The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-11626, in the name of Iain Gray, on the learned societies group on Scottish science education report.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern a recent survey, which was published by the Learned Societies Group on Scottish Science Education and supported by The Royal Society of Edinburgh, suggesting that 98% of primary and secondary schools depended on external funding for practical work, including from parents and teachers, that 45% of primaries reported having no access to safety equipment and that spending per head on pupils studying science in Scotland is around two thirds of the equivalent spending in England; is concerned that schools might be put off encouraging pupils to take science subjects at National 5 if sitting those exams is perceived to have an adverse impact on pass rates; acknowledges what it sees as the seriousness of these problems, given that some reports have stated that, by 2030, over seven million jobs in the UK will depend on science skills and that, therefore, the science graduates that Scotland’s economy will rely on are already at school and being introduced to the subject; welcomes the Royal Society of Chemistry’s recommendations on improving science learning in school through access to teaching specialists; further recognises what it believes is the important role that local science societies, such as the Dunbar Science Festival in East Lothian, and festivals play in making extracurricular science learning available, and understands with disappointment that, in 2015-16, science societies and festivals will receive a real-terms cut in funding from the Scottish Government.
17:04
We all like to think of Scotland as a great science nation, with a proud history of scientific achievements—enough to fill a tea towel many times over. I will illustrate that with a passing reference to one of the greatest shining lights of our scientific past, James Clerk Maxwell, because this year marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Maxwell’s treatise, “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”, which is one of the most important publications ever in science. The equations included therein are just as important as the perhaps more famous E=mc2, which came from Einstein later. The foundations of quantum mechanics lay in James Clerk Maxwell’s work.
Maxwell was not just a great researcher and theoretical physicist; he was a teacher, too. He lectured first at Marischal College, which was a predecessor of the unified University of Aberdeen. He also gave pro bono lectures in that city at the local working men’s college.
As well as a proud history in science, we have a proud history in science teaching, and the two are, of course, fundamentally related. I, myself, have a small part in the history of science teaching—it is history—which is not quite as illustrious as that of James Clerk Maxwell, but I started my professional life as a physics teacher. Although that experience and my registration with the General Teaching Council for Scotland lie far back in the dim and distant past, my passion for science and the excitement that learning about science can provide for young people remain undiminished.
When the learned societies group published its report back in November, I found the results of its survey of science teaching, of our schools and of their resources quite alarming. That survey—the first in about 10 years—shows that 82 per cent of our schools report that they do not have sufficient resources for science teaching. That is, put simply, related to funding. The survey revealed the fact that funding per pupil of science teaching in our secondary schools is about a third less than it is in England. In primary schools, the situation is worse: the funding is at about half the level that one could expect in a primary school in England. Furthermore, 98 per cent of the schools that were surveyed said that they were drawing on external funding in order to marshal enough resources to teach science, which often came out of the pockets of science teachers themselves.
Those pockets are neither deep nor numerous. Not long after the learned societies report was published, the Institute of Physics produced a report that examined the careers of physics graduates. The institute’s survey demonstrated that physics graduates who had become teachers were the poorest-paid section of those who had been surveyed. As a result, there is now an impending shortage of physics teachers. That is not helped by the fact that other parts of the United Kingdom are providing financial incentives for trainee teachers in the STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects and we are losing trainee teachers to the rest of the United Kingdom. That does not just concern teachers. Local government cuts, which we have just heard about during the budget debate, have meant that the budgets for technicians in school science departments have also been cut.
There are other concerns around science teaching—they are not just about resources. Science teachers have come to me with concerns about an unintended consequence of the introduction of curriculum for excellence—which we, of course, support. The way in which course choice is being applied in our schools has led to a squeezing of science and maths subjects. There are now real fears that the number of pupils who choose those subjects will reduce.
That is not helped by the results of the first new national exams, which show significantly lower pass rates in science subjects than in some others. There is a real fear among science teachers that pupils will therefore be discouraged from choosing those subjects because of the long-standing belief that they are somehow too hard. The result will be a reduction in classes.
I think that Governments are more accustomed to being criticised when pass rates suggest that things are easy instead of showing that standards are clearly being maintained. What evidence does Iain Gray have that teachers or anyone else in our system are discouraging young people from taking science subjects?
There are two points to address in that intervention. First, I have made it clear that the evidence is, at the moment, anecdotal. I will come back to that issue at the end of my speech, but I point out that the evidence has come from teachers. Secondly, I was not suggesting for a moment that teachers are discouraging students from taking science subjects, but that some of the ways in which school administration works are making it more difficult for young people to choose one, two or three science subjects.
The minister mentioned standards. There is also a problem with them; for example, the Scottish Government’s own numeracy survey, which came out last year, showed a fall in numeracy attainment in our schools. Of course, numeracy underpins the STEM subjects. There were significant falls in primary 2 and P4, and something like 34 per cent in secondary 4 did not achieve the required numeracy rates. That is another significant difficulty in our schools that will have consequences for the ability of pupils to study STEM subjects.
In many ways, therefore, this is a perfect storm. We have underresourced science teaching: we face not having enough teachers and, potentially, not enough pupils choosing STEM subjects, and we have a lack of, or dropping, standards in the fundamental skills that pupils need to succeed in the subjects. That all threatens not just our future as a science nation but our economy. Colleagues who attended the Institution of Engineering and Technology event a couple of weeks ago will know that its report suggests that by 2022 we will need 147,000 engineers alone in Scotland to have the kind of growth in the economy that we want.
I am not for one moment suggesting that the Scottish Government is not committed to quality science teaching in our schools; I am simply using this evening’s debate to draw attention to various interlocking reports that suggest that problems are developing around science education in our schools. Now is the time to take action. Next week, our Education and Culture Committee will have an evidence-taking session on this matter, but the truth is that the problems need more than a one-off evidence session. We need a plan for action to turn around the problems of resourcing teachers and any unintended consequences of curriculum change on course choice, and we need it before it is too late. That will allow us to hope for—and, indeed, to expect and see—the creation of more James Clerk Maxwells in the future to maintain our reputation as one of the world’s leading science nations.
17:12
I congratulate Iain Gray on securing this debate and associate myself with his remarks about the towering figure of James Clerk Maxwell. Since its creation in 2012, the learned societies group on Scottish science education has carried out a lot of interesting work, including its latest report on the resourcing of science in Scottish schools. Last month, I met William Hardie, the group’s secretariat, Bristow Muldoon and Dr Bill Beveridge to discuss the report’s findings.
As convener of the Education and Culture Committee, I want to inform members about the work that our committee plans to undertake on science education. The committee has agreed to examine whether there are barriers to more pupils studying STEM subjects at school, college and university, and we also plan to look at the extent to which industry’s needs for STEM skills are being met by the education system. Initially, the committee has, as Iain Gray quite rightly mentioned, invited the learned societies group to discuss its report’s findings on the resourcing of science in schools at next week’s meeting, but we also intend to carry out further work later this year, with detailed evidence sessions on STEM subjects.
I very much recognise the Scottish Government’s commitment to science education in Scottish classrooms, but at this point I want to put on record my support for the campaign to ensure that creationism or intelligent design has no place in the science classrooms of Scotland. Scientific fact or theory should be taught to our young people, not the ridiculous nonsense of those pushing the young earth fantasy.
Resourcing decisions are, of course, for education authorities and their schools, though the work of the learned societies group has been very useful in identifying areas for improvement. That said, we must not jump to any conclusions, given that the survey covered only 2 per cent of Scottish primary schools. Indeed, the report states:
“Given the small samples, the findings should be read as providing an indication only of the Scotland-wide picture.”
Secondly, it is a fact that
“Among surveyed primary schools, the average spend on science has increased from £280 (2012-13) to £343 (2013-14) representing a rise of 21%”
and that
“next year, the level of spend on science is estimated to grow by an average of 12.9% among surveyed schools.”
That is very welcome news indeed.
One area that the report highlighted is the need to encourage more pupils to consider science-related careers by improving participation in practical science work from an early age. The report indicated that a number of teachers, particularly in primary schools, reported having difficulty in supporting practical science lessons because of a lack of resources and equipment. I expect that to be a key issue for the Education and Culture Committee’s work in the weeks ahead.
Our young people continue to excel at science, as is evidenced by Aidan Miles and Murray Paterson, two pupils from Gleniffer high in Paisley who recently won the best quality award in the Higgs boson competition organised by the Institute of Physics. Last week, I hosted a reception in Parliament—which Iain Gray mentioned—on behalf of the Institution of Engineering and Technology to promote the need for more young people to take up STEM subjects at school and pursue careers in related industries.
During the reception, we heard from Naomi Mitchison, the IET young woman engineer of the year, who spoke passionately about the importance of taking steps to change perceptions about gender in the engineering industry. Naomi Mitchison is a talented and successful young engineer and I certainly hope that more ambassadors like her are given the chance to speak about the benefits of taking up STEM subjects at school.
Excellent work is being done every day to promote science in Scottish classrooms. Last year, a teacher from Mearns primary in East Renfrewshire was awarded a primary science teacher award for his work in championing science to his pupils. Paul Tyler was given the accolade by the Primary Science Teaching Trust for his inspiring science lessons, which included building a wave generator and a tidal turbine to generate electricity.
Schools across East Renfrewshire have been participating in the science champions scheme, which is funded by the Scottish Government to offer teachers training and resources to promote science projects to pupils. That programme operates in about 50 per cent of our local authority areas, and it is welcome.
Scotland has a proud history of scientific achievement, and our future success in the fields of science and technology will rely in no small part on the hard work that is being carried out by our teachers—particularly teachers such as Paul Tyler—in classrooms right across Scotland.
17:17
I congratulate Iain Gray on bringing this important subject to the chamber. As he said, Scottish science has a good reputation. That has been the case for many decades. Our scientists have excellent citation rates for their published work and scientists from across the world are attracted to collaborate with or work at our universities, but we must not be complacent, because if we are to have a successful economy in the future, we must have a workforce that is competent in the STEM subjects, as Sir Ian Wood’s recent report highlighted.
Children and young people can be enthused about or turned off science at an early age. Teachers and family members can make or break a child’s interest in science, so it is vital that primary school pupils are introduced to the sciences by teachers who are enthusiastic and confident.
In its briefing to the science and the Parliament conference last year, the Royal Society of Chemistry noted that, despite Scotland’s reputation for science, our overall rating for science education lags behind that of many of our international competitors, including England, and it suggested that there is a need to provide inspiring science teaching from an early age. It recommended that every primary school should have—or, in the case of small schools, have access to—a science subject leader who is a science specialist, who can provide leadership on science teaching and support for colleagues.
A science specialist does not have to be someone who is a science graduate, but it should be someone who has at least one higher or equivalent in a science subject. It is surprising that the current minimum entry qualifications for primary teaching require applicants to have English at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 6—the older members will remember such qualifications as highers—maths at SCQF level 5—standard grade or, as the even older members will remember it, O grade—but there is no requirement for any science qualification at all, despite the fact that science is in the curriculum.
The RSC also recommended that sufficient continuous professional development needs to be provided to ensure that teachers’ knowledge and skills are kept up to date, because science changes quickly.
If a teacher had a poor experience of learning science and perhaps gave up science at a fairly early age in their own school education, or if they failed a science qualification, they are not going to feel particularly confident about teaching science—and science teaching, from the earliest age, needs to be led by teachers with confidence and enthusiasm.
Iain Gray spoke about the report on the resourcing of science in Scottish schools that was published by the learned societies group on Scottish science education, which makes worrying reading. In debates on science, I often highlight my concerns about the lack of opportunities for children and even older students to undertake experiments themselves. It is, therefore, concerning to me that 44 per cent of primary schools were dissatisfied with the funding that is available for practical work and that 82 per cent of secondary schools were not confident of having enough equipment and consumables to deliver science practical work effectively. It is also concerning that 44 per cent of secondary schools were dissatisfied with the level of technical support that is available. It would be unfair to suggest that responsibility for the situation rests only with the Scottish Government, as it also rests with local authorities and individual schools. However, I believe that those issues need to be tackled if Scotland is to remain successful in science.
We need to grow our own scientists and science technicians in addition to attracting excellent students and academics from other nations, so our schools must be up to the task, as must our further and higher education institutions. I know that there is no money tree on the immediate horizon and that those aims need to be achieved against a background of financial restriction, but I believe that the investment is worth making for our future economy. If we want to continue to be successful in science and have a high-wage, high-experience and high-qualification economy, we need to be able to produce those scientists and science technicians.
Because of the issues that confront all of us, we need to be able to engage with other partners and increase the level of private investment in research and development. I cannot remember the number of years for which we have been saying that there is an insufficient level of private investment in research and development, yet that is still the case. We also need to encourage the offering of high-quality apprenticeships in science. Going forward, that will require us to promote a consensus about the value of science and knowledge to the economy and the fact that investing in science education right from the beginning, from primary school onward, is investing in Scotland’s future.
17:22
I thank lain Gray for lodging the motion on a hugely important issue that highlights the significant concerns of the learned societies group, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics. It is good to hear from the convener of the Education and Culture Committee about the profile that the subject will receive in the coming weeks. Those academic bodies, which do so much to enhance the intellectual life of Scotland because their discourse is always well balanced, non-partisan, well evidenced and, without exception, very thought provoking, have spoken out about the crucial challenge that faces the future of science teaching. That challenge is especially important when one considers that, by 2030, some 7 million jobs in the UK will be directly dependent on science skills.
Unlike Mr Gray, I am not a scientist but I have taken a keen interest in what science teachers are saying, and he is right to identify that there are some issues with the curriculum for excellence—some of them good, some of them less good. There are certainly some very important messages for us. As everyone in the chamber is well aware, science learning has traditionally been very content driven—that is, knowledge of the facts has often mattered more than the learning process. It is true that there has always been a great deal of emphasis on basic numeracy, data-handling skills, problem solving and research methodology, but the knowledge content has always tended to be dominant in the traditional curriculum. Now, however, some interesting things are happening in the Scottish Qualifications Authority exams and we have what is called the “open” question, which is designed to assess the candidate’s science knowledge from a much more holistic point of view. By its very nature, an open question does not have only one correct answer, and I warmly welcome that change of direction in the curriculum for excellence.
I do not think that there is any need to get too worried about that change, because the curriculum for excellence is trying to get back to the cross-curricular teaching of science subjects, which is very important. I am a strong supporter of a baccalaureate system of exams. Nevertheless, at the moment, I do not believe that the Scottish baccalaureate has the necessary intellectual rigour. The uptake rates are not good, and it does not compare particularly well with the rigour of the international baccalaureate.
The arts, sciences and social sciences are all distinct disciplines but they inform each other. There is a good movement in the curriculum for excellence to look at how those disciplines can come together. Nonetheless, there are specific problems and we need to take action.
It is particularly important to start with the 2012 science and engineering education advisory group’s recommendations. Its report said that although the Scottish Government had quite rightly identified energy and life sciences as two priority sectors, that was not translating into successful STEM education. Given the identification of those as priority sectors, the key question for the Education and Culture Committee to ask will be why that is not being translated into action.
Partly, that is because there is a lack of science specialists, particularly in primary schools. Elaine Murray is absolutely right to point to that. The Royal Society of Chemistry made a very good call towards the end of November 2014 on the need for science specialists in our primary classrooms. We can go further. Whether politicians like it or not, educational reform is coming. It is coming because, as Sir Ian Wood has clearly identified, the needs of Scotland and our young people are changing fast, especially in what is a fiercely competitive global economy.
I flag up what Lindsay Paterson of the University of Edinburgh talked eloquently about in a lecture that he delivered at the David Hume Institute last year. He spoke of the need to support our very gifted children, whatever their backgrounds. There is a need, particularly in the science subjects, to look at greater bursary support.
There is no question but that a lot must be done. We are on the cusp of doing exciting things in science teaching, but that will not happen until we grasp the thistle: that is about resources and the professional training of teachers and ensuring that they can inspire our youngsters.
17:26
Good evening, Presiding Officer. I thank Iain Gray for securing this important debate.
We have been aware of the low funding for science education for some time, but I was still shocked to see the survey results which suggested that 98 per cent of primary and secondary schools depend on external funding for practical work in science classes. That means that those children whose parents cannot contribute are disadvantaged more than others, which is unfair and undesirable.
It is shameful that Scotland, which prides itself on being the home of great inventors such as James Watt and John Logie Baird, is spending significantly less per child on science subjects than England.
As many members know, I have spoken on various occasions about the need to have more people, particularly young women, studying science and technology in Scotland. Although some money and focus has been put at the end of the process to encourage people to undertake science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses at university, we must recognise the need to have a pipeline of people who are engaging in science at all ages and at all levels. We are not going to get someone choosing to study engineering at university if they never had the opportunity to conduct classroom experiments when they were younger.
I thank lain Gray for focusing attention specifically on the crisis in the teaching of physics. Physics is an essential basis for going on to study engineering at university level. When I asked a parliamentary question about the gender imbalance in highers science subjects, the minister glossed over the issue by looking at all science subjects together and stating that the position was not too bad. However, if we look at the sciences separately, we have nearly double the number of people taking higher chemistry compared with physics. Furthermore, of those taking physics, only 29 per cent are female. I find this state of affairs to be unacceptable. The Scottish Government must urgently review its strategy on scientific education at all levels.
Stewart Maxwell’s comments were helpful and I genuinely wish him well in trying to address some of the issues that he spoke about. However, we need to ensure that our schools have the appropriate tools of the trade and that our children get every opportunity to perform at the highest levels. The fact that schools are having to beg, borrow and steal equipment and the fact that they are having to resource goods from outwith school budgets are damning statements. I continue to be not only shocked but horrified that that is still the state of affairs in our schools today.
It has been said that some councils have as much responsibility as the Scottish Government, but that is unfair. We cannot tie schools’ hands behind their backs and then expect them to perform. I hope that the minister will be able to assure me that, like Stewart Maxwell, he will do the best that he can to reverse the situation.
17:30
Like others, I congratulate Iain Gray on securing this evening’s debate on the report on Scottish science education that was published by the learned societies group on Scottish science education.
The report makes stark reading against the backdrop of the prediction, which Liz Smith highlighted, that by 2030 more than 7 million jobs in the UK will depend on science skills. Those STEM jobs are exactly the kind of jobs that we need—high-quality, highly skilled and highly paid jobs that emerging economies will struggle to compete with us for, and yet here, where we have that competitive advantage, we are choosing not to follow it through.
By 2030, the four and five-year-olds who will start primary school this summer will already be in work or will be in the final years of university study and about to enter the jobs market. In England, if current spending levels continue, the same pupils with the same academic ability and the same aptitude for science will have enjoyed more than 10 years of state education with 80 per cent more per head spent on science in primary schools and 27 per cent more in secondary schools. That is a massive head start in building the necessary skills to compete for those 7 million jobs.
My colleague described the situation in science teaching as “a perfect storm”, and, looking at the stats and the commentary that are provided in the science education report, it is hard to disagree with that. It states that, as I said, spending on science is significantly lower in Scotland than in England, that 57 per cent of schools do not have sufficient equipment to carry out lessons, that 44 per cent of primary schools and 80 per cent of secondary schools are unhappy with the level of funding for practical science lessons, and that 98 per cent of all schools have sought additional external funding from parents, teachers or other sources.
That issue alone—that 98 per cent of schools have sought external funding—is likely to have a bigger impact in more deprived areas where parents are not in a position to contribute to their child’s education. Hanzala Malik flagged that up. I take on board what the minister said about the small sample size and not being able to do as in depth an analysis as we would like but, if the report is accurate on that point, I would be interested to hear his view. Is the Government going to take forward any further work and how does it plan to tackle any educational inequality that arises as a result of more affluent communities finding it easier to fund their schools’ science provision?
Teacher numbers in science are falling and it is becoming harder to recruit new teachers. Staff and pupil morale has been affected and concerns have been outlined that some pupils might be less inclined to take up a science subject if it is perceived to be harder to pass and that overall exam grades could be affected. At the same time, we have seen science support and technician staff being reduced across the country as local authority education departments are trying to save money and focus on their core functions.
I have been listening to this interesting debate. When I was young, the science subjects were perceived as being more difficult, and when my children were young the science subjects were still perceived as being more difficult. If they are still perceived as being more difficult, that is partly because they genuinely are more difficult. As Iain Gray said, numeracy is an issue, and science will not come naturally to someone who is not particularly numerate. I suggest to the member that there is an element of difficulty, which children rightly see and which we must therefore accommodate.
I take that on board. The difficulty is reflected in the levels of pay that science and engineering graduates enjoy. There is concern that we might get to a point at which the funding of science subjects and practical science makes it more difficult to study science subjects than it was when the member and I were at school.
I do not want to make a speech that is negative about the challenges that we face. The massive, positive driver to improve science provision in schools is the fact that, by 2030, there will be 7 million highly skilled, highly paid jobs in the United Kingdom that depend on science. Some of the young people who will access those jobs have not yet started school, so we have an opportunity to address the issues that science teachers and pupils are facing.
None of the issues in the report is insurmountable. I look forward to working with the Education and Culture Committee next week when we hear evidence in that regard, and I look forward to hearing from the minister about how he will take forward the science teaching agenda.
17:36
I thank Iain Gray for lodging the motion on the report of the learned societies group on Scottish science education. I concur with him that we should celebrate the achievements of James Clerk Maxwell this year, which has been designated the year of light to commemorate his work.
The survey that we have been considering contributes to the picture on the delivery of science education in our schools, alongside other evidence, such as Education Scotland’s three-to-18 sciences impact review.
The Government recognises the important role that science and broader STEM education play in our schools. There is a strong connection between STEM learning and our economic growth sectors, as Liz Smith and other members said.
Curriculum for excellence ensures that all our learners develop a grounding across the range of STEM subjects through their broad general education. Learners have the opportunity to study for relevant national qualifications. By enabling pupils to learn in the real-life, broader contexts to which Liz Smith referred, curriculum for excellence helps to ensure that young people become aware of the careers that STEM sectors can offer and the pathways into those jobs. As Stewart Maxwell said, it is important that we ensure that all young people regard a science career as open to them. We recognise the importance of encouraging young women into science careers.
Elaine Murray touched on many issues in her thoughtful speech, not least the connection between science in schools and our wider national and international scientific research achievements.
The picture on uptake and attainment of science qualifications is positive. I say, with respect to members, that there is simply no evidence—to use a scientific phrase—that schools or pupils are being put off taking science qualifications. Last year, there was an increase in entries at higher in all three main science subjects—biology, chemistry and physics—and pass rates are holding up strongly. It is difficult to reconcile that with the claim in the motion that schools might regard the taking of science subjects as a threat to their pass rates.
I think that the minister is right. There are some good signs about the numbers of pupils who are taking highers and advanced highers in the science subjects, but there is currently a big disconnect with respect to the science baccalaureate. That plays very much to the theme of the curriculum for excellence. How will the minister address that particular problem?
I agree with the member on the need to promote the take-up of the science baccalaureate, but I do not agree with some of her assessments of the baccalaureate’s quality or robustness. I fully agree on the need to promote its take-up, as with other awards that are being promoted.
I also believe that the uptake of sciences among S4 pupils remains very good. It should be said that the proportion of passes in sciences at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 5 in 2014 was broadly the same as that in 2013.
That positive picture is also borne out in the learned societies group’s survey results. We continue to provide a range of support for STEM learning and science qualifications, including relevant resources and materials, the STEM central website with links to STEM careers, and the Tigtag science resource for primary schools.
It is important that the Scottish Government also provides direct funding of £900,000 per annum to the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre to support the professional learning of primary and secondary teachers and technicians. That includes a programme that is focused on primary teachers to raise their confidence and skills in science, which members have spoken about.
Members will, of course, be aware—some members have referred to this—that the vast majority of funding for primary and secondary schools comes as part of the annual local government finance settlement, which has, of course, been included in our debate on the budget. It is, of course, the responsibility of individual authorities to manage their budgets and allocate the financial resources that are available to them.
Although the learned societies group’s survey is significant, it does not provide a national picture of the level of science expenditure. It sampled approximately 2 per cent of Scottish state primary schools and 13 per cent of state secondary schools. The report highlights that caveat and says that
“the findings should be treated with caution and purely as an indication”.
We should bear that in mind.
It is worth highlighting some of the positives from the survey.
Will the minister give way?
I will. I am sure that Iain Gray will highlight a positive.
It is, really. The minister’s point is well made. The sample was small, and the report says that. Surely the response to that should be not to dismiss the report’s findings but to consider a wider sample that would give us a clearer picture and more evidence on whether what the learned societies group found is or is not the national picture.
I would certainly not be dismissive of the report or the work that went into it, and I certainly keep up a very positive relationship with the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the other learned societies on these issues.
One of the issues that has been raised in the debate is the making of comparisons with other places. Mr Malik rightly raised the importance of physics as a subject but, like Mr Griffin, I feel that some of the comparisons with England that were made are at least open to question. For instance, the figures that have been quoted for spending on science in schools do not include the small matters of teachers’ training and their science centres.
The Scottish Government agrees with the learned societies on the importance of the dialogue that we need to have between us.
The science centres, which I mentioned, are one of the jewels in the crown of science in schools and more generally throughout Scotland. I am also happy to note the importance of science festivals, not least the one in Mr Gray’s constituency. I am pleased to say that its funding has been increased.
The Scottish Government’s commitment to science is borne out against a backdrop of cuts from another place. The work that we have done with Education Scotland and our other agencies ensures that we have good cause to feel pride in the teaching and learning of science in our schools.
Meeting closed at 17:44.
Previous
Decision Time