PARTICIPACIÓN DE LOS SECTORES SOCIAL Y PRIVADO

Between 1977 and 1982 – when the ‘Red Books’ were being compiled and published – a series of discussion documents were produced by HMI. These ‘Matters for Discussion’ had two that related to science education. A general document, A view of the Curriculum

(HMI, 1980a) and one that addressed Girls in Science (HMI, 1980b), a problem noted in Callaghan’s Ruskin Speech.

In Discussion Matters booklet number 11, the issue of ‘The Curriculum’ was addressed. It noted a tension between common and individual needs when it comes to planning a core or common curriculum:

'The curriculum' has to satisfy two seemingly contrary requirements. On the one hand it has to reflect the broad aims of education which hold good for all children, whatever their capacities and whatever schools they attend. On the other hand it has to allow for differences in the abilities and other characteristics of children, even of the same age. Within the broadly defined common curriculum individual curricular programmes have to be built up year by year as children progress through school. (HMI, 1980a, p.1)

The booklet warned about the limitations of the curriculum that could be on offer to all children, something Huxley stated in 1899, as noted in Chapter 2:

Children cannot be forearmed with everything they may need to know or be able to do as adults, even if they were all ready to receive it. There must always be some selection. There are limits of resources, both generally and in individual schools. Some desirable developments, for example, depend on the availability of specialist teachers still in short supply, or as in the recent history of science, modern languages or technology, on the capacity of existing teachers to exercise new or different skills. (HMI, 1980a p.5)

There is a clear ideological steer here. The curriculum had to satisfy the idea of equality in education; it must be accessible to all. There is also a clear problem with the supply of specialist teachers and, in addition, limits to the general resources made available for subjects. In primary science, it was noted there was too little observational and experimental work done prior to children moving to the secondary school. The booklet ended with a series of propositions. Proposition 8 concerned the provision of science and it is suggested here that:

In any future development of the curriculum, to those elements already widely held in common - English, mathematics, religious education, physical education - should certainly be added some continued form of science education for all pupils. Whether or not it is presented under the traditional separate science subjects - and the individual school will have to decide on this in light of its circumstances - it should be of a sufficiently broad kind to familiarise all pupils, at levels within their understanding, with important concepts and knowledge which may both stimulate their minds and their imagination and equip them better for their future responsibilities as citizens. School science is one of a group of subjects, including mathematics and craft design and technology, which clearly have an important part to play in developing understanding and appreciation of technology. Engagement with the processes of science should

also be helping to strengthen general powers of observation and reasoning. (HMI, 1980a, p.16)

The important points to note in this proposition are that science should be a core subject for all and that it should be broad (whether as a general subject, or as separate subjects). Crucially, as noted in the quoted extract above, it should be helping to ‘strengthen

general powers of observation and reasoning’. This is part of the ‘processes’ of science

and, as such, it links aspects of the NoS with the skills of science. This was a subtle shift towards the ‘thinking’ aspects of science with a reference to ‘reasoning’.

The HMI booklet dealing with Girls and Science (HMI, 1980b) began with a snapshot statistic of the average number of science subjects taken by girls vs boys: 0.82 v 1.28. The report resulted from a specific investigation of the issue of ‘girls in science’ that centred on 15 schools, deliberately chosen to cover as wide a range of geographical and social catchment areas as possible. The conclusions from this investigation (HMI, 1980b, p.29) were that:

the reasons for girls' choice of science subjects (or avoidance of them) at school are complex. The low uptake of the physical sciences in school is a long- standing problem not amenable to ready solutions.

In addition, they noted that the teaching of combined science in the first two years of secondary school with an undifferentiated curriculum for boys and girls helped increase confidence with the girls, but by the third year (currently year 9):

Girls were particularly affected by the premature introduction of abstract concepts and excessively mathematical approaches based on too little practical experience, often as a consequence of an undue emphasis on examination objectives.

In the fourth and fifth years (current years 10 and 11), the report also noted that: Frequently the first term of the fourth-year course was too abstract, theoretical and mathematical, and pupils failed to see the purpose of their studies. The difficulties of the subject then dominated pupils' thoughts and their lack of confidence was apparent to third-year girls about to consider subject choices.

There is a contradiction here. On the one hand, HMI reported that abstract thinking is an issue that could be putting off girls choosing science, yet its curriculum document is advocating a curriculum designed to provide more reasoning skills in science, an abstract concept. There were assumptions made about girls and their capacity to engage in certain key skills such as abstract reasoning. This must be seen within the context of the

time and the stereotyping of girls and science that prevailed right up to the 1980s and beyond.