This Ofsted report evaluates the common strengths and weaknesses of science in the schools inspected and considers the challenges that science faces.
Schools in England perform well above global averages in international comparison tests in science, and Science is a core subject of the national curriculum. It is an important part of what all pupils in England’s schools should learn, whether they go to academies, free schools or maintained schools.
Science subjects are a popular choice at A level, although female students are more likely to take A-level biology and male students are more likely to take A-level physics.
Overall, this report identifies some significant strengths in school science education and recommends ways that school and subject leaders can ensure that all pupils leave school with an authentic understanding of science, as both a tradition of enquiry and a set of connected but distinct ideas that explain the world we live in.
Main Findings:
- Most pupils, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), studied a science curriculum that was at least as ambitious as the national curriculum. These curriculums were mainly focused on developing, over time, pupils’ knowledge of substantive concepts such as ‘habitat’, ‘force’ and ‘material’.
- Where science was strong, pupils had learned detailed and connected knowledge of the curriculum, and remembered what they had learned previously. In a significant minority of schools, pupils were not developing secure knowledge of science. Often, in these schools, the focus was on covering the content, rather than ensuring it was learned, or completing practical activities.
- There were a small minority of primary schools where pupils went for entire half terms without learning science. This is a concern because science is a core subject of the national curriculum, and pupils benefit from regular opportunities to revisit and build on their knowledge so that it is not forgotten.
- Some pupils came out of lockdown with significant gaps in their scientific knowledge, and COVID-19 prevented primary and secondary colleagues from working together to support pupils’ transition.
- Leaders’ plans to develop pupils’ disciplinary knowledge were usually much less developed than their plans to develop pupils’ substantive knowledge. In general, not enough consideration was given to identifying the disciplinary knowledge, including concepts, that are needed to work scientifically. This limited how effectively leaders could plan a curriculum for pupils to get better at working scientifically over time. Too often, the focus was simply on identifying practical activities for pupils to complete.
- There were large differences in the amount of practical work taking place in schools. For example, pupils in primary school were much more likely to take part in hands-on practical activities than pupils in secondary school. In all schools that we visited, teachers rarely used demonstrations.
- Across primary and secondary schools, some pupils did not have sufficient opportunities to practise and consolidate what they learned before moving on to new content. This meant they did not remember key content taught previously. In some schools, there was an over-reliance on pupils catching up when the content was repeated later in the curriculum, rather than ensuring it was learned first time. Often this happened when teachers were expected to teach too much content in a short time. This was more common in secondary schools.
- verall, most leaders saw their school science curriculum as a description of what pupils needed to know and do. They had planned the curriculum carefully so that pupils studied content in a logical order. However, leaders generally did not see the curriculum as something that could make learning science easier. For example, very few leaders had planned their science curriculum to take account of what pupils learned in mathematics, and rarely did science curriculums help pupils to avoid misconceptions.
- In some schools, leaders planned the science curriculum to build on what pupils had learned in the previous phase of education. However, in some secondary schools it was incorrectly assumed that pupils learned little science in primary school. This led to some content being unnecessarily repeated in Year 7 and beyond.
- Children were generally introduced to a range of interesting phenomena in Reception. However, in some primary schools, the knowledge of the natural world that children were expected to learn in Reception was not clear enough. Often this was when curriculums simply identified general topic areas or activities for children to complete. This limited how effectively children were prepared for learning science in Year 1.
- Teachers generally had secure subject knowledge. Clear explanations from teachers, alongside carefully selected teaching activities, supported the learning of specific content and played a key role in helping pupils to learn science. Teachers who had strong subject knowledge were able to bring into the lesson wider knowledge from across the science curriculum. This helped pupils to make connections between scientific concepts.
- However, teachers rarely drew on evidence-based, subject-specific approaches when teaching science. Very few schools had a clear plan of how teachers’ knowledge of science, and how to teach it, was developed over time through continuing professional development (CPD).
- During the pandemic, many teachers were not able to take part in subject-specific CPD. However, not all schools have returned to their previous commitment of ensuring that CPD is closely aligned to the curriculum. When teachers had recently attended CPD courses, these were primarily around developing their knowledge of physics (if they were non-specialists in this discipline) or practical work.
- In most schools, subject leaders played a crucial role in developing school science curriculums and supporting teachers to teach them. However, not all subject leaders had access to dedicated leadership time and subject leadership training. This is a concern, given their central role in ensuring good-quality teaching in their subject.
- During the period when we were gathering evidence, schools were facing many challenges because of COVID-19. Despite these challenges, many subject leaders were improving and developing their school’s science curriculum. Sometimes, this was because leaders wanted to address gaps in pupils’ knowledge that were caused by science being taught remotely during the pandemic.
- In some schools, assessment as learning was sometimes taking place at the expense of assessment for learning. Some pupils were asked to recall knowledge that they had not successfully learned first time around.
- Generally, assessment in science did not check whether pupils had remembered what they had learned in previous years. This was a particular concern in some primary schools, where generalised judgements at the end of a piece of learning were being made against age-related expectations, but what these grades represented in relation to the curriculum was not clear.
- In some schools, there was not enough focus on checking whether pupils had learned the disciplinary knowledge that is needed to work scientifically. These schools only focused on checking that pupils had learned substantive knowledge. This was more common in primary schools.
Enjoy unlimited digital access to Teaching Times.