---

Science Teaching

rose to call attention to science teaching; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would like to say how grateful I am that such a distinguished group of noble Lords, who are so knowledgeable about science teaching, are taking part in this debate. There can be little that is more important to our nation’s economy and to its intellectual standing than the teaching of science. Everyone should have a basic understanding of science—to ensure scientific literacy in society as a whole and because our industrial and financial competitiveness depends on the creation and application of new science and technology. Everyone should possess this understanding, not just those who are going on to be scientists and engineers. It is equally important that our scientists and engineers possess a grounding in the arts, humanities and languages. At present, our education system encourages students not to do this but to specialise at the age of 16, which I regard as far too young. I will return to this issue later. Joined to this debate is the debate on the report of the Science and Technology Committee—which I chaired—called Science Teaching in Schools, published last November. I take this opportunity to recognise the very valuable contribution that all the members of the committee made to the report. It focused on schools, of course, but this debate is broader in scope. So while I take our report as my starting point, I shall then range more widely and consider the state of science teaching in higher education. The report observes that the number of young people opting for science subjects at the age of 16, especially the physical sciences, has remained more or less flat or has declined over the past decade. There have been modest increases in some subjects, such as biology, and worrying falls in others, particularly physics. But all these figures have to be seen against the backdrop of rising A-level take-up. Linked to this relative decline were difficulties in recruiting and retaining adequately trained science teachers and the quality of school science laboratories was poor. Since 2001, the Government have displayed impressive determination in attempting to reverse the decline in student numbers and to improve the supply of talented science teachers. Ambitious goals have been set, but the difficulties persist and more needs tobe done. With respect to the practical teaching of science, the Government have fallen short. They failed to deliver the £200 million promised for school science laboratories before the 2005 election, despite the fact that the lack of motivating practical science has been a key factor in the loss of interest by students, and they failed to take adequate advice in the design of practical laboratories. The difficulties in delivering exciting and interesting practical classes were made worse by the lack of adequate career opportunities for laboratory technicians. We need to ensure the future of practical science in schools and overcome the reluctance of teachers to make practical science exciting and relevant. The committee called for a central website on practical science to help address health and safety fears, and urged the Government to improve their unsatisfactory exemplar designs for science laboratories by consulting more widely with expertsin the field. The low quality of so many new and refurbished science laboratories is both regrettable and avoidable. We were mystified that the Government, in developing exemplar designs as part of the school labs of the future programme, failedto consult acknowledged authorities such as the Consortium of Local Education Authorities forthe Provision of Science Services—CLEAPPS—and the Association for Science Education which have first-hand experience in school laboratory design. We recommended that the Government rectify this omission. We also criticised the Government’s obsession with testing. Current tests focus on too narrow a range of skills and stop teachers using their own creativity to inspire students to study science. The preoccupation with testing at all school ages takes much of thefun out of studying science for many children and destroys teachers’ morale. It is difficult to take pleasure in one’s actions and achievement with the heavy hand of government for ever interfering in everything one does. On the critical issue of attracting and retaining talented science teachers, the committee recommended that schools should be encouraged to offer higher salaries to science and mathematics teachers. Schools already have some flexibility with regard to pay, as the Government’s response points out, but these powers need to be made more explicit, and the Government should encourage schools to use them more widely. The Government have accepted that the current situation is unsatisfactory. They have asked the School Teachers’ Review Body to advise on ways to improve the use of these powers. But this is an urgent problem, and rapid and effective action is needed. We also called for a better paid and faster route for those people with substantial expertise in science and mathematics in industry to allow them to gain qualified teacher status. Many scientists and engineers are attracted to teaching later in their career, and they should be encouraged to do so, rather than hindered by bureaucratic hurdles. Science and engineering are highly dynamic subjects. Every day there are advances and changes, and those who teach modem science and technology need continually to keep up with these advances. The Government have attempted to link continuing professional development—CPD—to career progression, but the committee remains unconvinced that teachers will take advantage of the opportunities available. Indeed, they may be discouraged from doing so because of the cost of providing replacement teaching while they are studying. We therefore recommended that teachers, whatever their subject, be required to undertake a certain number of hours of subject-specific CPD each year. We further recommended that the Government provide schools with ring-fenced funding to cover the cost of the CPD and any replacement teaching. It is encouraging that the Wellcome Trust is in discussion with Government and industry to provide long-term support for CPD. Let me return to the narrowness of our secondary education system. The committee felt that this was one of the factors leading to the decline in the number of students opting for science subjects. In many cases, students are being advised that to gain entry to science and engineering courses they should study only science and mathematics in their A-levels. In other words, they are being forced to make a decision that will affect the rest of their lives at the age of about 16, which, as I have said is far too young. I do not know of any other country that does this. The problem is compounded by the fact that science subjects are perceived to be more difficult, which in turn may jeopardise pupils' ability to obtain the high grades necessary to gain entry to the university of their choice. It is also not in the interest of the schools to encourage students to take science subjects, because it puts at risk their ranking. We recommended that the Government should replace A-levels over the long term with a broader-based syllabus such as the International Baccalaureate. We have noted that they are giving some support to the IB. We are not alone in recommending this typeof change. The Tomlinson report reached similar conclusions, but no general proposals have come forward. In their response to the report, the Government claimed that all A-levels were of equal difficulty, but data produced by the Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre at Durham University and reproduced in our report, suggested that this was not true. The Durham University data showed that there were differences in difficulty that could lead to a two grade difference in predicted A-level results. Admittedly, the methodology used is not universally accepted, but no-one seems to have proposed an alternative, so the Durham data remain the best available. In the absence of supporting evidence, the Government's constant refrain that all A-levels are equally difficult carries little weight. AS-levels have also been introduced in an attempt to broaden the subject base, but in many cases, students just take more science and mathematics subjects not, for example, English and a foreign language, which would seem to be essential ingredients of a balanced school curriculum. The fall-off in the proportion of students opting for careers based on the physical sciences and engineering is alarming and a matter of serious concern to industry and business. If we look beyond secondary to higher education, the difficulties of narrowness persist, leading to the need to rethink the way students choose their careers and the way in which we structure our university courses. Too many university courses are narrow and inward looking and constrained by faculty boundaries that have changed little since the middle of the last century. For example, an engineer today needs knowledge of a range of subjects many of which had little prominence 50 years ago. Examples are molecular biology, computer science and nanoscience. As an example of what others have done, first-year engineers at MIT are required to study biology. This increase in breadth inevitably means that some depth will have to be sacrificed in the traditional core of the syllabus, and it is unreasonable to expect students to arrive at university as well prepared in the core subjects as they were in the past. It is better thatthey come with a broader knowledge base, although in delivering that, the fundamentals of scienceand mathematics should be maintained in school curricula. To accomplish breadth and at the same time bring students to an adequate level at graduation, it will probably be necessary to lengthen the courses for those who intend to become professional engineers and scientists, but this greater length is not needed by those studying science and engineering as a general education. For them, a broader base would prepare them better for what in future are likely to be far more diverse careers with periodical retraining and realignment during the working lifetime. Both needs would be satisfied if we adopted a three-year plus two-year structure, where a relatively broad three-year undergraduate degree was followed by a two-year master’s degree. Those seeking a general education would leave university after three years or go on to broaden their horizons by studying non-science subjects such as law, economics or management, while the professional scientists and engineers would go on to take a two-year master’s degree. The latter would also better prepare them for a PhD. At present, an increasing number of students studying for a PhD have to spend their first year reading to bring themselves up to the level at which they can commence their research. Hence, science and engineering PhDs end up taking four or more years. I am concentrating here on the physical and biological sciences, engineering and mathematics. Arts, humanities and social science subjects provide different postgraduate challenges and, in particular, one-year master’s courses have proven especially successful in these subjects and should continue. However, our four-year science and engineering master's courses, in part justified because of a perceived slippage in our school education standards, themselves fall between two stools. They are longer than is necessary for those who are not going to be specialists and too short for those who are. The three plus two format, which was more widespread in the middle of the 20th century in the UK, and which has now emerged in the Bologna agreement, is better suited to future needs. No matter what the format, it is important to avoid asking young people to decide what they want to do before they have the knowledge, intelligently, to do so. For example, it is not necessary to ask students to commit to the majority of professional careers until the second or third year of university, and it is certainly wrong to try to persuade them to commit to given professions while they are still at school. Good science teaching both in schools and in universities is of extraordinary importance and must continually be adjusted to take account of the ever-increasing reservoir of human knowledge. We are not seeking some ideal system that will last us for decades. We need to adjust our syllabuses and the way in which we teach them every few years and it is not clear that we have been doing that. Change is overdue. In concluding, I would like once again to draw attention to the recommendations in the Select Committee's report Science Teaching in Schools and compliment our Clerks, Christopher Johnson and Tom Wilson, on the outstanding way in which they co-ordinated our inquiry and drafted the report.The recommendations, if implemented, would significantly improve the present standard of our science teaching in schools and I encourage the Minister to look once again at those recommendations that the Government have chosen not to pursue. I beg to move for Papers.