Feb 13 2015

APPG for Education Meeting on “Does science education equip our young people for the workplace?”

Speakers Andrew Miller MP, Amanda Spielman, Chair of Ofqual, and Katherine Mathieson of the British Science Association were joined by Nick Dakin MP, Baroness Howe and a range of stakeholders for a round table discussion of science education provision.

Speakers Andrew Miller MP, Amanda Spielman, Chair of Ofqual, and Katherine Mathieson of the British Science Association were joined by Nick Dakin MP, Baroness Howe and a range of stakeholders for a round table discussion of science education provision.

On 27 January 2015 the APPG for Education was delighted to host a meeting on the question of whether science provision in schools equips our young people for the workplace. The Group was addressed by Andrew Miller MP, Chair of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, Amanda Spielman, Chair of Ofqual, and Katherine Mathieson, Director of Programmes at the British Science Association.

Nic Dakin welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the speakers.

Katherine Mathieson (KM) talked about science being at the heart of British culture and learning. The work of the British Science Association (BSA) was introduced, including the organisation of British Science Week and the CREST Awards, for example.

She talked about how not enough was being done to encourage the take up of STEM subjects and how the BSA allowed students to gain an insight into subjects not otherwise available to them.  The 21st Century science curriculum should encourage pupils to continue science subjects to A Level, not just to GCSE.

Part of the problem is the very early specialisation in the UK Education system in which science needs to be seen as a more basic fundamental to education.  David Willetts MP has stated that there is concern that employers are looking for a better mix of skills and this is being stifled by narrowing of subject choices.  Scotland for example allows for a greater focus on creativity through the Curriculum for Excellence and taking 5 Highers.

The challenge for Science departments was over-coming the assumption that science is just for scientists.  KM stressed the importance of practical work in making the subjects interesting and attractive.  In 2011 over half of state schools had no girls taking Science A Level.

Dominic Savage asked if teaching science was expensive and therefore an inhibitor.  KM stated that she was not best placed to answer that but having taken the CREST awards with grants into less well-off schools the opportunity was not taken up widely.  She thought it was about confidence in the subject.  Nic Dakin stated that as an English teacher, he always saw the relevance of science across teaching.

Andrew Miller (AM) believes there is a necessity to engage more effectively with students to encourage science take-up.  The Royal Society of Chemistry is gathering information on primary school teachers’ qualifications – he believes at best 12% have a science degree.  Initial teacher training has some rather off-putting sections.  Additionally the importance of classroom practicals was emphasised again; without them the students might as well be watching experiments on television.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee held an evidence session on Ofqual’s proposals. It is the Committee’s view that the current proposals would not have the excitement built into practical experiments and that alternatives need to be considered.  Click here for evidence and further information on this inquiry.

Amanda Spielman agreed with both KM and AM.  She believes the new science qualifications will give a more holistic approach to science learning and that practical science will have a role to play.   The new curriculum will allow teachers to think about what they are teaching and what is required to progress to the next stage.  However, she believes that schools have to take responsibility to ensure that competencies are reached by pupils and this is partly through practicals.  The roundtable events held did not bring any new ideas to the table.

Baroness Howe asked if things were different in academies.  Andrew Miller said that a wide number of employers stated that students did not have practical skills and schools were not going beyond the structures currently in place to teach such skills.

Other points raised were:

  • This presents an opportunity to re-focus practical learning and deepen students’ knowledge
  • There is a need for joined-up thinking between Ofqual/Ofsted/DfE and Awarding bodies to help teachers, as messages differ from body to body
  • It is vital to get more STEM teachers into primary school teaching
  • It was recommended that those present looked at the following video: http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/by-subject/science/positive-about-practical/

Jan 16 2015

Does science education equip our young people for the workplace?

On Tuesday 27th January 2015 at 4pm the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Education will discuss whether current STEM education in UK schools properly equips our young people for careers in the sciences.

In November, the Secretary of State for Education, Nicky Morgan MP, was both lauded and criticised for suggesting that young people should steer away from studying the arts and humanities and opt for science or maths subjects if they want to have a successful career. Ms Morgan said that as the world changes, the UK must produce a workforce that is equipped to compete globally, and that means producing more physicists, engineers, and mathematicians.

But does current science education provision actually equip young people for the challenges of a modern world and economy? And what more could be done? Particularly, with only 19% of girls who achieved an A* in GCSE physics continuing to study it at A level, how can we encourage more girls to pursue scientific studies?

The meeting will be addressed by the Chair of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, Andrew Miller MP. A long-standing advocate of strong and innovative science education, Andrew is also Vice-Chairman of PITCOM and a member of the Editorial Board of Science in Parliament.

We will also be joined by Katherine Mathieson, Director of Programmes for the British Science Association. Katherine oversees all of the Association’s public programmes and has a particular interest in education programmes – her first role was Director of Education, focussing on expanding the prestigious CREST Awards programme to under-privileged schools and establishing the new National Science and Engineering Competition for teenagers. There will be an opportunity for discussion and contributions from the floor following Katherine’s address.

The meeting will be held in Room U of Portcullis House. We very much hope you will be able to join us. Please respond to Jamie Slavin, either by email on [email protected] or by telephone on 020 7828 1603.

Dec 15 2014

APPG for Education meeting on “Does early years provision prepare children for school?”

Speakers Ellen Broome from the Family and Childcare Trust and Dr Helen Stephenson from the Department for Education were joined by Nick Dakin MP, Baroness Tyler, Baroness Armstrong and a range of stakeholders for a round table discussion of early years education provision.

Speakers Ellen Broome from the Family and Childcare Trust and Dr Helen Stephenson from the Department for Education were joined by Nick Dakin MP, Baroness Tyler, Baroness Armstrong and a range of stakeholders for a round table discussion of early years education provision.

The APPG for Education was delighted to host a meeting on the question of whether current early years provision prepares children for schools. The Group was addressed by Ellen Broome, Director of Policy, Research and Communications at the Family and Childcare Trust, and Dr Helen Stephenson, Director – Early Years and Childcare at the Department for Education.

Ellen provided a summary of current early years provision in schools, explaining that the vast majority of childcare takes place outside of the school setting, mostly provided by the private sector. Not enough children receive quality childcare and one way of improving it is to increase the amount of provision in schools. However, the limited hours during which school based childcare operates is a barrier, as it makes it hard for working parents to access. Schools need to demystify childcare for low income parents.

Ellen welcomed the introduction of a baseline assessment as it will improve accountability of primary schools. Ellen also welcomed the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP), with the caveat that it is a mini-step as it is a small amount of money compared to the Pupil Premium Grant. She also expressed concern that the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector may not be able to use the EYPP effectively.

Ellen questioned if the purpose of early years provision is to prepare children for school. For most disadvantaged children, she argued, there are more important skills that we would like them to gain than just being ready to be students. Finally Ellen raised the issues of workforce development and pay in the childcare sector.

Helen began by stating that the answer to the meeting’s question is, yes, early years provision does prepare children for school. But, crucially, it also prepares them for life with skills such as the ability to work in a group and interact with others. There is a direct academic benefit of early years education, including at GCSE but also throughout life.

Helen agreed that it would be beneficial to have more provision in school, but stressed the importance of having a range of providers and settings, including good quality PVI providers, and ensuring that enough time is spent in childcare.

Helen described the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers as stubborn, but said that EYPP was a good step forward. She believes that PVI providers will be read to administer the extra money and her team are currently preparing case studies of best practice and guidance. She highlighted the tension in the relationship between quality of childcare and affordability; attempts to alter one aspect can distort the other. She concluded that the pillars for good early years provision are in place and all evidence suggests that the government is right to be investing in this area.

The presentations were followed by points and discussion from the floor.

Ellen began the discussion by responding to some of Helen’s points, stressing the need to prioritise putting children in the right setting for their personal development. Helen noted that only 15% of providers are rated as requiring improvement or worse by Ofsted. However, Martin Huleatt noted that this still translates into thousands of children.

There was discussion of whether or not Local Authorities were the most appropriate bodies to control EYPP funding. It was also noted that some LAs have found it difficult to maintain investment in early years provision because of cuts to their budgets. The question was posed that, if childcare is a national priority, how can it be devolved down to the local level?

Ellen made the point that childcare does not exist in a bubble; if other aspects of family support are not in place, early years provision wills struggle. She posed the question of how early years provision can be placed at the top of the government’s agenda, considering the evidence shows that it makes the biggest difference to a child’s life chances.

Several people stressed the importance of organisations, such as Homestart, which help parents rather than the state lecturing them. Cooperation between the Department of Health and Department for Education was highlighted as being particularly vital; for example, the introduction of Community Nursery Nurses. But central government edicts are not particularly helpful.

Baroness Tyler described her work with the APPG for Social Mobility, which has confirmed the importance of parental involvement. She too stressed the importance of joining up the work of the health and education departments.

Ellen raised the issue of childcare for disabled children, which she said has failed very badly. She also noted that the quasi-free market nature of childcare provision means that some companies choose not to provide services in disadvantaged areas, meaning that those who need the most support, actually receive the least.

Baroness Armstrong stressed the need for firm, properly enforced policies on childcare. She cited Wales, where funding for training was only given for certain schemes which were accepted as best practice and results were far better than in England which has several options. She stressed the benefit of providers in, for example, Sure Start Centres, having health backgrounds.

There was discussion of the take up of childcare amongst disadvantaged children. Baroness Tyler explained that evidence gathered from the APPG for Social Mobility’s Inquiry showed that the poorest quality provision is in the most disadvantaged areas. She said that there is a need to target funding such as the EYPP more sharply into these areas and to reach out to parents to involve them in their child’s learning. The country needs a national parenting campaign that does not seem threatening – it is the last great taboo. Baroness Armstrong agreed, saying that the state has a responsibility to tell parents what good practice is. There was general agreement in the room that more advice is needed for parents, especially after the age of three.

Nic Dakin MP thanked everyone for attending the meeting and closed the discussion at 5.15pm.  An informal discussion then continued.

Load more