With the advent of the national curriculum there was concern that it was just a syllabus by another name. The number and variety of syllabuses offered by the boards meant it was not. The latest Order, however, takes us one step closer. The all-important phrase “Pupils should be taught” can be interpreted as a direct syllabus like instruction.

The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has cut down on the numbers of syllabuses available and now, no matter which board you choose, the investigative coursework will be marked by a common scheme for all. This has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, when you choose a syllabus you choose on the content and style, not the manageability of Sc1 (the coursework element). On the other hand, it means that we now have a scheme which, if it is not workable, will affect every pupil, regardless of syllabus. In effect, our hands are tied in the marking of coursework.

Investigative work in science has been the most contentious element. The whole ethos of Sc1 is still in doubt. Are we teaching skills or encouraging free thinking and problem-solving or some combination of the two? The new Order radically changed the way Sc1 was perceived but did not go far enough. At best coursework is just a collection of investigations of very limited breadth, especially in biology, with resistance in wires, rates of reaction and the action of liver on hydrogen peroxide as the “old faithfuls”. At worst, it may become a series of set pieces where pupils will be taught skills in experimental and investigative work, only putting them together in a whole investigation very occasionally, thus satisfying the broader range of tasks alluded to. Have we not learned from the first Order that if a scheme is too restrictive this will only lead to set-piece coursework produced simply because they attract the highest grades?

The move towards two tiers of entry is also a worrying element. Yes, it will make the administration easier but may it not also end up as a two-tier exam system, comparable to the old O-level and CSE? In schools we know the exams are philosophically kilometres apart, with a greater emphasis on the understanding and not on the rote learning of discrete facts, but will the employers realise this? Or will we find ourselves with pupils needing to take higher papers to gain the grades for colleges and work, effectively creating an underclass of GCSEs with the tag “lowers”?

There is much in the new syllabuses to ease the burden on teachers. I hope that what has been heralded - time to practise and consolidate; freedom to explore enjoyable and interesting areas - will materialise. I also hope that we do not move any further along the path to a single, national GCSE in science. Pupils need stimulation in the sciences, as teachers need to maintain breadth so that we can cater for all needs. It is up to us to be innovative and create the atmosphere in which science is stimulating and accessible to all.

James Williams is head of the science faculty at The Beacon School, Banstead, Surrey.