SCIENCE TEACHERS
A report
on
supporting
and developing the profession of science teaching in primary and secondary
schools
February
2000
Contents
page
I. Executive summary3
II. Main Report
Introduction8
The Hallmarks of Top Quality
Science Teaching9
Approach12
Science Teachers’ Levels
of Confidence13
Science Teachers’ Subject
Qualifications and the correlation
with their levels of confidence14
Overall Assessment of Science
Teachers’ Views 15
Key Issues16
Leadership and Accountability
for the Continuous
Professional Development
(CPD) of Science Teachers18
School Management’s CPD
Role and Requirements19
Products and Services for
Science Teachers’ CPD21
Supply Arrangements
24
A Centre of Excellence for
Science Teachers25
Conclusions and Recommendations27
Appendix: List of recommendations32
Annex A: Summary of
Survey Results i
Annex B: Other Evidencexii
Annex C: Acknowledgementsxix
Annex D: Glossaryxxii
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.The report addresses the
question of what would make a material difference in helping science
teachers in primary and secondary schools develop and improve their
professional practice, individually and collectively ?
2. The Government is already
pursuing a progressive agenda to improve still further school standards
and effectiveness. The growing number of Education Action Zones,
Beacon Schools, Specialist Schools, and Advanced Skills Teachers are
significant developments, as are the establishment of the National College
for School Leadership and the National Grid for Learning. The Grid including
the Virtual Teacher Centre represents a tremendous opportunity for developing
the practice of science teachers.
3.The recent consultation paper
on a new, high quality framework for teachers’ continuous professional
development (CPD), the new focus on the initial, key stage 3 of
secondary school science including a new scheme of work, the new
emphasis on the teaching of higher order thinking and problem
solving skills and a new set of targets to monitor pupils’ progress
at the age of 14 are further significant steps in taking this
agenda forward.
4.We welcome all these steps.
Ensuring that young people have the best possible education in science
during their compulsory schooling is essential to them as individuals,
and as future adult members of our society in a time of considerable
scientific and technological change and opportunity.
5.Young people gain their first
substantive experience of science from their schools and science teachers.
Both their schools and their teachers have profound effects on their
attitudes and interests in science and technology generally, and on
the level of attainment they reach in science by the end of their compulsory
schooling, as well as on subjects they choose to study subsequently.
In all these respects, the knowledge, confidence and competence of their
science teachers are critically important factors.
6.We commissioned a survey
last summer to obtain a robust, up to-date picture from the teachers’
viewpoint. Over 900 head teachers and 1500 science teachers participated
from 1300 primary and secondary schools in England. Many of the
secondary head teachers reported that their science departments were
not developing as quickly as those for other subjects. Among the teachers,
levels of confidence varied widely across the national curriculum science
topics and pupil year groups, showing a marked drop among those teaching
science at key stage 4, leading up to GCSE examinations. Many were teaching
science subjects in which they had no qualification at A-level or first
degree level.
7.The teachers reported that
they were not engaged in a subject related, class room based, systematic
process of continuous professional development (CPD) matched to their
individual needs and that they had little opportunity to learn from
their peers. They were critical of the adequacy of the existing appraisal
arrangements in their schools for assessing their performance and CPD
needs. Those in the early years of their careers reported that their
individual CPD tailed sharply away once their status as Qualified Teachers
was confirmed at the end of their first induction year.
8.These teachers also highlighted
difficulties in identifying and accessing suitable products and services
for their individual CPD, as well as the constraints of time and money
which militated against this essential activity. They did not rate particularly
highly the advice and support available to them from within the school
and external sources. Only rarely, did they make use of the extensive
range of curricula material and other support made available by numerous
organisations in the private, voluntary and public sectors.
9.On the basis of this survey
and other evidence, we are convinced that there is considerable scope
for securing a step change in science teachers’ performance
and hence in the science education of their pupils, by creating a pro-CPD
culture, one in which a life time of professional learning is very much
the norm and is assisted by modern, effective arrangements.
10.In taking forward its agenda,
the Government should take full account of the particularly complex
and demanding nature of science teaching in schools. It should ensure
that the new CPD framework positively encourages, empowers and enables
science teachers to develop and improve their professional practice.
11.
Leadership: Strong, committed leadership and clear lines of
responsibility and accountability must be established at all levels,
along with transparent funding and monitoring arrangements. The subject
related CPD of individual teachers should be treated distinctly from
other CPD requirements concerning whole school issues, matters of administration
and national initiatives. The success of this new framework hinges upon
strong, effective leadership from the governors and head teacher of
each school.
12.Capacity:
The capacity and capabilities of schools to manage and enable the professional
development of their science teaching staff needs to be increased significantly,
especially at the levels of Head Teacher, Head of Science Department,
Science Co-ordinators ( in Primary Schools) and senior teachers with
staff management responsibilities. Their appraisal, mentoring and coaching
skills need to be developed and continuously strengthened. Best practice
guidelines and benchmarks should be promulgated to assist them.
13.Products and Services:
A core set of quality assured products and services is needed for science
teachers to use in their own learning and development. These
must be “teacher designed” and be easy for the teachers to access,
use and apply. All new entrants should be made aware of this, their
essential professional tool kit.
14.
Supply Arrangements: These products and services and those for otherwise
supporting science teachers in their work must be supplied in a teacher
friendly way through modern, effective arrangements. The Government
should work in partnership with the key stake-holders to improve the
operation of the market for such products and services, which is at
present highly fragmented on the demand side ( schools and teachers
) and the supply side ( numerous providers, products and services).
15. Centre of Excellence:
To achieve all these outcomes for science teaching and science teachers,
the new framework should include a body that acts as the national driver
and catalyst for change and continuous improvement. This body, for which
we have used the term “national centre of excellence”, should:
(a) encourage and enable
science teachers to seek and adopt new teaching strategies and approaches
in their work with pupils;
(b) provide support
services to new and inexperienced science teachers, as well as weaker
members of the science teaching profession; and
(c) add value at the national
level in developing the professional practice of science teaching.
16. The added value,
role and functions of the “centre” should be assessed fully, possibly
under the auspices of the new General Teaching Council, in the light
of the Government’s wider plans for teachers’ professional development
and school science. These matters of purpose, together with the contingent
ones concerning the centre’s organisation and structure, should be
addressed in partnership with the key stake-holders. The “centre”
would need to work through regional and local arrangements using a modern
IT infrastructure.
17. For informing
and underpinning the further development of its policies, the
Government should ensure that research is conducted into how science
teachers learn their professional practice through CPD, including the
productivity of this process. In neither of these two respects
is there much research evidence at present.
18. Science teaching is both
an art and a craft, learned, developed and shared by individual teachers
working with their pupils in the classroom. Within its new CPD framework,
the Government must ensure that a top class professional support
system exists to service the present and future needs of these teachers
for these purposes.
II. MAIN REPORT
Introduction
1.As part of our programme
of work for 1998/99, we established a sub-group of members to consider
what more science teachers needed to teach science to the highest possible
professional standards to pupils during their compulsory schooling,
and how these standards could be developed by the profession over time.
2.Through an initial study
in the latter part of 1998,1 we decided to concentrate our further
work during 1999 upon identifying ways and means for:
improving
the continuous professional development (CPD) of qualified science teachers;
facilitating
the identification and spread of “good” or “best practice”
in science teaching among these teachers;
making
the most of the resources and other support provided to them by third
parties; and
harnessing
the potential of Information and Communication Technology for these
purposes.
3.The work was led by Professor
Julia Higgins. The other members of the group were Sir Aaron Klug, Dr
Rob Margetts, Dame Bridget Ogilvie and Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland.
4.They were assisted by a number
of co-optees comprising Dr David Moore (Association for Science Education),
Dr Ray Peacock (Science, Engineering, Technology, Mathematics Network),
Ms Juliet Strang (Head of Villiers High School, Ealing), Dr Kay Stephenson
(Head of Science and Chemistry, Felsted School, Essex), Ms Becky Parker
( Head of Science, Simon Langton Girls School, Canterbury), Mrs Jay
Pye (Head, St Michael’s Church of England Junior School, Maidstone,
Kent), Mr Roger Mitchell (Deputy Head, Warren Junior School, Romford,
Essex) and Mr Justin Dillon (School of Education, King’s College,
London).
5.The group took account of
the many positive steps already being taken by the Government to raise
school standards and effectiveness including the National Grid for Learning,
the establishment of Beacon Schools and a cadre of Advanced Skills Teachers,
as well as the 1998 Green Paper for modernising the teaching profession2
.
6.They drew upon a wide range
of published research and other information, as well as the results
of a survey which was commissioned specifically to obtain a robust and
up-to-date picture of the views, needs and requirements of the teachers
themselves. The survey was undertaken in July 1999 by the School
of Education, King’s College London under the leadership of Mr Justin
Dillon and Dr Jonathan Osborne.
7.Over 150 primary and secondary
teachers from 50 schools in five regions of England participated in
focus groups and a survey was conducted with three questionnaires
being sent to each of a randomly selected sample of 1973 primary and
735 secondary schools. A total of 2,355 questionnaires were returned
( 29% of the total distributed) from 1279 schools (47%):
Primary
Secondary
Number
of Schools
745 (38%)
505 (68%)
Number
of Headteachers
565 (29%)
360 (49%)
Number
of teachers
854 (22%)
576 (42%)
within
first five yrs of career
289
223
over
5 yrs into career
565
353
8.We are indebted to these
schools, headteachers and teachers for their invaluable contribution
to our work. We are publishing the full results of this survey
in a separate report by the King’s College team but have included
a summary in Annex A. The other evidence which has informed our
views and conclusions is summarised in Annex B.
9.In the course of its work,
the group benefited from the expert views of many other people who are
also acknowledged in Annex C. We are most grateful to all of them
for their invaluable assistance.
The Hallmarks of Top Quality
Science Teaching
10.While many factors are associated
with the level of attainment in school science which pupils reach, the
research evidence confirms the common sense view that the personal attributes,
knowledge, skills and competencies of their teachers are critically
important and influential. Developing and improving the professional
practice of science teachers therefore lies at the heart of raising
the level of attainment which their pupils achieve during their compulsory
schooling, and hence school standards and effectiveness in science education.
11.The effectiveness of science
teachers stems mainly from their attitude, their confidence, their knowledge
of the subject and how to teach it (pedagogy). Truly inspirational
science teaching occurs when a teacher is not only enthusiastic about
the science topic being taught but also understands that topic fully
in order to present it in a comprehensible and meaningful way to each
pupil.
12.Good subject knowledge (
both substantive and syntactic) and understanding of the substance,
content, structure and organisation of the science subject itself
is essential for the teacher to explain not only the facts of science
but, more importantly, the arguments for the scientific picture.
When it is weak, many teachers find it difficult to deal with pupils'
questions and resort to teaching from a text book to avoid having their
lack of knowledge exposed3.
13.Research indicates that
science teachers need to possess good subject knowledge in order to
develop the subject related pedagogical knowledge, skills and
competence that is so necessary to present a science topic to pupils,
in comprehensible and stimulating ways by drawing on the best possible
analogies, examples, illustrations, explanations and demonstrations
to build on each pupil’s existing level of understanding4.
14.Effective pedagogy additionally
requires science teachers to be able to set clear and explicit learning
objectives and realistic high expectations. They must have a high
level of involvement with their pupils and provide a very high level
of personal support for each of them. They must be able to use
of a variety of teaching and learning strategies and provide innovative
learning activities in well ordered, stimulating lessons. They
also need to be able to strike up positive relationships with each pupil
and between all the pupils in their classes.
15.Many of these hallmarks
apply to the teaching of other subjects on the school curriculum but
they are particularly demanding ones in the case of science since science
teachers are dealing with subjects, topics, issues and boundaries that
are continually changing. Even though the substance of the national
curriculum for school science is relatively static and unchanged, the
rapid advances in science which are occurring provide a particularly
tough and complex context for their work with pupils, as do the increasingly
important and profound social, moral and other implications of so many
of these advances. Compared with other school subjects:
the
science curriculum is very extensive;
a
significant number of pupils are negative about the intrinsic and extrinsic
merits of science and/or the science curriculum5;
science
is conceptually complex and fast changing, raising many unprecedented,
often profound ethical and other issues for pupils and teachers alike;
it
is multi-disciplinary in nature, but the majority of teachers teaching
it are not;
there
is a far greater range and diversity of support material and other sources
available for teachers to use, if they wish and are able to do so. In
many cases, they need to be trained before they can use it in their
work; and
particularly
at secondary level, it demands very high levels of knowledge and competence
when teaching through demonstrations, experiments and investigations;
16.In our view, no other subject
in the national curriculum involves such complexities or places such
demands on its teachers, not only to keep abreast with contemporary
developments but also on how best to deal with them in teaching.
In our survey for instance, 47% of the primary teachers and 61% of their
secondary colleagues wanted more material about the social and ethical
issues of science to support their work with pupils.
17.The key requirement of every
science teacher’s professional practice and continuous professional
development is to maintain and strengthen their subject knowledge and
their ability to apply this knowledge to the specific circumstances
of a pupil at that moment in time. As OFSTED states6:
When [...... science....]
teachers are thoroughly in command of their subject, they are able to
adapt their teaching to the response of pupils, to use alternative and
more imaginative ways of explaining, and to make connections between
aspects of their subject and with the pupils’ wider experience, so
capturing their attention and interest. The teacher’s ability to answer
pupils’ spontaneous questions is an important factor in generating
enthusiasm for the subject.
18.This applies particularly
to science teachers in the early years of their careers and even more
so to secondary school teachers who do not possess a GCSE or A level
or equivalent level qualification in the science topic they are teaching.
19.A recent study by Leeds
University7 shows that the deployment by secondary
schools of science teaching expertise is now heavily influenced by resources
and other contingencies including recruitment and retention difficulties.
Generally, these schools are seeking to provide a broad and balanced
science course for their pupils in the time and with the subject expertise
available to them. While some secondary schools are undertaking
non specialist science teaching at key stage 4 on principle, the majority
are deploying staff to teach science within and outside their subjects
in reflection of the limited or non availability of subject specialist
teachers, especially in physics and chemistry.
20.In noting the substantial
division among many of the science teachers over the principle of such
specialist teaching, this study highlights the need to offer science
teachers opportunities and resources to expand their substantive and
subject related pedagogical knowledge across the three traditional disciplines
of physics, chemistry and biology.
Approach
21.We sought to obtain a robust,
up to-date picture of the teachers’ actual views and requirements
concerning their continuous professional development (CPD) and the support
currently available to them for this and for their teaching more generally.
22.We drew on a number of sources
including the survey which was undertaken in July 1999. We concentrated
as sharply as possible on those considerations that:
(a) are specific to
the teaching of science, rather than those concerning teachers and teaching
more generally, such as pay and promotion arrangements;
(b) affect the day
to day professional practice of science teachers;
(c) concern the teaching
of science to pupils between the ages of 9-13 years old since this is
when young peoples’ views and attitudes towards science generally
and school science in particular change most significantly.
23.We took particular account
of the views expressed by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector in a lecture
in February 1999, entitled “ The Rise and Fall of the Reflective Practitioner”,
and especially his concluding remarks that:
“ ... the way forward
must be to continue to identify our most effective schools and to find
ways to open up the practical knowledge and understanding that they
possess to others so the gap between the good and the weak can
be narrowed.”
24. In designing the survey,
we sought to overcome the lack of published information for assessing
the impact and implications of:
(a) the serious and
enduring shortage of well qualified science graduates into the teaching
profession;
(b) the fact that subject
qualifications of new graduate entrants into secondary schools lie principally
but not exclusively, in one of the traditional scientific disciplines
of physics, chemistry or biology; and
(c) their initial
teacher training comprising little that enhances their substantive and
syntactic knowledge of other science subjects forming the national curriculum,
particularly those taught at key stage 4.
Science Teachers’ Levels
of Confidence
25.Our survey revealed remarkably
wide variations in the science teachers’ levels of confidence.
26.As might be expected, the
teachers in the first five years of their careers generally had less
confidence in teaching science than their more experienced colleagues.
27.But we were surprised by
the significant drop in confidence levels from teaching key stage 3
science to secondary pupils between the ages of 11-13 years old to teaching
key stage 4 science to pupils in the two years immediately before their
GCSE examinations when many will be deciding on their post 16 courses
of study.
28.The primary teachers were
generally less confident about teaching science than about Mathematics
or English at key stage 2. Only 57% reported having a lot of confidence
in teaching science, appreciably lower than the figures for the other
core subjects of English (66%) and Mathematics (63%).
29.As for key stage 2 science,
their levels of confidence were notably low with only 44% having a lot
of confidence in teaching the programme of study at key stage 2 for
Sc1 - Experimental and Investigative Science, and 47% for Sc4
- Physical Processes.
Primary
Confidence Levels at Key Stage 2
Figures are % of the
teachers covered in each row
Years
of
Teaching
Sc1
Experimental
Sc2
Life & Living
Processes
Sc3
Materials
Sc4
Physical Processes
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
0-5
n=289
37
55
7
54
45
1
47
50
2
33
58
9
6-10
n=138
47
50
3
72
27
1
61
38
1
54
42
4
11-20
n=174
56
41
3
76
22
2
67
31
2
55
40
5
21-30
n=221
45
50
5
74
24
2
63
34
2
54
40
5
30+
n=31
32
68
0
77
23
0
61
34
3
39
55
6
All
44
51
5
67
31
1
58
40
2
47
47
6
30.Among the secondary teachers,
confidence levels at key stage 3 were generally much higher, although
20% had less than a lot of confidence when teaching the programmes for
Sc2 Life & Living Processes and Sc4
Physical Processes. Despite their generally high levels of
confidence, 87% of these teachers wanted more ideas for
science investigations.
31.At key stage 4, their
levels of confidence generally fell markedly and varied much more widely
across the four programmes of study and across the ranges of the teachers’
experience.
32.Other than for Sc1 Experimental
& Investigative Science, between 40% and 50% of the teachers
had only some or a little confidence in teaching these programmes:
Secondary
Confidence Levels at Key Stage 3
Figures are % of the
teachers covered in each row
Years
of
Teaching
Sc1
Experimental
Sc2
Life & Living
Processes
Sc3
Materials
Sc4
Physical Processes
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
0-5
n=289
82
17
1
83
14
1
85
14
0
75
24
<1
6-10
n=138
94
6
0
88
12
0
90
10
0
82
18
0
11-20
n=174
93
7
0
83
15
1
88
12
1
80
18
<1
21-30
n=221
92
8
0
72
21
6
87
12
1
87
10
1
30+
n=31
96
5
0
73
27
0
86
14
0
91
5
5
All
89
11
<1
80
16
2
87
13
0
81
18
1
Secondary
Confidence Levels at Key Stage 4
Figures are % of the
teachers covered in each row
Years
of
Teaching
Sc1
Experimental
Sc2
Life & Living
Processes
Sc3
Materials
Sc4
Physical Processes
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
A Lot
Some
Little
0-5
n=289
72
26
1
59
25
13
57
36
5
44
41
14
6-10
n=138
80
14
4
57
31
8
70
22
4
45
49
4
11-20
n=174
88
8
2
53
37
7
64
28
5
56
29
10
21-30
n=221
81
13
0
38
40
15
57
30
6
57
29
6
30+
n=31
77
14
0
46
23
23
50
36
5
50
32
9
All
79
17
1
52
32
12
60
31
5
50
35
10
Science Teachers’ Subject
Qualifications and the correlation with their Levels of Confidence.
33.Among the primary
teachers the percentage of those without an A- level or higher level
qualification in a science based subject were 69% for biology;
85% for chemistry; and 89% for physics. The percentages without
a first or higher degree in a science based subject were 88% biology,
96% chemistry and 98% physics.
34. As for the secondary teachers:
At key stage
3, the percentages of those teaching a science topic without
an A-level in the subject were:
37% of those teaching biology;
19% of those teaching chemistry;
37% of those teaching physics.At
key stage 4, the percentages of those teaching a science topic
without an A-level in the subject were:
26% of those teaching biology;
13% of those teaching chemistry;
29% of those teaching physics.
and
similarly the percentages of those without a related degree were:
53% of those teaching biology
62% of those teaching chemistry
76% of those teaching physics
and similarly
the percentages of those without a related degree
were:
39% of those teaching biology;
51% of those teaching chemistry;
66% of those teaching physics
35. As covered more fully in
Annex A, an analysis of the responses from all the teachers and from
those within the first five years of their career revealed a correlation
between these teachers’ highest subject qualifications and their levels
of confidence. For instance, a higher level of chemistry qualification
was positively associated with confidence in teaching chemistry at both
key stages 3 and 4.
Overall Assessment of Science
Teachers Views and Requirements.
36.Despite these considerations
however, the teachers were not engaged in systematic, subject related,
class room based continuous professional development. Overall, the results
convey a very strong sense indeed of the isolation felt by science teachers,
mostly working alone in the classroom with little opportunity to either
learn from or judge their practice against that of their peers
in the same or other schools.
37.The teachers reported having
little say in their individual CPD or the courses they do attend, and
very real difficulties in identifying and accessing suitable products
and services for their individual CPD, as well as constraints of time
and money. What INSET they have received recently was mostly taken
up by whole school issues, matters of administration rather than teaching
science, and such national initiatives as those concerning literacy,
numeracy and ICT. Only rarely did they have the opportunity to
refresh their subject related substantive and pedagogical knowledge
and skills.
38.Many recalled former times
when they were able to attend courses lasting 10-20 days for these purposes.
Both primary and secondary teachers reported that opportunities to build
on their initial training were very limited and tailed away sharply
after the first, induction year of their careers. In the questionnaire
survey, less experienced teachers had attended notably fewer courses
than their more experienced colleagues in the most recent (1998/99)
school year.
39.The teachers were also critical
of the adequacy of existing appraisal arrangements for identifying their
individual strengths and needs. Nor did they rate particularly
highly the INSET which they had received during the preceding school
year.
Primary and secondary teachers’
evaluations of the INSET that they received during 1998/99.
Generally
useful %
Sometimes
useful %
Rarely
useful %
Topic
P
n=
S n=
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Preparation
for senior management
127
57
64
58
35
40
0
2
Preparation
for middle management
72
104
54
57
43
39
0
4
ICT
507
308
54
41
38
50
6
8
Class
management
201
171
44
37
45
58
5
5
Teaching
skills
255
215
66
53
30
42
2
3
Subject
knowledge
193
86
65
57
29
38
2
2
Assessment
454
251
50
45
43
49
3
2
Mentoring
150
111
55
50
39
42
5
7
Key Issues
40.Following extensive consultations
involving the Association for Science Education and many other experienced
parties about the results of our survey, we are satisfied that they
are sufficiently accurate and representative of the present situation
of the science teaching profession overall today, in schools in England
at least.
41.Meta-analysis in the US8
shows that to make any lasting,
and noticeable difference to teachers’ performance, their individual
CPD must be long term and classroom focused, involving both pupils
and expert advice. It must meet their individual learning needs
and preferences and it must provide an appropriate mixture of learning
opportunities, within and outside the classroom. Other research9
indicates that that effective
CPD must include personal, social and professional development rather
than simply skills and knowledge training.
42.Against this established
benchmark, there is clearly much scope for improvement.Within and across
schools, a life time of professional learning and development by science
teachers individually and collectively must become very much the norm.
By the end of the first five years of their careers, all science teachers,
and especially those in secondary schools, should be well on the way
to developing the necessary skills and knowledge to become not only
life long learners themselves but also to be able to contribute to the
development of the professional practice of science teaching itself.
43.In broad strategic terms,
we consider that in establishing its new CPD framework, the Government
should aim to bring about a transformation in the collective culture
and ethos of schools and science teachers from that which presently
exists. It should seek to make it endemic and the
“natural professional thing to do” for science teachers to be engaged
in continuous, subject specific, classroom based professional
development.
44.More specifically, to
achieve this transformation, it should take full account of the
distinctive features and circumstances of school science and ensure
that:
(a) as a general rule,
the career progression of science teachers is dependent upon them engaging
in systemic, continuous professional development that is appropriately
recorded and accredited;
(b) secondary school
science teachers have the opportunity to broaden and deepen their subject
knowledge and their subject related pedagogical knowledge for teaching
science at either key stage 3 or key stage 4;
(c) especially for secondary
school science teachers, continuous professional development activities
are sustained, class room based and supported appropriately by top class
coaching and mentoring;
(d) by the end of the first
five years of their careers, all science teachers, and especially those
in secondary schools, are well on the way to developing the necessary
skills and knowledge to become not only life long learners themselves
but also to be able to contribute to the development of the professional
practice of science teaching itself; and that
(e) a top class, professional
support service exists for all new entrants into secondary school
science teaching for the first full five years of their careers.
45.The new framework
should also:
encourage
and enable science teachers to seek and adopt new teaching strategies
and approaches in their work with pupils;
create
a pro-learning, innovative culture in which teachers regard themselves
as science educators.
46.The framework should
further provide an individual CPD entitlement to
subject based professional development for each science teachers,
one that is on par with that in other areas of professional life.
47. The remainder of this report presents our views on what
we judge to be the key components of such a system.
Leadership and Accountability
for the CPD of Science Teachers
48.During our work, we encountered
widespread doubt and confusion about the respective roles and responsibilities
of DfEE, the National Standards Task Force, the new General Teaching
Council, the TTA, the QCA, Local Education Authorities, and individual
schools regarding the CPD of science teachers.
49.Our survey revealed an extraordinarily
wide variation in the per capita funds of the schools for all INSET/CPD
purposes.
Finance
available per staff member (£k)
Primary
Schools
n=565
£0-100
£101-300
£301-500
£501-1000
>£1000
%
of schools
8
17
52
9
15
Secondary
Schools
n=360
£0-150
£151-300
£301-600
£601-1000
>£1000
%
of schools
15
38
38
8
<2
50.Our survey did not investigate
the reasons for these variations, but we consider that the future funding
arrangements and allocations should differentiate clearly and strike
the right balance between the professional development of individual
teachers; the development of a school and complement of teachers as
a whole; and national initiatives such as those concerning literacy,
numeracy and the use of ICT by teachers.
51.Accordingly, we believe
that Government must ensure that:
(i) there is clear responsibility
and accountability for the monitoring, direction, control and co-ordination
at the national, UK wide level that is necessary for the implementation
of the new CPD framework;
(ii) schools and individual
teachers fully understand their respective responsibilities and obligations;
(iii) there is clear
and authoritative guidance on these matters; and that
(iv) appropriate, transparent
funding arrangements are in place, with clear output or performance
measures that reflect the full range of CPD activities and the appropriate
balance of public expenditure on them.
52.For monitoring purposes
at least, the Government could usefully track the number of state schools
securing Investors in People (IiP) status, even if it decided against
setting national targets for schools with IiP.
School Management’s Role and Requirements
53.Significantly, some 20%
of the secondary head teachers (43 out of 260, who responded to
an open ended question about their concerns regarding science
education in their schools ) commented that their science departments
had not developed as quickly as other subjects. Among the reasons
they mentioned specifically was weak management at the head of department
level.
54.Further, whereas the primary
and secondary head teachers judged INSET delivered in school by staff
to be more useful for their science staff than that delivered
outside school, the science teachers held exactly the opposite view.
55.We believe that this divergence
of view is symptomatic of the inevitable tensions involved in the allocation
by school managers of the limited time and budgets available for CPD
purposes, especially for dealing with whole school issues, national
initiatives and generic matters such as new administrative routines
on the one hand and providing for the subject related needs of individual
science teachers on the other. Our survey indicates broadly how
these matters are currently resolved:
Method
of allocating INSET funds
Primary schools
(n=565)
Secondary schools
(n=360)
%
%
Head decides
50
15
Colleague
decides
25
61
Budget devolved
to individuals
6
29
Bids from
individuals
11
9
Other
32
29
56.We were also struck by much
anecdotal evidence suggesting that in many schools, science teaching
is equated with just the science part of the national curriculum, rather
than requiring a team effort across all curriculum subjects. It
seems to be a rare exception for teachers in the same school to meet
regularly together to discuss their respective roles, plans and
contributions to teaching science to pupils in a particular year group
across all the national curriculum subjects.
57.The survey results also
reveal, at least from the science teachers’ viewpoint, that
top quality professional, mentoring, assessment and guidance for their
professional development and training is another rare exception.
Primary and secondary teachers’
opinions about their science INSET in 1998/99.
Mostly
useful
%
Some
use
%
Little
use
%
Source
Primary
(P)
n=
Secondary
(S)
n=
P
S
P
S
P
S
In
school, from colleagues
724
493
61
37
35
56
2
7
In
school from outsiders
568
385
54
29
43
57
3
15
Out
of school
658
392
56
53
42
42
2
4
58.Building up science teachers’
trust and confidence in these processes is of paramount importance,
as is building up the capacity and capabilities of all those involved
in these processes in their school. We doubt whether many, if
any of the respondents to our survey would be so open about their levels
of confidence in a performance review situation: the survey was designed
specifically to safeguard
their individual returns from
their school colleagues and head teachers.
59.Creating a pro-CPD culture
in a school and increasing its capacity and capabilities to sustain
and nurture the subject related expertise of its teaching staff effectively
are essentially school management issues. More money is undoubtedly
needed: our survey indicates that the main constraints on science teachers’
CPD are time, money, workload and fatigue, along with the lost opportunity
costs involved in arranging supply cover to attend external courses.
60. Nevertheless, and given
the constraints and pressures on public expenditure, schools and their
staff managers will need to get much better at dealing with them
effectively. The new National College for School Leadership undoubtedly
has an important role to play in these regards, developing the abilities
and competence of current and prospective head teachers and their deputies.
61.But we believe that their
senior staff and those with line management responsibilities for less
experienced staff have a very important, if not pivotal role to play,
one which they can only discharge through distinct and specific CPD
and support. This applies to both outstanding teachers in a school
and to those in schools that work together on teaching science, including
the growing number of Beacon Schools and Advanced Skills Teachers.
Many if not most of these outstanding teachers will need specific CPD
training and support in order to fulfil their intended mentoring, assessing
and staff developmental roles.
62.We are aware that a number
of sponsors of school science such as the Royal Society for Chemistry
are already piloting approaches involving diagnostic tools, guidance
and support for these particular purposes. These will need to
be co-ordinated and brought together in suitable ways from the view
point of these teachers as managers.
63.The Government needs
to build up the capacity and capabilities of schools to manage and enable
the professional development of their science teaching staff by developing
and continuously strengthening the appraisal, mentoring and coaching
skills of all the staff concerned. Best practice guidelines and benchmarks
should be promulgated to assist them.
64.Further, it is vital
that these new processes and associated tools are introduced
into schools in ways that support and enable:
(i) the establishment of
norms and good practice across schools;
(ii) the creation of trust
and confidence of science teachers in these practices and processes;
and
(iii) Beacon Schools and the cadre of advanced skills teachers to provide
their fullest possible added value contribution. The effectiveness of
their contribution to other schools needs to be monitored closely. So
does the capacity of these other schools and their staff to absorb and
learn from their contributions.
65.We further consider that
the production and promulgation of benchmarks and best practice are
necessary to enable school managers to deal effectively with this particular
set of responsibilities. We are attracted by the option of producing
a school version of the People Skills Scoreboard for the Engineering
Industry10
. Not only would this
provide schools with useful comparative data for forming and executing
their CPD plans, it might also form a valuable and much needed
source of market information for all those INSET providers and others
forming the supply chain, and especially so if it included expenditure
figures.
Products and Services for
Science Teachers’ CPD
66.In our survey, the teachers
attached primary importance to developing their professional practice
by learning systematically from their professional peers, and other
sources of knowledge, e.g. research into science, science teaching,
and learning by science teachers.
67.In the focus groups, some
teachers spoke highly of the videotaped lessons distributed as part
of the national numeracy and literacy initiatives. They and others pointed
to the dearth of useful videotaped lessons, showing and demonstrating
good practice in science teaching.
68.Our survey highlighted three
essential requirements in providing for the CPD of science teachers:
it
must be centred on the needs of individual teachers;
these
needs must be identified through an objective, professional assessment
of their individual strengths and weaknesses; and
their
resulting CPD must be suitably structured around their subject related
competencies with particular reference to:
raising
their awareness;
updating
their subject knowledge; and
enhancing
their subject related pedagogy.
69.All science teachers need
“quality” time to revisit and enhance both their subject knowledge
and pedagogy repertoires, as well as their more general skills and competencies.
Individually and at different stages of their careers, their CPD requirements
vary. But particularly in their early years, top class mentoring
and learning from their peers is the common and paramount requirement.
70.Further, as mentioned earlier,
the research evidence shows that the CPD of individual science
teachers needs to be planned, sustained and executed over a prolonged
period, lasting some 12-24 months, if any real, lasting incremental
difference to their performance and standards is to be achieved.
Science teachers’ CPD should be based firmly on research and other
hard evidence about how to ensure that their CPD is effective. It should
draw on international practice in terms of the standards aimed for and
the delivery of CPD provision. In addition to catering for the needs
of individual teachers, it should also focus on and create teams of
science teachers learning and developing their practice together.
71.For this to happen, a clear,
properly structured and organised framework needs to exist, preferably
including an individual CPD entitlement of at least five days per annum
to be spent on subject based professional development.
Such human resource development practice is very much the minimum these
days in many other areas of professional life.
72.The other main need highlighted
by our survey was for science teachers to learn systematically from
one another, both within and outside their classroom. Most of this individual
learning and development needs to occur on the job, while teachers are
working in the classroom with their pupils, with top class mentoring
and guidance from experts, just as it occurs in other professions.
73.This learning and developing
process depends crucially upon the quality and relevance of this process
of interactive exchange, involving the transfer and development of professional
tacit knowledge, e.g. in the form of ideas, hints and the like.
Yet in our survey 24% of primary teachers and 31% of secondary teachers
rated the help they had received from LEA advisers as poor, and 31%
of primary teachers, and 42% of secondary teachers gave the same poor
rating to teachers’ centres when judging their external sources of
professional advice, as distinct from their formal INSET.
74.The establishment of the
National Grid for Learning ( the Grid ) and advances in ICT more generally
clearly present a major opportunity for significant improvements.
Though plainly associated, we believe that this opportunity for meeting
science teachers’ CPD must be treated quite distinctly and separately
from the provision of ICT based learning of their pupils. Our
work suggests that this fundamental distinction has yet to be drawn
sufficiently clearly in the work by the Government and its partners
on establishing the Grid by 2002.
75.In our firm view, three
core components need to come into operation simultaneously if the Grid
is to realise its full potential:

schools must have sufficient
funds, resources and skills for dealing with ICT based networks;

the ICT infrastructure must
have a cache of interactive applications and other relevant software
which work and are recognised, valued and used by the science teachers
for their CPD; and

there must be sufficient volume
of such material on the NGfL to service their needs and to encourage
them to use it fully. Our survey indicates just how low is the current
level of use with 9% of the secondary teachers reporting that
they used ICT regularly.
76The Government is already
seeking to ensure that there is a sufficiently robust system in place
for managing the architecture of the Grid and for ensuring that schools
have sufficient resources, capacity and capabilities to exploit its
potential fully. It is also developing the main pages ( websites) and
their links to others in order to ensure that there is a wide range
of easily accessible content material for science teachers and their
pupils to use. We understand that some 4000 such sources have
been identified already in this developmental work.
77.Our survey revealed just
how much remains to be achieved in that the Grid was used only ‘rarely’
by 71% of primary teachers and 72% of secondary teachers of science
. Only 9% of the secondary teachers reported using computers ‘often’
in science lessons, 65% used computers ‘occasionally’ and 26% used
them ‘rarely’.
Primary (n=854)
Secondary (n=576)
Constraint
on teachers’ use of ICT
%
%
Know how
56
37
School access
42
18
Equipment
access
40
65
Time
88
86
Help
48
38
Cost
29
28
78.We believe that a suitable
range of products and services must be created for science teachers
to use for their individual CPD, both on and off line. For instance,
our survey highlights a very real demand among these teachers for multimedia
“master” classes from their peers about teaching the various programmes
of study in the national curriculum. Yet, nothing like such a compendium
of professional practice exists at present, one that is available to
and widely used by all teachers, and especially those still learning
their art and craft during the early years of their career.
79.Accordingly, we urge
the Government to address this paramount CPD need of science teachers
with a view to establishing a core set of suitable, quality assured
products and services, one that is made available and known to all new
entrants, as their essential professional tool kit. The creation
of this tool kit must be teacher led and its contents should be easy
for the teachers to access, use and apply. Its contents should be supplied
through teacher friendly arrangements that make the most of the
potential of the National Grid for Learning.
Supply Arrangements.
80.Our survey and other evidence
shows that material to support, enhance and extend teaching of the curriculum
is by no means extensively employed. A high proportion of teachers
rarely use the vast amount of support material and resources that is
produced and sponsored by very many companies, professional bodies,
charities, education organisations and institutions
.11
Frequently
%
Occasionally
%
Never
%
Not
aware %
Source
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
Industry
2
4
32
50
45
37
20
9
Societies
1
8
11
50
55
38
32
4
Government
agencies
<1
1
12
31
52
51
34
17
Charities
<1
1
19
27
41
40
39
31
Museums
8
2
63
41
23
49
5
7
81.We have been told by these
providers that the science teachers who draw regularly on their products
and services are a small minority, mainly the more outstanding members
of their profession. Although use is growing12
, even the most popular are
rarely used by more than 2% of the total population of teachers
comprising the relevant client group. Despite much effort, the
providers have yet to find ways of reaching and engaging the vast
majority of science teachers.
82.Many teachers may be unaware
of what is available, unable or unmotivated to access it, insufficiently
acquainted with it to use it in their work, or unable to use it due
to lack of knowledge, training, money or time.
83.The position is not helped
by the very large volume of unsolicited paperwork concerning schemes,
resources, activities, etc. which arrives in schools daily, coupled
with the limited time available for teachers to consider its appropriateness
and possible benefit to their teaching. The advent of the Grid and
other ICT based systems in schools carries a very real danger of compounding
this information over-load problem very significantly indeed.
84. At present, as seen by
science teachers, the supply side with its vast volume of curricula
support material created by numerous providers appears confusing. It
is difficult to find out easily and quickly what is available and relevant.
The products on offer are of variable quality and relevance, and too
much time is needed either to make any reasonable assessment or to learn
enough about them to use them. The means of access and supply
of these products and services do not stand comparison with good supply
chain practice in other sectors of our economy;
85.Conversely from the viewpoint
of the providers, the decision making processes on the demand side comprising
schools and teachers is complex and highly fragmented; this complexity,
together with some unfamiliarity with the ‘market’ presents costs,
uncertainties and other disincentives to invest in products and services
for supporting science teachers. The unpredictability of the teachers’
distrust or dislike of whatever they perceive to be the commercial interests
of the providers is a particular risk and difficulty. Access routes
and links into schools open to providers are complex, vary throughout
the country and are frequently uncertain or unfamiliar..
86.Whatever else these considerations
entail, the question clearly arises of how greater value could be secured
from this considerable expenditure of time and of money, amounting to
millions of pounds per annum by the extraordinarily large and extensive
range of organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors
which support school science and science teachers.
87.We believe that, in partnership
with both sides, the Government should seek to improve the operation
of this market which is highly fragmented on the demand and supply
sides at present.
88.We can see no good reason
why it should not be possible to establish new arrangements for overcoming
the significant inefficiencies and weaknesses that exist by the adoption
and introduction of good supply chain practices the school science sector.
Marketing, Branding and Quality Assurance of both product and the supply/distribution
chain should be considered together with Partnership Sourcing, and
the application of the ‘Approved’ producer and distributor
concepts.
89.All these approaches would
secure far greater leverage and value from the relatively small amounts
of public funding that is currently provided.
A Centre of Excellence for
Science Teachers
90As our survey shows so clearly,
the highly fragmented nature of the existing arrangements and means
by which science teachers’ CPD occurs and is supported through local
management in schools, Local Education Authorities, Learned Societies,
the Association for Science Education and numerous other bodies in the
public, private and voluntary sectors raises many issues of drive, effectiveness,
quality, relevance, standards, organisation and co-ordination.
91.The Grid along with the
local and regional activities such as those involving Training Schools,
Beacon Schools, Professional Learning teams could all too easily
compound these issues if not appropriately co-ordinated and connected
together in ways that produce a pool of professional knowledge and experience
on which all science teachers are able to draw and use, and in
particular those whose performance is judged weak and those in the early
stages of their careers.
92.We do not believe that all
the necessary developments to which we have already referred will come
about, or come about quickly enough, unless the new CPD framework includes
a body that acts as the national driver and catalyst for change, one
which operates pro-actively at the national level to add value to all
these local and regional activities
.
93.For convenience and without
being in any way prescriptive about its constitution, organisation or
structure, we simply refer to this body as a “national centre of excellence
for science teachers”.
94.As we see them, the strategic
purpose and aims of this “centre” should include:
(i) enabling and achieving
the necessary cultural shift and other changes which we identified earlier;
(ii) ensuring that
a sufficient and suitable range of core CPD products and services is
available to all science teachers and that these are subject to appropriate
quality assurance and marketing arrangements; and that they are provided
in an appropriate user friendly way from the teachers’ viewpoint;
(iii) acting as a centre
for piloting and developing innovative ways of teaching science under
the national curriculum, taking account of national and international
developments;
(iv) providing a proactive,
professional support service to all new secondary school science teachers
for the first five years of their careers; and
(v) providing a help
line for all science teachers, for instance one that complements the
Grid’s Virtual Teacher Centre, whatever mentoring and the like these
teachers are getting in their schools, and the formation or execution
of their CPD plans, in the light of their initial career entry profiles
and subsequent annual performance assessments.
95.We see a strong case for
the “centre “ to include a small but dedicated team of “expert”,
quality assured account managers, each charged with nurturing a portfolio
group of these newly qualified secondary school teachers, as clients.
96.Additionally, the “centre”
could usefully:
(i) provide help
in added value ways to those relatively few secondary schools which
OFSTED judged to be teaching science at a less than satisfactory level;
(ii) enable innovation,
experimentation, and the piloting and development of new ways and means
of teaching science; and
(iii) encourage and
enable all science teachers to seek and adopt new teaching strategies
and approaches in their work with pupils.
97.We believe that these proposals merit further substantive consideration,
possibly under the auspices of the General Teaching Council, to assess
its viability, affordability and value. In our judgement, they are
comparatively low cost, consistent with the rationale and principles
of public, private partnerships and offer such advantages as economies
of scale, efficiency savings and additionality. Although matters concerning
its organisation and structure fall outside our advisory role,
we believe that the “centre” would need to work through regional
and local arrangements using a modern IT infrastructure.
Conclusions and Recommendations
98.There are a number of widely
held, very substantive concerns about primary
and secondary school science
today:
evidence that
many pupils are dissatisfied with, if not turned off by, the quality
of the experience that they are receiving in their school science education13;
the number and
quality of those pupils choosing to continue their study of science
based subjects, not least in comparison to those choosing to study other
subjects at more advanced levels14;
the average A-level
point score for entry into higher education science and engineering
courses is falling while the average for humanities courses is rising.
This suggests that able pupils
are choosing not to study science at University;
past and continuing
shortfalls in the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified teachers
of science at p