Letter to the Department for Education
Following the release of the draft National Curriculum for science Key Stages 1 and 2 (PDF) on Monday, Stuart Lynn sparked some discussion on Twitter over problems with the wording in the notes and guidance for teachers in Year 4 (ages 8-9). The biggest issue is that they refer to constellations as clusters of stars. After a bit of discussion I suggested we be proactive and send our feedback to the Department for Education. Between us we drafted this email and I'll be sending it later today (2pm BST) if anyone wants to add their name to it.
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are astronomers with a strong interest in education and public outreach. On Monday 11th June we had the opportunity to read your draft National Curriculum for science Key Stages 1 and 2. We welcome the expanded notes for teachers connected to the Year 4 Programme of Study for "Earth and space" but note that they contain some inaccuracies and misleading statements.
We suggest the following changes:
- The most significant problem is in paragraph 181:
"Identifiable clusters of stars are called constellations."
We feel there is potential for confusion over the use of "cluster of stars". A cluster implies a close group. Star clusters - close groups of stars that formed from the same original gas cloud - do exist but are very different objects to constellations. Constellations are simply patterns of bright stars in the sky as seen from our point of view here on Earth. There is no physical relationship between the stars in a constellation, which can be at widely different distances from the Earth. A suggested change would be:"Identifiable patterns of bright stars are called constellations."
- In paragraph 184:
"making an approximately scale model of the Sun, Moon and Earth in the playground, using a beach ball for the Sun, a football for the Earth and a table tennis ball for the Moon; setting up the distances to demonstrate that the Moon and Sun look the same size from Earth, despite being vastly different in size."
This might be overloading the analogy. It does show that the Moon and Sun are at different distances but using incorrectly scaled objects may lead to misconceptions about the relative sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. It may be clearer if the demonstration of eclipses was done as a separate demo to the size/distance scale of the Earth-Moon-Sun, as the suggested scale is not quite accurate. On a standard school playing field approximate sizes would be: Sun 1m, Earth 1cm (at 100m from the Sun), Moon 3mm (at 30cm from the Earth). Suggested objects for such an exercise would be: a Hula Hoop for the Sun, a marble for Earth, and a peppercorn for the Moon.
- In paragraph 181:
"Constellations that pupils might be expected to recognise and name include: Orion (The Hunter); Ursa Major (Great Bear, whose seven brightest stars form the Plough); and Ursa Minor (Lesser Bear)."
Although the constellation of Ursa Minor (The Little Bear) contains the North Star (Polaris), it is actually a fairly faint constellation that may be difficult for many to see. A better suggestion would be the constellation of Cassiopeia as it is easier to see and is always above the horizon as seen from the UK.
A suggested change would be: - In paragraph 181:
"The position of stars is fixed relative to each other, although they appear to move across the sky (in a similar way to the Sun during the day)."
Over a human lifetime there is very little change in their apparent positions relative to each other however over much longer periods the stars do change their positions.
Perhaps "The stars appear to move across the sky as the Earth rotates, just as the Sun does during the day." would be a better phrasing.
Update 11:24 BST (change suggested by Niall in comments below Perhaps "From day to day, year to year, stars do not appear to change position relative to each other. They rise and set due to the rotation of the Earth, much like the Sun." - In paragraph 181:
"The star at the centre of our solar system is one of millions of stars in the galaxy called the Milky Way."
There are roughly 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way so "millions" should be replaced with "thousands of millions" or "billions".
- In paragraph 176:
"the Moon moves around the Earth, taking 28 days to do so."
There are two periods for the Moon and neither are 28 days. However, the reasons are far beyond the scope of primary education. We suggest a note for teachers be added with regards this point:
"For teacher information, the Moon takes 27.3 days to orbit the Earth once as compared to the stars. The interval between the Moon being at the same phase is longer - 29.5 days - because the Earth and Moon are also orbiting the Sun."
"Constellations that pupils might be expected to recognise and name include: Orion (The Hunter); Ursa Major (The Great Bear, whose seven brightest stars form The Plough); and Cassiopeia."
With regards,
Stuart Lowe, Stuart Lynn, Eli Bressert, Olivia Johnson & Chris North
Comments: Letter to the Department for Education
If you want to add your name to the letter add it here.
Posted by Me on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (10:12 UTC)
I would disagree with the rewording of point 4. The "fixed" nature of the stars is in contrast to planets which wander around. I think that and the fact that the stars rise and set due to the rotation of the Earth is the point of that section. Perhaps,
"From day to day, year to year, stars do not appear to change position relative to each other. They rise and set due to the rotation of the Earth, much like the Sun"
Posted by Niall on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (10:14 UTC)
I'd like to add my name to the letter. Well done for writing this!
Posted by Haley Gomez on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (10:15 UTC)
Please add me too.
Posted by Edward Gomez on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (10:19 UTC)
Please feel free to add my name as well, and good work on this. It's important.
Posted by Andrew Markwick on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (10:28 UTC)
Please add my name.
Posted by Alasdair Allan on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (10:35 UTC)
Please add me too. I think this is really important and well done on catching it. One comment - should you include titles and affiliations (where appropriate) so that they see we're serious.
I mean "Dr Karen Masters, Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth" etc.
Up to you if you prefer not too, but I think it's something these government types might respond to.
Posted by Karen Masters on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (10:51 UTC)
Please add my name too
Posted by Jen Gupta on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (10:59 UTC)
PS. I just posted this to the Astronomers group on Facebook. It has a lot of US people, but might pick up some Brits. Hope that was OK.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/123898011017097/
Posted by Karen Masters on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (11:06 UTC)
Oh and I'd like to add my name to it.
Niall Deacon
MPIA (if that matters)
Posted by Niall on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (11:10 UTC)
Very happy to add my name too (if with titles, same as Karen's). Really like your suggested objects for the scales by the way.
Posted by Edd Edmondson on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (11:12 UTC)
Great initiative - I completely agree with your suggested changes. Feel free to add my name.
Posted by Ross Collins on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (11:14 UTC)
Dr Ross Collins, Royal Observatory, University of Edinburgh
Posted by Ross Collins on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (11:15 UTC)
By the way, for those having problems with the link it's missing a lot of encoded spaces which are getting stripped by this blog - I've replaced every case of percent20 with a big X so you might be able to reconstruct it if you want to see the document:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/p/draftXnationalXcurriculumXforXmathematicsXkeyXstagesX1X2XprimaryXXXX11XjuneX2012.pdf
Posted by Edd Edmondson on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (11:21 UTC)
...or follow Stuart's original tweet for a working link: https://twitter.com/Stuart_Lynn/status/212883191747444736
Posted by Ross Collins on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (11:45 UTC)
Posted by Stuart on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (12:41 UTC)
Good initiative! Please add my name too if it would help.
Posted by Mike Peel on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (12:56 UTC)
It may be clearer if the demonstration of eclipses was done
to
It may be clearer if the demonstration of apparent sizes was...
Also, I wonder if this is the time to use professional titles, Drs Lowe, Lynn, Bressert, Johnson and North?
Posted by Chris Lintott on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (12:58 UTC)
I feel strongly about this!
Posted by Dr Radmila Topalovic on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (14:27 UTC)
Please add my name and credentials:
Prof. Megan Donahue, Michigan State University physics and astronomy department, co-author of intro astronomy textbook series, The Cosmic Perspective.
Posted by Megan Donahue on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (14:28 UTC)
If it helps, please add my name too.
Posted by Dr Edward Bloomer on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (14:37 UTC)
The final version has a few minor language changes:
"There is no physical relationship between the stars in a constellation" becomes "There is not necessarily any physical relationship between the stars in a constellation"
"We suggest a note for teachers be added with regards this point" becomes "We suggest an additional note for teachers be added with regards this point"
I've also added "roughly" before the 100m and "about" before the 30cm.
Posted by Stuart on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (15:04 UTC)
Posted by Brendan Owens on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (15:29 UTC)
If you feel like it, put my name on the letter as well.
I'm dealing with these things all the time when we visit schools with our planetarium and very often things need clearing up.
Nice letter,
Boris
Posted by Boris on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (16:53 UTC)
Great work. I spotted another slight errata on page 31
> Earth pulls downwards on objects on its surface,
Implies only objects at the surface experience a force. Could be replaced with
> Earth pulls downwards on all objects on its surface, in the air, and in orbit around it (satellites and the moon)
Or
Earth pulls downwards on objects on its surface, and on those above its surface but with an ever decreasing strength
Posted by Tom K on Friday 15th Jun 2012 (18:41 UTC)
Dear all, very useful activity! But I do not fully agree with your definition of constellation.
Constellations are NOT (even simply said) patterns of bright stars in the sky as seen from our point of view here on Earth. In modern astronomy, a constellation is an internationally defined area of the celestial sphere. We can assimilate it to countries on Earth and their borders! I am not native English speaker, so please excuse that I am not able to suggest change of exact definition, but it should be like this: "Internationally defined area of the celestial sky are called constellations."
Posted by Ota Kehar on Saturday 16th Jun 2012 (11:17 UTC)
Dear all,
is there any progress in this issue?
Thank you.
Best Regards
Ota Kehar
Faculty of Education, University of West Bohemia
Czech republic
Posted by Ota Kehar on Wednesday 20th Jun 2012 (05:43 UTC)
Posted by Stuart on Wednesday 04th Jul 2012 (22:01 UTC)