment with the minimum of effort.  Hot off the press is their mapping grid which helps you see which topics relate to which strand of APP, proving the Wikid team are listening to customer requests).

All is not perfect with the Wikid scheme though, and it still requires some work to use it well, and many schools may not feel confident adopting it lock, stock and barrel. 

To improve the scheme I would like to see Wikid:

  • Reduce the content in the scheme and flag lessons as core lessons and lessons that can be skipped
  • Less detail on lesson plans – they take ages to read!
  • Lesson plans in one place (ideally one document) so you can see the progression from lesson to lesson and how they flow together.
  • More AfL linked to APP built into the scheme – and not the absolutely ghastly Apprend scheme they are flogging like a dead horse.
  • More support for SEN and lower achieving pupils.  Many of the activities are too wordy or too complicated and require extensive adaptation.  Not all pupils achieve level 4 – yet this seems to be the starting point for many of the assessment activities.  (And remember that many of these pupils have poor literacy skills – expecting them to write more than a few words is not an option).
  • Fewer resources to photocopy – and in black and white please.  I haven’t seen a school yet that colour photocopies or prints whole class sets of colour worksheets.
  • Promote the Wiki that the whole scheme is named after and encourage participation by ALL teachers who deliver the course.  At the moment the Wiki is difficult to navigate and is further let down by the lack of participation.
  • Remove the Upd8 forums since Wikid staff never bother to reply to questions in there anymore.  If it’s obsolete, take it down!

Would I recommend Wikid to others? Yes.  In fact I’ve had science teachers come from out of county and within county to see it in action.  Wikid science shows enormous potential, and most students are engaged and achieving well on the course.  Of course the scheme isn’t perfect – but show me a scheme that is!