---
title: "Science education in England"
chunk: 2/14
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_education_in_England"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:21:10.973540+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== 1800s ===
Up until the 1800s, there were only two stages of education: elementary and university. However, in the nineteenth century, elementary education began to divide into primary (still called elementary) and secondary education. Elementary schools were defined in law in England through a series of Acts of Parliament which made education compulsory and free for children up to the age of 11 (later increased to 12). There were six (and later seven) standards for children to pass; science education did not feature in any of these standards, but for some schools, it was an add-on, especially at the higher standards (such as sixth and seventh—science subjects included physics, chemistry, mechanics). Promotion from one standard to the next was on merit and not age. Not all children completed all standards, which meant that by the age of 12, there were children that had not ‘completed’ their elementary education. Of course, families that could afford (and wanted) to keep their children in school post-compulsory age to pass all standards did so. In fact, some children stayed in school beyond the seventh standard. Schools that offered post-seventh standard education became known as higher grade schools, of which science education was a recognised feature of their curricula.

==== Taunton Report 1868 ====
This was by far the single most important development for science education in schools in England in the nineteenth century from a British parliament point of view. Ironically, the original purpose of the committee that authored the 'Taunton' Report of 1868, or more formally, Volume II Miscellaneous Papers of the Schools Inquiry Commission (1868), was to examine how best endowed schools should be managed, something Parliament at the time thought was of utmost importance. The committee for the report was chaired by Lord Taunton (born Henry Labouchere). In heading the preparation for the report, Lord Taunton sent a circular letter listing four questions to a number of prominent people in different parts of England on 28 May 1866; the first three were endowment-related issues, but the fourth question was on how to encourage a due supply of qualified teachers. Apart from the contents page, the word "science" first appears on page 45 of the report in a reply by one of the recipients of the circular letter; that recipient was Reverend W C Lake. The reverend comments:

The question as to the best mode to be adopted for obtaining teachers both in sufficient numbers, and of the kind desirable for middle-class, education, seems to me more difficult than it would at first appear. ... you want men with an University culture, and yet not with exactly an University education ... You do not, I presume, want them to teach Greek; and as to Latin it ought not, in my opinion at least, to be the staple work of the school compared with arithmetic, some mathematics, modern languages, and history, and the principles of some important branches of physical science.
(Rev. Lake's reply to Lord Taunton IN Report by Schools Inquiry Commission, 1868: p45)
On page 77 of the report, Edward Twisleton, a member of the Schools Inquiry Commission, comments on the answers provided to the four questions set by the committee's chairman, Lord Taunton, based on feedback from the circular letter sent. To the first question, Twisleton writes:

In providing,—what is generally a part of the arrangements of Prussian gymnasia—a museum of natural history and a cabinet with the philosophical instruments and other materials requisite for instruction in the experimental sciences. The Prussian system should be followed, in which two hours of each week are devoted throughout the school to lessons in these branches of knowledge; the instruction in the lower classes being in sciences of pure observation, such, as zoology and botany, while in the upper parts of the school instruction is given in the sciences usually called experimental, such as pneumatics, hydrostatics, and others. This system, however, cannot be adopted, unless there is a certain preliminary outlay of money, and it seems unobjectionable that this money should come from an endowment.
(Twisleton's response IN Report by Schools Inquiry Commission, 1868: p77)
There were noticeable opinions on the issue of science education from contributors that wrote to the committee to express their views. One by Robert Mosley of Holgate Seminary, York (pages 104 to 105 of the report), suggested the inclusion of physical sciences in a 'National education'; this national education being the best way to utilise educational endowment. Based on feedback from contributors, the Taunton Committee gave several arguments in favour of science education; two of them are:

As providing the best discipline in observation and collection of facts, in the combination of inductive with deductive reasoning, and in accuracy both of thought and language.
and

Because the methods and results of science have so profoundly affected all the philosophical thought of the age, that an educated man is under a very great disadvantage if he is unacquainted with them.
(Report by Schools Inquiry Commission, 1868: p219)
The committee subsequently made several recommendations; the first three on promoting scientific education in schools are listed below:

i. That in all schools natural science be one of the subjects to be taught, and that in every public school at least one natural science master be appointed for the purpose.
ii. That at least three hours a week be devoted to such scientific instruction.
iii. That natural science should be placed on an equal footing with mathematics and modern languages in effecting promotions and in winning honours and prizes.
(Report by Schools Inquiry Commission, 1868: p222)
The issue of increased cost for fee payers played heavily on the minds of the committee, and although the committee felt that for "a wealthy country like England" (page 219 of the report), a slight increase in cost should not be a barrier to science education, it was left to individual schools to decide how to incorporate science into their curricula.