Hansard

I am grateful to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for securing the debate, which has been very interesting. The Executive is always pleased to debate science education. I am also grateful to the members present for their contributions.

I listened to Lord James's remarks about Scotland's scientific and engineering heritage. They called to mind my grandfather, James Macfarlane, who was a noted engineer in Glasgow some years ago. I should have paid more attention to him when he told me tales of his contemporaries; I wish I remembered more of them. In the same way as Keith Raffan, who did not follow his medical heritage, I have not particularly followed my scientific and engineering heritage, although I have a great regard for all that the generation that was mentioned by Lord James did for Scotland.

The Executive welcomes the establishment of the ISES, which we have supported since its inception. The institute has the potential to play an important role in supporting science education in Scotland; that is quite clear.

The motion expresses concern about the future of science education in Scotland and about the negative consequences that a decline in science in schools would have on our future prosperity. However, we must not over-emphasise that. I have heard phrases such as "pretty grim" and "serious decline" in tonight's debate, but we should not be too pessimistic.

After English and maths, science subjects are the most popular subjects that are studied for highers. Pupil presentations for physics, chemistry and biology highers in 2003 were 9,489, 9,292 and 8,920 respectively. As a comparison, the next most popular subject was history, with 8,088 pupil presentations at higher level. Although there has been a decline in numbers, the numbers are still very high.

Robert Brown mentioned high pass rates in Spanish; in 2002, there were 919 presentations for higher Spanish and 1,045 in 2003, which is an increase of approximately 10 per cent. We must, when we use those figures, be careful not to exaggerate the position.

I will talk about the increase in acceptances to higher education courses in biological and physical sciences, of which there were 3,628 in 2001, which went up to 4,507 in 2002. There was also a 10 per cent increase in acceptances to civil engineering courses.

Wendy Alexander rightly talked about the generation science club. We offered £12,000 of support for that club in 2003-04. I agree with Wendy Alexander about the need to review the science curriculum, but our curriculum review presents that opportunity. I will certainly ensure that her comments are fed into the review.

I have much to say, but I should make it clear that members are right that science is an important driver of Scotland's future economic success. That is self-evident. The Executive's science strategy offers a vision for science in Scotland that sets challenges for the Executive and for the science community. Between 2002 and 2006, we will provide £18 million for school science. Most of that new money will go to education authorities in addition to their existing capital allocations. The money will be spent on, for example, modernising laboratories and equipment, upskilling teachers and producing updated teaching materials. On top of that, science labs are being upgraded as part of the £2 billion schools public-private partnership project, which is one of our biggest investments in schools in many a long year.

How can we encourage more young people to study science? Bearing in mind the need to keep the figures in proportion and to understand what is happening, how will we get more young people interested in science? In secondary school, pupils face other attractions. For example, information technology suites are now common in many schools—as is right and proper—so we have a challenge in showing young people why science matters and how it affects them.

Clearly, the key to inspiring young people is in the hands of their teachers. As has already been pointed out—by Elaine Murray, I think—a great deal of valuable continuing professional development is already undertaken by education authorities. As a result of the recent McCrone settlement, more opportunities will be provided for such CPD, which is very important in science teaching. I also take the point that Sylvia Jackson made about initial teacher education, of which a review is currently under way. I will feed in her remarks on that score.

The Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre has set up four consortia to provide continuing professional development for teachers of science in the five to 14 curriculum, and a fifth consortium is about to be established, which is good news. Given that primary school pupils study science as part of the five to 14 curriculum, we are trying to make that experience better and better through the curriculum review.

The science strategy funding, which has been allocated to education authorities by the Education Department, has been used well to provide resources and staff tutors. Staff development tutors improve science teaching strategies in primary schools and offer important direct hands-on support for primary teachers. We have also set up biology, chemistry and physics summer schools, which have been shown to be very effective.

We are considering how we can support science teaching in other ways. The recent Scottish Science Advisory Committee report, "Why Science Education Matters: Supporting and Improving Science Education in Scottish Schools", notes the lack of professional development support for secondary school lab technicians. We must recognise the essential work of support staff within schools, so I have asked my officials to meet education authority representatives to ensure that we address that issue, which forms part of the overall experience.

In addition, the Executive is working closely with Learning and Teaching Scotland to provide new science classroom teaching materials, which I agree need to be updated, kept modern and be refreshed. We are trying to make the materials challenging and to design them so that they engage children's interests in all types of science. We will also examine best practice in science education elsewhere in the United Kingdom and beyond to see what we can learn. In particular, I am anxious that we learn lessons from across Europe and from the United States.

Of course, only a minority of pupils will become scientists, but all young people need to be scientifically literate. If there was one part of my education that I could repeat, it would be the science subjects, so that I could be more literate in scientific matters. The curriculum review will ensure that all young people are equipped to play their full part as citizens in 21st century society, in which science and technology will have such a significant impact on people's lives. We need only consider the number of products that are available now that were not available 25 years ago to realise the importance of having an understanding of science and technology.

As members have pointed out, science in schools is, ultimately, as much about how teachers engage and enthuse young people as it is about knowing particular theories or laws. We certainly want to put interest—or what is called the wow factor—back into the science lab. Indeed, given members' comments, perhaps that should be renamed the bang factor. In that respect, I am pleased that Rhona Brankin survived the experiment that she described in her speech. Putting that wow factor back into the science lab is one of the reasons why we are funding the Scottish space school, which sends 50 young people each year to Houston in Texas and aims to inspire them to pursue careers in science. It is well worth celebrating such an imaginative and farsighted project, which is organised by Careers Scotland and supported by the Executive. In return, NASA astronauts visit schools in Scotland each June where they speak to almost 15,000 young people about their exciting and challenging work.

In further education, many colleges have experienced increased student enrolments in biological and physical sciences. For example, Falkirk College runs a very successful advanced higher course and practical workshops in biology and chemistry—it is important to emphasise that a number of other colleges are doing the same.

As I am probably well over my time, I will conclude with some comments about the ISES. As I have made clear, I hope that the ISES will be able to play an important role with us and other partners such as the Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre and Learning and Teaching Scotland in achieving our ambition of improving science education in Scotland. My officials are actively engaging with the institute to clarify the outcomes we expect from its work, although I should say that we are in the middle of those discussions and that more needs to be done. In order to agree funding, we need to be very clear about the institute's mechanisms and its impact on the quality of science education for all our young people. I stress that we value the institute's work and, as I say, we are actively engaging with it and talking to it about how we can provide support and assistance.

I close with those remarks, Presiding Officer, and I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to go over my time. I also thank members again for their valuable contributions to the debate.