Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 03 Mar 2004

03 Mar 2004 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Institute for Science Education in Scotland

Brown, Robert LD Glasgow Watch on SPTV

I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on initiating a debate on this extremely important subject. I welcome the establishment of the Institute for Science Education in Scotland, but the debate is about the much wider issue of science education. I join those who have called on the Executive to ensure that the institute is properly supported and allowed to develop.

As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned, Scotland has made a major contribution to the development of science and engineering. It is astonishing, therefore, that we seem to have entered a vicious cycle. The decline in interest in various things feeds on itself. The proportion of school pupils taking higher sciences has dropped steadily in recent years. In 1993-94, chemistry was taken by 10.8 per cent of pupils, but that figure had decreased to 9.2 per cent by 2001-02. Over the same period, the proportion of pupils studying physics decreased from 10.4 per cent to 9 per cent and the proportion taking biology dropped from 7.6 per cent to 6.6 per cent. They are not dramatic figures, but the trend is not happy, especially when considered alongside the decline in population.

The pass rates in science subjects and a comparison with the pass rates in some other subjects are also relevant. The pass rate for higher Spanish is approximately 90 per cent and that for modern studies is approximately 80 or 81 per cent. The pass rate for chemistry is approximately 72 or 73 per cent; for biology it is 64 or 65 per cent; and for physics it is around 71 to 73 per cent. There is a marked difference between the pass rates achieved in science subjects and those in other subjects that are more popular with students.

When I went to school, which unfortunately was not yesterday, science was to some extent perceived as difficult or boring. That is astonishing when one considers that there have been many remarkable inventions in which remarkable interest could be shown. It seems surprising that science should lag behind subjects such as English or history, which I like, but which are generally perceived as less interesting. Why can we not interest people in science and get them to take it at various levels?

The differences in the pass rates at higher level are important, as they encourage people to opt for subjects other than science. We must do something about that. The answer lies in stimulating people's intelligence and interest in science, as Brian Adam discussed. The idea that is proposed is to have four regional hubs as centres of excellence and good practice—perhaps based on science centres or universities—where children can go to experience science in a more creative environment than might exist in schools. That environment could be matched by better laboratory and other science facilities, and the result could be a golden cycle of creating interest, getting more people to become involved, creating better science teachers and creating better facilities. The whole thing would go round and feed into the economy in due course. That is undoubtedly the right way to go.

The motion is highly relevant and valiant and contains a lot of important implications. I very much support it.