Memorandum submitted by the Institute
of Physics
The Institute of Physics is pleased to supply
written evidence for the third part of the Education and Skills
Committee of its Secondary Education inquiry: Teacher Retention.
The Institute of Physics is a leading international
professional body and learned society, with over 37,000 members,
which promotes the advancement and dissemination of the science
of pure and applied physics.
In January 2002, the Institute produced a report
into Physics Teacher Supply. This report contained a considerable
amount of data that we believe would be of interest to the Committee.
Rather than reproducing the whole report, we have extracted the
elements that we think are relevant to the Committee's deliberations.
The full report is available on the Institute's website at http://policy.iop.org/Policy/Phys%20Teach%20Sup%20Rep.doc
or we can supply hard copies.
The report acknowledged that the issue of teacher
supply is complex, not only requiring attention to recruitment
but also to factors affecting retention. These include:
— Salary—teaching is perceived
as low paid, especially to a physics graduate, and the prospects
in mid-career are significantly lower than for careers in other
sectors.
— Workload—the job is perceived
as stressful and all teachers face excessive administrative burdens.
There are considerable obligations on teachers to maintain their
teaching competence.
— Discipline and disruptive pupils—dealing
with disruptive pupils is difficult and, arguably, getting worse.
— Laboratories, equipment and technical
support—there has been inadequate investment and this has
led to much equipment becoming obsolescent with fewer technicians
available.
— Status and standing—the status
of teaching has declined compared to other professions such as
law or accountancy. The teaching profession is constantly exhorted
to do better and is seldom praised for its successes.
Action is needed in all these areas if the vicious
circle in teaching is to be broken and more undergraduates attracted
into and retained in teaching. Well paid teachers working in a
pleasant environment with good resources will be able to inspire
students to continue with physics and increase the numbers likely
to choose to go into teaching in the future.
Recruitment of physics teachers is particularly
difficult as physicists are in such demand in other areas of the
economy. In the light of this difficulty, we particularly welcome
the recently announced joint Gatsby/TTA PGCE enhancement scheme,
which will commence in 2004. This ought to widen the pool of potential
recruits to physics teaching to include appropriately qualified
engineers and others who may be considering a career change. We
would suggest that the latter category needs further financial
support in their early years of teaching to lessen the pay gap.
We also acknowledge the work that has been done
to provide CPD for physics teachers through the KS3 Strategy and
the forthcoming National Network of Science Learning Centres.
However, welcome as these initiatives are, they have not made
sufficient inroads into breaking the vicious circle.
We note too that the House of Commons, Science
and Technology Committee in their Third Report highlighted that
"The way coursework is assessed for GCSE science has little
educational value and has turned practical work into a tedious
and dull activity for both students and teachers." We would
maintain that this problem is a significant demotivating factor
for physics teachers, and would seem to be an obvious matter to
address.
We are particularly concerned that we are not
able to determine the extent of the problem with regard to the
numbers of qualified physics teachers in schools. We are worried
that, when the backgrounds of teachers are published later this
year as part of the Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing
Survey, the data will not be sufficiently robust to draw significant
conclusions. In addition, the survey will not enable us to quantify
the problem in physics, as the results are amalgamated into the
broader subject science.
The shortage of teachers with a physics background
is a pressing issue since those entering the profession to teach
science are increasingly unlikely to have A-level Physics, as
there was a considerable dip in the entry numbers for A-level
Physics during the 1990s. It should also be borne in mind that
this decade saw growth in the uptake of mixed A-levels. Everything
suggests that there could be a large number of science teachers
entering schools with backgrounds that do not equip them to teach
physics as part of a science course at KS3 or KS4. We have considerable
evidence that such teachers often struggle with the concepts at
this level.
We would hope that the Committee could make
a very strong recommendation to Government that it must collect
data on teachers' backgrounds and the subjects that they teach.
This would enable Government and those like the Institute with
a stake in education to plan more effectively to do what it can
to ameliorate the situation.
The Institute is already committed to supporting
teachers of physics at all levels, with a view to improving retention
rates, which seem to be a particular issue for physics teachers.
Currently the Institute is establishing a network of local physics
teachers who are available to offer support and advice to schools.
We are also developing an extensive set of materials that will
support the teaching of physics at KS3. The intention is to improve
the subject knowledge of teachers and make them more aware of
the teaching and learning issues involved.
But neither of these schemes will be effective
unless schools and teachers are encouraged and supported to take
part. At present, the Government's commitment to professional
development seems to be related to provision rather than entitlement.
Perhaps if Government had a clearer picture of the number of teachers
lacking expertise in aspects of their teaching, it would be prepared
to consider an entitlement model.
2 June 2003
| 
