From Roy Smith
Having two children in the state secondary school system in the UK, I can see exactly why science is less popular than art, music or English (3 January, p 14).
In art, students are encouraged to explore a wide range of hands-on media; they are given the technical skills to produce good quality work; and they can express their own ideas within the curriculum constraints.
Similarly in music, the theory is brought alive by personal performance on a variety of instruments, in a range of musical styles. Again they can develop the personal performance and composition skills.
In English there is a good deal of reading to do, which can be enjoyable in itself, and also a range of compositional styles is explored, allowing self-expression and valuing the children’s own creativity.
Advertisement
In contrast science education seems dire. The work is about learning “facts” towards examinations, with little scope for individualising the approach to match the children’s own interests. There seems very little interesting practical work (which would develop individual manipulative skills, data gathering and interpretation of results) or theoretical development to provide an understandable framework for all those “facts”.
The situation changes a bit for the better in years 12 and 13, when UK students specialise, but by then it’s too late: most of the children have gravitated to the more rewarding subjects.
The problem for the UK at least is to define an approach to secondary school science education that brings back the zing while not losing the rigour. If other subjects can do it, why not science?
Burntwood, Staffordshire, UK
