HC Deb 20 December 1988 vol 144 cc266-7
2. Mr. Macdonald

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the case for a full science programme in the national curriculum.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker)

The National Curriculum Council has recommended that the majority of science pupils in years four and five in secondary school should work to a double GCSE award taking up about 20 per cent. of curriculum time, but that a choice of taking one GCSE award should be available to some taking up about 12.5 per cent. of time. I have accepted that recommendation, and this is reflected in the draft orders which I published yesterday.

Mr. Macdonald

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's failure to insist on a 20 per cent. science element in the national curriculum mean that the original idea for a broad national curriculum is now dead and that the curriculum will do nothing to increase the number of girls studying science at A-level, nothing to increase the number of graduates studying science at university and nothing to diminish the ignorance in society about science, which does such great harm to our economy?

Mr. Baker

The double award science will cover 17 attainment targets and the single award, which is very demanding, will cover 10. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the system will be broad and balanced. I was a little puzzled that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question, coming as he does from Scotland—[MON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because the Scottish system is the kind that the national curriculum is about to recommend.

Mr. Foulkes

Try learning science in Gaelic.

Mr. Baker

Even those pupils in Scotland who try to learn in Gaelic, or whatever language, can spend varying amounts of time on science—from 10 per cent. up to 30 per cent.—and I shall introduce that flexibility into the English education system.

Mr. Forman

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initial reply, but will he take account of the fact that many Conservative Members would like to see the fullest possible contribution of science to the national curriculum? If the potential shortage of teachers could be a difficulty in that regard, will he consider carefully the possibility of bringing people of mature years from the private sector later in their careers?

Mr. Baker

I assure my hon. Friend that I, too, want to see much more science studied at school and this proposal represents a big improvement. About one third of our young people at school give up science at the age of 14, but under the national curriculum every boy and girl, particularly girls, will have to take it up to the age of 16, along with technology. That is an enormous step forward.

I want to encourage more people to come into the teaching profession who have had other careers, particularly in business and I have proposals, on which we are consulting, to ease their entry into the teaching profession. Such people have a lot to offer.

Mr. Straw

The Secretary of State must be aware that by rejecting the recommendations of his own science working party he has produced a downgraded two-tier science curriculum that virtually no one in education wants and which will hit the education of a great many people, especially that of girls. Why does he not accept and admit that he has taken this step because of the alarming, and increasing, shortage of science teachers reflected in a 15 per cent. drop in entrants to chemistry teaching? Does he not realise that people outside are also deeply concerned about his proposals, and that Mr. Denis Filer, director general of the Engineering Council has said that his council believes that the narrower syllabus will be insufficient to deliver an adequate balanced science programme to all young people?

Mr. Baker

The proposals before the House in the draft orders represent a tremendous and significant improvement in science in schools. It did not meet with all that much support when we debated the matter in the Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill, but I leave that aside. In addition to science, all children up to the age of 16 will now have to take technology. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not rejected the proposals of the National Curriculum Council—a body which, by statute, advises me. The council advised me to do this and I have accepted its advice. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that one third of the schools which made representations said that they wanted that flexibility—the very flexibility that I was pressed to introduce into the curriculum by the Opposition in Committee.