I've been paying a small amount of attention to the new national curriculum feeling I should be paying a lot more attention. There is nothing more important than schooling. It determines to some extent how bright and sensible a population is. School is the last time we are forced to have a broad understanding of the world. After that it is all specialisation, at least in educational institutions.

What I have seen appals me. I'm not sure when we were introduced to the periodic table when I was at school, but I think it was grade eight. Certainly no later than grade nine. Yet the new curriculum mandates it only for year 10.

This seems symptomatic of a degeneration in the curriculum which is also present in the fact that it has three streams - "knowledge, inquiry skills and science in society". I have no problems with the first two, assuming that "inquiry skills" is about experimentation, but the last does not belong in a science class.

There is so much to know, and precious little time to acquire the skills and the knowledge without putting some pop-sociology into the course. I do remember our science books having some interesting vignettes in boxes on the pages of our text books about the various discoverers of particular facts and principles, but that is what you read if you finished your problems early. They certainly weren't taught.

The thought that to get a good mark in physics, you might have to regurgitate some of those vignettes, makes me wonder what the point of a national curriculum is at all. In science you should be rewarded for being good at science, not the sociology of science.

Good post Graham

Professor Rice (executive director, Australian Council of Science Deans) also said:

"significant problems with curriculum reform would continue until state authorities supported teachers to take their own learning as seriously as that of their students."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-deans-have-doubts/story-e6frg6nf-1225836706893

Your motivation for starting this thread is fine, but for a long time now, we have been getting 'dregs' into tertiary science (not all mind you, there are some very bright students coming through as well, the ones with a real passion and fire in their belly). However, just look at the UAI for many science faculties - that should really be sounding the alarm bells, but it hasn't - why not?

It's as if nobody wants to do science anymore, and that is a very real question. Notwithstanding the political undertones your thread presents, maybe it can be broadened to answering this fundamental question.

Political scientists need not answer :)

By the way, there's more to science than equations and experiments - and there is enough time to read some of those 'vignettes' - if the student could get away from all the other 'pressures' overtaking their lives. Methinks you are going to raise a hornets nest.

Do you know what the 'science in society' component is?

Sociologists, please join the fray.

ps: While not in the syllabus, we learned the periodic table in grade 5, we had a fantastic teacher!

If the science in society component covers, even briefly, the importance and relevance of science to society it may assist with putting into context all those lessons about the basics of science. ie. why it is necessary to know about the periodic table or species classification etal.

My recollection of the periodic table being taught was in Year 10 at a public high school in SA.

There is some time for those 'extras' at school and the wider choice may help some students remain in school. The problem, as someone who once helped in recruiting and training young school leavers, is the literacy and numeracy standards (mostly literacy), have continued to decline. There certainly is a case for a return to the basics in literacy (while still allowing for creative writing).

However, I wouldn't go so far as to say the proposal is appalling or a disgrace unless there is evidence that the basics were being sacrificed for the sociological component of the curriculum.

The ideal would be enough time allocated to the basics of science and available time allocated to expanding on the relevance of science.

Pelican, Pelican, Pelican, where is all this spare time to come from to teach the students? Teachers will tell you that nowadays they are expected to teach kids all sorts of things that parents would have been expected to teach a generation ago.

I don't think you need to put things into a social context to make them interesting. They are interesting in their own right. I don't think any amount of contextualisation would have made calculus more interesting. Perhaps a little more instruction in what it was useful for might have been good, but knowing about the competition between Leibnitz and Newton had little bearing on my interest in cracking the harder questions.

If you want to do sociology you study it. If you want to do science you study it. Mixing sociology with science to keep people interested doesn't turn out more scientists, just a few more sociologists who have a vague understanding of what is involved in chemistry or physics, while potentially penalising the marks of those who are good at the equations and concepts, but couldn't give a toss about the context. Yet the latter are the real scientists.

Yes qanda the enter scores for science at uni are a disgrace. An OP of 17 would get you into Queensland Uni. Yet we're supposed to genuflect to these individuals on matters of science because three years later they come out with a degree! The really smart people generally don't do science, unfortunately, which explains a lot about the debate on a lot of issues.

Graham Y,
You are so right about where is the spare time coming from. However, the school system that we use was developed over 150 years ago and really not designed to turn out scientists - it was designed to give a reasonable knowledge of literacy and numeracy to the bulk of the general population and to instill in them conformity and respect for authority in the new industrialized world - it certainly wasn't designed to light their passions and encourage them to think for themselves. Unfortunately, sitting a child inside a room and sprinkling them with "knowledge" doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to absorb it.
I think that those who excel in a particular interest in any given subject are usually likely to have pursued it outside of school hours where they have the freedom to think for themselves and follow their own leads.
My point is that teaching all children to develop the skills to think for themselves and initiate their own fields of inquiry should be the priority in schooling (after literacy and numeracy). These are the skills that will ignite passions and interests in young people.

Graham

<< Yes qanda the enter scores for science at uni are a disgrace. An OP of 17 would get you into Queensland Uni ... Yet we're supposed to genuflect to these individuals on matters of science because three years later they come out with a degree! >>

I also said, Graham:

"not all mind you, there are some very bright students coming through as well, the ones with a real passion and fire in their belly."

You will find that there ARE some really smart people entering science, who go on to post grad and doctoral work.

If you really think we (society) genuflect to individuals with no real ability in science then you are simply, wrong.

Have you seen, or do you know what, the 'science in society' component is?

Perhaps this

http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Curriculum_-_Science.pdf

is a good starting point?

Graham I agree that teachers are involving themselves in areas once considered the responsibility of parents. And this is a shame.

If you read my post I am not proposing we substitute the basics for the other. In fact I was stressing the importance of the basics but for science some brief coverage of the relevance of science would probably only take a lesson or two would be a good introduction to the science curriculum. Not a whole subject in itself.

It is ironic that schools now offer a greater range of subjects once thought only suitable for tertiary studies such as Psychology, Business studies and Legal studies, while the basics have been neglected.

The basics or foundation are important building blocks in education.

GY

I learned the science maxim that "nothing exists in a vacuum". By that I mean, the problem is far deeper that the attitude, that spawned your pejoratively "loaded" language is prepared to accept. I would commend Poirot's contribution as a start.

IMO it hinges on what society wants an education to achieve and what is possible for the commitment of funds.

I should point out that the day of general polymath scientist no longer exist. The sheer bulk of information today means specialisation is the only feasible way to excel.

e.g. an 8 yo today, has learned more science than our grand parents did in their entire lives.

One also might suggest that This uber specialisation is a part cause of lack of interest in it's self. It limits future advancement i.e. a marine biologist that specialises on Antarctic plankton has limited career options.

Given that many speciality fields exist to day that didn't in our day, on what basis are you concluding that the percentage of students as a proportion of the public , undertaking science in general is decreasing? Could it be that they are spreading out amongst the different fields

On what basis are you concluding that the overall quality of the top students as a % of the population in hard science is decreasing? Ever tried to get a job.

I further question your OP 17 i.e. which degree. My son couldn't get into micro Electronics with an 8 at that uni.

I would also point to attitudes in the wider community. Look around at the views expressed on AGW by unqualified wantonly uninformed contrarians in OLO (excluding you and selected others) and some bush based sites. Hardly conducive to the children of these parents to take on hard science.

Add to that, gone are the days when children experimented in the backyard or at the local creek .What we have now are generations conditioned to be passively entertained/ stimulated with all manner of toys and distraction. Part 2 next post.

Lastly, let me quote from experience. In SA I raised money for the local CSIRO “double helix “ science club, to start up on going electronic and chemistry workshops. (25 places 4 courses each topic, each a school holiday. They were always *always* booked out )
The biggest opposition to the chem workshops came from the professional body because....they felt it was trivialising their topic.
Part 2

BTW Adelaide had the biggest membership of all the states with 2500 active members. The committee and I (all volunteers) organised 20 events per quarter after hours or week ends. Science spectaculars etc.
80% were oversubscribed forcing duplicates.

5 years later I tried to set up the same in DH Queensland they were concerned it was more work for them not interested involving parents in the organisation. 10 children and dads turned up. Go figure?

Graham it isn't as simple as bashing a government that you disagree with politically it is *far* more complex and is apolitical.

My dentist was a research scientist, in both public, then private areas. He went back to school at 31, & became a dentist, as he was sick of being poor.

It's a worry, if they are taking even more out. Ten years ago, when I had to coach my daughter, & a couple of her school mates, I was amazed at how much had gone, since I did maths & physics in school, back in the 50s. I was also surprised at how they had managed to make maths a semi literary subject.

I had to do this coaching, as of the 4 teachers assigned to senior maths, in a very large, [1600 kids], school, only one could actually do the maths involved in Maths C. That teacher was abssent for about 25% of school time. Of the various coaching offered in a large district, not one could handle maths C.

Even the maths coaching school run on saturday, at QUT, could not offer maths C, at that time. With my fumbling efforts, help from a couple of kids, who were so brilliant, they could do it for themselves, [don't you just hate them] & a couple of hours a week, from a physics post grad student we found, we got 5 students through to good OPs.

The OP system is another pet hate of mine, but that's another story.

From this I would say that education departments have given up on trying to get teachers who can do the job.

I think it's true to say the new curriculum is probably written with this in mind, to fit the teachers they have.

Lets hope we can import cheep science people from India, & China, there won't be many from here.

Examinator, you should have had your son try environmental science mate. They let you into those, if you can sigh your own name.

Gee, expecting to get into anything practical like electronics, wow.

Just where are they going to get people to teach that, China?

Conflicting demands have been placed on the
school system, ranging from teaching about
drugs and sex to correcting past social
injustices, and these new functions may well
interfere with the school's traditional tasks.

The quality of teaching is poor in many schools.
The average high school teacher earns less than
the average plumber, and the profession doesn't
attract the most able people. Overall, high
school graduates who intend to go into teaching
score far lower on Test scores than the average
college-bound student.

Fads and frills, that is new and inadequately
tested teaching fads, have disrupted the learning
process in the past. The introduction of the much
vaunted "new math," for example, was followed by a
sharp decline in math skills. The so called "open
classroom" with its various "learning centers,"
easily degenerated into a shambles.

Therefore its no surprise that any trendy,
elective curricula may leave many students short
on fundamentals. Exactly how to reverse this process
is not immediately obvious, for despite decades of
research, educators have achieved no real consensus
on how to improve academic performance - other than
to demand more work from students.

Perhaps if curricula were to be reformed in a
"back to basics" direction - with one national
curriculum for all, and towards a thorough grounding in
essential reading, writing, mathematical and science
skills, as well as improving teacher salaries and
requring teachers to be evaluated through periodic
tests of their skills and knowledge, things may
improve...

All four of us in the family have science qualifications.

BTW I said *micro* electronics ...I know they didn't have that in your day but it's big deal today. It's like electronics only well, more micro.

BTW he has quals in Vcat 2 and computer programing/project management.

No2 son has Quals in drafting (structural, stress, engineering)

No2 daughter is 4/5 of double degrees in science possibly masters.
(smart arse ...definitely her mother's genes, the smart bit are mine of course....boy am I gonna cop it now.

Eldest daughter is a high School teacher (her mother's fault:-) )

Some times your curmudgeonly attitudes are tediously out dated. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Foxy
>>The introduction of the much vaunted "new math," <<
The mathematician Rolf Nevanlinna, liked to tell the following story: In the sixties he was invited to an American family where they had an eight year old daughter. When he asked her what they were learning in maths at school, she replied “empty sets”. And when he wanted to know what were empty sets, she explained “green cows”. This was apparently the only way an eight year old could understand a statement like “the set of green cows is empty”.

I usually agree 99% with what you write; this time it is 120% :-)).

Your right of course Exy, the OP for one of our esteemede SEQ universities environmental science courses last year was actually 16. Much higher, than 17, but still well below the average OP.

Mate, some of us go to school, learn a bit, then live with that, thinking we are very cleaver.

Some of us finish uni, say "is that really all", then go learn 5 times as much, in the real world.

If ever you have the misfortune to deal with the dill E science graduates at Water Resources, even you will agree with me. Some of these silly little girls should stay clear of the water. When you don't know which way is up, you could drown.

I was pretty impressed when those "scientists" at AIMS announced their momentous discovery. You know, about all coral releasing their spore simultaneously, one night. It was only 15 years after a professional reef fisherman, [who left school at 13], had told me all about it.

When I took a heat exchanger we were mass producing to the engineering department at QUT, to have its capacity certified, [it helps when exporting to Japan, to have a Uni letter head in there] they thought their test rig was broken. It had 14 times more heat transfer capacity than anything they had seen.

Yes, that's right, designed by a wheat farmer who left school at 15.

Get out of that uni mate, the real smarts are long gone, or never went there

Foxy, you are dead right, with your back to basics.

Two of my kids started school in a little 3 teacher school in the sticks. We had a very nice, but funny old duck teaching one & two.

She used all the old methods, perhaps because she didn't take to fads, or perhaps because she could not handle them.

It matters not, what matters is that those 2 flew through school, up to the start of senior high, on the grounding she gave them. Little effort was required of us.

The youngest, & smartest one, started in the big smoke, in a trendy school, with young, very bright, & bushy tailed teachers, applying all the latest theory, most diligently.

As it was a few months before we realised she was learning nothing, it took almost 2 years of home schooling, to get her up to where she was handling it, like the other two, & up to speed.

Dear George,

Thanks for your kind words.
They are appreciated.

Dear Hasbeen,

My children went through a similar experience
as yours. Their so called "Modern" male teacher
fell very short of the mark in maths and science.
We ended up having to hire a private tutor with
the end result being that one child caught up,
but the other hates science to this day - although
he's good at maths - thanks to his previous
"Old fashioned" teacher.

A few years ago I went to a conference where I was presenting, and wandered into one of the other sessions. This one was on education and someone presented a table with educational incomes and expenditure per head.

The thing that struck me was that the best outcomes were being gained by some of the lowest spending education systems. These were in countries like Japan, Korea and Singapore where they have larger class sizes than here, and less opulent facilities.

It was impossible to tell from the tables, but I speculated that a couple of things were probably happening. One was that larger classes meant that teaching was more traditional, and I suspect in science and maths that probably works better than some more modern free-form styles. The other thing I suspected was that teachers could be paid more because they were being twice as productive (literally when you have a class of 50 compared to 25).

This is speculation, I've never checked that out, but it fits my prejudices,which are that traditional teaching styles work better than more recent ones; and that if you pay good money you will get better teachers, and the smaller the class size the harder it is to afford higher wages.

Graham,
While agreeing that the traditional style of teaching is more likely to produce better results because of the focus on basic concepts, I think that educational success in Japan, Korea and Singapore may have more to do with the general attitudes and family ethics of these cultures.
A child who learns well in any culture is almost always the recipient of much support and encouragement in their home. They usually have access to materials and information outside of school hours - their parents are more likely to be their educational mentors, even if they are not specifically aware that they have taken on that role. In this situation there develops a reciprocal idea between the parent and child that certain efforts and responsibilities are expected from each party - and this is not lost on the child who carries this attitude to school.
So, while it is in the best interests of society to have the very best quality teachers to mentor our children at school, it is imperative that parents take an equal interest in the education of their children.

A Primary School Principal once told a group of parents that you can have all the knick knacks and electronic gadgetry in the world but if you have an exceptional teacher they can do so much more even with a piece of chalk and a blackboard under a tree.

Curriculum is important but we shouldn't forget the importance of quality teaching staff.

I didn't think the science curriculum looked too bad.

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/static_20100305123951/docs/Science%20curriculum.pdf

Pelican

Many thanks for the link, I thought it worth reproducing the aims of the proposed science curriculum.

<< The aims of the Australian Curriculum: Science are for students to develop:

· an interest in science and a curiosity and willingness to explore, ask questions and speculate about the changing world in which they live

· an ability to investigate questions about the world using scientific inquiry methods, including questioning, planning and conducting experiments and investigations based on ethical principles, collecting and analysing data, evaluating results, and drawing critical, evidence-based conclusions

· an ability to communicate their scientific understandings and findings to a range of audiences, to justify their own ideas on the basis of evidence, and to evaluate and debate scientific arguments and claims whilst respecting alternative viewpoints and beliefs

· an ability to solve problems and make informed, evidence-based decisions about current and future applications of science while taking into account moral, ethical and social implications

· an understanding of historical and cultural aspects of science as well as contemporary science issues and activities and an understanding of the diversity of careers related to science

· a solid foundation in science knowledge and understanding of the biological, physical and earth and space sciences, including being able to select and integrate science understanding in order to explain and predict phenomena, to apply that understanding to new situations and events, and to appreciate the dynamic nature of science knowledge. >>

High aims, yes, a disgrace? No.

To facilitate such goals requires quality teachers, and I agree that a good teacher can do more with simple chalk and board than a poor teacher with the latest technology

Thanks for putting up the science curriculum Peli. Ok, its only a draft but it looks reasonable to me too, even the "science as human endeavour" component.

I think we all recognise that the 'quality' of the teaching staff is a priori. Nevertheless, how do we do that given the 'shallacking' teachers in general, and scientists in particular, have been getting over the last few years?

Obviously, putting the money back into education is a must, but as I alluded to before, there is a more fundamental problem our society must address.

Graham identified cultural differences, I think Poirot explained it well. It is more to do with a culture's expectations rather than their teaching style or class size. We all know about the stresses that various Asian students live with if they don't succeed academically, even here in Australia.

Having a good curriculum is one thing, how to teach it and providing the resources is another - neither will be any good unless we can change our laissez-faire attitude to the importance of education. Indeed, there does seem to be a concerted effort by some to 'dumb-down' the masses - their efforts in anti-intellectualism most pronounced in science, this is a travesty.

Agreed Qunda, however we should also be making savings in some obvious places.

We have a behavioural problem in many highschools. Much of this is caused by having too many kids there who definitely don't want to be there, or are bored stiff.

We increased the leaving age years ago, basically to hide the unimployment problem. Now we are running short of labour, we should reverse it.

When I went to school we had only 15, & 12 kids in each of the senior classes. The kids that were going to be tradesman retail & office staff, & infact most workers were all ready happily working, & earning money. In fact some of them used to sling off at us fools, who still had no money as we were still at school.

My wife used to handle the in school apprenticeship scheme at a large high school, for the P&C. We watched as a trouble maker could be turned into a happy kid, just by being given something as simple as one day a week at work. They earn very little, but it is something that is theirs. With restless boys, they also feel like a man, something they need, & can't get at school, if not academically talented.

At least 50%, & perhaps as high as 70% would be better off going to work. Studding things like media studdies, dance, & many of these make work subjects, just wastes their time, & our money

Hasbeen

Maybe you are right in some cases, however from my experience on school councils and the like, it appears to me that many good students fall through the gaps and become disenchanted or alienated towards education.

It is far too easy for a student to be lost to the system or have a crippling set-back because he/she encountered a bit of a problem that was not picked up or was badly handled. I do not know why the counselling, where available, fails but in so many cases that I became aware of the student could have been rescued quickly had there been young trained adults available to visit them as caring mentors to help them get back in the saddle.

There is a severe lack of counselling resources, however the problem is deeper than that.

All
It seems to me this topic confusing correlation and cause with cause and effect, at the very least.
The judgments are highly dubious at best.

Hasbeen's story about about the 1 girl with a 16OP is as unrepresented as GY's 17OP for a singular strand of a science.
Firstly OP requirements vary from strand to strand and year to year often based on places available. In effect is it based as much on business model supply and demand the institution ability to provide places than actual competence.
The Medical colleges (unions) and Lawyers influence.

I could also cite several "science" and "law “grads who have to drive cabs because there aren't the jobs for them.
Do I also mention other”science based” grads who have had to go overseas for jobs.

It is all very well getting more or better 'science grads' but they need to have gettable jobs.

Also your "dumbing down" crowd still haven't considered where the big money is....it ain't necessarily in 'useful' science day to day careers.

Hasbeen, what is the average year 12 OP?

If we currently have too many under-qualified, unemployable in various areas ,see unemployed rates and mind numbing prejudices, as reflected by some OLOers, how is tightening up the courses going to change anything, where it counts?

Do I mention the availability/ timetabling of specific subjects in local schools are also a limiting factor. My sons ran into that one on several topics. The two local competing HS schools prided themselves on strong well funded music curriculum. But a decent science lab? (personal enmity between the two heads and board members)

Take the local PS Board insisting on Polish as a language.(as it happens there was one qualified teacher in polish , happened to come and was well related in that area)

PS she now teaches German elsewhere pity about the non ethnic Pole graduates.

I'm still waiting for some one to offer me substantial proof, that the percentage per capita of science grads is reducing. Or even the quality on the same basis is slipping.

Hasbeen

<< we should also be making savings in some obvious places >> Of course, but obvious to whom, which ones, who decides, will we (taxpayer) let them?

<< We have a behavioural problem in many high schools. Much of this is caused by having too many kids there who definitely don't want to be there, or are bored stiff. >> That’s true (they could be learning a trade for example) and as I understand, high schools are working collaboratively now with TAFE and industry to address the issues you have raised.

<< When I went to school we had only 15, & 12 kids in each of the senior classes ... >> Times have changed, yeah. The population is disproportionately increasing to the infrastructure and resources provided. Our society (culture if you like) expects all sorts of stuff these days – yet we bitch and gripe when the taxes needed to pay for it goes up, why is that?

<< At least 50%, & perhaps as high as 70% would be better off going to work. Studding things like media studdies, dance, & many of these make work subjects, just wastes their time, & our money >> Possibly, that’s why I would like to see some comments from sociologists, and of course the teachers themselves.

Graham’s thread was focussed (I thought) on the ‘science in society’ component in the ‘new’ curriculum – he was concerned about it, I’m not. However, there is a wider problem that needs addressing, as you have acknowledged. Thanks.

____

Examinator

The number (entering science) is not proportionally dropping, but to get in - yes, the tertiary entry requirement is. You can check this with the UAC's or the individual universities - but that's another topic.

Perhaps I did not male myself quite clear. I did not suggest we throw out kids that want to be at school. I would like to let those who want to get out do so.

I mentioned the in school apprentice scheme, which was a great success. Unfortunately a concurrent work experience scheme was a disaster. EG. A girl, with no chance of of attaining the necessary
PO 1 or 2, being sent to work with the physiotherapy department of the local hospital.

Examinator, the middle rank OP is 12, with 4% of students in each rank.

My idea of savings to be made by letting some kids leave earlier, was with a view to apply those savings in other areas. This particularly in areas of more difficult subjects, where more effort is required both for the kids, & the countries future.

I know the union wouldn't like it, but perhaps we will have to pay higher wages for some subjects, if we are going to get adequate teachers, in both ability, & numbers.

Maximum effort must be applied to kids who want to learn, not wasted on those who don't. When kids who will take on maths C, & physics, we should move heaven & earth to supply teachers who can teach them. It is just these kids who will supply the next generation of teachers.

A friend of ours, a junior maths, & senior biology teacher, quit when told he was to teach senior maths next year. As he said, how could he teach, what he could not do? The kids got a lady from the subcontinent, who could not evenmake change. Those who did not get coaching failed miserably.

He now teaches maths at tech, to young people who find they need it. Most are sorry they didn't work harder at school. He tells us it is a joy to teach, only those who really want to learn.

Teachers were much happier when I was at school. Of course we still had real discipline, & most of the kids wanted to be there.

qanda
I take your point
Perhaps it's me but facts/stats on their own are worthless without the context.
Do you have a web address that confirm the decrease in entry level OP entry level are decreasing? My evidence limited though it is 2 recent and one current student doesn't support this?
Ive tried both sites without joy.
Also where is the evidence that the Science curriculum is solely or primarily the cause?
Having looked at the proposed curriculum, I wonder that it will make a hay seed's difference in upping the quality of school leavers. The issue is far wider and needs a more holistic approach other than changing just a curriculum or few. It's far too superficial.

If I were to criticise the political powers that are it would be to point this out and reiterate if the answer is a simple instant fix
then the question is clearly grossly inadequate.

Speaking from sad experience the biggest problem we faced moving around for business, was clearly the lack of coordination between schools within and between states. Frankly I've seen dogs vomit, that makes more sense. If this irons that out it will be useful and not a total waste of space.

PS I abhor Generalizations other than to point directions. To be turned into total solutions, IMO they invariably fail to meet expectations and create more problems than they solve. Additionally they lend themselves to the dreaded quick fix and short term planing.

Examinator

Try here:

http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/Mono63_MathsSciTechSept08.pdf

A few excerpts:

• Participation in senior secondary school science has declined over the 30-year period from 1976 to 2007. In 1976, 55 per cent of Year 12 students studied biology, 29 per cent studied chemistry and 28 per cent studied physics. In 2007 the corresponding percentages were 25 per cent, 18 per cent and 15 per cent.

• During the 1980s one interpretation of decline in science participation was that science subjects were continuing to attract similar numbers as previously but had not attracted an equivalent share of the expansion of the holding power of Year 12.

• However, since the mid-1990s school retention rates have stabilised and yet science participation has continued to decline.

• Analyses of longitudinal data show that the uptake of science-related studies at university is stronger amongst those who specialise in science studies in the final year of school which in turn is influenced by student’s proficiency in mathematics when they are in middle secondary school.

• It does appear that the roots of science-based study at university lie in what happens in secondary school and possibly at earlier stages of schooling.

• There are substantial variations among the States and Territories in the time allocated to science in the junior secondary years. Across all the jurisdictions very little time is given to science in the primary school years.

• Generating higher levels of participation in science-related studies at university appears to be partly dependent on strengthening science education in school.

• Strengthening school science education can come partly from organisation and curriculum by ensuring that more time is allocated to science in school programs and by enhancing curricula.

And so on ...

I think the current Australian government is trying to do the right thing, should have been done 10 - 20 years ago. In those days other priorities were seen to be more important - to such an extent that education was "dumbed down" - another travesty, imho.

Therefore, I disagree with the author - the proposed science curriculum is NOT a disgrace.

Some good points Graham. I am a primary teacher and I find it frustrating that little attention is paid to science at this end. Primary should be laying down a good understanding of natures systems to build on in secondary. Even a reasonably rigorous course in Nature studies would improve things. Although I believe that the Primary connections series goes someway to addressing the problem - but it has to be used imaginatively.

Time is critical - we are expected to do too much. If teachers do a minute by minute breakdown of the school day the problem is clearly perplexing. While younger children are clearly more exposed to mass media, have ideas etc there does need to be some serious attention paid to formal learning and expectations by curriculum designers. By this I do not mean tests, and more measuring but rather let teachers and learners slow down and do some real work rather than skimming over the tick boxes.

When were you at school Graham? I managed to get through school without ever seeing a periodic table. In fact I have spent a lifetime overcoming my non-government grammar school education of the 1960's early 70s. A time of acute teacher shortages which was a problem. I cannot believe there are people out there who think it was all so much better then!

I think part of the problem is that curriculum is developed by specialists in one area and they forget or are not concerned about the other KLAs or what ever you want to call them. Inquiry skills should be developed across all subjects for example. History of science could be incorporate and taught in history heaven forbid. Ethical and sociological questions could find there place in other areas of students study.

Rarely does the curriculum itself change things. A lot remains to be determined by teachers - that is the responsibility we have - and we need to argue for that.

It occurs to me too that we need to look at the larger social context.

New Age Self help pop everything Mumbo Jumbo denigrates scientific knowledge as the cause of all our social ills. Look at the madness of the catastrophic climate change green religion.

Look at the state of some of the scientists themselves, especially the top ones - on pharm boards, compromising independence themselves by collaborating with governments and politics, questionable peer review called back slapping, Copenhagen and the IPCC ....

we have senior political figures calling for action on the evidence and then in the same breath talk about Australian Saints and miracles

All
GY and others including me(!) have it wrong ,wrong, wrong.

At last some commonsense on the subject has been written here.

http://newmatilda.com/2010/03/03/purple-cravat-view-history

eat with a crisp white possibly a well wooded Chenin Plonk.

Loadeddog, we are contemporaries more or less. I finished high school in 1975 and as far as I remember at least one of our chemistry text books had a periodic table inside the back cover, and there was a periodic table in my Grade 8 or Grade 9 science classroom on a chart.

Can't see how anyone could teach chemistry beyond a very primitive level without the very handy chart which shows you the elements in ascending order of their electrons and their levels.

I know that one of my daughters was at least exposed to the table last year in Grade 10, because we did some homework in which it featured.

I also know that maths education in Queensland at least was superior then to what it is now - see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10058 which has referece to test results.

So I'm not pining for the good old days. I'm making an observation based on omissions from the syllabus which I objectively do not think are good enough.

Those two things are that if they are to introduce the periodic table as late as indicated, then the curriculum is unsatisfactory, and if it is to include marks for undersanding the social context it is also unsatisfactory.

Interesting that in qanda's link to ACER it is the study of Maths that is the best predictor of whether someone will do science, not the study of maths and science in a social context!

Hasbeen,

What savings? you bomb out those children who don't want to be there and what do you do with them force them all to be tradies? Crumbs we have enough dodgy tradies and companies as it is.

Then there's the issue of who is going to employ them?
Have you considered the unemployment payments and the cost of running the useless job ready programs and the even more useless job clubs.

Make them so cheap they become an expendable resource? once their time is up so is their employment. Wanna guess how many times I've seen that?
part1

I remember it happening with Qantas. Wanna guess how many jobs for first year Journeymen there are in that field?

Work experience a disaster for some not all my three got appropriate spots. Mind you I used my contacts. The problem is/was that the school sent children where they could. There aren't enough takers in private industry.

As for the variation on the pay peanut get monkey approach that doesn't stack up not everyone in the world has
- a clear life path at 14/15
- not every smart person want's to teach children regardless of the money.
- if you don't have the stock now it will be 5-6 years before you do

part2
--- What do you do with the older teachers? who's going to employ them?
--- Who is going to train these money motivated smarties?
--- How are you going to determine who of the smarties are ABLE to teach?
i.e. all my children complained about not understanding foreign well qualified lecturers.
Having sat through one lecture to hear for my self, he might be brilliant but of the 7 questions he fielded none were either understood by him or his answers by the students.

After several complaints his teaching duties were changed ...pity about the students who failed. My daughter scraped through and consequently has issues about being offered masters. Despite being being the top in her year. By the way the degree she started with no longer exists as she was the only one left standing. So now the double degree she's doing gives her the maximum use of her credits but isn't really what she wanted to do.

My point there is clearly there is more to the failure than just curriculum.

What does this mean? >" the middle rank OP is 12, *with 4% of students in each rank*."<

Re your ending? When you were at school 2/3 of the things children have to learn didn't exist then. In truth the situation *is not comparable to today's circumstances*

Graham Y you have misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that science in a social context be part of the science curriculum I was suggesting the reasons for the lack of interest in science within the universities.

Popular culture mumbo jumbo new age religion whittles away at the objective and empirical evidence that gives science its credentials. You know 'science is the cause of the problem ... Scientists however do operate in a social context but that is another discussion.

An older friend who went to a catholic school when there were no books (true) and Brisbane did not have a public library ( as we know them today) and education was called Public Instruction (not so long ago) tels me the story of learning the periodic table because it was told through the history of each and why they became necessary. He has never forgotten. So how we learn, and why we learn, and wish to learn such things is important too.

Exay, the OP system, although very poor in operation, is quite simple.

Using the kids in school assessment, & the core skils test, all are rated from top to bottom.

Those in the top 4% are given an OP 1. Those between the top 5, to 8% get an OP 2. If they come between 48, & 52% of those tested, they get a 13 OP. So some with 13 OP are below the average for that year.

Some of your last post is sounding almost as arrogantly condescending as we would expect from Rudd. That makes it pretty stupid, doesn't it?

I don't know how old you think I am, but my youngest is 19, so I was still doing year 12 maths, & physics homework, just 2 years ago. Have they really discovered 2/3 of physics in 2 years, & started teaching it?

I might mention, showing the stupidity of in school assessment, judged mostly on assignments, with the smart younger one, I got excellent marks for my physics asignments, as did my wife for her english, & biology. Between us, & a little work from said smart daughter, we got an OP6. A little lower than the other 2, with their OP 2, & OP4, respectively, but they did more of their own work.

I think I have mentioned that my wife established & ran for 16 years, the P&C school textbook hire scheme, at our local high, with its 1600 kids. This put about $170,000 into the school each year, while saving the parents money. However this meant tens of thousands of books to buy cover & distribute. I have read every text book that was evaluated, or bought, for any subject that my kids were interested in studding.

I was horified to find how far the subjects had been stripped of all the hard bits. There is definately nothing added to what we studded, except in the rubish, non OP stuff.

Continued

Exay, I really don't give a dam what they do with the kids who don't wast to be there. Now we are short of labour, as I mentioned, they will mostly start work, & be happier 2 years earlier. Whats more they won't be taking up resources better applied to those who will gain from them. Child minding of 16 year olds is a really stupid activity.
The ones who count are those who want to, & can proffit by the education. It also matters to the society that these become the best they can.

If it's anything like around here, many of these so called drop outs, will be running their own successful business, often before the more academic ones are out of uni.

Another 2 years at school, & a reputation as a trouble maker doesn't help anyone get a job. A couple of years labouring, doing factory work or as a builders lavbourer will be much more help. It often also helps them to find their feet, & dirrection.

I also have no interest in running old poor teacher schools, to the cost of the kids they are supposed to be there for. Don't forget, a great many of the old ones are still the best. If they are no good, up skill, or retrain & get out. We don't need them to stuff up the lives of kids, while waiting for the pension.

I agree completely, teachers with poor english, or teaching ability should be got rid of. Yes Teachers, of all people, should be sack-able. They, not the kids are dispensable.

I also agree we have more than a little Yes Minister in some of our higher education establishments. You know, great school, if they didn't have to put up with the damn students.

One of the kids who car pools with my youngest was complaining he had been able to contact a maths tutor, since going back this year. The kid needs a little help, but the tutors never answer the phone, are never in the office, & don't respond to messages.

Like many national and international issues of late, in pursuing conciliation between widely differing views, the Australian government is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. Again we see Rudd, Gillard and Co offending both the ‘New Right’, and the ‘Old Left’.

Perhaps those with strong views from either side should get together and make a submission about whether to include the ‘Periodic Table’ in the year 8, 9 or 10 science syllabus - or argue in concert about the irrelevance of Science as a human endeavour. It’s only a draft after all ... you have time.

Personally, I think it more appalling, and even more of a disgrace, that the bigger issues facing our education system are not widely discussed, let alone addressed!

Hasbeen,

So you are younger than your curmudgeonly attitudes suggest, I had you at mid-late 60's, egg on face my bad about the age reasoning.
I figured that your primary/secondary school days were late 50/60 as were mine .
I would point out that there have been significant advances in SCIENCE and consequences of science since then.i.e. Plate tectonics, computers, internet,remote sensing, micro electronics,TVs, microwaves etc. Approximately 60% of the jobs then no longer exist (e.g.I started an apprenticeship as a lithographic Camera operator).

Something in the order 50% of the jobs today didn't exist then. Arguably both some Physics and definitely applications thereof has Changed and continues to change daily. Hence my criticism of you "It's Rubbish!" statements without proof.

My point was clear the amount of *information* children/students today are expected to understand and cope with is several times more than and escalating daily .To suggest this isn't true flys in the face of 40 years of research.

Neither am I interested in running school for failed teachers etc
I was merely pointing out that there would be NO savings (your base logic) all your attitude does is move and increase the cost. *Both* sides of politics are guilty of the same instant answer superficial reasoning.

I stated my position clearly The new curriculum may go part way to solving the 'dog's vomit' problems between schools and states.

I agree with qanda's conclusion the "Proposed science curriculum (isn't) a disgrace" as such. But will do little for the raising of standards. There is simply too many other contributive unaddressed factors involved.

Conclusion: IMO If implemented your solution is a "disgrace" (ill considered, destructive) in that it will cause more pain and cost than it will solve. "Any plan is only as good/bad as the unintended ill consequences" E4

Well, at least one Nobel Prize winner agrees with me http://bit.ly/a9WTRa. Picks up on the "Science as a human endeavour" category.

"WA Nobel Prize laureate Barry Marshall has expressed concerns about the draft national curriculum for science, saying parts of it are vague, not evidence-based and pave the way for non-scientific elements to be taught in classrooms.

Dr Marshall, who in 2005 was awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine with fellow scientist Robin Warren, said the Science as a Human Endeavour category in the course could allow teachers to teach "all kinds of weird things which are not based on scientific evidence".

"I think that is the thin edge of the wedge," he said. "That human endeavour column is what worries me and it needs to be tightly controlled or scrutinised.""

BTW, Examinator, I'd be interested in any sort of vaguely plausible justification you could provide in real hard terms for your assertion that students need to know 300% more now than they used to 40 years ago.

There may have been some advances in quantum mechanics and a few more sub-atomic particles discovered, but that would be about it. Sure some jobs have become redundant, but you don't teach lithography in science, and the principles underlying lithography still rule.

I wonder,

Who are you Hasbeen?

Clear argument (and spelling) is not a strength of yours. For example

I really don't give a dam(n) what they do with the kids who don't wast to be there.

Then you say

The kids are not dispensable.We do not need them teachers to stuff up the lives of kids,

so do you give a damn or not ?

Is this you evidence? One of the kids who car pools with my youngest was complaining the tutors never answer the phone, are never in the office,

Possibly, probably the tutor is a sessional worker on a short-term contract and is somewhere else making a buck – conclusions based on anecdote.

I have read every text book that was evaluated,
And you are who? The text books that you wrote can be purchased where?

I was horrified to find how far the subjects had been stripped of all the hard bits. So what is the name of the book that you wrote with all the hard bits in?

It is just as well that the curriculum writers will not be paying any attention to the federal governments PR exercise of letting everyone comment

GrahamY, If science is not a human endeavour what is it?

qanda, pursuing conciliation between widely differing views, - Is this what they are doing?

The Australian government is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. – Maybe it is just damned! Once again the Federal Government is not writing the curriculum. In reality they are responding to the demands of the peak bodies of the biggest corporations – maybe you need to have a look at them too.

Again we see Rudd, Gillard and Co offending both the ‘New Right’, and the ‘Old Left’. How so? As far as I know neither have any input into the curriculum. Thankfully.

What is your definition of new right and old left?

He’s right Graham, it does need to be tightly controlled.

_______

loadeddog

<< qanda, pursuing conciliation between widely differing views, - Is this what they are doing? >>

In my opinion, yes Peter.

They are trying to respond to many – not just “to the demands of peak bodies of the biggest corporations” as you claim. I am perplexed though, given your experience with the unions, why you should say this.

Loadeddog, I don't think anyone is saying science isn't a human endeavour, just that the study of it as a human endeavour is not a part of science education. It's sociology, or perhaps history.

If sciences like physics and chemistry were social sciences, then this approach might be relevant. In economics, where how economic principles work is interwoven with how people perceive them working, the history of economics is important - it's like a huge action research project. But science doesn't have a perception feedback loop like this - it works, whatever you think of it or believe it to be.

GrahamY

Lithographic photography used to be part of the Printing industry. Broadly speaking, it photographed line drawn artwork or photographs with stipples so that pictures could be printed in different mediums. i.e. 65 dpi for newspapers etc. It and Block engravers,stereo makers, comp machine operator ceased to be trades in the late 60's. Most printing went offset/high tech.

Your point about science changes is a fair one if you were talking about Maths (advanced arithmetic) Base Chemistry and Physics. Perhaps you missed my clarification when I said science and its consequences i.e. Multiple disciplines Both Botany, Biology, Medicine have advanced exponentially in the last 40 years. Many of the new science disciplines impact average peoples lives and need to be imparted as generalities to children, devoid of the ignorances of the past generations.

Where did you get the 300% bit from I simple said 70% of what children learn today wasn't known is say the 60's. Common sense tells you this is science/technology based.

I posit that your focus on Base Maths, Chemistry Physics is some
some what over done.

In the real world, only a small number of people, in their day today existences need to understand them beyond generality. Science careers are a minority of careers.

I would also point out the obvious, the Nobel Laurent expertise was Chemistry/medical not broad mass education.

Like I keep saying, the polymath scientist greats of 18/19 centuries,
is increasingly less possible, because of the sheer amount of information .

I simply object to some people dismissing environmental science as 'rubbish', an average citizen knows more than they do. Any more than my son can be second guessed by a engineer about helicopters.

In Australia there is a culture of anti intellectualism i.e. Common sense trumps expertise. the bush has seen Floods,fire and droughts thus any theory like AGW is 'been there done that' and can't/unwilling to see the differences.

My point is that scientists are essential to a active society but are they are only part of the equation.
The value of this curriculum depends largely what it's objectives are.

Examinator, you said 300%. You didn't use the figure, I did the conversion, but you did say "My point was clear the amount of *information* children/students today are expected to understand and cope with is several times more than and escalating daily ."

"Several" is generally understood as three, but could be more, but can't be less. And three times converts to 300% when expressed as a percentage.

I don't profess to be cognisant with the biology curriculum. It was one of the soft options when I was at school and I avoided it. But I do know enough to say that they don't teach medicine at any pre-tertiary level. And I'd imagine that biology is probably not that much different, except they have made some advances in DNA and genetic modification. I'd be interested in any feedback from anyone who has a knowledge of biology and what was in the text book 40 years ago.

I disagree that people don't have a need to understand chemistry, physics and maths. A better grounding in those and there would be a lot less shonks getting away with things. I disagree that Australians are anti-intellectual. I think we are practical and can sniff out cant, and a lot of what a number of so-called intellectuals try to do is to push a point of view which is cant.

Just because you are a university professor it doesn't mean that you know what you are talking about.

Graham Y

Point taken I should have said significantly etc.
You are taking phases out of context.
NB I said "only a small number of people, in their day today existences *need to understand them beyond generality*. Science careers are a minority of careers."

Beyond generality means to a year 9/10 level not to year 12. Shop assistants, Bus Drivers, office workers, et al (all essential to make society work) don't *need* to know about opposite spin molecules or what Maxwell proved or the valiance of elements, quadratic equations etc other than in the broadest sense. Would it be good if they did in order to help and encourage the next generation, possibly.

However, people are people, some are bright, some not and everything in between.

There are cornucopia of reasons why some children don't choose/complete the hard science. Some of that is the quality of teachers lecturers et al and the nature of universities.

There are also tiresome list of ticket (degree) holders who are fine in confined areas but useless at the creative end or out of their specialty. And that, is well beyond the capacity of an OP or GPA rating to show or a curriculum to fix on its own. If anything,it's the system that is hopelessly flawed.

In short I revert to what I said the value of this Curriculum depends on what realistic goals you set for it.

An improved set curriculum to set a more overall educated community is preferable that one that deals primarily with the three hard sciences. That does NOT mean we neglect them, they are an integral part of humanity.

Examinator

Working towards practical national curriculum is is a huge task but can't it be done. Clearly there will be bumps and hollows along the way but the consultative approach the government is taking should help smooth the way. Graham wants to see a better grounding in maths, physics and science - that would be good and I don't think the proposed curriculum detracts from that goal.

'Dumbing down' in Australia in the last 10 - 20 years (anti-intelectualism maybe, generational issues maybe). Nonetheless, it is a bigger issue than periodic tables as the following would suggest.

http://www.news.com.au/national/group-of-eight-reviews-sum-of-all-fears-maths-is-in-serious-decline/story-e6frfkvr-1225838924327

Check out the linked report for details

http://www.go8.edu.au/storage/go8statements/2010/Go8MathsReview.pdf

Of course I meant:

Working towards a practical national curriculum is is a huge task but can it be done.