Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

TEACHING science in the secondary schools of England and Wales will
cost Pounds sterling 8.86 per pupil per year under the National Curriculum
according to a report* published by the Royal Society. The figure is 60
per cent more than is being spent now.

The Royal Society bases its figure on estimates of the least equipment
needed to teach the ‘balanced’ science courses introduced by the National
Curriculum. The society focused its calculations on a list of basic equipment
drawn up by science teachers. The estimate does not include hidden costs
such as technician support. ‘This is not the ideal list and is far from
a luxury one,’ said the society last week.

Earlier this year the government’s school inspectors found that spending
on science averaged Pounds sterling 5.62 per pupil in 41 state schools they
surveyed. ‘Significant shortages of equipment were found in a quarter of
the schools,’ they reported. Spending in five independent schools, however,
averaged Pounds sterling 26.79 per pupil.

The Department of Education and Science said last week that spending
on science was a matter for individual schools and that the introduction
of self-management in schools would allow more money to be spent on science
where it was needed. The department does not oversee levels of spending
on science education nationwide.

‘The report shows more money should be spent on science in schools,’
according to Catherine Wilson, deputy general secretary of the Association
for Science Education. ‘The government cannot wash its hands of this.’

The ASE believes that spending on science needs to rise because more
pupils will study science under the national curriculum. The new science
courses are more expensive because they cover a wider range of topics and
are more practical compared with previous courses.

*The equipment resources required to teach balanced science is available
from the Royal Society, 6 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG.