Climate change should not be excluded from English national curriculum

Climate Change | Curriculum

Julia, | 14/07/11 | England

A review of the English national curriculum is underway and a report will be published later this year. Tim Oates, head of the expert panel reviewing the panel said that it should be up to schools to decide whether – and how – to teach climate change. Oates' intention is to substantially reduce the national curriculum. Under the previous government, the curriculum expanded to nearly 500 pages. Annette Smith, chief executive of the Association for Science Education, said she agreed with Oates that the curriculum was too crowded. "However, what I wouldn't want to lose from the national curriculum is the idea that science is developing all the time and that it impinges on our lives," she said. Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, warned that Oates' ideas might not be in pupils' best interests and could make science less interesting for children. "An emphasis on climate change in the curriculum connects the core scientific concepts to topical issues," he said.Do you think pupils should be taught climate change?

Expand to view comments | 2 comments


I feel that climate change is something that should remain on the curriculum for the following reasons: i) Students feel it is relevant and important and it generates powerful discussions. ii) It provides a useful opportunity to link different key Scientific ideas e.g. chemical reactions in combustion, heat transfer in Physics. They can also learn about some of the pioneering work being done to combat climate change. iii) It gives students an opportunity to analyse real experimental data and understand that in a complex world, there isn't always one obvious correct answer that everyone agrees on. They also see how scientists and politicians might work together. iv) If they don't learn about it, how can they make informed decisions about their lives - decisions that could affect the future of all of us?

by HGallagher | 29/10/11 10:56:10

Op zich vind ik dat een goed voorstel maar eigenlijk is het erg dat we niet zelfsprekend rekening kunnen houden met natuur. Opkomen voor natuur betekent niet dat we ons enkel moeten richten op gebieden met een hoge natuurwaarde. Geen enkel natuurgebied mag opgegeven worden. Het is niet omdat een natuurgebied niet echt waardevol is dat het mag verdwijnen om er bv een weg wordt doorgetrokken. Voor buurtbewoners heeft dit gebied wel een maatschappelijke waarde en is dit niet in geld uit te drukken. Mensen willen enkel 'hun' natuurgebied behouden.

by krist.tack | 14/12/11 09:41:12

Want to comment? You need to sign in or register with INQUIRE




Supported by

  Share on Facebook