Guest post from retired primary school teacher, Joe White.

From September 2019, schools will no longer be judged based just on results of statutory assessments but rather on the quality of their curriculum. This means that a school which has an excellent curriculum but ‘less than perfect’ exam results, could be judged as ‘outstanding’. Conversely, schools with excellent maths and English results but a narrow, restrictive curriculum could be in danger of a low category grading.

Ofsted considers that schools have been teaching to the maths and English tests. Their evidence suggests that schools have narrowed their curriculums in order to prepare children for their SATs. In primary schools, this is particularly the case in Year 6 and Year 2 where children focus almost exclusively on maths and English as part of their preparation for the end of year tests.

So, we want a curriculum that is balanced because it’s a good experience for children, yet we monitor schools based only on the outcomes of tests, which are a very narrow part of the pupils’ anticipated experience?

Are headteachers now going to be rubbing their hands in glee because Ofsted will be more considerate about test results?

Somehow, I don’t think so.

It’s very easy to detect children who have had little experience of the science curriculum. I recently had the experience of marking approximately 750 papers of Year 7 children based upon the Year 6 objectives they had just completed.

Based upon children’s formal and sometimes informal (and genuinely quite funny) responses to the Year 6 tests, it would take an Ofsted Inspector a very short time in discussion with the Year 6 child to determine that the child had either a good experience or no experience of the year group objectives.

That is because the science subject area has vocabulary which is very specific to the teaching of the objectives that the children will either understand or not.

Let me provide a possible conversation scenario:

Oftsed Inspector:

“A child is an excellent swimmer. Is this something which is inherited or acquired?”

Year 6 child adopts puzzled look and stares at shoes.

Ofsted Inspector:

“A slug is a vertebrate. True or false?”

Year 6 Child:

(seizing the opportunity to use the 50/50 chance guessing method) “True!”

So, headteachers and science subject leaders have a problem. From September 2019, children will be asked about their experiences in school. Irrespective of whether pupils want to be as loyal and helpful to the school as they can, their lack of experience in the subject – an experience that they are entitled to – will instantly demonstrate that this school is focusing only on the maths and English tests.

So why on earth are schools focusing on the tests? Surely, we all know that pupils will truly benefit through their life from the wealth of experiences they could get with an excellent, broad and balanced curriculum?

It’s not too difficult to work out is it? If you want children to have a great wealth of experience, judge schools on the wealth of experiences they receive; value and cherish those experiences and share the importance with the wider community so that children and parents also rate these factors.

If you wish to judge the quality of the whole house, don’t make schools and their staff social pariahs based purely upon the standard of the kitchen when the living room, bedrooms and bathrooms are truly wonderful.

For far too long Ofsted’s view of education has been synonymous with only literacy and numeracy. All that matters, it would seem, is that standards in language and mathematics should be the highest possible. The judgement has already been made before the Ofsted Inspector has pulled up in the reserved spot in the car park.

Very, it appears.

In February 2019, following detailed research in 14 schools they published a stinging paper on the state of contemporary science teaching: “Intention and substance: further findings on primary school science from phase 3 of Ofsted’s curriculum research.”

They went on to explain:

“Our phase 3 curriculum research found differences in curriculum quality between subjects, particularly in primary schools. Inspectors found that science and most of the foundation subjects often had weaknesses in the curriculum design that were not present in English and mathematics. Because science is a core subject within the national curriculum, this is a particular worry. For that reason, we would like to provide some further detail on the science findings from the phase 3 research. These findings build on similar concerns that we identified in 2016.”

Numerous reasons were provided for the shocking state of science teaching including a lack of coherence, poor teacher subject knowledge and the inability to plan effectively for the subject.

It concludes:

“It shows that inspectors found the provision for English and mathematics to be much stronger than for science.”

Not especially groundbreaking or surprising – but now based on good research and formally noted.

And perhaps the most acerbic line of all:

“In fact, a few headteachers were shocked to find during the research fieldwork just how limited their science curriculum really was.”

Of the 14 schools selected at random for the project, only one school was carrying out something close to an acceptable science curriculum. Based on that random check, only 7 per cent of schools are delivering an acceptable science curriculum. Or put another way, 93 per cent of schools are not delivering an acceptable science curriculum.

For decades, we have boasted a National Curriculum that is ‘broad and balanced’ and spent countless millions of pounds checking on…about a sixth of it…disregarding the significance and importance of enriching experiences which will spark curiosity and interest, and in turn motivate pupils to become lifelong learners.

As a nation, our future depends upon children who have learnt about creative arts, geography and history. It will depend on people who have learnt the importance of tolerance, respect and mutual appreciation. Our nation’s wealth depends upon us producing adults skilled and equipped in science to ensure we can be world leaders in an increasingly technical, digital world. An absence of science teaching, in short, is a threat to our nation’s future economy

When we ditched the Science National Curriculum tests for all Year 6 children in 2009, research determined that standards dropped significantly in the subject after this – and still we did nothing.

In 2014, some years after science had been dropped from the SATs, randomly selected schools still carried out formal science tests as part of a government study. The Standards and Testing Agency confirmed that pupils achieving Level 4 Science had dropped from 84% in 2012 to 63% in 2014. At the same time, Level 5 performance went from 36% in 2012 to 11% at the time of publication. Shocking? Yes. Surprising? Not at all.

The approach to September 2019 is going to be, yet another, huge challenge for headteachers, science/foundation subject leaders and classroom practitioners because we are suddenly moving from scrutiny which is fully zoomed in at narrow disciplines to a distinctly wide angled view of our schools. Patently, this is a good thing – especially in Year 2 and Year 6 where, apparently, tests have previously been all that mattered.

Hopefully, following this realignment, children will be able to explain confidently, that whilst an offspring’s hair colour is determined by the hair colour of the parents and is hereditary, swimming ability is something which a human has developed and learned and is therefore acquired.  And a slug is most certainly not a vertebrate because, among other reasons, it hasn’t got a spine.

It is unquestionably the moment to book in your science curriculum for a full health check, prescribe any necessary treatment and adjust the way we teach it so that it flourishes for many years to come.

Joe White is a retired primary school teacher with 31 years of experience and a specialism in physics. For 20 of these years, he was headteacher of two schools in the North West of England.