Mathematics & Science Teachers

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his good fortune in acquiring today's debate, which is on an important subject. The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished mathematician; he was a professor at Nottingham University.

Dr. Cable: Of economics.

Mr. Key: Indeed. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished mathematician. However, I bet that he is glad that he is no longer the chief economist of Shell, which is clearly short of mathematicians.

In following the hon. Gentleman's excellent remarks about mathematics, I must tell the House that I, too, have read the essential chapter 2 of Professor Adrian Smith's report. However, I do not agree with his conclusion, which was endorsed by the hon. Gentleman, of using market forces, with golden hellos and other inducements. As a former teacher, I believe that teaching is a vocation.

I spent 16 years at the chalkface, and my experience was that differential pay rates for subjects or responsibilities—perhaps for games or certain other subjects—gave rise to all sorts of petty jealousy in the staff room. That was human nature. I recall that one of the headmasters under whom I served conducted a survey and discovered that more than 90 per cent of the teaching staff were receiving some sort of special payment. We had round-table discussions about that, and we decided that it was unfair. We agreed to scrap nearly all the special payments and to increase all salaries by a sensible amount, which was much more motivating. The professor's suggestion is the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.

As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I visited Culham last year. While going round a Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council establishment, we met some brilliant teachers—except that they were not teachers. They were researchers, but they were so good at explaining the principles behind their advanced physics that I wished that they were working in the classroom and not at the cutting edge of science. That is one of the dilemmas facing those who care passionately about mathematics or science subjects; they are torn between the pursuit of academia or business and basic schooling and education.

One aspect of the subject has not yet been mentioned. I would like to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks of it, and the Minister may have something to say about it. I speak of the enormous scope in specialist science subjects and mathematics for distance learning and a greater use of the internet, which has become so much more sophisticated. The work of the Open University at undergraduate level suggests a huge potential for using the internet much earlier in the curriculum—let us say from the age of five.

I shall concentrate more on science. The day after tomorrow will be my birthday. I have always enjoyed birthdays. I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, remember the coelacanth. Fossils of that fish can be 400 million years old, predating dinosaurs by millions of years. A living specimen was caught off the coast of southern Africa in 1938, and another was hauled aboard a boat near Grahamstown in 1952, just in time for my seventh birthday. My father ordained that my birthday treat was to be coelacanth and chips all round, followed by my favourite BBC Home Service radio programme—there was no TV then of course—"Journey into Space".

Now, as then, most children of that age are excited, engaged and motivated by dinosaurs and space, and recent blockbuster movies and TV series on those themes prove my point. So why is it that most young talent deserts the world of the sciences when GCSEs and A-levels demand subject choices? The issue really matters and must be addressed if the United Kingdom is to make sound judgments on ethics and investment and to compete at the leading edge of world industry and wealth creation.

The quality of public debate about genetic modification, the sources, use and abuse of energy, therapeutic cloning, reproductive fertility and a host of other issues is truly abysmal. In the difficult world of science, self-serving pressure groups have become the refuge of politicians, journalists and voters alike.

Last December, the Science and Technology Committee took evidence on nanotechnology from Professor Sir Harry Kroto, the president of the Royal Society of Chemistry. I asked him whether the lack of people in science was down to the lack of science education, and he replied:

"Yes. I think it is the most dangerous thing we face at the present time is the lack of science teachers of pre-16s. I think we have got a disaster of enormous proportions facing us. Of the number of physics teachers teaching pre-16s, 80% do not have a degree in physics and 50% do not have an A level in physics. If that is not staring a massive problem in the face in six years, I do not know what is."

Why does science lose its appeal after such a sparky embrace from our children? A glance at the website of the excellent Association for Science and Education at www.ase.org.uk reveals that science teachers are working their socks off to attract the best pupils. Is it just that science is hard and media studies are easy? That is true, but it is an insufficient excuse. That says something profound about the message that our science and maths teachers are able to pass on to pupils who they believe have the talent to move into science and mathematics at a higher level.

The Select Committee's report "Science Education from 14 to 19", which was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), a member of the Committee at that time, concluded:

"GCSE courses are overloaded with factual content, contain little contemporary science and have stultifying assessment arrangements. Coursework is boring and pointless. Teachers and students are frustrated by the lack of flexibility. Students lose any enthusiasm that they once had for science."

To add insult to injury, we also need at least 4,000 more technicians, given that practical science in schools depends on them. However, we will not recruit them unless their appalling pay and conditions are improved.

We need a serious five-point plan for science in schools. First, we should adopt a coherent approach to the current dysfunctional time scale for key stage strategies and examinations, which is much criticised by science teachers. Secondly, professional bodies continue to report a serious shortfall in qualified science teachers; the hon. Member for Twickenham referred to that. Reversing that trend should be a national priority, and there can surely be agreement on that across the political spectrum, and between employers and employees.

Next, we must sort out the plethora of standards for trainee teachers, newly qualified teachers, teachers passing the threshold, subject leaders and head teachers. Again, I disagree with the conclusions of Professor Adrian Smith's inquiry, which recommends that

"consideration be given to the introduction of new mathematics teacher certification schemes which award certification to teach mathematics only up to certain specified levels, e.g. Key Stage 3."

That is just adding to the plethora of suggestions that are neither appreciated nor approved of by those who try so hard to teach these subjects.

Fourthly, we need to recognise that science teacher’s need less pressure and fewer initiatives if we are not to stifle their passion for the subject. Passion for the subject is the key to raising standards in schools and attracting people to those subjects. Finally, without proper professional development opportunities for teachers, standards will not be raised. The future supply of scientists will be threatened and young people will live in ignorance of the world of science.

Those who make it through school to university and who can find a science department that is not being forced to close will encounter unsustainably low levels of clinical research. The first of two challenges is the dearth of experimental medicine—testing the validity and importance of new discoveries or treatments in patients or healthy volunteers. The second is the lack of large-scale clinical trials of all new forms of health care innovation.

The Medical Research Council is now tackling that fact in partnership with the NHS and other funders, but it has many competitors for Treasury funds in the spending review process. I hope that the Minister will use all the power at his command to persuade the Treasury of the importance of that. We should all be backing him up and battling with the Treasury on that important national priority.

How seriously are the Government taking the crisis in science? In the Select Committee's recent scrutiny report on the Office of Science and Technology, which was published on 4 March, we expressed deep concern that the Science Minister is not fighting the corner of science and research at the Department for Education and Skills. There has also been poor integration of the OST's activity with that of the rest of Government—the Treasury and the DFES in particular.
Last year there were six reviews of science and research policy in government. All were conceived separately and without reference to each other. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said,

"The Government wants a knowledge-driven economy but all we get is a review-driven Government."

That will not do.

The problem is appreciated across the spectrum. Not long ago, Baroness Susan Greenfield invited some of us to a Royal Institution evening meeting on science education. Present were some 15 blue-chip chief executive officers, academics and politicians, to discuss what was wrong with science education. I thought that they would all come up with the answer that the problem was lack of postgraduate opportunity, lack of research facilities, lack of funding for PhDs and so on. Not a bit of it.

Whether it was the CEO of a big company like Siemens or the vice-chancellor of a university, the same conclusion was reached: what was wrong with British science was a lack of teaching in primary schools, and if we do not grasp the nettle of primary school teaching and take the long-term view—something that politicians are not normally credited with doing—we will do our country a disservice in the long run.

We all have little anecdotes about why we have suddenly become convinced on an issue. I was at a reception on the Terrace last summer for the brightest and best of our graduate scientists, who presumably all at least had first-class honours degrees, and some of whom probably had second degrees. I chatted away to three of those attractive, bright young people about—although I am not a mathematician—the measurement of things. They talked about the latest supercomputers and so on. I quietly asked if they had all used slide rules. They had all heard of them, but none had used one. Two of them had heard of log tables; none knew how they worked. Only one out of three had even heard of an abacus. I may be very old-fashioned and my birthday may be approaching rapidly, but I am happy about supercomputers, and believe very much in looking forwards, not back. However, it is perfectly clear to me, at the ripe old age of 58, pushing 59, that if we do not deal with the problem soon, we shall be letting down a whole generation of young people in this country.