---

Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I do not think that there is much difference between my noble friend and me on that. What I say from my study of this subject is that for many pupils the academic study of three separate sciences would be difficult. The Nuffield Foundation writes: "““Alongside our scientific literacy GCSE we are offering two versions of additional science to prepare for more advanced study. One is more academic—the other more applied and work related. The applied science GCSE has turned out to be very successful in many schools—including schools in ‘deprived’ areas. In London there are a lot of schools in Hackney, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets that have adopted the programme. Haggerston School in Hackney was a particularly successful pilot school.""A very important point is that by offering a separate, academic science GCSE we have been able to make it more conceptually coherent and intellectually challenging"—" I stress the words ““intellectually challenging””— "““than the National Curriculum that has just been replaced.""Within the programme””—" and this is where perhaps my noble friend has not fully understood the nature of the new syllabus— "““biology, chemistry and physics are presented distinctly and the option of taking three separate science GCSEs is available””." Who can quarrel with that? It seems an immensely sensible approach. My noble friend shakes her head. You cannot teach the rigours of the separate sciences unless pupils are motivated to take them and understand how they will fit into their lives. That is the principal benefit of this new syllabus and it relates to why so many of us have shared concerns about the reduction in the number of pupils taking science A-levels and those going to university, and the decline in the number of university courses available. We have all been concerned about this and, as we pointed out in the Science and Society report, the disenchantment starts in the schools because the syllabus has not encouraged children to understand the nature of science. The new syllabus does that and it should be roundly supported. I do not disagree with my noble friend’s second amendment, Amendment No. 96, which seems to express it perfectly. It states: "““a pupil in the fourth key stage who attained at least level six in assessments in science for the purposes of the National Curriculum at the end of the third key stage shall be entitled to follow a course of study in science which leads to separate qualifications in the three sciences””." That sounds very sensible. We certainly need the rigour—the hard graft—necessary in physics, chemistry and biology if we are to create the next generation of scientists to take over from those who are currently carrying the load. That syllabus has a great deal to commend it. I was grateful for the support of the Minister and from all parts of the House this afternoon at Question Time, because this is a notable advance. If I may say so, it is not presented in a way more suitable for the pub than the classroom. Unfortunately, that was a sound bite that the press found themselves totally unable to resist, so it was repeated in a great many newspapers and other media sources, but it is not true. The new syllabus simply would not have the support of so many eminent scientists and scientific bodies if that were all it was. It is much better than that and it deserves our support.