Science and Technology Report: Statements.

Mr. M. Kitt:

I thank the Ceann Comhairle, the Chief Whip and the other Whips for allowing this debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss this report on science and technology. This is one of seven reports completed by the Joint Committee on Education and Science since the committees were formed in November 1997. I congratulate Deputies Richard Bruton and Naughten who were the rapporteurs on this project which was to investigate the current state of learning in science and related subjects at primary, secondary, third and fourth levels and its adequacy to meet the demands on Ireland to compete in the knowledge-based society.

The 1971 primary school curriculum gave little attention to elementary science in the social and environmental studies syllabus it introduced. As a teacher at the time, I remember the expectation was that there would be more emphasis on science. The new curriculum for science at primary level, published in September 1999, places much greater emphasis on elementary science. The effective implementation of the science element of the revised curriculum requires that we enable primary school teachers to embrace science positively as a new and vibrant subject.

Since September 1999, preparations for the introduction of science as part of social, environmental and scientific education in the revised primary school curriculum have been under way. During the 1999-2000 school year, a number of supports were provided for schools. For example, the science curriculum and teacher guidelines were disseminated to all primary teachers, a total of £1.7 million in the form of grants was made available to schools for the purchase of science equipment – this is very welcome but it should be increased – a school development planning initiative was launched to assist schools in curriculum planning and a comprehensive programme of courses for teachers in primary science was run during the summer of 2000.

In the current school year, as part of the work of the primary school curriculum support programme, a developmental project in science has already been initiated in a representative sample of schools. This work will facilitate teachers in exploring the approaches and methodologies and the range of materials necessary for teaching science. As is the case with all subjects in the revised primary school curriculum, schools may commence implementation of science in advance of the formal support programme if they wish.

In secondary schools, about 90% of students do science up to the junior certificate. At the age of 14, Irish pupils rank in the top half of the OECD league in science in contrast with students aged nine to ten in the primary sector who score in the bottom half of the OECD league in science. It shows how quickly Irish pupils improve their standing in science once they enter second level.

At present, the Department of Education and Science is implementing a range of measures designed to make the physical science subjects more attractive to students at second level. Revised syllabi in leaving certificate physics and chemistry were introduced in September 2000 with an increased emphasis on student practical work. These changes are intended to highlight for students the relevance of these subjects to their everyday lives. A new format of examination paper in ordinary level junior certificate science has been introduced. In leaving certificate physics and chemistry, the structure and layout of ques tions on the ordinary level papers have been revised. These changes have been designed to make these examination paper more accessible for the candidates for whom they are intended. Example materials illustrating the changes were distributed at the end of last year.

A comprehensive in-career development programme for teachers of chemistry and physics commenced in September 1999 and is designed to operate for three years. Comprehensive reference handbooks in both chemistry and physics in both printed and CD-ROM formats have been distributed to all second level schools. The report states that too few physics or chemistry graduates go into teaching. The preponderance of teachers who have trained in biology no doubt contributes to the dominance of this branch of science.

While the number of full-time third level students pursuing science in the broadest sense, including life sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, statistics and information technology courses, has increased over the past decade to some 20,000 in the 1998-99 academic year, there is evidence of a decline in the numbers taking the physical sciences. A range of initiatives are now in place to enhance the perception of the physical sciences, including the science, technology and innovation awareness programme, which is managed by Forfás, the skills review group under the aegis of the Irish Pharmaceutical and Chemical Manufacturers' Federation and on which the Department of Education and Science is represented, a physics website to counter the negative image physics has among schoolchildren is being run by the department of physics at Trinity College Dublin, and a number of institutes of technology have also instituted a number of schemes at local level to encourage students to pursue third level science related courses.

The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, recently announced the setting up of a task force on the uptake of the physical sciences at both second and third level. Its brief is to identify the issues contributing to the decline in the uptake of the physical sciences and to recommend additional measures to address these issues. The work of the task force will range across both second and third levels and will also interact with industry, thus providing insights for students into the many courses and careers available to them as a result of a study of the physical sciences.

The Minister has also recently established an Irish council for science, engineering and technology. This new council will establish schemes of support for researchers in science, engineering and technology, including new and improved grant schemes for postgraduate scholars and post-doctoral fellows as well as providing funding for research programmes. It will complement the existing council for humanities and social services and other structures already in place.

I welcome this debate and I hope we return to discuss these issues. In our work programme for 2001 we have included a paragraph which states:

[To] review, on a six monthly basis, matters relevant to reports on specific topics which have been published by the Joint Committee.

We will press the Department to respond on a six monthly basis. I join the rapporteurs in their recommendation that the Departments of Education and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment should come together to drive forward the necessary initiatives to strengthen science education in Ireland.

We received many interesting comments on the report compiled by Deputies Richard Bruton and Naughten. One of the letters we received was from Dr. Peter Childs who chaired the working group on science education at the University of Limerick. He said:

I have read with great interest the Report on Science and Technology produced by your Committee. I think it is an excellent and comprehensive report and long overdue look[ing] at a neglected area in Irish education.

At the University of Limerick we have been involved in science education and the training of science teachers for nearly 30 years and are currently the largest single provider of science teachers, all of whom can teach either chemistry or physics, in addition to LC biology. This year nearly 150 students are in training, spread over four years in three degree programmes, and their entry qualifications are high, as is their reputation in schools. We have also been involved in in-service education, providing resources and support for science teachers e.g. Chemistry in Action! magazine (started 1980) and the Schools Information Centre for the Irish Chemical Industry (started 1989).

The university also has excellent contacts with industry through its cooperative education programme, and we also run Industry Study Tours for teachers and are involved with industry in a number of science education projects. The most significant of these is the innovative Lucent Science Teacher Initiative, which started in November 2000 and is funded by a three year grant of $260,000 from the Lucent Foundation. This project aims to improve the experience of our trainee teachers in schools by training science teachers in teaching practice schools as mentors.

In December 1999 we submitted a preliminary proposal to the Minister for Education and Science to set up a national centre for science education, based on the Limerick campus, and drawing on our long experience in this area. This proposal has support from the Colleges of Science and Education, and the full institutional backing of our President, Pro fessor Roger Downer.

In December 2000 we sent a detailed submission, with recommendations, to the Task Force for the Physical Sciences set up by Minister Woods.

I am writing now to inform you and your Committee of our activities and proposals in the area of science education and science teacher training, and to support strongly the recommendation in your report for a science education technical support centre. I believe that our proposal for a national centre for science education at the University of Limerick would fulfil the functions that you suggest.

We would be delighted to have the opportunity to brief your Committee on our activities and proposals at some time in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Peter E. Childs

We were delighted to receive this letter from Dr. Childs and have agreed that he should be invited to appear before the committee to discuss further the issues raised by him. I hope we will return to this issue of science and technology in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Naughten:

I am disappointed that the Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology did not think it worth his while to come into the House for this most important, though limited, debate.

There has been a steady decline in the number of students taking science subjects at senior cycle. The decline is at its worst in chemistry in respect of which the participation rate has halved to only 10%. At 13.5% the position is a little better in respect of physics. These compare to a figure of 42% in respect of biology, which remains the dominant selection of the science subjects among pupils at senior cycle.

The fall-off in the study of science seems to have accelerated in recent years. In the 1999-2000 school year alone, 3,200 fewer science papers were taken in the leaving certificate, a fall of 6.5% in one year. This highlights the systemic problem in the uptake and teaching of science, a topic which is fundamental to the development of the economy and the security of future employment growth.

One of the keys aims of the IDA is to attract high-tech and research and development facilities. Yet industry is sounding alarm bells that the shortages will be substantial in sectors such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Low student demand for available science courses at third level remains a serious problem. There is an insufficient number of first preference applicants to match the number of places on offer. This has led to low entry requirements.

The drop-out rate also seems to be a factor. At least one-third of students taking science and engineering courses at institutes of technology drop out. Drop-out levels in the universities are believed to be approximately 20% and at least 40% in institutes of technology. This is costing the Exchequer £23 million per annum in fees alone. One survey of three of the stronger institutes of technology found that the drop-out level in the sciences was 30%. The drop-out level for courses in general was 37% on average. In engineering courses, however, the drop-out level was 43%. Data on drop-out rates have never been collected systematically by the Department of Education and Science, which continues to turn a blind eye to this subject.

The declining take-up of science at second level has undoubtedly contributed to the difficulty in attracting suitable candidates for science courses at third level. The committee heard evidence that there were a number of factors which contributed to drop-out rates at third level. Falling entry requirements for courses due to the lack of competition mean that students are poorly equipped to handle demanding courses. While students are efficient at leaving certificate level in memorising mathematical methods, those entering third level colleges have a poor grasp of the fundamentals of mathematical theory. A lack of practical experience in science at second level combined with poor training in problem solving and a poor knowledge of the fundamentals of a subject also contribute to drop-out rates. The financial burden placed on many students by way of inadequate maintenance grants and the cost of accommodation has placed pressure on students attending third level.

A survey of second level schools found that 65% of science teachers had reported that they had insufficient equipment. Yet the Department of Education and Science has not conducted a proper audit of science equipment in schools. The £13 million investment programme planned by the Government over the next three years will come nowhere near filling the gaps in the system. The standard of science laboratories in many schools is poor. They are failing to meet even basic safety guidelines. Student lives are being put in danger.

Two years ago I raised with the Minister for Education and Science the issue of hazardous chemicals stored in second level schools, many of which are unlabelled. Yet nothing has been done to remove and dispose of them. Rather than ensure the safety of pupils, the Minister has put the onus back on the boards of management of the schools concerned. An ASTI survey has concluded that up to 20% of second level schools are breaching the law by having no safety statement.

The average class size in many science subjects is 24 students. By European standards this is extremely high. Large class sizes have a negative impact on student opportunities for participation and interaction in many subjects, especially in science subjects which have a practical or experimental dimension. The absence of technical assistance restricts opportunities for practical and investigative work. There are concerns about the health and safety aspects of doing practical work in large classes without such support and assistance. Smaller class sizes would facilitate greater interaction between teachers and students and create greater opportunities for students to engage in active learning and development of their investigative skills rather than just listen to the teacher. A school/industry link should be developed. Personnel from industry, including retired workers, could assist with practical work and student projects.

A fundamental element in improving the quality of teaching and health and safety in science laboratories should be the reduction of class sizes in scientific subjects. The Department does not have a proper database of laboratory facilities at second level. A questionnaire sent to schools by the Department revealed that 65% had insufficient equipment for physical science subjects. Over 75% had no computer in the laboratory while 95% indicated that a computer was not used for experimental data analysis. This is unbelievable. Sadly, the Department only decided to give us a glimpse of the report and was not prepared to make full information available to the committee in producing the report.

It was alleged to the committee that there was a serious underestimation of the true cost of adequately equipping science laboratories in schools. The Department cites a figure of £30,000 to £35,000. A typical school would need at least two laboratories to offer a diverse a range of subjects. Against this background and the poor state of existing school laboratories, it seems the Department has grossly underestimated the figure.

The committee is not satisfied with the Department's approach to equipping schools for science subjects. It should urgently arrange for schools to conduct an audit of facilities against a template being developed by the University of Limerick. This investment should be clearly linked to identified gaps in equipment and subject options, particularly evident in some schools. It should also be linked to specific programmes prepared by schools as part of their science plan. This approach would help to make up the deficit in weak schools and encourage innovation within schools.

A further problem is that too few physics and chemistry graduates enter teaching. The preponderance of teachers who have trained in biology no doubt contributes to the dominance of this branch of science. The Department has introduced a three year training programme for physics and chemistry that will involve an investment of £3.8 million. This is welcome but it does not overcome the distinctly poor professional development opportunities for science teachers in Ireland compared to other countries.

The ICSTI study, "Benchmarking of Irish Teaching of Science", was critical of the teaching methods which prevail in Ireland that are in conflict with the aims of the curriculum. The exclusive reliance on a term examination with no practical element compounds this. It has taken ten years to introduce the revised leaving certificate syllabus in physics and chemistry and it still has no element of practical assessment. There has been much discussion of the reform of the assessment methods, but no action. The recommendations of the steering group established to review this were rejected.

While science and technology is playing an ever increasing role in our lives whether in the home, at work or in leisure activities, there still remains a poor public awareness of science and technology. The media has an important role to play in increasing national awareness but for such media awareness to improve it is fundamental that the scientific community embraces the need to communicate with the public. The scientific community has been very slow to enter public debate on scientific issues such as genetic engineering and continues to focus on pure scientific publication.

I also recommended in the report that a committee of the House should be established to deal with science and technology issues ranging from bio-ethics to e-commerce. I hope the Minister's absence from the House is not a reflection of his inability to tackle the issues in this field. I further hope he will seriously examine this report and implement its recommendations. I commend the report to the House and look forward to its implementation.

Dr. Upton:

I very much welcome the report and congratulate Deputies Naughten and Bruton on putting it together. It is long overdue. They addressed many of the fundamental issues that affect science and technology in Ireland. Like Deputy Naughten I am disappointed the Minister is not present to listen to the debate. I hope he takes note of the important aspects of this report.

One of the fundamental reasons for the acute lack of science uptake at second and third level is a lack of understanding of what science entails, yet every aspect of our lives is driven by scientific and technological developments. I refer to developments such as mobile phones, GM foods, weather prediction, waste disposal, communications and BSE. All these topics depend on science and technology and have been debated recently in the House.

There is very often hysteria and great concern among the public because of its lack of understanding of the fundamental principles underlying certain events. The concern and hysteria that has surrounded scientific developments might be modified or even increased depending on the extent of our knowledge of the topic under debate. Making information available is crucial. The inability of scientists to communicate with the layman has been at the heart of much of this misunderstanding. Scientists use a jargon of their own that is not always readily comprehensible to the layman. The communication of science in a user friendly fashion needs to be examined carefully as it would help to remove some of the misunderstanding and hysteria that has surrounded scientific development.

Apart from the influence of science and technology on our daily lives, it is also crucial to the economy. Much recent debate has evolved from the recognition of the impact of the shortage of science graduates on the economy. The media has an important role to play in producing user friendly, informative science programmes. That could be developed to a greater extent. There are few home grown science programmes on radio or television and this is a significant drawback in terms of the facility of the layman to understand what is going on.

I will refer to the ethics of many of the scientific developments mentioned by Deputy Naughten. These will become more important and fundamental questions are being asked about the management of e-commerce, Internet access, genetic engineering and, for instance, the impact of gene sequencing on obtaining life assurance. An understanding of what is involved by both interested parties in these issues would be useful.

Concerns have been expressed and identified in regard to the different levels of science subject uptake. At primary level there is a serious dearth of interest in science. The level of funding set aside to develop science in primary schools sadly reflects a lack of interest. There will also be a requirement for the retraining of teachers if they are to engage effectively in the teaching of science. Many teachers who have come through the system would not necessarily have had a science background and in order to communicate science at primary school level there is a need for investment in retraining.

The statistics speak for themselves regarding the problems at second level. The most acute problems relate to physics and chemistry. There are a number of reasons, some of which have been identified in the report. The leaving certificate is points driven. I have referred to this in previous debates and, while I am a great believer in the fundamental principle that surrounds the points system there are downsides, one of which is the perception that certain subjects are easy in terms of garnering points but physics and chemistry fall outside that fold. They are perceived as difficult and time consuming. There is, therefore, little return on the investment of a student's time.

As Deputy Naughten mentioned, laboratories are poorly resourced, facilities in many schools are non-existent or minimal and there is no practical element from an examination point of view. Teachers are not attracted to science and it is easy to understand why. The jobs available in certain industries are much more rewarding financially and something must be done to make the teaching of science more attractive. Only one physics graduate is taking the higher diploma in education at UCD. That is an indication of the lack of interest among science graduates in entering the teaching profession. Issues such as in-service training must also be considered and they have been identified in the report.

The subsequent uptake at third level arising from the lack of interest at second level is easily identifiable. The numbers studying chemistry at third level is a source of serious concern to the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. It is important to publish the retention rate for all science courses in third level colleges. There is anecdotal evidence for some colleges and statistical evidence for others. We will then be able to ascertain how many people are taking up a course in a given year; how many complete the course, whether it is a certificate, a diploma or a degree; and if they drop out, when they do so.

There is a huge cost involved in this and the career guidance element of the uptake of science and technology courses must be examined again. Many students take the wrong option because the system is points driven and so on. At third level there is a need for an increase in industry involvement and the provision of work experience to give students a flavour of what it is like to work in industry. Companies should support science and technology courses arising from their interaction with various third level colleges. Third level and post-graduate funding for research has increased significantly, particularly relative to investment at primary and second levels. We need to look again at that distribution of funds.

It is important to retain State funding to secure basic and independent research in many areas of science. That is evident when one looks at the pharmaceutical industry and some of the problems that have arisen with scientific developments that were industry funded rather than based on independent research.

Another issue is the poor payment for post-graduate students and the poor rewards for somebody who is undertaking an intensive and demanding three or four years training. There is enormous cost to the State in training that student but how can we expect bright students with first class honours to go into research if the remuneration and rewards are not remotely comparable with what they might expect to earn in industry? Post-graduate funding and remuneration must be carefully examined.

Another issue that must be dealt with is the reward for some science graduates. I am aware that those in the information technology and computing industries are relatively well rewarded. However, I know of a number of Ph.D. graduates who have a good degree and training in the biological sciences but they have taken it on themselves to convert to the information technology area because the remuneration in that sector is far greater than what they could expect to earn in other careers in science and technology. A study should be undertaken to find out what an average science graduate earns compared with the earnings of, for example, a commerce graduate.

Mr. Coveney:

I only have five minutes to speak on this issue but I welcome the opportunity to do so. I wish to focus on the importance of science and technology promotion within the education system for sustaining growth in the economy.

I congratulate Deputies Naughten and Bruton on compiling this comprehensive report. It highlights the worrying decline in the uptake of science subjects in secondary schools. This is having a negative effect on science education at third level. Ireland's economy continues to grow at an impressive rate of between 8% and 10%. However, if this growth is to be sustainable and if we are to continue to attract foreign investment, we must continue to provide a large number of highly skilled employees.

There are many examples of international companies which produce low value added product without a high skill requirement who have decided to relocate their operations to take advantage of lower wage cost structures elsewhere, particularly in eastern Europe and the Far East. Ireland can no longer be considered a low wage economy. One need only look at companies such as Fruit of the Loom in Donegal and certain operations within Apple computers in Cork to realise that companies will move to suit themselves. The sustainable jobs now being promoted by the IDA are jobs with a high skill content based on knowledge.

When one asks companies why they locate in Ireland, they offer three reasons. First is tax policy and the low corporate tax rate, second is the standard of living for their employees and third is the level of graduate expertise within the workforce. If we do not continue to produce skilled science graduates, the number of science and research based companies setting up or locating in this country will decline. My constituency, Cork South-Central, is a European hub for the chemical industry and is making a huge contribution to the local, national and international economies. Companies such as Pfizer, Smyth Kline Beecham and Johnson and Johnson are huge employers. Now they are constantly recruiting and competing with each other for a finite and declining number of science graduates.

It is clear from the conclusions of this report that our education system is grossly under-resourced in the promotion of science education. There has been a steady decline in the numbers taking science subjects in schools. We must attempt to reverse this trend. It is obvious that we must introduce some level of science education into primary schools. Ireland is one of the few countries in the western world that does not provide science education at primary level. It is time to change that.

There must be a national assessment and, if necessary, an overhaul of equipment in schools to ensure there is a common standard throughout our schools. There is also a strong perception among students that taking scientific subjects for examinations, particularly the leaving certificate, will make it more difficult to get points. We must act to reverse that view and, if necessary, give bonus points for achievements in science.

In relation to third level education, I favour the promotion of research and development at third level and promoting a link with industry to make it more relevant.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 8 Feb 2001