Section 6.7  Concerning the Timetable for the Introduction of the new A Levels

  CLEAPSS has, in recent months, accrued considerable evidence that the introduction of the new science GCSEs has not been as smooth as might have been hoped. It is evident that too little time for awarding bodies, authors of textbooks and others to check, in sufficient detail, the scientific accuracy or the health and safety requirements of practical activities to be used by teachers for assessing and/or teaching GCSE science. We have collated the most significant of our observations into a position statement which is available to all CLEAPSS members on our web site. The statement is developing all the time and, at the time of writing, includes comments on 36 different, substantial practical activities. For 11 of these we have produced individual supplementary documents to provide advice on how to carry out a practical activity both successfully and safely.

  We conclude that similar issues may well arise with the new A levels. Recognising that the timetable for introduction is now difficult to change, we suggest that the QCA strongly urges the awarding bodies and, as far as possible, publishers and others providing curriculum support to seek expert scrutiny of all materials, particularly those for practical science, before they are published. This would help to ensure both scientific accuracy and the provision of appropriate health and safety information.

Section 6.11  Concerning the role of the practical in science teaching and the facilities within school science laboratories

  Recent discussion within the scientific community has identified a lack of a clear and shared understanding of what constitutes practical science. Steps are being taken to resolve this and to agree a definition of practical work in science. However, at the moment, activities as diverse as drama, web-searches, book research, computer simulations, video films of practicals, "live" teacher demonstrations and the more traditional class science practical activities are all being used as examples of "science practical work". While we would agree that all these activities, and other similar ones, have a role in securing learning, there is universal agreement, including comments in the Government's response to the House of Lords report, that "live" teacher demonstrations and hands-on laboratory practical work are essential for pupils to learn science appropriately.

  The other types of activities described above require furniture, room layout and equipment which are different from those currently expected in a science laboratory. We have heard of new science laboratory designs which include extensive internet facilities and large screens but limited bench space, gas and electricity for practical work. We are concerned that suggestions for internet searches or video demonstrations might be regarded as legitimate replacements for activities in which students see and do "live" practical work, with a consequent reduction in laboratory facilities in schools.

  Since our original submissions, CLEAPSS has heard of the installation of more unsatisfactory laboratories, often those in new PFI-built schools. At the heart of many of the complaints is cost reduction. Between the original design and final commissioning, suites of laboratories have emerged with less in-lab storage, less equipment and often significantly-reduced technician preparation and storage facilities. It is clear to us that some decision-makers are not sufficiently conversant with the needs of practical science, or are easily persuaded that a reduction in the performance of practical work is not ultimately harmful to standards. We strongly believe this to be a false argument and, given the Government's drive to persuade more students to take sciences at A level, entirely counter-productive.

Section 6.12 and Section 6.19  Concerning school science technicians

  Related to the cost-saving point above, we continue to hear from our members of reductions in the number of science technicians and/or their working hours. In some cases, schools are increasing the number of teaching assistants while reducing the number of science technicians in order to balance the books. Other schools are already encouraging science technicians to take on additional teaching assistant work in science lessons but without any compensatory reduction in technician duties or the appointment of additional technical personnel. In effect, some schools are trying to appoint one person to do two jobs. Since we have already suggested that the majority of schools have insufficient science technicians, a further reduction in the time available, by making them part-time teaching assistants, will inevitably mean less practical science will be possible in some schools.

  We noted that, in its response to section 6.19, the Government has pledged that every secondary school, which wishes to do so, should be able to recruit at least one science-specialist Higher Level Teaching Assistant (HLTA) by 2008. We believe that this may well further deplete science technician numbers unless the case is strongly made that schools should employ adequate numbers of science technicians.

  We also believe that rates of pay for science technicians do not stand fair comparison with those of other non-teaching staff in schools and in fact are falling further behind.

Section 6.13  Concerning training more teachers of chemistry and physics

The Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry (together with the Nuffield Curriculum Centre) have, separately, developed web sites to help existing and new science teachers learn about classic and new physics and chemistry practical activities. The web sites are respectively called Practical Physics (www.practicalphysics.org) and Practical Chemistry (www.practicalchemistry.org). CLEAPSS has supported, and advised on, their development

16 April 2007