Science shouldn’t be a ‘nice to have’ in schools

The introduction of National Standards by the previous government saw a major change to our primary school curriculum. More class time was spent on the ‘basics’ of literacy and numeracy, which meant that some subjects were pushed out of an already crowded curriculum.

There is little evidence that this improved educational outcomes, and two subjects which seem to have been neglected because of National Standards were music and science. In a 2012 ERO (Education Review Office) report, it was found that 73 per cent of primary schools did not have an effective science programme. According to Hutt Science director Anne Ryan, there is little evidence things have changed since.

In a modern economy, science should not be a ‘nice to have’, for less than a third of students. We have rivers to clean and numerous public health issues to deal with, not to mention a raft of future businesses that will want to utilise science and technology.

By ignoring science, we will either miss out on having an innovative technology-based economy or else have to import ‘science brains’ from overseas. And as House of Science chief executive Chris Duggan pointed out last week, having a population with low science literacy makes them susceptible to pseudoscience.

It’s a pity that science seems to have low status in many primary schools because it can be great fun, and most kids love mucking around with science equipment. Though I’m a writer, I’m fast developing a theory that any activity in a school that does not involve writing is a very good thing.

Another problem is that the historical lack of emphasis on science in primary schools has perpetuated the situation, with many of our present primary teachers not confident to teach science. You can hardly blame them if their own science education was substandard.

In earlier times, science advisers – former expert teachers themselves – would blatt around schools helping teachers with programmes and equipment, but those days are gone.

Luckily, there is some help for teachers and schools, and I was impressed to read of the work the House of Science is doing in the Hutt Valley, distributing science kits to classrooms. There are some other great practical initiatives, such as the fantastic work ‘Nanogirl’ Dr Michelle Dickinson is doing. And Heihei, TVNZ’s children’s online platform, has some nice science stuff, including Siouxsie and Eve Investigate. Yet how great it would be if there were more expert scientists in our primary schools.

I remember arguing recently with some Rightwing politicians about the issue. ‘‘It’s a waste of time putting people with great expertise in science and maths in primary schools,’’ said the confident neoliberals, ‘‘the primary curriculum is ‘easy’. It’s senior secondary schools and universities where the experts should be.’’

My heart sank and I imagined how these types would have answered when their children asked them why the sky was blue or volcanoes erupted.

Richard Feynman, one of the world’s great science communicators, wrote about how he ‘‘got into’’ science. Though he was a physicist, it was long walks in the forest with his father when he was a child that initially made him so curious about science. He would ask his father a question about the forest and Dad always gave an answer that led young Feynman to ask another question.

Forget computers, I suspect we need more people like old man Feynman in our schools, who have an excellent practical knowledge of science and who know how to ask the right questions.

For science is an intensely practical subject. Though I had little practical scientific ability, I loved it when Dad brought home chemistry sets, adding machines and microscopes he’d ‘borrowed’ from work. And when Mrs McDonald ignited a magnesium ribbon in third form science, we were entranced.

Yet our national obsession with assessment means that science is not always as practical as it should be. A family friend was a top industrial chemist. When he retired he got a part-time job as a science technician in a secondary school. His first job was to retrieve the test tubes, Bunsen burners and other equipment that hadn’t been used for years and wipe all the dust off them.

It’s sad that this sort of thing can happen in the country that produced Sir Ernest Rutherford – one of the world’s greatest experimental scientists.

Some cash-strapped primary schools might worry about the cost of equipment, but a bunch of magnifying glasses or magnets won’t break the bank. You can measure the height of a tall building with a protractor and a piece of string, and an accelerometer can be made with a candle in a jar. As Rutherford said about doing science in NZ, ‘‘we haven’t got the money, so we’ve got to think’’.

Come on, New Zealand. National Standards is dead. Long live getting more science experts into our primary schools and getting practical.

When Mrs McDonald ignited a magnesium ribbon in third form science, we were entranced.