APPENDIX A
An advance summary, by Andy Piggott, of research
currently being carried out by the CLEAPSS School Science Service
for the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry: 18 May
2006.
CLEAPSS School Science Service—is a national
advisory service supporting practical science and technology in
schools and colleges. Services include health and safety, together
with advice on laboratory design, facilities and fittings.
Note that this is in the nature of an incomplete
first draft and has not yet been subject to the rigorous checking
process which will be carried out prior to publication of the
final report. Hence some of the figures may be subject to adjustment
and some of the conclusions subject to change.
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.
1. BASIC FINDINGS
1(a) This research was carried out by questionnaires
sent to half of all English secondary schools (1,636 schools),
with a good return rate of 22.5%. Validation of this data is being
accomplished by contributions from science advisers and design
and manufacturing firms in this sector.
1(b) The research shows that, over the period
2000-05, for secondary schools in England, a total of 4.7% of
all school science laboratories have been refurbished per year
and a total of 2.2% have been newly built; 31% of schools have
had no laboratories refurbished or newly built in that time.
1(c) Of these laboratories, approximately
54% appear to have been funded by LAs, 17.5% under PF1 or other
direct government funding, 15.2% by schools directly, and 7.5%
under the SSAT schemes.
2. TEACHING AND
LEARNING
2(a) When asked about the level of satisfaction
with the range of teaching and learning styles made possible by
new laboratories, 23.8% were Very Satisfied, 63.8% were
Satisfied, while 10.8% were Unsatisfied and 1.6%
Very unsatisfied.
2(b) The main aspects that teachers thought
contributed to good teaching and learning were in flexibility
of arrangements for pupils, increased ICT provision, larger spaces
to work in and more attractive environments. Comments about unsatisfactory
or poor provision were numerous and concentrated on lack of space,
problems with services (gas, water, electricity), lack of ICT
provision, and inflexible design. One terse comment, "Good
teaching is down to staff", clearly indicates that good design
can help modify pupil behaviour, but only effective teachers can
succeed with discipline.
2(c) The high level of Satisfactory should
be treated with some caution because a large number of comments
revealed that respondents were settling for restricted designs,
a problem increasingly commented on by science advisers and consultants.
One science adviser comments that some schools in his area have
ignored advice and "simply replaced 1950-1960 designs with
new furniture and not thought creatively about possible future
learning needs [...]" and that "I have also had to put
a health and safety limit on some refurbishments [...] because
they have broken the rules on safe circulation requirements."
3. CONSULTATION
AND INVOLVEMENT
OF END-USERS
3(a) The extent of involvement of teachers
and technicians in the design process and subsequent works was
explored. Replies showed 35.4% had A great deal of involvement,
31.8% Some and, worryingly, 24.8% only A little and
7.9% Not at all.
3(b) Anecdotal evidence shows that good
involvement means good design, "ownership" of the final
product and good staff morale. Even Some involvement can
result in alienation of end users, for example:
"We had extensive consultations with architects
and planners to ensure our needs were fulfilled. Unfortunately
when the actual building was being done a great deal of this was
just ignored [...] The school as a whole has had a lot of problems
with (a large private consortium) [...]"
"(We) had meetings with architects [...]
to discuss options and requirements [...] It makes you wonder
whether architects/designers have any idea what goes on in a school
science department [...]"
"No notice was taken of our recommendations
prior to the build being planned (despite providing a copy of
CLEAPSS booklet L14*), resulting in bad design and extra expense
as things had to be altered (for health and safety reasons)
[...]" (*L14—Designing and Planning Laboratories)
4. QUALITY OF
BUILDING WORKS,
FURNITURE AND
FITTINGS
4(a) Respondents put this as 11.5% Very
good, 60.5% Good, while 22.7% was put at Unsatisfactory
and 5.3% Poor.
4(b) Teachers and technicians who felt quality
was good, praised the actual quality of furniture and fittings
along with the standards of workmanship shown by contractors.
They also appreciate good quality work surfaces to experimental
benches. Those schools that judged quality unsatisfactory or poor
provided a great number of comments. The biggest complaint was
of poor quality furniture and fittings, especially of cupboards,
their doors and locks; which are often said to fall to pieces
very quickly under normal usage. Poor standards of workmanship
and design were also mentioned, along with a host of other concerns;
including services, flooring, bench surfaces, fume cupboards and
so on.
5. MAINTENANCE
PROBLEMS
5(a) The question was "Have there been
any maintenance problems with this lab", which may well have
been a leading question as 70.9% of respondents answered Yes
and 29.1% answered No. Many teachers and technicians,
faced with building work for the first time, are also unaware
of the issue of "snagging", where minor items are attended
to toward the end of the contract.
5(b) Screening out comments on minor items
that any science build might face, still leaves a great deal of
concern. At the top of the list is the repairs needed to cupboards
that are falling apart, but this is closely followed by problems
with services that have real health and safety issues. Plumbing
and drainage are mentioned frequently as are problems with gas
supplies (even with faulty cut-offs, or no cut-offs at all). Some
structural problems are reported, even down to holes in walls
and leaking roofs, in refurbished or newly built laboratories!
6. ICT PROVISION
6(a) 20.2% of respondents are Very satisfied
with their ICT provision, 43.3% are Satisfied, but
far too many are Unsatisfied, 23.7%, or Very unsatisfied,
12.8%.
6(b) In 73.5% of refurbished or newly built
labs there is a fixed data-projector and screen, but there remains
26.5% without. Internet access is available, by cable and/or wireless,
in 91.5% of such labs, but not all in the other 8.5%.
6(c) From the comments sent in, the trend
seems to be toward laptops for pupils. However, ICT provision
for labs appears to be an afterthought which is funded by the
school, sometimes well after the lab is first in use, rather than
included in the overall contract for a forward-looking design
and build.
7. SUPPORT OF
PRACTICAL CURRICULUM—PREP
ROOMS
7(a) There appears to be a major problem
with regard to the upgrading or provision of preparation areas
when refurbishments or new builds of labs are undertaken. Without
good provision in these areas the science practical curriculum
is hamstrung.
7(b) In only 43.0% of cases have the prep
rooms also been Improved. In 41.4% of cases, provision
has Stayed the same, although numbers and qualities of
laboratories have increased. In 15.7% of cases, prep room provision
has actually Deteriorated.
7(c) Respondents are very clear about the
problems encountered by technicians where things have not improved.
Sometimes no prep rooms are included in new builds at all, rooms
are removed for other purposes (often offices), storage areas
are reduced, health and safety is ignored and experienced staff's
input also ignored. For example:
"Centralised, one room, but not enough storage,
only one sink! [...] weird design features and definitely different
from what we were insisting on. That's PFI folks!"
8. PARTNERSHIP
FOR SCHOOLS—AREA
DATA SHEETS
8(a) The Area Data Sheets aim to provide
guidance to local authorities and hence to architects and project
managers as to what is required for each space within a school.
Guidance such as this is vital to the whole process of design
and build.
8(b) Examination of the Draft for Consultation
Vol 2, shows that the sheets for science areas need some development.
References to current DfES guidance could be increased, as could
references to national guidance from the Association for Science
Education (ASE) and the CLEAPSS School Science Service. There
are some items included that are not in accordance with best practice,
others that are a little out-of-date, and some health and safety
items are missing.
8(c) The Science Education community should
contribute to Partnership for Schools in order to make the best
advice and guidance available as widely as possible. CLEAPSS advice
is already available to members; www.cleapss.org.uk. The ASE hosts
the results of the Laboratory Design for Teaching and Learning
project; free access on www.ase.org.uk/ldtl.
June 2006
| 
