First, the phrase about how scientific ideas are “affected by the social, moral, spiritual and cultural contexts in which they are developed” has been replaced by, “affected by the social and historical contexts”. It seemed odd to remove the original wording, given that the 1988 Education Reform Act requires that “the curriculum for a maintained school . . . promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils”. OFSTED stresses that “the promotion of pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is a whole school issue . . . other subjects than religious education can play no less significant a part in inviting pupils to reflect on the purpose and meaning of life”. Yet the science revisers, despite representation from various quarters, removed the existing phraseology, which was already fully congruent with the Education Reform Act and with OFSTED inspection requirements, and to substitute a new formula.

Second, the passage, “pupils . . . should begin to recognise that, while science is an important way of thinking about experience, it is not the only way,” has been removed. All that has been retained is a modified form of another passage from the general introduction to the 1991 key stage 4 programme of study, which now reads, “Pupils should be given opportunities to . . . consider the power and limitations of science in addressing industrial, social and environmental issues and some of the ethical dilemmas involved”. The new formulation is radically different. The old focused on the limitations of science in relation to issues of fundamental beliefs and commitments and in relation to other ways of knowing. The new could be interpreted as merely pointing out that science cannot deal with some aspects of particular problems.

Our enquiry to the Secretary of State answered by a DFEE spokesperson dealt with our first point, but not the second: “At the time of consultation the view taken was that cultural, spiritual and moral contexts were among the elements which comprised the ‘historical context’, and that there was no need to spell this out more fully. It was also felt that any study of the ways in which scientific ideas may be affected by their social and historical context would naturally raise the point that such ideas are viewed in the context of other ways of looking at experience. So, once again, it was not thought necessary to spell this out. For these reasons I do not think that anything has actually been removed or played down. There was certainly no such intention . . .”

We believe it was optimistic to imagine teachers would infer the requirement to teach science in its “cultural, spiritual and moral contexts” from the term “historical context”. And to subsume “cultural, spiritual and moral” under “historical” seems to constrict, even denigrate, the importance of these issues in the lives of pupils.

Nevertheless, we welcome the assurance that there was no intention to remove or play down the requirement to treat the social, moral, spiritual and cultural contexts in science education. We also welcome the strengthening of this requirement by now including it at key stage 3, in addition to its place at key stage 4 in the 1991 version. The importance the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority attaches to these matters is indicated by its plans to hold a conference on the spiritual and moral dimensions of the curriculum.

Since we suspect that other science specialists may share our puzzlement concerning the continuing place of the moral, spiritual and cultural contexts of science education and we have taken this opportunity to make the DFEE clarification more widely known.

John Bausor is Educational Consultant and former Staff Inspector of Science, Inner London Education Authority.

Paul Black is Professor of Science Education, School of Education, King’s College London.

Michael Poole is Visiting Research Fellow, School of Education, King’s College London.

Brian Woolnough is Lecturer in Science Education, University of Oxford Department of Educational Studies