Natural history GCSE
The idea of creating a GCSE in natural history was first floated a decade ago, but is it any closer to becoming a reality? And could it help change the fortunes of our nature-depleted nation?
Could the chance to study nature help improve young people’s connection with the natural world?
To many people these days, nature is more or less a green blur: pleasant, desirable but largely anonymous. Take trees – four-fifths of Britons cannot identify an ash from its leaves, according to a Woodland Trust survey in 2013. Meanwhile, ash dieback disease is fast wreaking havoc, wiping out one of the most abundant and wildlife-rich trees in the country. The trouble is, how can conservationists expect the public to care, if they don’t even notice?
Study after study has shown a widespread ignorance of iconic natural things that form the fabric of our world, from acorns to adders, buttercups to bramble, catkins to conkers. In a nutshell, as it were, we no longer know our A, B, C of nature. Growing concern about this ecological illiteracy, and what it means for our future, has been driving the campaign to introduce a new GCSE in natural history in the UK, one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet.
Author, radio producer and environmental activist Mary Colwell – best known for her Radio 4 series Shared Planet and Saving Species, and her book Curlew Moon – first had the idea a decade ago: “It came to me like a thunderbolt,” she tells me now. Her brainwave triggered an “initial flurry of interest”, then spent years on the backburner.
Despairing at the worsening biodiversity crisis, Mary tried again in 2017. Relaunching her proposal with a petition, she captured the zeitgeist perfectly, sparking newspaper comment pieces and countless exchanges on social media. Government ministers made encouraging noises. Crucially, a major exam board lent its support.
At last, the secondary-school qualification dreamed up by Mary and since backed by Chris Packham, Baroness Floella Benjamin, Eden Project founder Sir Tim Smit and many other leading conservationists – though the scheme has plenty of vocal detractors – could be coming to fruition. (GCSEs are taken in England, Wales and Northern Ireland at age 15–16; Scotland has an equivalent system, known as ‘National 5s’.)
Point of difference
But what will the course consist of, and how might it differ from the biology or geography taught now? “I have spent hours discussing this with the OCR exam board,” Mary says. “What we have is different and doable.” The bare bones of the syllabus, she says, will be looking closely at animals, plants and other organisms, learning to record and identify species, seeing how they fit into real habitats. Practical skills, a naturalist’s fieldcraft, will be as important as the theory of ecology.
This focus on observation and taxonomy addresses a persistent complaint with biology in today’s curriculum: that it is
possible to get top grades with virtually no first-hand experience of even the most plentiful living things, while barely leaving the confines of the classroom. Mary’s approach could seem back to basics – ‘old school’, you might say – but she and her supporters are unapologetic.
Sir David Attenborough is likely to be a fan. “Let’s not denigrate taxonomy,” he told me in an interview for BBC Wildlife in 2016. “Taxonomy is like learning the alphabet. It’s concerned with definitions. You can’t speak English properly unless you’ve got definitions, and you can’t do zoology properly unless you know all about the structure and relationships of the animals you’re discussing.”
The proposed natural history GCSE, however, has ambitions to range more widely. It aims to be both relevant and bang up to date, insists Tim Oates, group director of assessment, research and development at OCR. He explains that the course, whose gestation he is helping oversee, will cover the ethics of how species are discovered and collected, and consider the place of natural history in culture, from art to music and literature. Conservation issues, such as the extinction crisis and climate change, will be “at the heart of everything.”
This is an idea whose time has come, says Tim. “We are not just adding another arbitrary GCSE to the catalogue.” Dismissing the issue of duplication with existing subjects offered in schools, he says: “There is no more biology in natural history than there is mathematics in physics, or geography in history. Obviously, there’s some overlap, but that is true of every area of knowledge. The key thing is going to be our emphasis on studying whole organisms in context.”
Receiving feedback
A common criticism of the natural history GCSE is that it involves specialising too early. The ‘G’ in GCSE stands for ‘General’, after all. Might teenagers who pick the course risk missing out on other aspects of biology, and emerge with gaps in their scientific understanding? Could they be left poorly prepared for A Levels?
Tim counters that the course has, from the outset, been designed as an option, which students can choose alongside one or more other core sciences, or Combined Science. “I’m pretty relaxed about what it will be studied with,” he says, adding that a strength of the education system in the
UK is that it is more flexible than in many comparable countries.
There have also been suggestions that students may be at a disadvantage when applying to university or college, or when looking for a job. In a competitive market, will a natural history GCSE be taken seriously? “University biology departments are very keen,” Tim argues. “They say to us: ‘We’ve got people coming up who can understand genetics but have never looked at whole organisms.’ The practical zoology and botany, so important to biology in schools 50 years ago, have inadvertently been squeezed out.”
School biology has turned into an abstract subject, Tim says. “Biology has become biochemistry. Familiarity with plants and animals, and the environment in which they live, the processes they are part of, the pressures they face… none of this features significantly in schools at the moment.” Outside academia, the Field Studies Council is one of the few organisations still providing this style of learning.
But the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a natural history GCSE is who will teach it. Surely, people say, it will end up as the preserve of well-funded private schools with small class sizes, or those with
Teaching young people about species names is not what gets them excited. It is noticing the palette of colours, how bushes are changing… it is much more experiential.”
extensive grounds in rural areas. Even if a nature-mad teacher in an urban state school or college is itching to get involved, their headteacher, confronted with timetabling constraints, shrinking budgets and a system that prioritises exam results, is bound to need much more persuading.
The sceptics include nature-writing sensation and environmental campaigner Dara McAnulty, who is currently studying for his A Levels in Northern Ireland. He wrote on Twitter: “There’s no way on Earth my school would/could offer it. The exam board offering is favoured by independent/ private schools.”
Tim sounds wearily familiar with this argument, which – tongue in cheek – he sums up as: “It’s a posh GCSE, all frogs and ponds.” He stresses that his OCR exam board will provide professional development for teachers alongside the course materials. The Natural History Museum in London is offering additional resources for schools, he says, and the hope is that regional museums will join in, too.
Nevertheless, there is a lingering concern, voiced frequently during the public consultation into the GCSE, that take-up might be disappointing, particularly in cities and with students from deprived sections of society. Critics say it will appeal to those already fascinated by wildlife (probably with equally enthusiastic parents), rather than – as intended – help many more young people to reconnect with the natural world.
Worse, by gifting an extra qualification to privileged youngsters who hope one day to pursue a career in ecology or conservation, it could perpetuate the woeful lack of diversity in these fields, instead of nurturing opportunity. Despite many laudable recruitment initiatives, conservation remains stubbornly ‘pale and male’, one of the least diverse sectors in Britain. Mya-Rose Craig (‘Birdgirl’), on a gap year after sitting her A Levels in 2020, is among those who claims the new GCSE will “increase elitism”.
Mary, though, has no time for naysayers or negativity. The danger to the planet from what American writer Richard Louv famously dubbed “nature-deficit disorder” – a shocking decline in nature connectedness, among all age groups but especially teens
– is simply too severe, she says. Like other fervent champions of a GCSE in natural history, Mary sees this as an existential battle. The GCSE is just the start: there are plans for an A Level, too.
Many campaigners aspire to turn the entire curriculum green. In the People’s Manifesto for Wildlife spearheaded by Chris Packham in 2018, Robert Macfarlane welcomed the grassroots movement that has sprung up to “regreen” primary education
– forest school sessions, for example, have grown in popularity – but argued that we must go much further. “Large-scale structural change” is needed, he said. His proposals included rewriting Section 78 of the Education Act to place nature at the centre of the state curriculum from nursery to secondary school.
Nature knowhow
Advocates of wholesale reform want nature to be part of mainstream culture again. For far too long, they say, observing plants and animals has been a pleasant hobby or niche interest, something for family days out or eccentric boffins. Instead, society should view nature knowhow as a life skill, like numeracy or literacy.
Iain Green is a professional photographer who runs ‘Wildlife Wonder’ workshops for schools. In a normal year, he helps 10,000 children lose themselves in nature. “Teaching young people about species names is not what gets them excited,” he says. “It is noticing the palette of colours, how bushes are changing… it is much more experiential and subtle.”
Iain worries that many secondary schools will struggle to offer a natural history course
Sport and PSHE are provided as fundamental things, rather than exambased qualifications. Nature, too, has to be incorporated into what all students experience.”
“full of wonder, so that it doesn’t become dry and dusty.” But he sees potential in how sport and citizenship are taught. “These areas of school life work differently to almost all other subjects,” he says. “Nature must also be given that space. Sport and PSHE [Personal, Social, Health and Economic education] are provided in the curriculum as fundamental things, rather than exam-based qualifications. Nature, too, has to be incorporated into what all students experience.”
Reaching out
Action for Conservation specialises in reaching young people in deprived areas, often from minority backgrounds. The charity’s CEO Hendrikus van Hensbergen gives the proposed GCSE a cautious thumbsup, but adds: “The words ‘natural history’ are not going to be a big draw. ‘History’ implies you are just looking at the past. It might not engage teenagers in the inner city or depressed rural areas.”
So, what will attract them? “Well, we employ people from the communities in which we work,” Hendrikus says. “They are early-career, relatable. We support young people in designing their own environmental projects… we give them an agency, freedom to tackle their own thing. It could be creating a rap song. But it needs to speak honestly to the communities. A GCSE can be prescriptive.”
Few would dispute that something has to give; no-one is arguing for less nature in schools. However, the coronavirus pandemic has left teachers exhausted and Britain’s education system under pressure as never before. After years spent germinating, it is far from clear whether a GCSE in natural history will find fertile ground.
But still, as naturalist Amy-Jane Beer has pointed out, there are already GCSEs in Hungarian, Graphic Products, Astronomy and Biblical Hebrew. “Not to disparage the worth in any of these,” she wrote in British Wildlife magazine, “but if they merit a qualification and the study of nature and its infinite connections doesn’t, then we should all fear for the future.”