Changing socioeconomic situations and job opportunities for fast developing technology related subjects forced a change in the entire focus in primary education in all countries (not only UK) on science as core subject.But the fundamental knowledge of Biology,Physics and Chemistry need to be understand for a stronger base (irrespective where and when taught ) Yes, it is unfortunate that technology access at a very early stage of life will definitely effect child growth and health ( may be we are going to see very high a raise of Alzherman's disease as a major threat to society all over the globe).

Ask your governement...

I don't think it will make any issues. Yea, In the primary classes we should provide proper education about the society, Culture and so on. and a little bit basics of science also. Gradually increase the amount of Science in their curriculum. Once, the student is OK to determine his career, he can go through the specialization, whatever he need.

Not only health care issues, important as this is for their later life - it will further weaken the Primary curriculum. We are a technology heavy society and not having Science as a core subject makes very little sense. Although I have to say that I am an outsider, I do not live or teach in the UK and not at Primary level very often, so I do not have access to all the issues and reasons for such a decision.

As a tangent, many secondary US school districts are de-emphasizing science as well due to standardized testing and school grading systems based on math and English scores. Good grades for schools = more money. Since schools are not graded on science scores, schools are not focusing on those courses.

I realize this does not answer the question asked, but it may help provide a broader framework for what is going on around the world.

I know that some people believe that what passes for science in primary schools is not really science at all, and that science assessments at this level are little more than general knowledge quizzes. This may be because primary school teachers have little understanding of the the philosophy of science, or that children of this age have yet to reach a level of cognitive development that allows them to understand scientific philosophy. Personally I don't believe that either of these is sufficient reason to downgrade the importance of science in the primary curriculum. So what if the subject is qualitatively different at this level. The important thing is that children receive an education that stimulates their interest in the subject and prepares the way for success at higher educational levels.

I think this paper may be of interest:

Bolden, D., Tymms, P. & Merrell, C. (2009). Can the past inform the future of science in primary schools? Education in Science 232: 10-11.

From one located outside UK and not acquainted with the Primary Education system either, it appears to me that if basics of scientific query are plugged-in even under other subjects, the students might develop eternal inquisitive without being burdened on load of such subjects at the Primary Level.

I tend to agree that science is barely recognisable as such in primary school whereas it does start to approach it in high school. A related question is how is it possible to do a science degree without ever studying physics which is the basis of the so-called hard sciences. In fact, historically speaking science has come to be defined through physics although all the sciences have had various different approaches in the research done in their corresponding fields and of course at one stage they were really a single subject called natural philosophy with no differentiation between philsophy and science. The differences were pointed out gradually and eventually crustalised the sciences into their separate areas which is the stae today. It has also had the unfortunate circumstance of creating a vast gulf between the sciences and the arts which C.P. Snow pointed out as the two cultures.

AS an Australian I find it astonishing that a science graduate in the UK can obtain a science degree without at least some kind of understanding of the other sciences. For example it is posible to earn a degree in science but the graduate has only ever studied say biology and the other sciences are ignored. In Australia this tendency to ignore sya physics has resulted in some phsyics departments closing down entirely and being absorbed into engineering or having its areas of research curtailed severly so that fundamental questions are no longer asked, instead the department concentrates on applications of physics with their subjects differing from engineering.

Hi Jason, I can't answer the "why" part of your question because quite frankly science should be part of national curriculum. Interestingly while there have been many studies which assess the impact of poor maths or literacy skills on mental health (cf. Beddington, 2008; Bynneer and Parsons, 2005) suprisingly little has been done to quantify the negative effects poor science-related skills would have in later life. However, available evidence suggests clear signs of decline in attainment and progression to higher levels of study with in the UK and this in turn has negative trends in innovation and wealth creation. (Royal Society, 2010). In terms of health, maths, literacy AND science represent major cognitive resources and modes of thinking. So your question about resultant health care issues is a good one, but only forms part of a much larger problem, a lack of using these highly sophisticated cognitive resources needed for science learning is likely to have major negative effects in all aspects of life.