GCSE 2006 - prepare for change

There seems almost universal recognition among teachers that the current GCSE diet is an unpalatable one for many students. The Science 1 investigation is seen as formulaic and the content of specifications often turgid and unrelated to everyday contexts. Despite these feelings, many teachers do not want yet more change to the specifications. Add to this the awarding bodies' desire to protect their market share and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's (QCA) aspiration to show that standards do not fall, and it appears there is a huge activation energy barrier to overcome to ensure a successful transition to the new GCSEs in 2006. 

An obstacle course? 

Indeed, we believe there are several obstacles of varying difficulty that have to be tackled if students are to experience the kind of chemistry that may encourage more of them both to study chemistry post-16 and, even more difficult, to go on to degree-level studies in the chemical sciences. 

• Teachers need to choose from the various options (see Educ. Chem., 2005, 42(4), 87) in the light of their own students' needs. However, the new GCSE criteria were approved after considerable delay, and specification approval has also been somewhat delayed. So, teachers are faced with a complex problem to solve without much of the real 'data' being in place. 
• Senior managers and curriculum planners in schools need to be convinced of the necessity for choice and the provision of varying routes for different students. Otherwise they are likely to adopt a 'one size fits all' approach because it is the easiest. 
• Awarding bodies will, no doubt, be promoting their wares as the universal panacea but in doing so may avoid putting unfamiliar material in their support for teachers. Teachers need to be aware of this. 
• Publishers will have support material almost written, despite the fact that this will have been done before a single specification has been approved by QCA, and so will err on the side of the familiar. Teachers may well be left wondering when and where new material will come from.        

What needs to be done? 

We believe that the whole community of teachers, school managers, awarding bodies, subject associations, professional bodies, and regulatory authorities must work together for the benefit of the students. This will allow teachers to make the right choices for their students. At the end of the day, students can only make choices after teachers have decided what to offer. 

This responsibility goes right across the whole spectrum of those involved in the education of our students: the regulatory authorities must ensure that the awarding bodies' specifications reflect both the content and the spirit of the new programme of study; the awarding bodies must produce assessment models that also reflect this; school managers must plan for a varied curriculum, and teachers must deliver lessons that interest and enthuse their students and are appropriate to their needs. 

If these groups do not take on board their responsibility we believe the most significant opportunity for change for many years for students approaching the end of their compulsory science education may not succeed. 

RSC perspective

 As the new GCSEs are bedded down, we at the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) would like to see: 

• all students doing science and, within that, real choice for students; 
• all students who are considering further study doing two appropriate science courses; ? the nature of science taught in modern, everyday contexts;
• coursework that is both challenging and interesting for the students, that differentiates between students, cannot be reduced to a formula, and is done without a safety net (ie no external help);
• examinations that test the ability of students to use scientific knowledge in unfamiliar contexts;
• students who are enthused and confident about what science has to offer and, even if they never want to do science again, can understand that the media presentation of science is open to question.   

So far the RSC has offered help to the awarding bodies to develop their specifications, which has been accepted to various degrees. We have seconded a teacher fellow to develop new curriculum materials to reflect the unfamiliar content of the new programme of study and to refresh some of the old content. We have also worked with the Association for Science Education (ASE), the Royal Society (RS), the Institute of Physics (IoP), and the Institute of Biology (IoB) to develop answers to 'frequently asked questions' on the new specifications and to inform senior managers of the changes. 

The RSC now has to make sure that the teaching materials it provides to support the new specifications are available to schools as soon as possible. Realistically this process cannot be done until we see the approved specifications, which is supposed to be in September 2005. These resources must be in an easy-to-use format which facilitates their inclusion in to schemes of work and which also supports initiatives such as assessment for learning. 

What can chemistry teachers do? They can work with all the science teachers in their school to produce a clear vision of what option is best for their students, and present a clear unified case to managers, governors, parents and students. All this requires work, but you are not alone. The RSC, in conjunction with the ASE, IoB, IoP and RS, will continue to add guidance at the web address. 

Will the changes work? Only time will tell. 

Colin Osborne is education manager, schools and colleges, at the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), and Kay Stephenson is assistant education manager, schools and colleges at the RSC, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BA.