Science and Technology in Primary Schools: A Cause for Concern. (January 31, 2005)

    Professor Don Watts retired to Western Australia at the beginning of 1995 to a part-time position as Professor of Science and Education at The University of Notre Dame Australia. In On Line Opinion on January 25 he wrote of what he sees is a very worrying situation in primary school education. The two excepts below are indicative of the tenor of his thesis, perhaps although the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, is preoccupied with the methodology of the teaching of reading, he might give a scintilla of consideration to Professor Watts' concerns.

    In 1994, the Australian Education Council (the assembly of Ministers for Education in Australia) published nationally agreed curriculum statements for eight 'Key Learning Areas' for the compulsory years of education in Australia. Science and technology were separately included in this list.    

    The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) has worked for the last decade with teachers, teachers’ unions, administrators, educators at all levels, parent groups and children, published reports of its findings and more recently produced a brochure Technology is really a Way of Thinking.

    ATSE has come to the conclusion that politicians think it is a simple matter to declare schooling will change and that education bureaucrats will issue edicts to schools and teachers about the attainment of this change. But the reality in schools means that changes as significant as those contemplated, no matter how desirable, must have careful and meticulous planning, thoughtful implementation and a very significant investment.

    In these reforms, a number of essential steps were ignored.

...................

    Programs in the preparation of teachers are crowded by material that has diminished subject content to a small percentage of their loads. In subjects, such as mathematics, science and technology, where those entering training have clear deficiencies, the content weaknesses are carried forward into teaching careers.

    There is no acceptance of the place of performance assessment within career structures for teachers and in the accepted processes for the determination of rewards. There is little recognition that the knowledge of teacher performance and professional needs resides in schools, not in the central bureaucracies and that more decisions about the professional life of teachers must be made closer to the place where the work is done.