Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) I beg to move, That this House
has considered the matter of introducing a Natural History GCSE. It
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Young
people today are caught up in an unhappy paradox. While their
concern for the natural world is greater than ever before, their
access to nature, to discover its magic and to marvel at its
wonder, is much reduced. Earlier this year, a study by Bath
University found that...Request free
trial
(Eastbourne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of introducing a
Natural History GCSE.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Young people today are caught up in an unhappy paradox. While
their concern for the natural world is greater than ever before,
their access to nature, to discover its magic and to marvel at
its wonder, is much reduced. Earlier this year, a study by Bath
University found that almost three quarters of young people in
the UK are worried about the future of our planet. The findings
from that landmark study highlighted the depth of anxiety felt by
young people as a result of climate change and must inspire in us
all—politicians, parents and teachers—an imperative to
respond.
For me, like many colleagues, those findings reinforced what my
parliamentary inbox tells me every week. I receive emails and
letters from schoolchildren and young activists concerned about
the future of our planet—from climate change and plastic
pollution to deforestation and species decline. On Monday this
week, I visited Parkland School in Hampden Park, and the very
first question put to me by the school council was: what are we
doing to address climate change? In fact, this year, messages and
petitions from Eastbourne’s young people reached as far as
Glasgow and COP26. Their words calling for action were inscribed
on templates shaped as birds in flight. I have made it my mission
to see those birds next land at No. 10 with the Prime
Minister.
However, despite this heightened concern for the environment,
many young people have grown up in the absence of nature,
estranged from large parts of our precious natural inheritance.
There are myriad reasons for this, but a fundamental truth still
stands: we are born with an innate yearning for nature—what
ecologist Edward Wilson dubbed biophilia. Consider the
fascination of a toddler eyeing up a frog or the euphoria of
children crunching through autumn leaves and splashing in
puddles.
(Meon Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Is that not why so many forest
schools are starting to crop up all over the countryside?
I thank my hon. Friend for that most timely intervention. The
forest school movement is to be greatly encouraged. It has
inspired a raft of initiatives across the country, including in
my constituency. It brings children into that natural
environment, where learning is almost by osmosis; it is so
natural and incidental. In that environment, children develop a
great love of nature, which is so necessary to inspire that
desire for further understanding and to learn about respect and
protection.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing the debate to the House.
Forest schools were featured on “Countryfile” on Sunday past,
which was incredibly encouraging. My constituency has something
like that: Castle Gardens Primary School. When the Minister of
State for Northern Ireland came over—he replaced this Minister in
that role—we visited Castle Gardens to see what it was doing.
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a place for children
understanding the world around them? For many, that will provide
their future employment and livelihood, which is important. Does
she further agree that we should work closely with Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs here and the Department of
Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home to align
environmental jobs with this exciting prospect of a GCSE?
I concur with all that the hon. Gentleman said. That love of
nature that we want to inspire in the youngest children needs to
find progression and continuity in every age and all the key
stages of the curriculum. Ultimately, that will provide them with
skills and insight for a future where, as we look to build the
green economy, we need to build a green workforce, too. I welcome
the hon. Gentleman’s contribution.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne () on securing this really
important debate. I apologise that I cannot stay for all of it,
due to a Select Committee happening simultaneously. Does she
share my excitement that, since nature writer and producer Mary
Colwell initiated this campaign in 2011, it has gathered more and
more support, including among teachers and students? Does she
agree that it would help to fill a critical gap in the curriculum
by helping students understand the complexities of the natural
world, with intensive field study of whole organisms in context,
in a way that no other GCSE currently allows?
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; she is my near
neighbour along the coast. I had the great pleasure and privilege
to speak to Mary this week ahead of today’s debate. I am a huge
admirer of her work and her passion to see the next generation
equipped and empowered for the future that faces them, in terms
of both protecting our natural environment and having a great
love for that environment, which is important to their
wellbeing.
I would like to focus on another point mentioned by the hon.
Lady, which is what this unique qualification would bring to the
curriculum. An important gap has been identified and worked on by
OCR, not least around the knowledge of organisms in their
context, as she described, but also around the mix of subject
areas where this GCSE could bring such powerful learning. Some
have raised concerns that this subject overlaps with other
subjects, such as biology or geography, but we see overlap in the
curriculum as it stands. We see overlap between economics and
mathematics; we see overlap between history and English. Some say
overlap, but I might say reinforcement and consolidation. I might
say that this triangulates and makes learning more powerful
through the experience of encountering common subject matter
across different disciplines. So the hon. Lady is right to
highlight this subject’s unique and distinct contribution, in
both its mix and its content.
We have all become admirers of Mary Colwell, and perhaps the hon.
Lady agrees with her when she said:
“A GCSE in natural history would reconnect our young people with
the natural world around them. Not just because it’s fascinating,
not just because it’s got benefits for mental health, but because
we’ll need these young people to create a world we can all live
in, a vibrant and healthy planet.”
That underlines what the natural history qualification the hon.
Lady is trying to achieve could do for many of our children,
while not in any way undermining the place of traditionally
taught history, which has a role to play in the curriculum.
I thank the hon. Gentleman, whose point was well made. This is
not an “instead of” qualification; it is potentially an
“alongside” or an “as well as”. It complements study across
several different disciplines, not least opening up employment
prospects, as he described. I go back to that inherent truth that
one cannot protect what one does not love. We need to connect
with that great love of nature and then reinforce that with the
knowledge, insight and skills required to bring conservation work
forward. It will be such an important torch for this generation
to carry forward.
We have all seen in our schools some of the work that is being
done, either in the curriculum or extra-curriculum in the wider
life of the school, alongside this heightened concern for the
environment. The truth is that eight in 10 children who were
interviewed by Natural England in its People and Nature survey
agreed that being in nature made them very happy. This generation
has not had the same opportunities as previous generations to
enjoy our once rich natural environment. Almost half of UK
species are in long-term decline, including key species such as
the hedgehog, whose numbers are down 95% since the 1950s. We have
ploughed up or concreted over large swathes of native habitat in
the last century, including 97% of our wildflower meadows.
Access to nature is highly unequal. One in five children living
in England’s most deprived areas spend no time at all in the
natural environment. The consequence of this precipitous decline
is what is known as the shifting baselines phenomenon, whereby
successive generations simply become accustomed to ever lower
levels of biodiversity, unaware of the greater abundance enjoyed
by those who came before. The raucous dawn chorus of a century
ago and the splattering of insects on the car windscreen, which
were commonplace in our childhoods, are unknown to young people
today. One survey found that 83% of five to 16-year-olds could
not identify a bumblebee, one in four could not identify a badger
or robin, and almost half could not identify brambles,
blackberries or bluebells.
Although they have never been so far removed from nature, eight
in 10 children and young people in England say that they would
like to do more to protect the environment and that doing so is
important to them. It is that gulf between, on the one hand, the
knowledge and experience of the natural world that are required
to protect it and, on the other, the growing concern about
ecological decline that a new natural history qualification could
help to close.
We know just how important education is if we are to overcome the
challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. Sir David
Attenborough has called for a greater role for nature in our
schools, highlighting the growing absence of nature in young
people’s lives and the negative impact that this is having on
their wellbeing and that of the planet.
Sir David’s plea was reinforced earlier this year by the landmark
Dasgupta review into the economics of biodiversity, which was
commissioned by our Treasury Ministers and published to
widespread acclaim internationally. It emphasised the importance
of integrating nature studies into the curriculum. Professor
Dasgupta argued that this would improve health and wellbeing
and—going back to the point made by the hon. Member for
Strangford ()—empower young people to make informed choices, as
well as hold Governments and businesses to account for their
impact on the natural world.
With the right knowledge and skills, all young people, whatever
their background, can and should contribute to the great national
and global effort to halt nature’s decline. After all, that
mission is now the law of this land. We are the first country in
the world to set a legal deadline for halting nature’s decline by
2030, thanks to the landmark Environment Act 2021, which also
contains a suite of measures to clean up our air and waterways,
reduce waste and increase biodiversity.
Recognising the essential contribution that schools, teachers and
young people can make to protecting our environment, the
Education Secretary launched the Government’s climate and
sustainability strategy for schools at COP26. I commend the
Government for their leadership and ambition, and teachers and
students in Eastbourne will relish the chance to increase
biodiversity in their playgrounds and contribute to rewilding
efforts in our community—indeed, they are already doing so.
It would be most remiss of me were I not to mention at this point
the latest members of Parkland, where llamas now join ducks and
chickens, or of West Rise Junior School, which now hosts water
buffalo, which find their way into every element of the primary
curriculum, from art through to mathematics and beyond.
The Eastbourne Schools Partnership, which is now the Coastal
Schools Partnership following the inclusion of schools from
Seaford and Bexhill, is a group of partner schools that have
formed the Reconnect Group, which meets to discuss ways to help
young people re-engage with the natural environment. It was
inspired by a similar group called the Millennium Kids, an
Australian group that it linked up with during Eastbourne’s
Making Natural History conference in November 2020. The Reconnect
Group is working with the Eden Project in Eastbourne as it looks
to develop Jubilee Way as part of the Queen’s Green Canopy
project and make it somewhere where young people can do exactly
that: reconnect with the environment. The group will be walking
Jubilee Way this weekend, as part of the research, so that pupils
can contribute ideas to Sir Tim Smit and his team for different
learning zones along the way. It is a 10-year project. Good
things are happening.
What is more, the Government’s Skills and Post-16 Education Bill
will help plug the green skills gap. I and colleagues in the
Conservative Environment Network believe that they could go even
further by setting a requirement in law for the Secretary of
State to publish a green skills strategy.
It is within that context—a world-leading Environment Act, a
stronger emphasis on climate change in the national curriculum
and a green skills revolution—that the Government could also look
to introduce a natural history GCSE. It would be a part of the
whole—a jigsaw piece. It would demonstrate to schools, students
and parents the high value we place on study in this area.
The proposed GCSE was developed by Cambridge Assessment and OCR
following an extensive consultation that received more than 2,000
responses. I am pleased to say that the Eastbourne Schools
Partnership sat on the strategic advisory group. The results are
most impressive and very compelling: 94% of the young people who
responded said that they would have liked to study the GCSE, and
96% of UK teachers and educators who responded were interested in
teaching the qualification.
The natural history GCSE would reflect progression within the
existing curriculum. It builds on nature observation content in
key stages 1 to 3, providing a good capstone assessment at 16
that brings together those threads in a way that existing courses
in geography and biology cannot.
Mrs Drummond
Is there any evidence from the people who responded that young
people would take up natural history instead of science and
geography? Would it be an alternative or an add-on? The number of
GCSEs that most people can take is limited.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight one of the challenges around
curriculum choices. Of course, with every choice there is an
opportunity cost. However, this additional, optional GCSE would
complement any choices, be they arts or science choices. The
curriculum is designed to provide a broad and balanced education
in the core, so there would be no learning loss—the science
component is already guaranteed and safeguarded. This new GCSE
would provide an opportunity for extended study into the natural
world, with all the benefits that could bring. Of course, as I
said earlier, it is quite a mix of a GCSE, in that it rests on
several different disciplines, so it is a good all-round GCSE
choice to complement any combination of subjects that students
might choose.
I wonder if the hon. Lady has come across the statements from
university lecturers about the fact that they see students come
through the school system and arrive at university without having
had the field study or the immersion in nature and the direct
contact with it in terms of identifying, monitoring and recording
the life around them. That is what the GCSE could do. It would
give pupils a really intimate knowledge of nature and first-hand
experience of working with nature in a very different way from
something that is more usually desk based.
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the significance of that
component of the proposed new GCSE. I think we would all agree
that learning through doing and being active within that learning
is a hugely powerful experience. The content is, of course, very
important, but it is the real-time, real-place study that will
make this proposal a particularly attractive and meaningful
learning experience, and a brilliant springboard to further
study, whether at A-level or at university. As the hon. Lady
says, it is about active engagement.
A key component of the new course includes those practical field
studies—as mentioned by the hon. Lady—to develop the skills of
observing, describing, classifying and analysing wildlife. That
bridges an important gap in the curriculum. Students would learn
about the wildlife in their local area, engendering that
important sense of place, wherever that place might be. They
would develop an understanding of ecosystems and the
interdependence of the organisms within them, as well as the
forces that shape them, including human activity such as farming
and urbanisation.
The OCR proposal contains unique skills and content, while
reinforcing skills in biology and geography, which are
complementary, in the same way as physics complements maths, and
history geography. The skills developed by the course would
support various academic and vocational post-16 pursuits,
including in the biosciences, geography and land-based industry,
helping to plug our green skills shortage. If the Government were
minded to initiate further work on this, students could begin by
taking the course from September 2024.
A number of challenges are involved, as with all innovations, but
they are far from insurmountable. Do we have the expertise to
teach and establish the course? The answer is yes. Biology and
geography teachers would be the most likely to teach the course,
but OCR has interest from teachers of all subjects. Teachers are
by instinct and training hugely resourceful. We also have a
world-leading non-governmental organisation community—from the
Eden Project and the Wildlife Trust, to the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds—which sits on a wealth of knowledge, material
and sites that can be deployed to support teachers. Indeed, many
of those groups already do great work in providing educational
visits for families and schools.
Can we ensure that the qualification is accessible to all
students? Again, the answer is yes. Field studies are
deliberately designed to be applicable in both urban and rural
settings. Government and civil society can play a role in
encouraging take-up in deprived areas by facilitating trips and
visits to nearby nature spots, as well as bringing wildlife into
classroom study.
In short, introducing a natural history GCSE is feasible for
schools and could be widely accessible to students from all
backgrounds in all parts of the country. It would be part of the
jigsaw to arrest the shifting baselines phenomenon by
highlighting the change to our natural environment over time and
the potential for restoration in the future. Committing to the
new qualification would show young people that society values the
environment. It would provide them with the tools to make a
positive contribution towards solving the biodiversity and
climate challenges. It would give them the opportunity to acquire
a recognised qualification that reflects a deeper connection with
and understanding of the natural world. Such learning and
recognition will equip and empower this generation of students to
rise to meet one of the principal challenges of our times. I
commend its adoption to my hon. Friend the Minister.
14:53:00
(Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne () for bringing this
important debate to this Chamber, and I bow to her expertise as a
former teacher and director of studies.
My hon. Friend may know that I never miss the opportunity to say
that GCSEs no longer have any place in our assessment system. I
think that we should have a 14-to-18 curriculum that could
include the topic of natural history, as well as other subjects,
giving skills and knowledge to young people. Employers,
universities, parents and young people themselves are looking for
a curriculum that sets them up for future careers. I believe that
public examinations at 16, at which 49.9% of young people fail
English and maths, are not acceptable.
I thought I was being bold in proposing the introduction of one
GCSE, but my hon. Friend has taken that proposal and raised me a
revolution. I am sure that teachers everywhere will admire the
breadth of her ambition. I think that where she and I agree is
that this would include a component or a topic dealing with
natural history. Does she therefore agree that this needs to be
given a greater profile, greater prominence and greater coverage,
and that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on the field
studies mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion
(), in order for this new,
revolutionary education system to meet the needs of this
generation of students?
Mrs Drummond
I absolutely agree with that, and I will come on to it later. We
need to look again at our curriculum to ensure that young people
are not alienated from education, and what my hon. Friend the
Member for Eastbourne has said about natural history may be part
of that. I am not against exams or other rigorous methods of
assessment, but at present I do not believe that the existing
system is working. I am looking forward to the beginning of next
year, when several commissions will report on the subject of the
new assessment system.
Turning to the OCR proposal for a new GCSE in natural history,
the environment is a very important subject—possibly the most
important—for all young people. Like my hon. Friend, when I meet
children and young people, that topic is always at the forefront
of their conversations and questions, and their letters and
emails are all deeply concerned about the environment. In 2021,
Global Action Plan found that 89% of young people aged seven to
18 said that caring for the natural world was quite or very
important, and teachers would like there to be more in the
curriculum about climate change, although they need more training
and information about it.
As such, I agree with teachers and pupils that natural history
should be an integral part of the national curriculum starting at
key stage 1, but in fact it is already there. As the OCR report
mentions, children begin studying natural history at an early
age, from key stage 1 to key stage 4 in science. Science covers
many of the subject aims and learning outcomes that OCR has put
in its proposal for a natural history GCSE. For instance, in year
1, pupils are taught to use their local environment to explore
and question how plants grow, looking at plant structures, using
equipment to identify plants and describe them and record how
they change over time. Year 2 looks at living things and their
habitats: pupils explore and compare the differences between
things that are living, things that are dead and things that have
never been alive; identify that most living things live in
habitats—including microhabitats—to which they are suited; and
describe how different habitats provide for the basic needs of
different kinds of animals and plants and how they depend on each
other, including food chains. Pupils in years 3 and 4 perform a
range of scientific experiments and observations on natural
history, looking at naturally occurring patterns and
relationships and using data, and that continues in years 5 and
6, increasing the complexity of what those pupils are learning,
mostly based on natural history. As such, by key stage 4—GCSE
level—science already covers nearly everything that is in this
new GCSE.
I worry that bringing in this new GCSE would dilute the rigorous
science GCSE by diverting young people into another, similar
course that is far narrower than the existing science one. They
would miss out on many elements of science, such as chemistry and
physics, which contribute to young people’s general knowledge and
would help their understanding of our environment. Geography is
only compulsory up to key stage 3—although, of course, I would
change that if I were going to design a curriculum from 14 to
18—but the geography GCSE also covers much of what is in this
natural history proposal, and dovetails well with the science
GCSE. OCR states that it would use
“the same underlying rationale as the models in GCSE Science and
Geography, which support rich practical and field work, but do
not use over-structured practical and field work to contribute
marks to the grade. This avoids boring work which could easily be
‘gamed’ or leads to poor-quality assessment.”
That is a really odd comment, and I hope it does not mean that
OCR believes that this boring work is already happening. If it
is, why on earth are examination boards not making it more
interesting for science and geography?
OCR also says in its proposal that the new GCSE would not
comprise
“a redundant overlap with other disciplines and discipline
areas”.
I would challenge that: I believe that it would, and I think that
my hon. Friend agrees with me, because she mentioned that in her
speech. There is not enough time in such a broad GCSE, which
contains geography, biology, geology and so on, to incorporate
rigorous knowledge of each of those subjects. Could it be seen as
an easier alternative? I have read the proposal carefully, but I
am concerned that people will take natural history as an
alternative and therefore miss out on important and valuable
study areas. However, I agree that we must include much more
about the environment and our natural history in the curriculum.
Environmental literacy should be developed across a range of
subjects. Learning about our natural world should not be limited
to one subject alone.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs Drummond
Of course—I knew that my hon. Friend would say that.
I thank my hon. Friend, who raises some valid concerns that need
to be addressed and, indeed, have been addressed in other places.
One thing that I seek to understand more is the important idea of
environmental literacy that she describes. Throughout the
curriculum, there is much emphasis on language and communication
as well as mathematics and numeracy. She describes early
experiences extending all the way through the key stages. Is it
not rather odd that, when we come to key stage 4, there is not
that same continuity and, therefore, opportunity for students to
demonstrate environmental literacy in a way that further
education institutions or employers could recognise?
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, environmental
literacy should be not just limited to science and geography but
seen through English. We can think of a whole lot of poetry about
nature.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend is a language teacher, not an English teacher.
Indeed—a French teacher. One of the most exciting and potentially
dynamic elements of the new GCSE is that it goes beyond a purely
scientific approach where it might rest on biology or even
geography and extends to our understanding of the natural world
as manifested in art, music and literature. There is a rich
inheritance therein inspired by our natural world. The new GCSE
does everything that my hon. Friend suggests.
Mrs Drummond
In that case, I am even more concerned that the rigorousness of a
science—chemistry, physics and biology—would be completely missed
out. I fear that people would take the natural history GCSE as an
alternative to a science or geography GCSE and that those
subjects would be lost. Environmental literacy should permeate
every single subject, which would have the same effect as doing a
natural history GCSE without the subject being limited to just
that course.
I have one final point. Learning is powerful and threaded, as my
hon. Friend describes, through the curriculum. Indeed, that is
how students first acquired the skills necessary to understand
information technology: it was delivered via other subjects.
However, we came to recognise that IT has its own standing and
should have its own status and qualification. A student can go
further, deeper and wider in the specific and discrete study of
IT, even though it is encountered, encouraged and supported in
every other curriculum area.
Mrs Drummond
That is true, but the reality is that fewer people are doing IT
at GCSE, probably because it permeates through all the other
subjects. That again illustrates why natural history needs to be
part of the curriculum. Perhaps examination boards could design
better examinations and curriculums rather than bring in a new
GCSE that I believe would lead to young people missing out on
much knowledge covered by science and geography courses.
Of course, I would much prefer to incorporate environmental
literacy into a 14-to-18 curriculum, which would allow for a
greater depth of study and development of skills. However, I am
incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this
important debate.
(in the Chair)
I invite to respond on behalf of the
official Opposition.
15:04:00
(Hampstead and Kilburn)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I
am standing in today for the previous shadow Schools Minister, my
hon. Friend the Member for Hove (), who is no longer in the role.
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon.
Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (), for her help in
advance of the debate, and I congratulate her on her recent
appointment. I also thank the previous shadow Secretary of State
for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and
Urmston (), for the enthusiasm and passion
that she brought to the role and to this topic. I will take all
the points that were made in the debate back to my colleagues who
cover the curriculum as part of their Front-Bench briefs.
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne () for making such a
passionate speech and for securing an interesting and timely
debate on how natural history is a central part of children’s
education. Having two small children myself, it is something in
which I am very interested. The Labour party believes that
natural history, and the damage to the natural world brought
about by climate change, must be at the heart of every child’s
learning. Indeed, with global temperatures continuing to rise, we
have a duty as legislators to introduce our nation’s children to
the beauty and wonders of nature, and to ensure that they
understand our planet, our place and our dependency on the
natural world. Currently, however, only 17% of teachers report
that climate change is taught at schools in core subjects other
than science and geography. That is why it is so important that
nurseries, schools and colleges are supported to instil a love of
nature in future generations and to educate children about
natural history, how climate change has impacted on that history,
and how the damage can be reversed.
It is important to recognise that teachers and school leaders are
already working across the country to teach their students about
sustainability and the natural environment—whether that is
through school vegetable patches or planting trees to mark
achievements and special occasions.
I know that the hon. Member for Eastbourne was a teacher, and I
believe she is married to a teacher, so she is well versed on the
teaching world. I am sure she will join me in celebrating the
efforts of all teachers who try to teach sustainability as much
as possible. Like me, she is also a school governor, as I think
are many MPs. We recognise that schools are trying and doing
their best to teach as much as possible. For example, there is
the work of the Eco-Schools green flag programme, which is
supported by many of the schools in my constituency and others,
as well as by nurseries and colleges. It consists of seven steps
that educational institutions can take to engage their students
on climate change and the natural world, including putting
environmental issues in learning plans and choosing texts that
explore those issues in subjects such as English. I must admit
that that did not happen when I was at school, and I wish it
had.
Sadly, despite the fantastic work that is taking place in many
parts of the country, many children are still being denied an
environmental education. I looked at some of the recent research
from the youth-led Teach the Future campaign, which revealed that
70% of UK teachers have not received adequate training to educate
students on climate change. It also found that 41% of teachers
say that climate change is rarely or never mentioned in their
school. Perhaps most shockingly, just 5% say that climate change
is integral to many aspects of the curriculum and teaching in
their school, which is deeply concerning.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to a report commissioned
by the Treasury, “The Economics of Biodiversity”, which warns
that the absence of the natural world in our children’s education
is a risk to future prosperity. In a time of extreme climate
change in which we have seen a loss of biodiversity, it is
essential that young people have the knowledge and tools to
tackle the climate crisis, because long after most of us have
gone, our children will still be here. That is why I once again
ask the Minister to carefully consider the report that the
Treasury commissioned, and to look at what it recommended.
The research also shows that outdoor learning can improve
children’s educational outcomes, particularly for those who are
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and that regular contact
with nature makes children happier, healthier and better able to
learn. This point was made in a very articulate fashion by the
hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (), who mentioned that she had
to leave the room to attend a Select Committee. She talked about
the impact that contact with nature can have on children. I go
back to a recent poll commissioned by the Wildlife Trust, which
revealed that 75% of adults believe that children do not spend
enough time enjoying the natural world. As I represent the
inner-city constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, I have
certainly seen that for myself.
Of course, the situation has got even worse in the past 18
months. A survey by Save the Children found that more than half
of all children were spending less time playing outside with
their friends since the outbreak of covid-19. That is very
worrying. Once again, while such cross-party agreement might be
rare in this House, I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne
that natural history should be at the centre of children’s
learning. The Labour party believes that children should have a
strong understanding of the environment, and we look warmly on
any proposal that fosters that ambition.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs
Drummond)—I hope I pronounced her constituency correctly. When I
speak to schoolchildren, as I often do when visiting local
schools, climate change is the one issue they passionately care
about and will bring up without fail every time I address a
school assembly. It is important to ensure that every child, not
just those who choose to study for a particular GCSE, understands
the challenges facing our planet and our society. That would
require the natural world to be integrated across the whole
curriculum, not just in science and geography lessons or a
natural history GCSE, but in all subjects, from English
literature to history and others.
We must support schools and educators to do that if we want to
see a genuine difference in the way natural history is taught.
Embedding natural history, biodiversity and climate change within
the curriculum will require new training for teachers and
teaching assistants, which is why the Labour party has committed
to giving all teachers a right to continuing professional
development, with £210 million extra a year for CPD. That funding
could be used to deliver training on the climate and the natural
world, and I hope that is something the Government will also
consider.
The Labour party has also announced plans for 400,000 green jobs,
and it is essential that we enable young people to develop the
skills for those employment opportunities. That has to start in
schools and colleges, and climate change and green skills should
be a priority for schools as well as for further and higher
education, a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford ()—I think he had to go, but obviously no Westminster
Hall debate is complete without his contribution, so I had to
mention him.
I have a series of questions for the Minister that I hope he will
answer. How are the Government working to ensure that natural
history and climate change are embedded across the education
system? What are the Government doing to ensure that teachers
receive adequate training to educate students on climate change?
We cannot just tell them to do it; we have to help and support
them. How will the Government ensure that outdoor learning is a
key part of children’s experience at school? That question is
particularly important in the light of the statistics I talked
about relating to covid-19. What steps are the Government taking
to ensure that young people are gaining the skills they need at
school and college to prepare them for the green economy?
Ensuring that the future generation value and respect their
natural environment will be fundamental in the struggle to
reverse the climate crisis, so I wholeheartedly welcome this
important debate on how best to secure that end. I urge the
Minister, who I know is willing to listen, to reflect on today’s
discussion to ensure that the natural world and climate change
are at the heart of children’s education and learning.
15:13:00
The Minister for School Standards ( )
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne
() on securing this debate,
and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and
Kilburn (), who gave a very good speech.
Although I understand she is here in a caretaker capacity, I
welcome the tone with which she engaged in the debate. I
particularly welcome the lively debate that we had on the
Government Benches between my hon. Friends the Members for
Eastbourne and for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond).
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, as I am sure do
her constituents, for her dedication to tackling environmental
issues such as pollution, toxic air quality and single-use
plastics. I also thank her for her continuing dedication to
improving education and ensuring that every child gets the best
start in life. She is one of many former teachers on our Benches
who bring huge passion and experience to the Chamber and our
debates.
I welcome this timely debate and the contributions we have heard
from hon. Members across the House. The Department is currently
considering its broader strategy for sustainability and climate
change, one of the key strategic aims of which is excellence in
education and skills for a changing world. I will do my best to
answer the specific questions that the hon. Member for Hampstead
and Kilburn put to me, but I also direct her attention to a
recent debate that we had in this very Chamber on the broader
issue of sustainability and climate change, and the responses
that I gave then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne echoed one of the points
raised in that debate, about the level of concern among young
people around these issues. It is absolutely right that we should
seek to address that, and to equip them with the tools and the
confidence to find solutions to protecting the natural world and
tackling climate change. On launching the draft strategy, our
Department committed to engaging with young people and
stakeholders ahead of the publication, and we are keen to hear
many different views and consider many different opportunities,
of which natural history may be one.
I begin this response by fully acknowledging the importance of
educating young people about the environment and nature. Climate
change impacts everyone and requires us all to change the way we
behave and work. In England, there are over 72,000 early years
and childcare providers and there are more than 16 million
children, young people and adults in education across the whole
of the UK.
We have a responsibility to prepare all our children and young
people to meet the challenges, and to empower them to play their
part in finding solutions so that they can benefit from the
opportunities that we will face in the future. This is clearly a
worthy topic for discussion. We must prepare young people as our
country prepares for a low-carbon, greener future—one in which we
can be better custodians of nature than, perhaps, previous
generations have been.
At COP26, on 5 November, the Secretary of State announced a draft
sustainability and climate change strategy and two key new
nature-based initiatives—the national education nature park and
the climate leaders award. Throughout the development of the
draft strategy, the Department, including Ministers and the
Secretary of State, has been engaging with young people to ensure
that it reflects their needs. As part of that, we explored the
subject of improved sustainability and climate education, of
which nature clearly forms a critical element. We discussed the
matter of a specific natural history GCSE with young people, and
they told us they believe it is important for all young people to
learn about the natural world, not necessarily just those who
attend a school that may be able to offer a specific natural
history GCSE or who elect to study it.
As we have heard, No. 10 commissioned the landmark Dasgupta
review, “The Economics of Biodiversity”, which also set out the
importance of young people learning about and valuing nature for
the protection and restoration of biodiversity. For that reason,
we have set out action in our draft sustainability and climate
change plan that enables young people to learn more about the
natural environment. That includes a primary science model
curriculum, to include an emphasis on nature and the recognition
of species, which came up briefly in today’s debate but was
mentioned more in the previous debate that we had in Westminster
Hall about the environment.
In that debate there was a lot of interesting talk about British
birds and the importance of recognising them. I repeat the remark
that I made then—that, as a Robin, I feel particularly strongly
that this is something to be welcomed. Including the study of
species native to the United Kingdom, such as the hedgehog, which
my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne rightly made an
impassioned case to protect, will ensure that all children
understand more about the world around them.
Science continuing professional development would further improve
the teaching of the national curriculum, which already includes
many elements related to the subjects. That should ensure that
all young people, right through to key stage 3, will receive an
excellent and robust science education. We are continuing to work
with sector representatives, young people and delivery partners
across Government to refine and build on the draft strategy,
ahead of publication of a final version in April 2022. We will
continue to discuss the case for a natural history GCSE with
stakeholders over the next few months, so that a decision can be
made in the context of our broader strategy for sustainability
and climate education.
When the Department, which I recently rejoined, started to reform
the national curriculum and qualifications a decade ago, we
wanted to ensure that they were firmly based on the knowledge
that young people need to give them the basis for future study
and work, including knowledge about the natural world and the
environment. Currently, many elements related to the subject are
taught throughout the curriculum, primarily through science and
geography, both of which are core parts of the EBacc.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley pointed out, in key
stage 1 science pupils learn to understand the concept of
habitats, and the relationship between habitats and the organisms
that live there. During key stage 2 they learn how to classify
organisms and about how changing environments have impacted upon
organisms. Pupils also learn about the principles of evolution
and how living things have changed over time to become adapted to
their environments.
At key stage 3, pupils build on their earlier learning by
learning more about the relationship of organisms within
ecosystems and their environment. They also study the differences
between species, to build an understanding of variation and, in
turn, to understand the role that variation and adaptation have
played in the evolution and extinction of species.
Key stage 4 biology develops further the key idea of
interdependencies within ecosystems, including the specific
impact that humans can have on the dynamic nature of ecosystems.
Pupils gain a greater understanding of the importance of
adaptation and the process of natural selection, and develop
their knowledge of classification.
As part of the national curriculum, geography teaching should
equip pupils with knowledge about diverse places, people,
resources and natural and human environments, together with a
deep understanding of the earth’s key physical and human
processes. Geography enables young people to become globally and
environmentally informed and thoughtful inquiring citizens.
Aspects of natural history can be covered throughout the
geography curriculum. At key stage 1, for example, pupils are
taught to use—
The Minister does full justice to all the important content that
is already within the curriculum that touches on natural history.
Speaking of geography, is it an issue that this does not sit
within that key stage 4 core? Does that mean that students are
necessarily missing out on some important insight and
understanding?
Mr Walker
I want to come to key stage 4 geography. If my hon. Friend will
allow me, I will just run through the key stages building up to
that, and then address key stage 4. We all recognise the benefits
of this engagement, both within the curriculum, as I will come to
later, and in activities that go beyond the curriculum.
Returning to where we are today, at key stage 2 children are
taught to describe and understand key aspects of human geography,
including types of settlement, land use, economic activity,
including trade links, and the distribution of natural resources.
That connects to natural history, as it provides pupils with an
understanding of the physical and economic context in which
organisms live, including the impact of agricultural and
industrial processes on nature.
At key stage 3, children are taught to understand how human and
physical processes interact to influence and change landscapes,
environment and the climate, and how human activity relies on
effective functioning of natural systems. There is scope to cover
other aspects of natural history throughout the geography
curriculum, and coverage need not be limited to the examples that
I have given.
In key stage 4 geography, young people gain an understanding of
the interactions between people and environments, change in
places and processes over time and space, and the
interrelationship between geographical phenomena at different
scales and in different contexts. Again, that links to natural
history, as young people gain knowledge and understanding of key
ideas and principles, such as sustainability, human impact,
complex systems and interdependencies. They also learn an
overview of the distribution and characteristics of large-scale
natural global ecosystems, drawing out for two selected
ecosystems the interdependence of climate, soil, water, plants,
animals and humans; the processes and interactions that operate
within them at different scales; and issues related to
biodiversity and to their sustainable use and management.
Students are also taught about causes and consequences of extreme
weather conditions, and about climatic change and evidence for
different causes of that, including human activity.
In both science and geography, young people develop knowledge and
understanding of the principles, processes and events that make
the systems within which organisms live dynamic. They also
develop an understanding of key ideas and principles of life
cycle, sustainability, human impact, complex systems and
responsibility.
The Government do recognise that fieldwork is a very important
part of teaching within geography, which is why geography
programmes of study contain geographical skills in fieldwork as a
theme in key stages 1, 2 and 3. The new GCSE in geography, taught
since September 2016, includes a clearer balance between human
and physical geography, and requires pupils to carry out at least
two pieces of fieldwork outside the classroom. It is worth noting
that the vast majority of students take science GCSEs and 41%
took a geography GCSE in 2019-20—an increase from just 26% who
took geography GCSE in 2009-10.
Curriculum and qualifications are not the whole story. We have a
number of examples in this debate, but we can go beyond that. It
is worth reminding everybody that the national curriculum is a
framework, setting out the context of what the Department expects
maintained schools to cover in each subject. Academies are free
to use the national curriculum as a benchmark, to ensure that
they deliver a broad and balanced curriculum. The curriculum does
not set out how curriculum subjects or topics within the subjects
should be taught. Teachers can and do use their own knowledge and
expertise to determine how they teach their pupils, and make
choices about what they teach, including the teaching of aspects
of natural history, building on and enriching the words on the
face of curriculum documents.
On a recent visit to the Rivers Multi-Academy Trust and one of
its schools in my constituency, I was pleased to see that topics
such as nature, climate change and the environment are already
included, not just in citizenship, science and geography but in
English and art, in a balanced curriculum that it was created to
reflect the millennium development goals. Schools are making room
in the curriculum to let children experience nature. This
provides key learning to all students but also offers
flexibility. We see some excellent work in climate education at
all levels in schools.
We trust teachers to use their judgment when it comes to
materials that they use in class. They are experts in bringing
the content of the curriculum to life for their students.
Teachers can choose from a wide variety of resources and have the
freedom to choose the approaches that best suit their pupils. One
example of innovative teaching is from Sara Falcone, a teacher at
Dagenham Park School, who, like the Rivers MAT, has introduced
the global sustainable development goals into her science lessons
so that her students can make links to sustainability in a range
of different science topics. Another example is from Matt King, a
teacher at Westcliff High School for Girls, who adapted UK
Research and Innovation’s Clippy Island resource to make learning
about natural selection accessible and engaging for students.
Teachers draw on the expertise and resources of subject
associations in this area. For example, the Royal Society of
Biology, the Geographical Association and the Royal Geographical
Society all produce expert resources, advice and continuing
professional development on topics related to the teaching of the
environment and natural history. The Department is supporting
them on that; through our strategy, we will provide teachers with
access to more high-quality resources and share best
practice.
Formal education is not the only route for children and young
people to learn about nature. There are many excellent
opportunities, programmes and awards for pupils focused on
natural history and the environment, as well as outdoor
education. We worked to ensure our outdoor education centres were
included as part of the lifting of covid restrictions, so
children are now able to access those on a residential basis. We
heard about the fantastic work that goes on in forest schools. My
hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley was right to draw
attention to their work, providing young people with a greater
sense of connection with nature and an understanding of our
shared future.
Many varied organisations, such as Scouts, Guides, the Young
Foresters Award, London Zoo, the John Muir Trust and the Duke of
Edinburgh Award, also engage young people with the natural world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne rightly points out the
benefit of initiatives such as planting trees for the Queen’s
jubilee, which can also make future contributions in this space.
The Department’s Climate Leaders Award will act as an umbrella
for the many existing awards and activities that stakeholders
currently provide. In doing so, it will help to increase
participation in nature-based activities and celebrate and
recognise the enormous effort that so many education providers
and children and young people put into improving their local
environments.
We are currently working with the Natural History Museum to
develop the nature park and the climate leaders award further,
and we will engage with many stakeholders and young people to
ensure that, when those are launched, they provide excellent
opportunities for all young people to get practically involved in
nature and to contextualise their learning. The ambition is to
launch the park and the award scheme in autumn 2022. We also have
the Wildlife Trust wild school award pilot and the wild challenge
award.
One recent real-life example of work in this space is by Hollie
Daw, a sixth-form geography student at the Hurst School,
Basingstoke, who received the RGS’s prestigious Ron Cooke award
for her individual research into infiltration rates— water
soaking or filtering through the soil—in her local Ashford Hill
nature reserve. Thousands of primary and secondary pupils and
schools have been exploring how they have reconnected with their
local environments and green spaces during the covid-19 lockdowns
through their entries to the RGS’s Young Geographer of the Year
competition, which had the theme, “Remapping our lives”. I look
forward to the RGS announcing the winners of that competition on
3 December.
In considering whether to introduce a new GCSE, there are many
complex factors that we need to think about. We have heard some
of those already, including whether a new qualification is the
best way forward to enhance all students’ knowledge and skills in
these important areas. Alternatively, we could consider whether
there is more we can do to support teachers to teach the current
curriculum and qualifications in a way that encourages all pupils
to engage more with natural history elements.
Another factor is whether a new GCSE would support progression
for pupils who want to go on and study and work in the field of
natural history. I heard the strong case from my hon. Friend the
Member for Eastbourne that it would. Pupils take only a limited
number of qualifications at GCSE, and we could consider whether
we should do even more to encourage pupils to study geography at
GCSE alongside the sciences, as almost all pupils already study
two or three GCSEs’-worth of science. Another factor to consider
is whether the qualification adds to the total knowledge that a
pupil will gain by the age of 16. Any new GCSE needs to avoid
significant overlap with other GCSEs—in this case, science and
geography. That is to ensure that young people leave school with
a broad and balanced curricular experience, and that individual
students are not awarded two GCSEs while only covering the
content of one and a half, for example. We also need to consider
how teachers of natural history would be sourced without
exacerbating existing pressures on the geography and science
teacher workforce. It is worth noting that this year we have
already seen an increase in the bursaries for both biology and
geography.
I have been very grateful to hear the arguments for this case,
and to be given the opportunity to set out some of the work that
is already going on in this area. There remains a huge
opportunity to enrich the existing curriculum. The development of
the primary science model will focus on nature and help young
people recognise different species, giving them more knowledge
that will be required as they move through education.
The Oak National Academy serves millions of children through
online classrooms, providing lessons and accompanying resources,
which include coverage of the environment, climate change, wider
sustainability and other natural history topics. Teachers are
choosing from a wide range of high-quality curriculum resources
available, from Oak and beyond.
This is a very important area of education. It ensures that young
people are prepared to meet the challenges of and equipped to
benefit from the opportunities that they will face in the future.
As I have outlined, there are already many exciting opportunities
within the existing curriculum for people to be taught about
natural history. The Department will continue to consider
carefully the proposal for a natural history GCSE. It will also
continue to support schools to make the most of our new
initiatives. The national education nature park and the climate
leaders award will ensure that all children and young people,
regardless of the subjects they choose to study, will learn more
about nature.
There is a huge amount of important work going on, building on
the opportunities within the existing curriculum and the
qualifications structure. There is always more to do. I am
grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and all who
spoke today for emphasising the importance of nature and a love
of nature in our education system.
15:31:00
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for doing justice to all the
very good work that is already being done in schools. He
highlighted that there is further work to do to enhance the
curriculum as it stands, and that the Department and he are still
considering the opportunity to enhance the curriculum by offering
this new choice at key stage 4.
During the debate, natural history has variously been described
as a priority and something that we must embed and profile. It
strikes me that there is consensus around how important and
valuable the topic is. It would be a very fitting acknowledgment
of how important it is to offer it as a qualification, so that
students can demonstrate their skills and the learning that the
Minister described, right from when they are tiny all the way
through school. As important as those lessons and wider learning
are—through different awards and programmes—having a
qualification that reflects a body of knowledge and the skills
acquired could be an important, valuable contribution to a
student’s portfolio.
Choice is very important as students approach their final key
stage, unless we are going for the bigger, wider reform that was
previously described. All the while we are still in the realm of
GCSE subjects, I do think it is important that we continue to
innovate, and that the curriculum continues to be dynamic and
reflect the future that we are working towards. I noted that the
Minister mentioned the Natural History Museum and the Wildlife
Trusts as partners, but they support the introduction of a
natural history GCSE, so there are some very significant partners
willing to bring their expertise to bear to bring forward such a
qualification. I heartily recommend the introduction of a natural
history GCSE, while appreciating the complexities that are
involved. There is nothing more significant or important than the
curriculum that we design and offer to this next generation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of introducing a
Natural History GCSE.
|
