Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
of Chemistry (RSC)
1. The RSC is the largest organisation in
Europe for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network
of over 43,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed
publishing business, our activities span education and training,
conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical
sciences to the public. The RSC, either on its own or with others,
commissions research projects into aspects of education where
evidence is apparently not available from Government, but is,
in the RSC's view, in the public interest.
2. This evidence concentrates on two particular
aspects of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme:
(a) the provision of new school science laboratories
(and the refurbishment of current laboratories to an acceptable
or good state); and
(b) school science laboratory design.
3. In April 2004 the RSC published a report
"Laboratories, Resources and Budgets" (http://www.rsc.org/EducationPolicy/laboratories2004.asp)
which it commissioned from the CLEAPSS School Science Service.
This report concluded that, for the laboratories in maintained
schools in England, 5% were excellent, 30% were good, 41% were
basic (uninspiring) and 25% were unsafe/unsatisfactory. These
standards are defined in the report and a conservative estimate
of the finance required through both new build and refurbishment
to upgrade accommodation to a good (not excellent) standard was
£1,380,000,000.
4. In April 2005 a promise was made by Patricia
Hewitt (then Trade and Industry Secretary), later confirmed by
the Prime Minister, that an extra £200 million funding would
be provided, made up of £75,000 for every secondary school,
to pay for a new science laboratory over the subsequent three
years. Subsequently the Association for School and College Leaders
(ASCSL) received a letter from the DTI that no further money was
to be made available.
5. In an attempt to monitor the state of
laboratory refurbishment, in late 2005 the RSC asked the DfES
if it was able to provide any information as to the amount and
cost of refurbishment and/or new build of school science laboratories.
The response was that the Department did not keep this data. Thus
the RSC and the Royal Society commissioned the CLEAPSS School
Science Service to undertake a survey to establish the picture
for the years 2000-05 in order to set a base-line.
6. "The Science and Innovation Investment
Framework 2004-2014: next steps" document (March 2006), p46,
reports that "the policy priority is to improve the state
of school science accommodation by making school science labs
a priority", and in Box 6.4, p47, it reports that "the
Government will review the Building Schools for the Future (BSF)
exemplar designs for school labs to ensure they reflect the latest
thinking on what is required to ensure effective interactive teaching".
7. The initial findings of the survey by
CLEAPSS are not heartening, are summarised below, and further
detail included at Appendix A.
In brief:
(i) The research was conducted by questionnaire,
with a good return rate. Over the years 2000-05, an average of
4.7% of school science laboratories have been refurbished per
year and 2.2% newly built per year.
(ii) Teaching and learning. The majority
of teachers are satisfied with the range of styles made possible,
but there are concerns about restricted, dated designs and lack
of space, problems with services, and lack of ICT.
(iii) Consultation with end-users. In about
one third of schools, teachers and technicians had real involvement
with the design and build process. Others were ignored or even
alienated.
(iv) Quality of works, furniture and fittings.
About two thirds of schools thought that quality was good, leaving
one third concerned about cupboards falling to bits, bad workmanship,
etc.
(v) Maintenance. About two thirds of schools
have maintenance problems with refurbished or newly built laboratories,
including health and safety issues.
(vi) ICT. This is not automatically part
of the contract process. About one third of science departments
have unsatisfactory or no provision in their new labs.
(vii) Prep Rooms. Well over half of preparation
areas are not improved or are actually made worse when laboratories
are improved.
(viii) Partnership for Schools. Area data
sheets are an essential part of guidance to local authorities
and architects. The sheets for science areas need further development.
8. This work calls into question whether
BSF will "deliver schools that meet the needs of learners
[...] now and in the future", whether the tools currently
used by BSF are effective and whether all stakeholders are involved
in the planning and delivery process.
9. It further indicates the magnitude of
the task in making school science labs a priority and the importance
of the Government involving the science education community, in
particular the Institute of Biology, the Institute of Physics,
the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Society, the Association
for Science Education and CLEAPSS in reviewing the exemplar designs
for laboratories.
|
