What Is The Purpose Of Secondary Science Education?

The importance of secondary science education has never been more apparent. The ongoing pandemic of the novel coronavirus serves as a vivid demonstration of the reasons for encouraging and ensuring widespread scientific literacy. Firstly, in accordance with the intrinsic argument, those with an understanding of the key scientific concepts are more aware of what a virus is and how it impacts them as an individual, their community and the whole world, leading to a better appreciation of the current events (WellingtonIreson,2017). The well-informed are also able to make more appropriate decisions about self-isolation and working from home, as well as critique the government s apparent inaction, leading to a more effective democratic society, aligning with the citizenship argument (Olander,2013). While the utilitarian argument contends that science education has inadvertently prepared us for the pandemic by supplying researchers and doctors who go on to use science in their careers following secondary schooling, as well as creating a more analytical and inquisitive population (WellingtonIreson,2017), decreasing the likelihood of mass hysteria and misinformation.

Wellington and Ireson (2017) argue that the intrinsic value of science education is instrumental and note that scientific knowledge helps us add scientific sense to common sense (WellingtonIreson,2017p.36), deepening our understanding of the world around us. This is especially true in light of the coronavirus pandemic, as scientific sense (WellingtonIreson,2017p.36) is crucial for a deeper understanding of the current events and advice. Wellington and Ireson also paint science as interesting and exciting, and therefore worthy of learning about, regardless of its relevance to the students everyday lives, equating science education to a hobby that can be considered irrelevant (WellingtonIreson,2017p.37) by some. However, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies (2018) science is one of the most expensive subjects to teach, relying heavily on government funding. In a country where public funds are limited, should a large portion be spent on a subject that can be considered irrelevant (WellingtonIreson,2017p.37), just because it is interesting? Finally, Wellington and Ireson suggest that the stories around science and scientists are a part of our cultural heritage. Although this is an inspiring thought, the current national curriculum does little to promote it. The documents outlining Key Stage 3 and 4 of the English national curriculum (Department for Education,20132014) centre around white, predominantly European and male scientists, doing little to help people of colour and female students relate to the content. Atwater (2010) recommends altering the curriculum to focus on multicultural science education, providing a more accurate reflection of the discipline s status of a global activity (WellingtonIreson,2017p.37) and thus highlighting its importance.

The citizenship argument considers scientific literacy achieved through secondary science education essential in a democratic society, arguing that an understanding of the key concepts allows an individual to participate in public discussion and decision making (Olander,2013p.176). In England, scientific literacy was made the focus of the national curriculum following a report by Millar and Osborne (1998). While in the current political climate, the citizenship argument is more relevant than ever, especially as coronavirus continues to spread across the UK and climate change threatens human existence. Despite the validity of the argument, the national curriculum in England fails to align with it, as the syllabus is set by the political party in power at a given time, introducing a great potential for bias, especially in relation to divisive issues (Perkins et al.,2018). Additionally, democratic decisions are not made on knowledge alone, careful analysis and consideration are also required (WellingtonIreson,2017), so arguably the development of these skills should be made a priority, shifting the focus of the content-heavy national curriculum. Finally, part of the citizenship argument refers to the importance of discovering the limitations of science (WellingtonIreson,2017), encouraging critical thinking and allowing students to explore the concept of socially-responsible inquiry (AmosChristodoulou,2018p.2), further aiding the development of a more ethical democratic society. This is considered especially important when raising political leaders, however a vast majority of past and present policy-makers lack a comprehensive science education (WellingtonIreson,2017).

The utilitarian argument dictates that a percentage of the students will go on to use science in their careers, therefore the curriculum should accommodate this minority (WellingtonIreson,2017). However, fewer students than ever are choosing further study in science and even less obtain a career in science (Palmer T.-A. et al.,2017). Moreover, Millar and Osborne (1998) found that focusing on specialist training in science (MillarOsborne,1998p.2010) needs to be separated from scientific literacy, as the varying requirements for both disrupt students learning. Following their report, the national curriculum in England was amended to incorporate the development of transferrable skills instead of content, such as estimating and hypothesising, as well as the development of an enquiring and analytical mind (Reiss,2018). These qualities are highly valued in a workforce and the focus on them aligns with the utilitarian argument (WellingtonIreson,2017). Yet other subjects, such as history, can facilitate the development of these skills and at a lower cost to the government.

The intrinsic argument is the most romantic of the three and although it holds some value, its flaws are extremely apparent (Atwater,2010), rendering it unsuccessful in determining the purpose of secondary science education. The utilitarian argument was believed for many decades however, it has been proven to hinder learning in science and thus is outdated (MillarOsborne,1998), with the focus of the curriculum shifting away from it and towards the citizenship argument. The creation of a science literate society is the current priority (Reiss,2018) and holds a lot of value, but for science education to be effective in serving its current purpose, great care must be taken to avoid political bias when designing the curriculum (Perkins et al.,2018).