Proposed Changes to the National Curriculum 2: chemistry

My previous post looked at the key stage 3 biology section of the proposed national curriculum from 2015. In this one look at the chemistry section of the key stage 3 curriculum. Again I compare it to the 1999 national curriculum as this is the one that we use in my school because we follow the QCA units.

The images with orange headings are from the 1999 curriculum and the blue headings are from the 2015 proposed curriculum.

I have found the chemistry national curriculum a lot harder to compare directly from 1999 to 2015.

The main omissions are the sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks, the concept of conservation of mass during chemical and physical changes, the relationship between temperature and solubility, carbonates also seem to be missing.

The additions include studying the atmosphere, and "ceramics, polymers and composites" (for such a little sentence this opens up a vast section of chemistry), endothermic and exothermic reactions and using carbon to extract metals from their oxides.

Currently I have to decide if we should change the earth science units taught in year 8 and perhaps move the 9G and H units in order that we can fill in the areas that the students will have missed on polymers and ceramics. I will look at the key stage 4 curriculum before deciding.

Please do comment if you see something that I have overlooked.

Chemistry

SOLIDS, LIQUIDS AND GASES (PARTICLES)

The first statement in the 1999 KS3 chemistry section talks about classification of materials and interestingly as classification has gone from biology it also seems to be missing from chemistry too. 

I wonder if using the melting and boiling points to work out the state of a material would still be expected even though it is no longer explicit, (see below) we still have to teach the physical properties of the elements. 

There are glimpses if you look at the "periodic table" section of the 2015 national curriculum.

However, in the new national curriculum only the properties of the elements are considered and not materials in general. And the last statement about "with respect to acidity" does that mean how they react with acid, their pH, or both?

The particle theory seems to be very similar, the energy changes involved in state changes was present in the 1999 national curriculum. And we do already teach that the particles move/vibrate according to their state. 

ATOMS, ELEMENTS, COMPOUNDS AND MIXTURES

The mixtures aspect of the proposed 2015 national curriculum seems similar to the 1999 national curriculum. And it is the first time that experimental techniques are mentioned in the chemistry section. I don't disagree with the idea of defining what a pure substance is - I teach this as part of 7H, so including it explicitly won't cause an issue. What is missing is the relationship between solubility and temperature and the emphasis on understanding solutions, as well as the conservation of mass.

EARTH SCIENCE

The change to the Earth Science section of the key stage 3 national curriculum seems to be the greatest. I like teaching 8G&H. 

However I am pleased to see global warming and the atmosphere being addressed at key stage 3, as well as recycling. 

CHEMICAL REACTIONS

 

It is interesting to see that the statement about conservation of mass in a chemical or physical reaction is not present in the proposed 2015 national curriculum. It is an abstract idea, but something I like to cover as it is part the story of how oxygen was discovered. 

Rather than give a general statement about how chemical reactions are useful in everyday life, the proposed curriculum lists those chemical reactions. I can't think of where thermal decomposition occurs in the QCA units, but the other types of chemical reaction we have to teach will not mean a big change. 

EXOTHERMIC AND ENDOTHERMIC REACTIONS

This is new to key stage 3 national curriculum, but I believe that it is a part of the "using chemical reactions" QCA unit, so again does not represent a big change.

METALS AND MATERIALS

 

I think that the main change is including the idea of using carbon to extract metals from their ores. This is interesting when rocks have not been studied as part of the 2015 national curriculum, but perhaps this gives the potential to add the usefulness of rocks as a raw material. 

ACIDS AND BASES

I don't think that the proposed 2015 national curriculum presents much of a change to the reactions of acids. Although the last statement needs to be corrected to show that when acids react with metals a salt an hydrogen (not water) is formed.

Proposed Changes to the National Curriculum

I have been through the key stage 3 proposed national curriculum this evening. I want to think about the transition for out current year 7 students from the QCA units that we are currently using to the new GCSE courses that they will encounter thanks to Michael Gove's change to the curriculum.

Although I accept that we didn't really get the chance to prepare students from year 7 for the changes we experienced in 2006 and 2011, I still want to be as ready as possible.

I also should add at this point that I subscribe to the "fight your battles" philosophy and I don't want to argue against the NC change - that would be a waste of energy. But we should try and get something we can work with and understand.

The main things that concerns me are 1) I don't understand what some of the statements expect and 2) that there seems to be more added in than taken out.

Out go microbes and disease, changes during adolescence and classification, in comes plant reproduction (including pollination and the importance of it), the importance of DNA in inheritance, the structure of the amoeba, mitochondria, bacteria in the digestive system and a greater emphasis on the skeleton.

Personally, I think it could be worse. See what you think by taking a look below.

Biology

Many will recognise the 1999 national curriculum. Although we had a new curriculum in 2008, this is the curriculum we are using in my school. The 1999 curriculum statements can be identified because they have orange titles and the 2015 proposed curriculum has blue subtitles.

CELLS

I don't disagree that mitochondria should be added into the list of organelles described by students in key stage 3, the thinking through science books already mention mitochondria for example. However, it will mean that we have to consider how cells are taught as it will be useful for students to understand respiration so that they can link the function to the mitochondria, with confusing students with the misconception that respiration and breathing are the same thing.

I don't really see what the understanding of diffusion as a method of getting substances into cells brings and why that seems to replace specialised cells, but both are difficult concepts, and specialised cells is included in other aspects of the biology curriculum. Diffusion is something that can be added to the descriptions of how oxygen and "food" get into cells, so I can see where this would fit into the curriculum I teach.

The structure of the Amoeba and Euglena are additions I am not clear about. The two vacuoles in the amoeba will just add a layer of confusion that could lead to misconceptions about the plant cell that I don't think is necessary if this curriculum is about science for general knowledge. If the vacuole is to be ignored then are we really teaching the students to classify the different classification kingdoms?

I guess this is a curriculum point that has be taught last - after the students have covered DNA and chromosomes so that they can understand the idea about the differences in the genetic material?

*1d, Fertilisation is discussed later.

SKELETON

I actually like the idea of doing more about the skeleton, it does capture the imagination of the students. I asked other science teachers using twitter about "measurement of the force exerted by different muscles" the response made me think as I realise that this is a good topic to link into fitness and could be engaging for the students. See http://www.getinthezone.org.uk/schools/ages-11-19/ages-14-16/

DIGESTION

The addition of the food tests to the curriculum doesn't add extra pressure onto science teachers as it is part of what the majority of us do. Actually I quite like that it is there because it shows that the government expect a level of practical science.

In the same way the statement "calculations of the energy requirements in a health daily diet" I don't mind as it implies that we have to include numeracy in how we teach science, which I agree with. I would interpret this as asking the students to use information I provide them with to work out what they could eat in a day and stay within the limits of what is required for a healthy teenager. I don't mind this, but I did it at primary school and I wonder that it will be a repeat of an activity students have done before?

I don't understand the "importance of bacteria in the digestive system",  as my knowledge doesn't exten beyond the Yalkult adverts!

BREATHING

In terms of what we cover already, only the mention of asthma seems to be new.

RESPIRATION

I am unsure what the statement "including the breakdown of organic molecules to enable all the other chemical processes necessary for life" entails. We used to teach that "chemical reactions occur in the cytoplasm - will this be enough now?

It concerns me that there is no mention of the bloodstream in the proposed 2015 national curriculum as I think it is important that students are aware of the circulatory system as this helps to pull respiration, cells, breathing and exercise together.


HEALTH

Interestingly disease is no longer part of key stage 3 science, although students will have to learn about bacteria as part of anaerobic respiration and the function of them in the digestive system. Checking the 2015 GCSE curriculum all of the disease related content from the QCA unit 8C now seems to be in GCSE biology. There was always a lot of overlap, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I think that it is important that students understand about vaccinations and immunisation.

REPRODUCTION

Those involved in PHSE and sex education are very concerned by the absence of statement f from the 1999 national curriculum in the 2015 proposed version. I don't blame them. Young people are interested in what is going to happen to them.

The level of detail added to the reproduction of plants is going to require a lot more time in the teaching.  Although I like the link of the pollination of plant to human food production in light of the issues with the bee population.

VARIATION AND INHERITANCE

Classification is missing from the 2015 proposed national curriculum. I am sad about that, but not too sad. Due to CASE I am lead to believe that classifying is a key skill to be developing with out students, however they often come from primary school able to classify the main animal groups and find the classification of the plants boring and it is difficult to engage them. Classification can still be taught via the periodic table and more subtly in biology.

The level of detail now needed for inheritance is pretty vast. I have taught this to year 9 as part of an early start to GCSE science and they struggled a little bit, but were engaged in it and interested.

GREEN PLANTS

INTERDEPENDENCE

I have to admit that the bottom two statements in the 2015 proposed national curriculum don't mean a great deal to me. I would hope that there would be some examples in the supporting notes of the new national curriculum when it is finally published. 

ADAPTATION

This exists in some of the other areas in the 2015 proposed curriculum, but the emphasis has certainly moved. However, we will probably end up covering all the aspects once statements like "niches and the role of variable in enabling closely-related living things to survive in the same ecosystem" are unpacked into teaching activities.

Youth Vs Experience

Should someone with no teaching qualifications have been given a job as the head of a Free School in London?

There are a lot of people pretty upset by this. It doesn't bother me at all. I just think about the Head Teachers I have come across and heard about during my career and can't see why someone who is 27 and not experienced teaching in the classroom should be any worse than a small, but significant number of head teachers in this country.

I think that the argument shouldn't be about whether the school should have appointed her, but why they thought it was necessary.

The whole profession needs to look at itself and wonder why there were no teachers ready to take on the role and take the school in the direction the governing body wants. There are two elements to this. Firstly: is what the profession believe to be possible and right for the education of our young people out of sync with what the general public expect? And secondly: what does it take to be a Head Teacher and why are so few teachers ready to take this on?

I personally think that the pressure on the teaching profession is vast and unreasonable. The pressure on Head Teachers is career threatening.

My final point is that the teaching profession should not discount the input of people with limited teaching experience. Other expertise is useful to teaching, for example dealing with people, marketing, design and of course the idea of what are reasonable working hours and conditions. (However, I would say these people need to work as part of the team in the school, not as external consultants/companies who are just trying to make money).

Summary of #ASEchat 25th March 2013 (92) How can we support new subject leaders?

The chat mainly consisted of advice from the contributors to people who would be starting a new post. They could be split into thee main categories. A lot of advice was about building relationships, another strong theme was leadership and finally there were ideas about how to develop into the subject leader role.

The comments below will be a useful read for anyone preparing for a leadership role.

There was a theme about relationships:

Early in #asechat @gregtheseal said that a new subject leader would need to build relationships with the team and @bio_joe said make sure any internal candiate you beat to the job doesn’t become an enemy. @hrogerson tweeted in reply that a new post holder should talk to everyone in the department and be friendly. @MrsDrSarah said that it was important that new post holders be honest, but not brutal as the development of the team is important.

@KDWscience tweeted that never being too busy for your staff is an important characteristic in a new leader and @littlejenster comments that having a sense of humour and being able to listen were important too.

@DavidCumbers said that subject leaders should pick fights carefully. Which will need to be fought today, which can wait until the subject leader knows where their backup will come from. Along similar lines: @stanothermic tweeted that new subject leaders should know that they will have to say things that others won’t like.

@Mrcjhewitt tweeted another reason why relationships are important, he said that too many post holders leave team building until later, but although one person can make a difference, they can’t do everything.

Another strand about leadership:

@hrogerson said that new post holders should lead by example and be prepared to do what you ask others to do. @oboelizzy made the comments that a new post holder should focus on teaching and learning in the classroom.

@littlejaneyface said that new subject leaders should know how to prioritise, they may feel the need to change everything to make their mark, but this won’t be practical for the whole department.

@gregtheseal said that subject leaders should make sure that they are doing the things they are asking others to do. He also said that subject leaders should think about the purpose of their actions, for example, why collect data if you are not going to use it.

@IETFaraday tweeted that subject leaders should start every meeting with “this meeting will help learning by…” If you can’t say why, postpone the meeting until you can! @Bio_joe backed up this idea by saying that “sharing best practice” should be a standing item on the agenda.

@julesgordon1 said that TLR holders should talk to each other before the meeting so they have the same vision and Heads of Faculty can share the delivery with the other post holders.

@damianainscough tweeted that new subject leaders should know their success criteria in terms of student outcomes. (Improve “T+L” and similar is not specific enough).

@IETFaraday said that new post holders should be prepared to challenge both upwards and downwards: Stand up for your staff, but also stand up for whole school priorities

@Mrcjhewitt said that subject leaders can build time and expertise if they remember you lead a team...not do everything themselves; they should value and trust others.

@Bio_Joe gave some other advice about building relationships: Find out what everyone's motivations are in the team. Why are they a teacher? What do they want to do? What interests do they have?

And some ideas about how new subject leaders can be developed:

@ashl3ylaw explained that new subject leaders can be supported by having a mentor, who is someone in a similar role with more experience. The two will meet regularly for discussions. @A_Weatherall somed up the support in a word: “mentoring”. 

@DavidCumbers suggested that new subject leaders should meet the rest of the school in the staffroom, and @hrogerson responded that she agreed as some of the best support can be found outside of the department. And @miss_m_w said that new subject leaders should make opportunities to meet with other subject leaders to share successes and ways to deal with issues.

@specialsciteach said that she was allowed to find her way with a guiding hand in the background: a new post holder needs to be able to make their own decisions, with support.

@hrogerson said that as a line manager of new post holders she would give them something achievable to work towards, that a newly appointed subject leader may not know what their job entails and direction from the line manager is important.

Other advice:

@obeolizzy said that new subject leaders should look at work of R. Driver, R.

Millar, J. Osborne, P. Scott, R. Watson, D.West, J.Wellington, R.Duschl, P. Adey, et al. In other tweet she said that subject leaders should attend ASE conferences.

@heatherakane tweeted that there has been a lot done by National Strategy on effective departments and new post holders should read them

@gregtheseal said that the NSLC aspiring heads of science course was the best CPD he had done. 

ASE session: asking good questions

Why are good questions important?

Robin Millar of York University began this session with the comments:

• Assessment is the most significant driver of real change.
• Defines real learning goals
• It provides an "operational definition" of what the learning means.

I would have to agree with all of the sentiments above.


The emphasis on quality of written communication has changed the way many science departments teach. It was the six mark questions that have driven this.

Range of learning intentions:

1. Recall
2. Understand ideas and models
3. Present and analyse information
4. Carry out standard procedures
5. Process display and interpret information

We were introduced to the York Science Project. Where questions are being written to check understanding.

We were told: "York Science is about checking understanding. Interested in writing good questions that check understanding. You can't see understanding, you can only check it."

I knew this already because I have been using York Science Resources in my lessons. The questions/activities are useful because they not only give an idea about what the students don't know, but what they do believe and in some cases how strongly.

Mary Whitehouse described some way of questioning: construct an explanation;

• chose sentences from multiple choice to make explanation - see second photo,
• chose true sentences from a list,
• identify ideas from text (directed activity related to text)

Carol Davenport then spoke about writing exam questions. To be honest it is a topic I haven't thought much about before. The exam papers arrive, the students complain, I say "oh dear they won't know how to do that", and that is as far as it goes.

Carol described that when she writes for the exam board she starts with the point on the specification and writes an answer that related to that point.
Then find the context and the question.
The process for writing an exam question is quite involved. The question goes through several drafts and revisions and is seen and reviewed by a lot of people. Even though it doesn't feel like that when I see the final paper!

Consider "is your question going to get the answer you think it will?"



Finally Mary Whitehouse showed us an example of a poor question.

What makes a good question?



While the top photograph shows a version of the question suitable for American students talk of "sidewalk" and an image of a parking meter may confuse UK students. The word "crack" could also cause confusion.

Below is an edited version of the same question.



Teachers download questions from all sort of places, so be aware of the question.

I know I have selected activities that once the students start them I realise are poorly worded. However, I find that end of topic tests from published schemes of work are the most poor; students struggling to interpret the question and access the marks.

Project 2061 was mentioned as the source of questions. But US based and biased towards US language.

Finally Robin Millar said when summing up:

• Question doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough to do a job... Back and forth with writing questions.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Michael Gove

I fear him.

At this time of year the union conferences are going on and the level of attention we give to Michael Gove increases. I don't like it, I don't want to think about what he is doing to education in England.

When my union sends a letter about striking I do reply. When I get a survey about morale I fill it in and send it back. However, I feel completely helpless: Michael Gove ignores any thing coming from the union. How else do teachers get a voice?

How can anyone get through to Michael Gove that he needs to work with teachers, help us to help the children we encounter.

I am scared for the future.

My message to Michael Gove: stop, stop making changes.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone