WHEN I was an eager young teacher, not only enthusiastically embracing innovation in the classroom, but also zealously trying to convert the sceptics, I recall the quiet comment of a sagacious senior colleague. “Do not be afraid of change but watch for the reinvention of the wheel.”

I could not but recall this when I read Douglas Blane’s article on the way ahead for science (ScotlandPlus, September 14). Sir William Stewart, president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the British Association, is quoted as saying: “For the first time ever we have got a framework for Scottish science that we can build on.”

Sir William may well be right that Scottish education has lacked an all-embracing framework of development, if by that he means from foundations in the pre-school unit to the heights of the postgraduate research laboratory. But as far as the primary sector is concerned, we have been here before. HMI’s 1980 report, Learning and Teaching in Primary 4 and Primary 7, stated: “Science fared badly. What is clear is that schools ought to have a policy, translatable into classroom practice. Teachers require enough support to give them confidence, security and conviction.”

Following that report, the primary science development project (PSDP) was launched and a centrally funded in-service programme was designed to touch every primary school in Scotland. These were not simply lectures on what to do, but gave practical ideas for classroom teachers at all stages.

These courses were highly successful in removing the mystique from science, the main barrier to its acceptance in the primary curriculum. The problem then was, and to some extent still is, that primary teachers recall their secondary experience, with specialists in white coats doing “experiments”, with chemicals and Bunsen burners.

As publishers responded by producing a wide variety of support materials, there was evidence across the country that, not only was the message being well received, classroom practice was changing. Then, with little thought, or perhaps because they felt enough money had been expended, we moved on (or should that be back?) to concentrate on numeracy and literacy. John Burdin, the HMI most directly involved in PSDP, was given other national responsibilities and Sinclair MacLeod, the project director, was given early retirement.

Of the latest move to raise the profile of science in the curriculum, Sinclair MacLeod tells me: “By the late 80s, we did not have sustained national backing to maintain the momentum. If this latest initiative is to succeed, there must be commitment nationally and locally, not only to get it off the ground, but also to sustain it well into the future. There is already a whole generation of teachers who were not exposed to the principles of PSDP in either pre-service or in-service training.”

John Burdin indicated that a fundamental failing in all curriculum developments in his 30 years as an HMI had been the inability of central policy-makers to understand that the vast majority of teachers require a specifically committed, and adequately financed, support system to remain in place for at least a decade.

Educational development will always have to take account of overload on teachers and, inevitably, of scarce resources. Ministers and HMI are talking of flexibility in the curriculum, and the potential freedom to give more time to “the basics” at the expense of other subject areas.

Money has talked in mathematics and language; the areas generally recognised as “the basics”. Now, it seems, the right to a firm foundation in science is being seen as “basic”. Not all hard-pressed primary teachers would agree, some preferring to let specialists do the job in their classrooms. However, I suspect the majority would be happy to respond to proposals for developments in science.

But if we push the boat out again, don’t take away the oars.

John Muir is an adviser with Highland Council.