The Times Gets It Slightly Wrong About Science Education

[BPSDB] Sometimes I think that the Press and I live in parallel universes. What else can explain the fact that they publish stuff as news that I know to be false? They even claim that stuff I do on a regular basis as part of my job as a school lab technician never actually happens.

Take this, the claim that interesting science experiments no longer happen in school laboratories because of misplaced health and safety fears:-

"The fear of burns, spillages and volatile reactions means that even mundane procedures such as distillation are often viewed online rather than performed in the laboratory. Professor John Holman, the Government’s chief adviser on science in schools, and Professor David Phillips, incoming president of the Royal Society of Chemistry, told The Times that it was vital for pupils to learn how to handle hazardous substances and to experiment.

The first sentence in the above paragraph is a fabrication. Distillation is done in the lab not viewed online at the school where I work and I have never heard of any school that does things differently. The Times does not place it in quotes which suggests that no-one other than Joanna Sugden, the writer of the article, has used those exact words but note how it is immediately followed by naming Professor John Holman and Professor David Phillips and so implying it is they who have said it. Note to self. Find contact details for the Professors and ask them what they actually said.

Professor Holman, who is also director of the National Science Learning Centre, said trainee teachers spent too little time preparing exciting practicals. “There is much less practical work now because of a huge focus on exams,” he said. “Schools are so aware of health and safety — they will say, ‘That’s too dangerous’.

My own experience is that there is not less practical work. However I am aware that a sample size of 1 does not tell a great deal about the state of science education in the country as a whole. It is a pity Professor Holman does not supply any evidence at all for his assertion. And this from the Director of the National Science Learning Centre and the Government Chief Advisor on Science in Schools too. The statement that "schools are so aware of health and safety — they will say, ‘That’s too dangerous.'", is, I am afraid to say, excrement of the mail bovine. First, I do not see the problem with being aware of health and safety issues. Second, schools will rarely, if ever, say "that's too dangerous" - they will say "Have you done a risk assessment and have you provided adequate personal protective equipment?"

The article then gives us some experiments the writer thinks are going to disappear:-

"Experiments at risk

Ammonium dichromate volcano Make a pile of ammonium dichromate and set the tip alight using a magnesium fuse. The result is a tiny volcano, complete with ash, steam and nitrogen gas

The thermite reaction Mix metal powder with metal-oxide to create thermite and set it alight. The mix will burn at an exceptionally high temperature

Potassium in water The classic school experiment. Drop potassium into water and it reacts violently, making hydrogen, which then ignites in a small fireball"

I've never set up the first of the above three but the other two are regulars in our department. I have never had any indications from CLEAPSS (the school science safety advisory service) that there is any suggestion that these experiments be banned.

Teachers still devise their own demonstrations too. Our head of chemistry has come up with an excellent one that presumably does not happen in the Times's parallel universe. A small candle is placed in a copper calorimeter and heated over a bunsen burner. The wax melts and starts burning. You then tape a small beaker to the end of a metre rule, half fill it with water then, holding the other end of the metre rule, tip the water into the burning wax. The result is a jet of flame that reaches the ceiling. An excelent demonstration as to why trying to put out chip-pan fires with water is a really bad idea. Figuring out what has happened is a good excercise for the students, too.

I left a comment on the Times article on Tuesday evening saying briefly that school science still includes interesting experiments and perhaps they should talk to people who work in science education before they publish stories such as this. Strangely, it has not yet appeared. They have allowed plenty of comments slagging off Labour/Liberals/bureaucrats/socialists however and saying how terrible excessive regulation is.

Clearly, this excessive regulation of school science is a figment of the Murdoch Empire's imagination but it fits into the meme of "Health & Safety gone mad" which is so beloved by the Tories. By convincing the electorate that health and safety regulations are far more restrictive than is actually the case and they will be more accepting in cuts in real safety legislation on the grounds of "making a bonfire of red tape" or "allowing Britain to be competitive". Light touch regulation of the finance sector for competitive reasons used to be a mantra too. Need I remind you how well that turned out?

This post also appears here.


Trackback URL for this post:
http://layscience.net/trackback/669

No votes yet
Maxine (not verified) on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 11:31

I'm heartened to read what you write about science experiments in schools. I agree with your implication about the standards of research in many newspaper articles. So what I am about to write is anecdote, not intended to be generalised ;-). My daughters go/went to a very good science specialist state school in the UK. In the four years between them there was a drastic drop in the amount of experimentation in the science lessons - and also "food tech" - the elder one bought home "materials" she'd cooked at school for a year or two, the younger one perhaps once during the entire courses. Science, similarly - the younger one has barely had to use her overall or plastic goggles.

As you say, it might be interesting to know some proper stats on this claim of lack of experimentation, as you do see it everywhere. (Another generalisation!)

Teek (not verified) on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 12:05

How interesting - my wife and I had a conversation last night along these exact lines. She's an A-level chemistry teacher in East London and all the 'at risk' experiments mentioned above form part of the department's excellent repertoire - but then they are said to be one of the best chemistry department in the country according to Ofstead!

Your point about risk assessment is true - schools don't say 'this is too dangerous,' they usually say 'make sure you know what you're doing.'

Perhaps this coverage skirts around the real issue as to why experimental science may be in decline in the classroom (and yes, I too would like to see some stats to prove this assertion) - lab experiments, with all the glassware, reagents and lab technicians (!) that go with them - are expensive, and school science budgets are very, very tight.

FSM-knows what will happen to lab science when the Tories cut everything in sight...!

Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/08/2009 - 15:22

"excrement of the mail bovine"? imagine the mess when THAT comes through the letter-box!

Boilingtube (not verified) on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 06:08

I am heavily involved in this area, running many courses for teachers and technicians in schools. There is no mention in these articles of CLEAPSS or SSERC (Scotland) and Professor Phillips fails to mention research carried out by his own society. http://www.rsc.org/Education/News/SurelyThatsBanned.asp
In Thursdays Times there were letters from the HSE and the Government complaining about these articles. There were also the "Gung-ho" responses from retired profs and relatives of famous scientists. One claimed to have lost an eyebrow when potassium was put in water. She was an each of becoming blind in one eye. (At leaset she would have something in common with Robert Bunsen!) Others showed complete confusion in the chemistry they were describing.
Those in schools should look at Guidance leaflet PS69 on the CLEAPSS members website which lists the myths and the responses.
There is less practical work going on but reasons include a much reduced content, repeated examinations (and SATS before they were removed), reduced expertise due to lack of adequate training in practical work and teaching a science subject outside of the teacher's specialism.
I and my colleagues have had messages not included on the Times website. I believe it was all in aid of promoting the sale of some free books.

Sean Haffey (not verified) on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 08:17

Great article - thanks!

Although I did wonder a bit about the risk assessment on your "jet of flame that reaches the ceiling"!

JQH on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 10:25

@ Anonymous. Where would the internet be without ridiculous typos?

Neuroskeptic (not verified) on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 11:43

Just a boring administrative point but I notice that this post is a cross-post and people are commenting on it both here and over at Letting Off Steam.

Might it be an idea to turn off the Lay Science comments on such posts so all the comments are in the same place?

Also (I am very boring today) is it just me or did comments used to be threaded, but now they're not?

JQH on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 22:41

A lot of people who read Lay Scientist are probably not regular readers of Letting Off Steam, so I'd rather not turn off comments on either blog.

Not that I could do much here any way. I'm just a 'umble guest blogger without power to fiddle with the settings. I don't even appear on the list of guest bloggers (mutter mutter).

WRT threading comments - when I try replying to specific comments rather than putting a comment at the end I get logged out so I assume that means comments are not threaded.

Martin on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 08:44

"I don't even appear on the list of guest bloggers (mutter mutter)."

Heh, you will, I've just been dying of flu all week. Plus I'm working on a redesign.

Comments aren't threaded - they were originally, but it was getting very messy I felt, so I put them back in order. I'm not sure why you're being logged out though - I'll have to investigate.

Totally agree with you on not turning off comments.


__________________

Martin is the editor of layscience.net.

Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter

Jack Donovan on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:52

No wonder people pick publications they trust and forget about the others with a bias. When a writer just throws something out there without doing a reasonable amount of research it's an insult to other writers. We all have our own attitudes to deal with, but what about professionalism? casino online


Wikio - Top BlogsCurrent CO2 level in the atmosphere