I am not sure if you are aware of Biology’s situation so I would like to fill you in:

1. Back in the early 2000′s, after Chem and Physics told the QSA that they were not happy with the new syllabii during the original trial, Biology’s syllabus was forced upon them with no trial year. This was done by manipulating the definition of a minor/ major change. And, the changes were major (everything was changed including criteria, assessment etc. except the basic content). Biology teachers had many meetings with the QSA and we were basically told to ‘get on with it and make it work, as that was our job’.

2. The original syllabus (2004) was so unworkable that in 2006 they had to put out an amendment to it which was nearly as big as the syllabus itself. A review is long overdue, but has been now put on hold until the National Curriculum comes in. There are still major flaws, e.g. lack of cohesion between the exit statements and the objectives

3. Criteria – we also have three criteria in Biology, but unlike the other sciences and senior maths our criteria are all separate. I believe that for the other subjects, the third criteria is part of the other two. In Biology it is called ‘Evaluating Biological Issues’, which in itself has many processes that we had to teach our students. This has compounded our workload, as you can imagine. The QSA has only just started to come up with any examples to guide us with this area in the last year or so.

4. In 2005 a group of coordinators put together a CD to help teachers who were struggling. The QSA ended up being part of this because they had then realised what was happening. This CD contained only examples of assessment, and were not exemplars, as we were still trying to get our heads around the criteria.

5. Assessment – multiplied to the nth degree. The QSA expects no multiple choice (which I have just ignored), expects criteria sheets and no marks (I feel you can put the two together to achieve a standard, and this is how I have worked it), expects questions to be ‘open ended’ so that you have to award standards according to ‘how far’ a student can answer the question – discriminates against SA and low HA. Our ability to discriminate clearly between students is more difficult. I have rejected these, BUT I could do this as I have been teaching for a long time and felt confident in my approach. The huge worry has been the newer teachers in smaller country schools with no resources. Marking is horrendous. At least with Maths, Chem and Physics there is an analytical type approach to the questions. With Biology we don’t even have this option. The ERs and EEIs – for Biology the ER is compulsory. This is a major increase in workload for students, teachers and lab technicians. Because we have had to restructure our teaching around and through these pieces of assessment, the time we have available to spend on concepts has been reduced. However, the trial and error that has occurred over the last 8 years is incredible, with little support from the QSA – even at different workshops we were told different things…….

6. Workload overall is massive. I know many excellent Biology teachers who now refuse to teach the subject because of this. As for our students – I admire them for their effort. This must affect numbers in the Senior Sciences overall. In fact, the QSA in 2004 actually said that they expected Biology numbers to decrease………………….

I am sure there is more I could add but will leave it here.