Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 2000 > Committee on Education and Science > Report - Science and Technology

TITHE AN OIREACHTAIS

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Tuarascáil ón gComhchoiste um Oideachas agus Eolaíocht Maidir le hEolaíocht agus Teicneolaíocht

Report of the Joint Committee on Education and Science on Science and Technology

October, 2000

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

Since it was appointed by the Dáil and Seanad in November, 1997, the Joint Committee on Education and Science has carried out in-depth examinations of a number of important matters of policy which fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Science. In each case the Committee has reported its findings and recommendations to both Houses of the Oireachtas, has published its report and has urged that account be taken of its views, both by the Government in the development of policy and by other organisations with an interest in the matters under consideration.

This Report, on the current position and future of science and technology in the education system, is a further constructive contribution by the Committee in an area which is crucial to the continuing development of the Irish economy. The Report acknowledges the positive developments which have taken place but argues that more needs to be done. The Committee recommends a wide range of practical and imaginative measures which would lead to the strengthening of science education in Ireland.

The Committee is indebted to its rapporteurs on this project, Deputy Richard Bruton and Deputy Denis Naughten, for the time and effort which they devoted to producing this Report. The Committee also thanks the numerous expert organisations and individuals (for a full list see Appendix A) whose contributions during the consultation process were invaluable.

Michael P. Kitt, T.D.,

Chairman,

Joint Committee on Education and Science.

10 October, 2000.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Science Learning in Ireland: Growth or Decay?

Key findings.

Primary.

Ireland is unique in having little or no science taught at Primary Level.

Not surprisingly Irish pupils score in the bottom half of the OECD league in science at age 9 to 10. The process of introducing a new science element in the curriculum was first initiated in 1990. It will be 2002 at the earliest, by the time it is in place. Even then, Irish primary pupils’ exposure to science will be low by international standards involving just one hour per week. The Department has demonstrated no urgency in seeking to roll out science in the primary schools. Its projected budget for the project - £1m for once off training of teachers and £1.7m to date in equipment is derisorily small. It represents an investment of just £6 per pupil. Clearly the introduction of science at primary level has been given little priority.

Secondary.

In secondary school, about 90% of students do science up to the Junior Certificate. It is remarkable how quickly Irish pupils improve their standing in science once they enter second level. At age 14, Irish pupils rank in the top half of the OECD league in science. By contrast, Irish standards in maths and reading show a quite noticeable deterioration in international rankings between the ages of 9 and 14.

There has been a steady decline in the number of students taking science in senior cycle for 20 years. The decline is worst in Chemistry where participation has halved to only 10%. The position is a little better in Physics at 13.5%, whereas Biology at 42% remains the dominant selection of those who take science. The fall off in the study of science seems to be accelerating and in 1999/2000 alone, 3,200 fewer science papers were taken in the Leaving Certificate, representing a fall of 6.5% in one year. The sharpest fall in the study of science has been amongst boys. Girls now are more likely to take a science subject. For girls, Biology is the dominant choice with only 7% taking Physics.

One in every three schools does not offer the full range of science subjects (Physics, Chemistry and Biology). Just over 30% do not offer Chemistry and 24% do not offer Physics. Limited choice of science subjects is a particular problem in VEC and Community and Comprehensive Colleges, where 55% do not offer Chemistry and 39% do not offer Physics.

The Department of Education and Science has done no proper audit of science equipment in schools. However, a survey found that 65% of science teachers reported that they have insufficient equipment. The investment programme planned by the government of £13m over three years will not be anything like enough to fill the gaps.

Too few Physics or Chemistry graduates go into teaching. The preponderance of teachers who have trained in Biology no doubt contributes to the dominance of this branch of science. The Department has introduced a 3-year retraining programme for Physics and Chemistry that would involve the investment of £3.8m. This is welcome, but it will not overcome the distinctly poor professional development opportunities for science teachers in Ireland compared to other countries, consequently many graduates find the industrial setting much more lucrative. The ICSTI Study Benchmarking Irish Teaching of Science has been particularly critical of the didactic teaching methods which prevail in Ireland that are in conflict with the aims of the curriculum. The exclusive reliance on a term examination with no practical element buttresses this didactic approach. Despite a 10-year lee time for the introduction of a new curriculum in the Leaving Certificate Science subjects, there is still no sign of a practical element to the examination. There has been much discussion of the reform of the assessment methods but no action. A Steering Committee was established, but its recommendations rejected.

It is far more difficult to obtain high points in the Leaving Certificate in Physics and Chemistry than in other subject options. This has undoubtedly contributed to the declining choice of these subjects. Physics and Chemistry at Leaving Certificate attracts far more high performers at the Junior Certificate than other subjects. However, these high performers do not do correspondingly well in their Leaving Certificate. There is a substantially higher degree of difficulty in science subjects, particularly Physics and Chemistry, and especially for pupils of ordinary levels of ability and those who take Ordinary Level papers. In 1999 and again in 2000, the Department substantially relaxed the marking in Physics and in Chemistry. However, this change in direction of policy is not being communicated and has not persuaded pupils to opt for these subjects.

Third Level.

The take up of science courses at Third Level has more than doubled in the past 10 years but is now stabilising. However, if you exclude computing the number of science graduates is rapidly declining - down by 50% in the Institutes of Technology. The proportion of science and engineering graduates puts Ireland in the top half of the OECD countries. Demand for graduates remains strong. Over the next five years, the skills group has projected the need for 400 extra graduates at degree or diploma level. This represents a modest increase of just 6% on the existing level. However, industry is sounding alarm bells that shortages will be very substantial in industries like Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals.

Low student demands for the available science courses remain a problem. There are insufficient first preference applicants to match the places on offer. This has led to low entry requirements. This also seems to be a factor in drop out levels of at least one third from science and engineering courses in the Institutes of Technology. The problem of declining take up of science at second level has undoubtedly contributed to the difficulty in attracting suitable candidates to science courses at third level. A concerted effort at both secondary and third level is needed to drive up the numbers and quality of candidates entering science and to support them at third level in a way that ensures a better chance of success.

The demand for postgraduate scientists is likely to expand much faster. An additional 600 will be needed over the next five years. This would require an increase of at least 50% in the number of post graduate students, whereas there has been a fall of 13% in the past four years. As the demand for post-graduates increases, there is a belief that numbers taking up postgraduate courses will continue to drop due to the financial attractiveness of industry and the poor remuneration for post-graduate research.

Over the past decade, spending on education at third level in science and technology has expanded by £280m or 160%. The contrast between this investment and the paltry sums devoted to science at primary and secondary level is unmistakable. However, this is not to argue for any reduction in spending after third level. Clearly if Ireland wants to position itself to drive its industry up the value chain and to compete in the knowledge economy, it must make the necessary investment in education in third level.

A hugely neglected area of education in science as in other areas is mature workers’ entry into further education. Part-time courses have reasonably good initial enrolments but only a tiny proportion progress to get any certified qualification.

Rapid expansion has also been evident in the Government's spending on research and development. It increased by £134 m in real terms or 140% in the last decade. Even still, R & D spending by the Government at 0.29% of GDP is a pale reflection of the average investment in competitor countries of 0.72% of GDP. About 40% of the government's investment in R & D goes directly to third level institutions. Total R & D spend in third level institutions is about £150m, about 60% is Government funded. The National Development Plan plans to accelerate the expansion in the R & D investment by Government, especially with the establishment of the new Technology Foresight Fund. The plans are very ambitious and in some areas plan a trebling of activity over three years The obstacle that may block the effective realisation of these plans is the growing scarcity of post graduate students which has been aggravated by poor levels of income support to post graduate students undertaking research.

Recommendations.

The Committee believes that Ireland must make a major effort to improve the standards and take up of science. The quality of science learning is a vital ingredient in Ireland's ambitions to attract the high value elements of modern manufacturing and internationally traded services. The poor development of science at primary level and the erosion of the science base at second level are huge obstacles to Ireland's ambitions. High profile investments at the third and fourth level are not enough. It is time to devote equal attention to investment upstream at primary and secondary level. The Committee makes the following recommendations:

First and Second Levels

1.A Science Education Technical Support Centre should be established with an annual budget of at least £5m which would be devoted to developing in service training for teachers, rolling out best practice in teaching methods, developing resource materials and strengthening career guidance information and support in the schools. It should assist schools in developing science plans.

2.An immediate template of the necessary scientific equipment for schools to develop a full range of science options should be identified, and a major investment programme undertaken by Government at primary and secondary level to put this in place.

3.Schools should be encouraged to form clusters within which the Department would make additional commitments to develop science options. Specifically the Department would guarantee the availability of specialist science-teaching resources to this cluster and a block grant for equipment and materials. Funds would be dedicated to these clusters according to identified need and according to the initiative undertaken by those schools participating.

4.The introduction of science at primary level should be urgently fast-tracked by Government and a target date of 2002/3 set for its full implementation in all schools.

5.The new Junior Certificate syllabus should be designed so that it becomes a core part of this phase of education and participation should be expanded to 100%.

6.A full audit of science teachers and science equipment should be undertaken.

7.A Science Centre to act as a visitor centre for the promotion of interest in science should be established along the lines recommended by ICSTI.

8.A system of rolling curriculum change in the science subjects should be introduced to ensure that the subjects are topical and relevant to scientific advancement.

9.The implementation and examination of curricula should be consolidated within the NCCA which currently only carries out the design of curricula.

10.The concept of “less is more” should inform curriculum development in science as the current curricula have become over crowded

11.A general science subject should be introduced at Leaving Certificate level and students should be able to take specialist add-on modules in Physics and Chemistry or other individual disciplines that would attract extra points.

12.The marking systems applied to Leaving Certificate examination in science should be immediately altered so that pupils with the same achievement at Junior Certificate and reasonable aptitude for the subject should have equal probability of obtaining high grades in science as in other subjects.

13.A practical element in the Leaving Certificate should be immediately introduced for 15% of marks using the Interview Method developed by the Steering Group. Over the next 3 years, the marks for practical work should be increased to 40% and the methods of assessment for practical work urgently developed.

14.The Committee recommends that the examination of mathematics should concentrate more on the application of mathematical methods and not deal solely with performing the mechanics of such methods.

15.Science should become a pilot subject for the development of a system of continuous assessment of pupils within schools. This is a sensitive area, but science is a subject most suited to this development and one where teachers are better disposed.

16.Teachers must be encouraged to undertake in service training in science, particularly with the change to practical examination. To support this, pay premia should be available for additional training and teachers should be able to undertake the modular build up of credits to achieve the necessary qualifications and recognition for pay premia.

17.Research fellowships should be available for science teachers that could be combined with their teaching duties in schools.

18.A National Initiative for industry/school partnerships should be developed with model activities promoted throughout the regions.

Third and Fourth Levels:

19.The Department of Education and Science should undertake an assessment of staffing levels in third level science courses and monitor the capability of Institutions to deliver quality science courses.

20.The Department of Education and Science should require all Third Level Colleges to publish retention rates in different courses, both full-time and part-time courses, and should initiate an open debate on how the high drop-out rates can be reduced.

21.The Department of Education and Science must develop a framework for life long learning where Third Level Colleges rapidly develop part-time courses with good certification which can be taken by people at work wishing to refresh or develop their knowledge. This will require colleges to break out of the still predominant model of full-time courses, by day, on campus in three neat terms. The framework should include models for sharing the costs of such courses between participants, employers and the State.

22.New partnership models of training should be forged with industry in key science and technology skill areas, where flexible combination of training and work experience lead to certification. Such models should be developed as a priority in the areas of emerging skill shortage.

23.The development of teaching methods and communications skills should receive higher priority at third level and failure to develop suitable programmes to improve teaching methods should handicap institutions in accessing research funds.

24.The Committee recommends the establishment of a Review Group to examine proposals that healthcare professionals (e.g. Medical) do a general science degree followed by their healthcare qualification.

25.The Departments of Enterprise, Trade & Employment, and of Education and Science, should immediately undertake a detailed study of our capacity to deliver the ambitious research plans that have been set out. They should also benchmark the rewards available to Irish postgraduate students undertaking research compared to those in competitor countries. A competitive package must be put in place both for Irish students undertaking post graduate work and for the attraction to Ireland of suitably qualified people to support research programmes.

26.Public private partnerships for research at third level should be vigorously developed and a target of industry funding 25% of research in third level institutions should be set for 2006.

27.The Committee believes that it is fundamentally important that greater co-operation takes place between industry and the third level sector and that this must be a key priority in assessing the allocation of applied research funding.

28.The evaluation of publicly funded research should involve public hearings and published assessments. An independent board comprising industrialists, members of the Oireachtas, senior public servants and academics should be put in place to undertake scrutiny of our research programmes.

29.The Committee recommends that the industrial liaison officer should act as a conduit between the scientific community and the media, to encourage research scientists to write articles for submission to the media in such a way that will capture the excitement of new discoveries.

30.The Committee recommends that a coordinated campaign should be undertaken, spearheaded by the Department of Education and the NCCA to promote the science and technology subjects.

31.Government should establish a specific Oireachtas Committee to deal with all aspects of science and technology, ranging from bioethics to E-commerce. This would increase the public profile of science and the scientific community.

CONCLUSION.

The Committee believes that the strengthening of science education in Ireland is so important that the Government should undertake a major national initiative in science. An Implementation Commission including the secretaries general of both the Departments of Education and Science and of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, should be put in place to drive forward the necessary initiatives.

Report of the Joint Committee on Education and Science on Science and Technology

TERMS OF REFERENCE

To investigate the current state of learning in science and related subjects at primary, secondary, third and fourth levels, and its adequacy to meet the demands on Ireland to compete in the knowledge-based society.

INTRODUCTION

Science education is a vital part of the modern school curriculum. In a society which is increasingly based on science and technology, young people require a knowledge and awareness of science, technology and mathematics whether they progress to further study in the sciences or other studies and careers.

Science and technology are now an integral part of contemporary Irish life and will play an even more important role in creating a culture where our citizens will need to be scientifically and technologically literate members of a lifelong learning society. Science and technology are vital to Ireland if sustained economic development is to be achieved and maintained in a global economic climate.

In the compulsory phase of their education, all our students should experience science and technology as a integral part of that education. Such a science and technology education should be relevant to students' lives, interest them and inspire in them a sense of curiosity, discovery, excitement and enterprise. It should provide them with the knowledge, skills, understanding and aptitude to enable them discuss and to make informed judgements on issues in science and technology which effect their lives and that of society – including the environment – at local, national and international level. Science and technology at primary and junior cycle levels should be taught for life's sake, with a practical focus that is relevant to everyday living.

The Committee is concerned that Ireland may not be in a position to take full part in the emerging knowledge-based society. Among causes of this concern is the falling proportion of students in physical sciences, skills shortages in sectors of Irish industry, above average proportions of lower grades in some science subjects, gender imbalances in the uptake of some sciences and many issues related to student assessment and to the provision of facilities in schools.

In this Report, the Joint Committee highlights current inadequacies within the system and makes specific recommendations to Government and business and education sectors on science education.

SECTION 1

TRENDS IN THE TAKE UP OF SCIENCE AT SCHOOL

1.1 Primary Level

Ireland stands out among advanced countries in having little or no science taught at Primary level. Science was introduced at primary level in 1900, but was scrapped in 1934 in order to make room for Irish. The 1971 curriculum gave little attention to elementary science in the social and environmental studies syllabus that it introduced. Paula Kilfeather (1999) observed that whereas 15 pages were devoted to biological aspects of science in that syllabus, only three paragraphs were devoted to elementary science.

A new curriculum for science at Primary level was published in September 1999.

The new curriculum gives far greater emphasis to elementary science. It consists of four interlinked strands (1) Living Things (2) Energy and Forces (3) Materials and (4) Environmental Care. However, the exposure of pupils to science will still be very low by international standards. Just one hour per week is proposed. This contrasts with an average of three hours in the countries surveyed in an ICSTI study.

1.2 Second Level.

At Junior Cycle Level the percentage take up of science has been fairly static at a high 90%. The take up by girls is slightly lower (86%) than for boys (94%). The proportion taking the subject at Higher Level has fallen to 65% and is well short of the targeted 80%. Only 3% choose the Local Studies extension which involves an interview on project work as well as the terminal examination.

At Leaving Certificate level the take up of science subjects has been in steady decline for the past 20 years. Table 1 illustrates the trend. The decline in Chemistry has been most pronounced, halving from 20% to 10%. Physics is down sharply also to 13.5%. Biology remains the dominant choice of those who take up a science subject but it too is now taking a hit and has fallen this year to just 42% of pupils. Agricultural science, though chosen by relatively few students, is the only subject that has shown a rise in popularity. It is interesting to note that this is the only science subject at Leaving Certificate that does not rely exclusively on the terminal exam.

The figures for 2000 which have just become available suggest that the pace of decline in science is accelerating. There were 3,2000 fewer science papers taken than in 1999, a fall of 6.5% in just one year. The proportion taking science was down noticeably in every subject area.

The decline in take up of science has been almost three times as great among boys as girls. At this point, marginally more girls take up science subjects than boys. However, there is a very sharp contrast in the pattern of science studied by girls. Biology is totally dominant attracting 60% of all girls doing the Leaving Certificate. Three out of every four girls who do a science subject are taking Biology. Among boys Biology is still the leading subject selected, attracting one-third of all students. However, Physics is also popular with almost a quarter of boys taking the subject.

Although the decline in the percentage take up of science has been almost continuous throughout the period, the decline in the actual numbers studying the subjects is comparatively recent. The rising size of the cohort shielded the decline until comparatively recently, as Table 3 shows. The size of the cohort is itself now in decline and this reinforces a picture of quite sharp fall offs in study of the science subjects. In 1998/99 alone, science subjects saw a reduction of 5,783 in participating students.

Table 1 Percentage taking Science subjects 1983-99 Senior Cycle

Source: Department of Education and Science

Table 2 Pattern of Uptake of Science Subjects of Boys and Girls at Senior Cycle

Source: Department of Education and Science

Table 3 Numbers Studying Science subjects at Senior Cycle

Source: Department of Education and Science

SECTION 2

STANDARDS IN SCIENCE AT SCHOOL

International assessments of the level of knowledge in science in Ireland present a mixed picture.

At fourth grade (9-10 year olds) Ireland is shown in a 1995 OECD study to score below the international mean of seventeen countries. Ireland is ranked 10^th or in the bottom half of the countries. Gender differences in performance in Ireland are shown to be one of the lowest (less than 1 ½%) at this stage of education. Ireland’s ranking in science is much worse than our ranking in Maths (6^th), and marginally worse than our ranking in reading.

At eighth grade (13-14 year olds) Ireland has improved its relative position. Its average score is shown to be above the international mean of 25 countries. It's ranking at 10^th place put Ireland well inside the top half of the league. The Irish performance in science at eighth grade has caught up to be on a par with our performance in Maths. The difference in performance between boys and girls has widened to 2 ½% but it is still less than in other countries where wide differentials are observed in eighth grade.

Ireland exhibits a greater range of variation in performance among pupils than most other countries. Our performance is made up of more high flyers and more weak performers than the norm.

The top performers in science in Europe are the Czech Republic, Netherlands, Austria and Hungary. Worldwide Japan and Korea would be on a par. Many EU countries perform worse than Ireland though the UK performs noticeably better.

These patterns are not surprising since Ireland is almost unique in not having science taught at primary level. Irish pupils do seem to catch up on lost ground quite quickly in science at second level. This is a significant achievement when you bear in mind that Irish reading performance of 13 – 14 year olds noticeably deteriorates compared to primary level leaving Ireland ranking only 15^th of 18 countries surveyed.

SECTION 3

CAUSES OF DECLINE IN SCIENCE AT SCHOOL.

Within Ireland the perceived difficulty of obtaining points in science subjects has frequently been cited as one of the reasons for the decline in the take up in recent years.

Tables 4 to 7 shed some light on the performance of pupils in science subjects compared to other subject options. The following are the key points:

-more pupils get high grades in Higher Level Science than in other subjects (Table 4)

-at Ordinary level, fewer pupils get high grades in Physics and Chemistry than in some of the key subject choices that compete with science. There is a considerably higher failure rate at Ordinary Level in all of the science subjects (Table 4)

-Far more high Junior Certificate performers take Physics and Chemistry than in other subjects. This is the case at both Higher Level and Ordinary Level. For example, twice as many high performers took Physics or Chemistry as took business organisation. (Table 6)

-Using the ratio of high performers taking a subject to those who emerge with high grades, as an index of the difficulty of a subject, Physics and Chemistry emerge as by far the most difficult subjects at both levels, but particularly so at ordinary level. (Table 6A)

-Longitudinal studies show that pupils who took Ordinary Level science in the Junior Certificate find it much harder to score high grades in Physics and Chemistry than students who continue on in other subjects having taken Ordinary Level. (Table 7)

-Biology shows up as difficult subject option compared to many others, but by no means is it as difficult as Physics or Chemistry

It is quite clear from this data that the perception of science as a difficult subject option is amply borne out by the data. There is no doubt that this has been a major factor in discouraging the take up of science subjects, particularly Physics and Chemistry. It must be tackled head on.

It appears that the marking system was relaxed in Physics and Chemistry in 1999 and again in 2000. This is illustrated in Table 5. The proportions getting A to C grades stepped up very considerably in Ordinary Level Papers, while those failing dropped significantly. A similar pattern was evident in the Higher Level Papers but on a slightly lesser scale. The most striking case in Ordinary Level Chemistry where the proportion getting A-C is up from 54% to 79% while the proportion failing is down from 18% to 7%. No doubt the Department of Education and Science is responding to the criticism that the marking of Physics and Chemistry has driven pupils away.

Table 4 Proportions getting Grades in different subjects (1999)

Source: Department of Education and Science

Table 5 Grades in Science subjects 1994-2000

Source: Department of Education and Science

On the evidence shown here, there is room for substantial further relaxation of the marking system in Physics and Chemistry particularly at Ordinary level. There is low and falling take up of Physics and Chemistry among weaker students. It means that we should be seeing much higher grades being obtained in Physics and Chemistry than in any other subject. This is not happening.

The difficulty of the current approach of silently relaxing the marking system in Physics and Chemistry is that the message is not getting through to students who are still leaving these subjects in droves. It may be understandable that the Department doesn’t want to announce that it is “dumbing down“ Physics and Chemistry. However, a change of policy must be not only made but effectively communicated.

The Committee believes we must move in a high profile fashion to a situation where students with broadly the same level of achievement in the Junior Certificate and with a reasonable aptitude will have equal probability of getting high points in Physics and Chemistry as in any other subject. This is preferable to awarding premium points for these subjects, as the latter approach would reward the high flyers but would not encourage those with average ability into science which must be our main objective.

Table 6 Junior Certificate Qualifications in equivalent subjects of those taking Science Subjects at Leaving Certificate

Source: NCCA “From Junior Cert to Leaving Cert (1999) (A longitudinal study of 1994 JC Candidates who took LC in 1997)”

Table 6A Index of Difficulty for High Performers in Different Subjects

This index is derived by dividing the columns of Table 6 by the appropriate first entry in the first column in Table 4

Table 7 Proportion of those who took Ordinary Level Junior Certs in equivalent subjects who get Grade A – C in the Leaving Cert

Source: As for Table 6

SECTION 4

TRENDS IN TAKE UP OF SCIENCE IN THIRD LEVEL

4.1 Take Up and Drop Out Levels.

The number of students enroling in full-time science courses at third level has more than doubled in the past ten years (see Table 8). Most of the growth occurred in a quite short period between 1993 and 1996. Since then it has stabilised.

The growth in science students at university matched the general expansion of university places. The proportions taking science did not grow. (See Table 8A) By contrast there was noticeable growth in the proportions opting for science in the Institutes of Technology.

There is evidence of a very substantial change in the mix of science students at Institutes of Technology. Courses in computing continued to expand rapidly. However, enrolment in other science subjects peaked in 1995 at 2,057 and since then has almost halved. This decline is already creating real difficulties in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry.

The Tables also show that while the Institutes enjoyed substantially greater first year enrolment in science than the universities, they have fallen behind in terms of the number of graduates produced. There must be a considerable concern that high drop out from science courses in the Institutes is a major factor in the pattern. Many graduates of the Institutes of Technology do not go straight into the job market. In fact in science, 54% of those getting Diplomas and 68% of those getting Certificates go straight into further study.

The data on drop out rates has never been systematically collected by the Department of Education and Science. Naturally, individual institutions are sensitive about this information and as a result information has been very patchy. Drop out levels are believed to be about 20% in university and at least 40% in Institutes of Technology. One survey of three of the stronger Institutes of Technology found that the drop out level in science at 30% was below average (37%), while the drop out level in engineering was above average at 43%. This is higher than in other subjects.

Attrition in part-time courses at Institutes of Technology is even higher. A study by Dr. Sean McDonagh shows that participation at second year is only 18% of first year enrolment. Only about one in twenty part-time students in the IT sector secure NCEA or DIT awards. Most of these awards were earned in just three of the Institutes.

Table 8 Trends in Science at Third Level

Source: Department of Education and Science

Table 8A Proportion of First Year Enrolments at Third Level going to different Subject Areas

Source: Department of Education and Science

Such high levels of attrition are very worrying. They present a serious challenge to those involved in science at second and third level. The Higher Education Authority and the Directors of Institutes of Technology have commissioned quite a number of studies into this subject. The Committee has heard evidence that there are a number of factors which contribute to these drop-out rates, including the following:-

-Falling entry requirements for courses due to lack of competition for places which means many students are poorly equipped to handle demanding courses.

-A poor grasp by students entering third level colleges of the fundamentals behind mathematical theory. While students can perform well in the Leaving Certificate by memorising the mathematical methods, they have a poor concept of the application of such methods.

-A lack of practical experience of science a secondary level, combined with poor training in investigative or problem solving, also poor knowledge of the fundamental elements of the subject.

-The financial burden placed on many students due to an inadequate Maintenance Grant, forcing them to work long and irregular hours in part-time employment, to the detriment of their education.

However, the failure of the Department to collect information in this area and the reluctance of education institutions to deal openly with the subject has delayed the sort of decisive action necessary to get to grips with this problem. Better financial support, better induction courses and teaching support for students in difficulty and the wider use of broad based first year courses prior to specialisation are among the measures that the Committee would wish to see adopted.

The Committee recommends that the Department require all Third Level Colleges to publish retention rates in different courses and initiate an open debate on how this can be reduced.

The Committee also recommends the establishment of a Review Group to examine proposals that healthcare professionals (e.g. Medical) do a general science degree followed by healthcare qualification.

This would expand the alternatives for students entering third level colleges and broaden the aspect of the third level course. It would also reduce the competition which is within the points system for these much sought-after courses and would broaden the appeal of science in the Third Level sector.

The Committee also recommends that the examination of mathematics should concentrate more on the application of mathematical methods and not deal solely with performing the mechanics of such methods.

In international terms, the National Competitiveness Council have shown that Ireland is in the top third of OECD countries both in terms of science and engineering degrees as a proportion of total degrees awarded (31% ) and the proportion of 24 year olds in the population who have science and engineering degrees (5.7%).

In science as in other subjects Ireland has a deplorable record in admitting mature students. We have also been slow to move away from the model of full-time courses, by day, on campus, in three neat terms. Such a model is poorly attuned to our needs at a time when a major priority must be to expand lifelong learning by people with many other commitments.

4.2 Rising Demand for Science Graduates

The Expert Group on Skill Requirements have looked at the science sector. Although skills shortages are not so noticeable in the chemical and biotechnology industries as in the IT sector, the group has expressed concerns about the decline in take up of science at a time when biotechnology developments point to a significant growth potential in these professions. The group projects a need for 290 extra graduate professionals and 120 extra technicians in the Sector by 2005. This implies the need to create 1,150 additional third level places (700 in biological sciences, 400 in chemistry and 50 in chemical engineering).

The Irish Pharmaceutical and Chemical Manufacturers Federation has carried out a survey of its Members which shows expected shortages in the immediate future of 750, about one third of them being science graduates. They predict a fall in the output of non-computing science graduates of over 1,000 in the next couple of years and are sounding serious alarm bells for the future.

An additional pressure on the supply of science graduates is the very rapid expansion in research activity projected under the expanded Department of Education and the Technology Foresight Research Programmes. The Future Skills Group projects an additional increase in demand for science and technology PhD graduates from a current level of 200 to 800 by the year 2004 if all of these plans go ahead on schedule. This projected increase in demand comes at a time when the take up of postgraduate options has actually started to decline due to the attractiveness of immediate employment opportunities. The Higher Education Authority has provided the Committee with information on University Post-Graduate students in science which are set out in Table 9A. They show that post-graduate students in science peaked in 1995 at 2,950 but have fallen back by 400 since then. There is no doubt that we have here the ingredients for a quite severe skill shortage, which would totally undermine these ambitious research programmes. It will require not only making science, and post graduate study in particular, more attractive for students at home, but also supplementing this source with post graduate students and post doctorate researchers from abroad.

4.3 Student Indifference.

Making more money available for additional places and for research will not succeed, unless applicants can be encouraged to opt for science careers. There is clearly a weakness in the demand from students for such courses.

Table 9 shows that there has never been any pressure for places in science at either degree or diploma level. In 1999, the number of first preference applicants for science exceeded offers by just 3%. This compared to a 64% excess of applications over offers in other subjects. At diploma and certificate level, first preference applications fell 20% short of available offers. In every other subject area, there was an excess of first preference applications over offers.

Between 1992 and 1999, places at both degree and diploma level expanded rapidly, particularly at degree level. The pressure for places fell correspondingly. The expansion in science places was far below the general trend, so the interest in science places improved somewhat. Nonetheless the general picture remains of relatively low interest in science subjects, with only 9% of all first preference applications for degree or diploma level courses opting for science or applied science. This lack of interest in science is reflected in the points required for entry to degree level and diploma level courses. At UCD for example, a science degree requires 375 points whereas a commerce degree requires 445 and a law degree 500.

Ireland must drive up the value chain in industry and services and strengthen our competitive position in high technology areas. Government has responded with extra courses at third level and major expansion in research spending. Each 1000 extra graduates represent a capital and continuing investment of £60m. The Research Programme will run to £550m. However, this investment will come unstuck if investment upstream is not made at primary and secondary levels. Investments at these earlier levels are completely dwarfed by the high profile budgets committed at third and fourth levels.

The Committee believes that consideration should also be given to the establishment of Post Leaving Certificate (PLC) Science courses which are directly relevant to employment. For example, courses could be provided to train general operatives in both the food and pharmaceutical industry. However, it is important that such programmes are not established in isolation and should have the direct involvement of employers within the sector.

Table 9

Source: Central Applications Office

Table 9A Post Graduate Science Students in University

Source: Higher Education Authority

SECTION 5

RESOURCES DEPLOYED IN SCIENCE TEACHING.

5.1 Primary Level.

A curriculum for the reintroduction of science at primary level was issued in September 1999. Far from being fast tracked within the new curriculum, it has been pushed to the latter phase of implementation. In service training for teachers will not start until 2001 at the earliest. The in service for teachers will involve two days training each of six hours duration. The total cost is expected to be £1m. It will be delivered over a period of at least five years. So the subject will not be fully operational in the schools until 2006.

The teacher training colleges have also been poorly prepared for the introduction of science in the primary curriculum. St. Patrick’s in Drumcondra has only recently had a new lecturer in science approved. The entry of science into the curriculum could have been much more easily facilitated if there had been a number of cohorts of primary teachers already well grounded in science teaching.

Initial grants have already been paid out to primary schools in October 1999 for some equipment. The grant amounted to £400 for schools of under 50 pupils rising to £1,000 for schools of over 500. The total cost was only £1.75m. No doubt the Department paid this money in order to stimulate interest in the schools. However, the value of such spending so far ahead of the introduction of the in service training for teachers is doubtful. In larger schools the spending per pupil is so small as to have no impact. The Department did not earmark the money for any particular equipment. This has been left to the school to decide. Nor has the Department sought any information from schools on what has been acquired.

It is the view of the Committee that the Department's approach to the roll out of the new science curriculum at primary level is not being given sufficient priority and shows little evidence of good planning or execution. The Department needs to take a much more firm handle on what equipment is put in place so that it can be sure that a sufficient standard of equipment is available to all pupils. It needs to bring forward the training for teachers and roll out equipment to the schools simultaneously with the training. The proposal that training be a one off experience for teachers is not satisfactory. Ongoing training must be provided in science to primary teachers and a Resource Centre provided that will give teachers access to new ideas and new methods of teaching.

The Committee is disappointed to learn that the INTO has recently called for the further postponement of the introduction of science. The INTO wants to see its introduction dealt with in the pay benchmarking exercise so that teachers could negotiate extra pay for its introduction.

It is the view of the Committee that the use of I.C.T. should become an integral part of teaching science. This would provide an additional learning support for teachers, especially at primary level. Good quality interactive software can make the study of science appealing to all students, irrespective of their ability levels and degree of interest in science.

5.2 Second Level.

The total number of teachers timetabled to teach science at second level is 3,216. The Department does not have data on the primary degree of these teachers, but most are believed to be biologists. Serious concern was expressed to the committee that virtually no physics or chemistry graduates currently leaving our colleges are going into teaching. The NCCA conducted a survey of H.Dip Students in 1998/99 which showed 107 had science degrees representing about 10% of the total. Of these, 61 had a Biology degree, 30 a Chemistry degree and 16 a Physics degree.

Of the 759 second level schools, 64% offer all three of the major science subjects (physics, chemistry and biology). Biology is almost universally available. However, 184 (24%) schools do not offer physics and 228 (30%) schools do not offer chemistry. Table 10, shows that it is the Vocational Community and Comprehensive Schools which offer the poorest range of science options. Only just over 40% of them offer all three of the major subjects. The contrast is sharpest in Chemistry where only 45% of Vocational etc Schools offer the option compared to 90% of secondary voluntary schools. The Department pays a £10 per pupil annual payment to cover the cost of equipping science subjects. This grant has been far short of what is necessary to maintain adequate science facilities in our schools.

Table 10. Schools offering Science subjects

Source: Department of Education

The Committee has received anecdotal evidence that the standard of many science laboratories is quite poor and failing to meet basic safety guidelines.

A recent ASTI Survey concluded that up to 20% of second level schools are breaching the law by having no safety statement.

The average class size in the sciences is 24 students. By European standards, this is high. Large classes have a negative impact on students' opportunities for participation and interaction in all subject areas, but especially in those subjects which have a practical or experimental dimension. The absence of technical assistance restricts opportunities for practical and investigative work. There are also concerns about the health and safety aspects of doing practical work with large classes without technical assistance and student supervision.

Smaller class sizes would facilitate greater interaction between teachers and students and would create greater opportunities for students to engage in active learning and in developing their investigative skills rather than just listening to the teacher. School/industry links could include personnel from industry, including retired workers, assisting with practical work and student projects.

A fundamental element in improving the quality of teaching and improving health and safety in science laboratories is the reduction in class sizes in scientific subjects.

The Department does not have a proper database of laboratory facilities at second level. However, a questionnaire sent to schools by the Department revealed that -

-65% of schools had insufficient equipment for the physical science subjects

-Over 75% had no computer in the laboratory

-95% indicated that a computer was not used for experimental data acquisition/analysis.

The Department had refused to release the full information from this Survey to the Committee, but promised to publish a summary later this year. The Department has estimated that £13m over three years is needed to upgrade science facilities in second level schools and a first instalment of £2.5m was paid out in the year 2000 as part of this programme. This programme works out at just under £40 per pupil or £17,000 per school. This seems to have been a fairly rough and ready estimate.

It has been alleged to the Committee that this is a serious underestimate of the true cost of adequately equipping schools. The Department itself cites a figure of £30,000 - £35,000 as the figure it would provide to a school to equip one science laboratory. A typical school would need at least two labs to offer a diverse subject range. Against this background and the poor state of existing school labs, it would seem the Department has underestimated.

The Department is in discussions with the University of Limerick with a view to developing a detailed specification of what would be necessary for science labs in the schools in order to provide the necessary range of science programmes. It is intended that this study would have a ten-year horizon. This study should be fast tracked.

The Committee is not satisfied with the Department's approach to equipping schools for science subjects. It should urgently arrange that schools do an audit of facilities against the template being developed by the University of Limerick. In the context of a school science plan, the Department should make available to each school over a five-year period the resources necessary to reach a satisfactory standard. The present approach of providing the same resource (in 2000), £1,500 capital grant per school and £2,500 for a PC, for science labs to each and every school is a flawed approach. The investment should rather be clearly linked to identified gaps in equipment and in subject options that are particularly evident in some schools. It should also be linked to specific programmes prepared by schools as part of their science plan. This approach would help to make up the deficit in weak schools and encourage innovation within schools.

The high concentration of biology graduates among science teachers at second level schools undoubtedly contributes to the predominant preference of students for biology over physics and chemistry. The Department has recently responded by introducing an in service training programme for teachers of physics and of chemistry over a three-year period. The first year of this involved 2.5 days over the school year 1999/2000. In each case approximately 1,000 of the 1,400 teachers of the subject were targeted for this in service training. About 80% of those targeted attended for the in service programme. The technical support to this in service programme involves a coordinator plus six or seven teachers in each subject. The total cost of the training programme over 3 years is expected to be £3.8m. While this effort over a three-year period is undoubtedly welcome, one would have to doubt whether the level or intensity of a programme conducted over a couple of days per year spread over three years can achieve a significant step up in the quality of teaching in physics and chemistry. The Committee believes that a more intensive in service programme which would be conducted out of school time, and which could lead on a modular basis to recognition of a qualification giving premium income payments should be put in place. (see below)

SECTION 6

BENCHMARKING SCIENCE EDUCATION IN IRELAND

6.1 ICSTI Report.

The Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (ICSTI) carried out a benchmarking exercise on science, technology and mathematics education in Ireland in September 1999. Their study highlighted key features of the Irish system that set it apart from the four other countries studied (Scotland, Finland, Malaysia and New Zealand):

-Ireland has highly centralised system for the development of policy and of the curriculum and also a very elaborate consultative process which tends to slow down reform

-Science at primary level is very underdeveloped in Ireland compared to the others

-Technology subjects at post primary level have poor status in Ireland and poor take-up

-Teaching methods in science at post primary level are largely didactic with clearly defined experiments rather than investigative or problem solving

-There is less use of standardised testing in Ireland and no external moderation of school based assessments

-Ireland is unique in having no assessment of practical work in science, which leads to “an incongruence between the objectives of the science curriculum and the system of assessment”

-Ireland retains “a summative assessment” at Junior Certificate when assessment on this scale at this stage is abandoned in most countries

-There is no science in post graduate conversion courses to primary teaching

-There are no incentives in Ireland to science teaching in contrast to New Zealand and Malaysia

-Professional development for teachers of science in a lifelong context is not as advanced in Ireland as in other countries

-The infrastructure necessary for teaching practical elements of science courses lags behind those in Scotland, Finland and New Zealand.

This study has brought together many of the key weaknesses that have been identified in different reports of the Irish science education programmes. Key issues that the authors threw up for discussions were -

-How to balance the rapidly emerging education needs of a knowledge based society with the Irish system of curriculum and policy development with its high emphasis on social partnership and on individual student needs

-How to train and retain science teachers

-How to improve the teaching and assessment methods of science

6.2 Curriculum and Assessment

The Committee heard evidence of the painfully slow method of introducing curricular change in Ireland. For example at primary level the proposal to dramatically strengthen science in the curriculum was first introduced in 1990 with a review. A White Paper followed in 1995. The curriculum arrived in 1999. It is unlikely that the subject will be in place in all schools until 2002 at the earliest. Cycles of about 10 years have also been common in respect of changes at second level. The revised Leaving Cert syllabus in Physics and Chemistry took from 1991 until 2000/1 to be introduced and even then it still will have no element of practical assessment.

As science and technology is structured within a constantly changing environment, it is the view of the Committee that there is a need for the introduction of the concept of rolling curricular change in science so that the curriculum can keep up to date with change. It is imperative to ensure the relevance of science as a subject that is applied in its nature, and that such applications equate to everyday life. While consultation is important, a system must be developed where consultation cannot hold back necessary changes. The Committee was informed that there is a need for an overhaul of the subject committees in the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

The Committee also heard evidence that the separation of curriculum design from its implementation within schools and from the assessment system has both slowed down the pace of curricular reform and prevented a more radical approach to assessment methods. The Committee believes that there is a strong case for consolidating implementation and examination within the NCCA, taking it out of the Department of Education and Science.

The imbalance in choice of subjects also poses challenges to those who have designed the curriculum. Quite apart from the severity of marking, there is a widespread perception that the curricula in physics and chemistry are particularly difficult. Curriculum overload is creating pressure on teachers to get through “the stuff”, rather than giving time for understanding and exploration that is the essence of science. “Less is more”, would be a useful motto for the designers of the curriculum, or to quote findings of a colloquium of Physics in Europe hosted by the Department: “It is possible that lowering the standards of the intended curriculum may lead to increasing standards in the attained curriculum”.

The Committee is disturbed that 40% of ordinary level Junior Certificate science students and 20% of Higher-level Junior Certificate science students do not take up any science option at Leaving Certificate. The NCCA is currently consulting on the possibility of introducing a General Science subject at Leaving Certificate that would be more broadly based and more attractive to students. An alternative is to consolidate all the existing science options at Leaving Certificate Level down to just two subject options. A quick choice on the preferred approach is necessary. The Committee favour a General Science Subject with specialist add-on modules that would attract additional points. No reform of the curriculum will make the subject more attractive unless changes are made so that points are more easily achieved in these science subjects.

The absence of any assessment of practical work has undoubtedly distorted teaching and learning in science. It traps both teachers and pupils alike. It puts a heavy emphasis on knowledge of facts. It kills the excitement of science. The lack of appropriate assessment is one of the major obstacles to making students' experiences of science attractive, stimulating and rewarding. Assessment in science and technology at both junior and senior cycle levels should reflect the aims and objectives of the syllabi and the experiences of the students. The investigative and practical work done by students, as well as their knowledge and understanding, should be assessed. In a Discussion Paper the Department has suggested that the Junior Certificate should substantially shift away from the heavy emphasis on terminal examinations. This discussion paper is welcome but Committee feels that there has been little follow up. The Junior Certificate Science Syllabus is currently under review. One change will be to enhance physics and chemistry which has been very under represented by comparison with biology. It is also to become more practical and investigative. This change will be still-born if it is not accompanied by a change to more practical assessment methods. There appears to be widespread agreement among all the education partners on the need for practical assessment. However, there is a reticence about grasping this issue and making the changes necessary for it to happen. It may now become bogged down as a pawn in a wider industrial relations struggle.

It is now proposed the new Senior Cycle Curricula will go ahead for the first two years at least with no practical assessment. The Department of Education and Science justifies this position on the grounds that until sufficient in service training and sufficient upgrading of laboratory facilities are in place, it would be premature to introduce practical assessment into the examination system. The Committee takes the opposite view. It is only the challenges of early practical examination, which will act as the driving force for the necessary investment in labs, and meaningful adaptation of new teaching methods. You cannot bring in new methods in the face of the pressure of an unreformed assessment system. It therefore recommends that practical examination should be immediately initiated.

Under the direction of a Steering Committee the Department piloted a system of a 15-minute interview as the means for practical examination. However, rejecting the advice of the Steering Committee, the Department has not mainstreamed this experiment. The Department cited reasons of insufficient differentiation between candidates, in applicability across the range and level of science subjects and disruption in terms of class contact time for not introducing the model. The Committee is very disappointed that the Department has dissipated the momentum in this area. The Steering Group's model for practical assessment should be immediately introduced for 15% of marks. Over the next three years as laboratory investment and teacher training unfolds, a refined system should be developed which would attract 40% of marks thereafter.

The logic of science is that there would be more in class teacher assessment of understanding of projects and of practicals that would count towards certification. It should be subject to some form of external invigilation. This raises difficult issue for the teacher unions. However, the Committee believes that with some effort on all sides real progress can be made. The Department should commission an immediate research study on options for continuous assessment in science. Science should be the pilot subject area for tackling this sensitive area, as it is quite evident to the Committee that science teachers are far ahead of their colleagues in preparedness for this approach.

6.3 Improved teaching.

There needs to be a radical shift in the emphasis in science teaching towards problem solving and practical work.

The Committee believes that far greater investment in professional development of science teachers is necessary. A far more substantial programme of in service training for the teaching of physics and chemistry must be introduced and terms negotiated so that this can take place outside of the school year. However, it should not be confined to these subjects. Teachers should be able to improve their income levels by building up in service training on a modular basis to achieve a Masters qualification or some alternative form of qualification that would be given financial recognition. The structure of such a system must be urgently developed and negotiated with the Science Teacher Association. It would help make the career more attractive, and ensure that teachers are conscious of the ever-changing scientific thinking on a subject.

The Committee believes that young graduates should be encouraged into teaching by establishing research fellowships that science teachers could combine with their teaching. Such fellowships could be stand alone under the control of an external supervisor, or linked to research projects in Third Level Institutions.

The areas of science and technology are experiencing constant growth and change. Teachers of science and technology subjects should be facilitated in undertaking regular professional development that will enable them to keep abreast of such constantly evolving developments. An audit of the professional needs of teachers of science and technology should be undertaken as a matter of urgency, so that adequate provision can be made before and concurrently with, the implementation of new and revised syllabi. Science and technology teachers should be given ongoing training to enable them to adopt modern practical methods in the teaching of these subjects.

The Committee believes that a Science Education Technical Support Centre should be established. Its aim would be to deliver more effective in service training and to assist schools and teachers in developing resource materials, developing of teaching methods and introducing worthwhile extra curricular activities in science. It should have a regional network. The Board of this Centre should have representation from industry, the teaching profession, third level institutions, the NCCA and Scoilnet. It should have an annual budget of £5m that is equivalent to 5% of the pay bill of science teachers at Second Level. No business in an equivalent field would spend less on staff development. The Pharmaceutical, Electronics and Engineering Industries in Ireland already spend over 3% of payroll on training (IBEC Report).

School and teacher representatives presented evidence on the shortcomings of the very rigid system of appointment of teachers based on pupil numbers and fixed ratios. It has no regard to the subject needs of the school. This is hampering timetabling and creating a vicious circle where declining numbers of science pupils undermines the teaching resource and further narrows the options that can be offered. The Committee believes that the Department should encourage the clustering of schools for the purpose of science teaching. It should commit to funding a ring-fenced corps of teachers to deliver science across the cluster. It should also make additional resources for equipment and materials available to schools who cluster and share facilities in order to expand subject choice. A block grant made available to such cluster would encourage local initiative and innovation in meeting the obvious gaps that are hampering the timetabling of science and support the teaching of science. Priority should be given to schools that are not offering a full range of subjects in implementing this proposal.

The Committee believes that the Department should undertake a National Survey of science teachers, to complement surveys of science facilities so that a proper information base is available.

6.4 Profile and Attitude to Science.

The Committee believes that an understanding of the importance of scientific method is essential to any rounded education. It should be a key element in everyone's education. Apart from curricular reform to make science more accessible, the Committee believes that there is need for a much greater effort to change attitudes towards science.

Science is perceived as difficult and inaccessible. This was vividly illustrated by the Conference of Heads of Universities that informed the Committee that teachers and students alike believe that the points requirement for entry to science is much higher than it actually is.

The Committee supports the idea of the establishment of a Science Centre in Ireland along the lines developed by ICSTI. It would be a visitor centre where the public could see science in action and get a greater understanding of its central role in human development.

The private and public sectors must increase their efforts to promote awareness of, and interest in, science and technology through interactions with schools. In some subject/programme areas, school-industry links are already well-established and serve to provide students with work experience, vocational orientation and enterprise education. In the science subjects, there is not a strong tradition of such links. The development of such links could serve to improve students’ knowledge of the applications of science, promote a more positive image of science as a subject which is “alive” or interesting, break down gender stereotypes, typically among girls, and raise student motivation.

The Committee believes that a national initiative to promote industry/school partnerships for the promotion of science should be put in place. This should involve businesses acting as mentors to teachers and to schools. A central effort should be built around the transition year, when work experience and other science inspired modules could be developed. Tax relief including VAT rebates should be available to industry that endows laboratory equipment. The Committee recommends that consideration should be given to the introduction of a science and technology levy on industry which would be invested back into the education system to train the workforce of tomorrow. A scheme to attract back into teaching those who have science degrees and have followed careers in industry should be developed. This would be attractive to those who have spent many years in industry and would like a change.

The career guidance function in schools needs to be strengthened. It is currently confined to senior cycle students. This is often too late to influence subject choices. Most career guidance teachers are part time at the task. They have limited experience of industry, and many have little knowledge of science and its opportunities. This position needs to be more adequately resourced and supported by the Department with the support of industry.

Apart from the career guidance teacher, there is need to promote the availability of up to date information directly to students and to science teachers. This should be achieved through career libraries containing books and CD-ROMs covering career choice. Science teachers should be specifically targeted with relevant information about career options. The Science Teaching Technical Support Centre could coordinate this effort for science.

SECTION 7

RESOURCES AT THIRD LEVEL

7.1 Science and Technology Budget.

Forfás tracks the overall state investment in Science and Technology. As Table 11 shows it has grown dramatically in real terms in the nineties, more than doubling during the decade. The biggest element is Education and Training in the S & T sphere. Its share of the total S & T spend has grown from 42% in 1990 to 49% now. Research and Development also has enjoyed a rising share and currently stands at 25%. The growing spend in education reflects the substantial rise in students of science and technology outlined earlier. The Committee was surprised to discover that neither the Department nor the HEA tracks corresponding trends in staffing or in student staff ratios by faculty. This constrains evaluations of the effectiveness of faculties. The Committee received complaints that staffing ratios have fallen sharply and needed to be strengthened.

While State spending in Research and Development in science and technology has grown rapidly, the Forfás study shows that the Government funding of Civil Research and Development at 0.29% GDP in Ireland places us bottom of the list of nine comparator countries (New Zealand, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Greece) for whom the average state spend on R & D was 0.72% GDP – two and a half times greater.

Table 11 State Spending on Science and Technology 1990-99 (at constant 1999 prices)

Source: State Expenditure on Science and Technology 1999 (Forfás)

Just over 40% of the State's spend on R & D in 1999 went to Third Level institutions. It was worth £96m. Of this £32m is a notional amount derived from the block grant to institutions on the assumption that 25% of an academic’s time is devoted to research. Data on contract research is only available for the universities. In 1999, they generated almost £50m from contract research from non-government sources. Half of this was from the EU and only a little over £10m from industry. The National Competitiveness Council shows that Ireland ranks poorly at 23^rd of 28 in the OECD league of spending on research in higher education and government institutions with only Mexico. Relative to national income the Irish spend is only 64% of that of the EU members and a correspondingly lower number of researchers employed in this work.

The picture is somewhat better for business spending on R & D. Here Ireland spends 1.13% GDP, 10^th of 26 in the OECD. We are only marginally below the EU average. However, against a background of our high tech industrial base and our ambition to be a leader in the knowledge based economy it must be counted as disappointing. In relative terms, Finland and Sweden spend 50% and 136% respectively more than Ireland. The structure of Irish industry has hampered investment in R & D. Most Irish-owned business is relatively small and many have had a tradition of low spend in R & D in Ireland, which is only recently changing. Foreign owned industry still tends to locate little of its R & D in Ireland. Only 13 of our top 50 exporters spend anything on R & D. Remarkably little of the overall business spend on R & D (£900m) is channelled through the higher educational institutions, only about £15m. The IDA has made it one of its top priorities to change this. This has been reflected in a great deal more emphasis on R & D in Government planning in the past decade.

While many third level institutions have industrial liaison officers and offices responsible for promoting collaboration with industry, with extensive links being developed by each institution, there still remain departments within the third level sector which have been slow to work with the industrial and commercial sector.

The Committee believes that it is fundamentally important that greater co-operation takes place between industry and the third level sector and that this must be a key priority in assessing the allocation of applied research funding.

7.2 National Development Plan 2000-6.

Government increased its spend on R & D in the nineties by 140% in an effort to tackle the obvious Irish weakness. The National Development Plan 2000-6 sets out the level and indicative distribution spending on Research, Technological Development and Innovation over the next seven years. It is set out in Table 11. The total Government investment will be £1.9 billion, which it is hoped will leverage a further £700m in industrial spending and £300 m in EU funding, bringing the total to £2.9 billion.

While the headline figure of £1.9 billion is impressive it must be said that just replicating existing (1999) government spending on R & D quoted in the Forfás reports for the next seven years would cost £1.6m.

The Plan does not provide any information on the baseline 1999 figures which would facilitate comparison or assessment of the implied growth. Approaches to the various Departments have produced the estimated baseline figures in Table 12. They suggest very substantiated acceleration in the rate of growth. However, the Committee does not have full confidence in these figures.

Table 12 Spending Proposed – National Development Plan 2000-6 for Research, Technological Development and Innovation

Source: National Development Plan 2000-2006

H Key are accurate, they suggest that we shall start to close the gap on competitor countries. However, they also imply a massive growth in the deployment of research personnel at a time when supply of such people in Ireland is falling. The Committee believes that a thorough assessment of the capability to deliver these research plans is long overdue.

The Committee also learned during discussions that the Department of Finance continues to charge VAT on research funding including EU Research Funding. In other countries including the UK, there is no VAT on research. The Committee also understands that the EU is currently taking the Department of Finance to task on this issue. The Committee recommends, as in other EU countries, that research and research budgets should be exempt from VAT.

State funding of research in higher education is under four categories:-

-Basic funding of educational spending with which there is an expectation of general research being undertaken (£68 m of which £32 m is in S & T)

-Individual Fellowships or Bursaries funded by Enterprise Ireland, the HEA, the Council for Humanities and Social Sciences (£11.9 m in 1999)

-.Institutional Capacity Building – under which the HEA is currently funding 11 institutions to undertake a strategic and planned approach to the long term development of their research capabilities (involves a spend of £227.5m 1999-2003)

-Mission Oriented Research under the Technology Foresight Fund – mainly in Biotechnology and Information and Communication Technologies (£560 m 2000-6)

The Committee believes that this framework is a good foundation for driving Ireland towards a more competitive position in this strategic area, but a lot of work remains to be done under each heading.

7.3 Managing Research Budgets

The Committee heard evidence that Ireland is substantially out of line with competitor countries in respect of the financial support to post graduate and postdoctoral students engaged in research. In Ireland the average allowance to post graduate research projects is £8000 in Universities, £4,200 - £7,000 in Institutes of Technology. Enterprise Ireland also funds post-graduate studentships at just £2,000, and post doctoral fellowships at £20,000 per year. Neither the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment, nor that of Education and Science has attempted to assess the position in competitor countries. The Committee recommends that such a benchmarking exercise be urgently undertaken. This is urgent given the projected need for 280 extra post-graduate researchers and 150 post doctoral researchers needed in the next few years.

The Committee believes that it is essential that a competitive level of both financial and back-up support be made available to postgraduate students. The Committee also recognises that special terms will have to be introduced to attract researchers with particular skills from overseas to complement the available Irish resource.

The Committee is concerned that the needed rapid expansion in research activity at third level should not undermine commitment to teaching. One of the main returns to the taxpayer of research spending is the capacity it gives for introducing students to active research. It teaches students how to participate effectively. Many of those undertaking teaching at our third level institutions have poor grounding in communication or teaching methods. The Committee believes that a proper balance must be maintained between teaching and research activities. It believes that third level institutions must undertake explicit programmes in communication and teaching methods and that the failure to deliver quality teaching should count in the criteria applied by the various authorities when allocating research budgets.

The Committee has heard arguments as to whether the expanded research budgets should exclusively go to existing higher education institutions or whether there should be new research foundations. The Committee accepts that the key priority from the taxpayers point of view is that there be competitive tendering using criteria that measure up to international best practice, rigorous expert evaluation and a willingness to sever funds where work is unsatisfactory. The Committee believes that the system of evaluation must be substantially strengthened to match the sustained higher levels of investment by the taxpayer in research that is proposed. Evaluation of past performance must be seen to demonstrably influence the future allocation of research monies. The Committee sees a place for new Foundations, but recognises that without close scrutiny such Foundations have a greater capacity to fossilise than traditional higher education institutions.

The Committee is encouraged by the move to have tendering for allocations for the Technology Foresight Fund and rigorous evaluation of research spending undertaken by a sub board of Forfás. An Implementation Group is advising on how this can best be structured and delivered. The HEA has already demonstrated the value of this sort of competitive model for allocating funds. The Committee recommends that the evaluation of publicly funded research should involve public hearings and published assessments.

The Committee welcomes the continuing expansion of research spending in higher education. It supports the Technology Foresight approach of identifying the key areas of ICT and biotechnology where Ireland should seek to develop Centres of Excellence stretching from basic research through to applied research. It is essential that this research establish an intimate connection with active education of students. This practical experience for students is a guaranteed return on the investment. However, it is equally important that industry takes a partnership role in some of this research. It is not enough that such Centres of Excellence are impressive visitor centres for overseas companies considering Ireland as a location for R & D spend.

In the past the IDA would have happily given a capital grant of 1.5 times the wage bill to a company establishing a research capacity in Ireland. While our ability to offer such grants is now being constrained by EU state aid rules, we should vigorously develop public – private partnerships in this field that would be attractive to industry. A target of industry funding 25% of research in third level institutions should be set for 2006. This would represent a spend of about £50m.

The Committee would like to see vigorous independent scrutiny of our Research Programmes whether funded by the HEA or Forfás under the direction of a Board comprising experienced industrialists, experienced parliamentarians from the Committees on Enterprise, Education and from the Public Accounts Committee, senior public servants and academics. Subject to this being put in place, the Government should plan for even higher investment in RTDI than in the National Plan.

SECTION 8

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY

While science and technology is playing an ever-increasing role in our lives, be it at home, work or in our leisure activities, there still remains a poor public awareness of science and its opportunities. There is also an innate fear within the public mind to new technology, which is best highlighted by the current debate on Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering.

The increasing awareness of the importance and relevance of science and technology will also increase our technological literacy and will break down the mystery surrounding the subject. The perception of science and education in the public mind is best highlighted by a recent survey by the Science, Technology & Innovation Awareness Programme (STI).

This survey of 1,200 adults was carried out by an independent research company. Respondents to the survey were asked to state their knowledge of the levels of points necessary to undertake certain kinds of courses in a third level institution. The evidence suggests that the majority holds the view that there is a requirement to achieve a high number of points in order to study and computer studies. This pattern remains true among younger respondents and also among those who have completed or who intend to take third level education themselves. (see table 13)

Table 13 public opinions on the estimate of the level of points required to undertake specific college courses

source: STI

However, the fact is that points for entry into many such courses are lower than those for arts in nearly all of the major third level institutions in Ireland. These results show a considerable misunderstanding on the part of the public about the entry requirements for many science and science-related courses. Because of the lack of strong role models in the whole area of science, there is a need to communicate a link with scientific development and career opportunities and the general public.

The media has an important role to play in increasing national awareness, and awards such as the IBM/STI National Science and Technology Journalism Awards are key to the recognition of scientific journalism. For such media awareness to improve it is fundamental that the scientific community embraces the need to communicate through the general media. Business, industry and third-level institutions have a major role to play in highlighting the importance of a science and technology education for sustainable economic development, and the opportunities that such an education gives rise to for students on completion of their Leaving Certificate.

The scientific community has been very slow to enter public debate on scientific issues such as genetic engineering, and continues to focus on pure scientific publication. While acknowledging the role which STI has played in developing and promoting Science Week, much more is required to promote the subject.

The Committee recommends that the industrial liaison officers should act as a conduit between the scientific community and the media, to encourage research scientists to write articles for submission to the media in such a way that will capture the excitement of new discoveries. This, in turn would help the public both to understand and foster and interest in the fundamentals of scientific advancement. The Committee also feels that to promote the science and technology subjects, a coordinated campaign should be undertaken, spearheaded by the Department of Education and Science and the NCCA. The intended audiences should include junior cycle and transition year students, parents, science and technology teachers and undergraduates, principals, guidance counsellors, third-level admissions officers and industry.

The Committee believes that science and technology is of fundamental importance to the long-term development of the country, and that Ireland should be at the cutting edge of development. The Committee recommends that Government should establish a specific Oireachtas Committee to deal with all aspects of science and technology, ranging from Bioethics to E-Commerce. This would increase the public profile of science and the scientific community.

Over the coming years, science and technology will play a much greater role in attracting new industry to Ireland and ensuring existing industry continues to be competitive. The Committee believes that the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment must take a more pro-active approach with employers to establish incentives to both companies and employees to allow up-skilling of the workforce.

This must also include new measures to release employees from full time employment so as to follow up-skilling courses. Third level institutes should be strongly encouraged to facilitate distance learning and the establishment of new campuses such as NUI Galway in Ennis and GMIT in Castlebar.

Such distance learning courses must concentrate on providing workplace education and training to employees.

SECTION 9

CONCLUSION

The Committee believes that there is need for a major National Initiative on Science in Education. It favours a big push to cover all the major areas of weakness. This would include initiatives to encourage more scientists into teaching whether new graduates or persons with experience who could turn their hand to teaching. It would also involve a major upgrading science facilities. It would also aim to change the curriculum and assessment methods within a tight timetable.

A tight group of people selected for their personal commitment from inside and outside the Education system should be put in place to drive this forward. It should include the Secretary General of both the Departments of Education and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment among its members. It should have a lifetime of just three years from its inception. It would act as an implementation group to see that the initiatives in different areas are put in place.

Michael P. Kitt, T.D.

Chairman,

Joint Committee on Education and Science.

10 October, 2000.

Appendix 1 List of Members of the Joint Committee on Education and Science

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

List of Members

Appendix II Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee on Education and Science

Joint Committee on Education and Science

ORDERS OF REFERENCE

Dáil Éireann

13th November, 1997, (** 28th April, 1998),

Ordered:

(1) (a)That a Select Committee, which shall be called the Select Committee on Education and Science, consisting of 14 members of Dáil Éireann (of whom 4 shall constitute a quorum), be appointed to consider such—

(i)Bills the statute law in respect of which is dealt with by the Department of Education and Science, and

(ii)Estimates for Public Services within the aegis of that Department,

as shall be referred to it by Dáil Éireann from time to time.

(b)For the purpose of its consideration of Bills under paragraph (1)(a)(i), the Select Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 78A(1), (2) and (3).

(c)For the avoidance of doubt, by virtue of his or her ex officio membership of the Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order 84(1), the Minister for Education and Science (or a Minister or Minister of State nominated in his or her stead) shall be entitled to vote.

(2) (a)The Select Committee shall be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Education and Science to consider—

(i)such public affairs administered by the Department of Education and Science as it may select, including bodies under the aegis of that Department in respect of Government policy,

(ii)such matters of policy for which the Minister in charge of that Department is officially responsible as it may select,

(iii)the strategy statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister in charge of that Department pursuant to section 5(2) of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, and shall be authorised for the purposes of section 10 of that Act,

** (iv)such Annual Reports or Annual Reports and Accounts, required by law and laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of bodies under the aegis of the Department(s) specified in paragraph 2(a)(i), and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of these bodies, as it may select.

Provided that the Joint Committee shall not, at any time, consider any matter relating to such a body which is, which has been, or which is, at that time, proposed to be considered by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to the Orders of Reference of that Committee and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993.

Provided further that the Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session, or publishing confidential information regarding, any such matter if so requested either by the body or by the Minister in charge of that Department; and

(v)such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas,

and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(b)The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be 5, of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and 1 a member of Seanad Éireann.

(c)The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 78A(1) to (9) inclusive.

(3)The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dáil Éireann, shall also be Chairman of the Select Committee.

Seanad Éireann

19th November, 1997, (** 30th April, 1998),

Ordered:

(1) (a)That a Select Committee consisting of 5 members of Seanad Éireann shall be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee of Dáil Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Education and Science to consider—

(i)such public affairs administered by the Department of Education and science as it may select, including bodies under the aegis of that Department in respect of Government policy,

(ii)such matters of policy for which the Minister in charge of that Department is officially responsible as it may select,

(iii)the strategy statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister in charge of that Department pursuant to section 5(2) of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, and shall be authorised for the purposes of section 10 of that Act,

** (iv)such Annual Reports or Annual Reports and Accounts, required by law and laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of bodies under the aegis of the Department(s) specified in paragraph 1(a)(i), and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of these bodies, as it may select.

Provided that the Joint Committee shall not, at any time, consider any matter relating to such a body which is, which has been, or which is, at that time, proposed to be considered by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to the Orders of Reference of that Committee and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993.

Provided further that the Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session, or publishing confidential information regarding, any such matter if so requested either by the body or by the Minister in charge of that Department; and

(v)such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas,

and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(b)The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be 5, of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and 1 a member of Seanad Éireann.

(c)The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 62A(1) to (9) inclusive.

(2)The Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be a member of Dáil Éireann.

Appendix III Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements:

The Joint Committee on Education and Science gratefully acknowledges contributions made by the following Organisations:

The Joint Committee heard presentations from:

Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology

Dr. Seán McDonagh, Dundalk Institute of Technology,

Dr. Pat Timpson, Sligo Institute of Technology,

Dr. Brendan Goggin, Cork Institute of Technology,

Dr. Tim Creedon, Tallaght Institute of Technology,

Mr. Joe McGarry, Council of Directors of the Institutes of Technology

Conference of Heads of Irish Universities

Dr. Patrick Fottrell, NUI Galway

Professor Albert Pratt, DCU

Professor David McConnell, TCD

Professor Frank Hegarty, UCD

Professor Paul Brint, UCC

Mr. Michael McGrath, Conference of Heads of Irish Universities.

Forfás

Mr. Colm Regan

Dr. Noel Gillatt

Dr. Jacqueline Allan

ASTI (Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland)

Mr. Charlie Lennon

Ms. Moira Leydon

INTO(Irish National Teachers Organisation)

Ms. Maria McCarthy

Mr. Donal O'Loinsigh

TUI (Teachers Union of Ireland)

Mr. Billy Fitzpatrick

Mr. Tom Fennell

IVEA(Irish Vocational Education Association)

Mr. John Blunny

NAPD(The National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals)

Ms. Mary McGlynn

Mr. Seán Ashe

Representatives of the following associations met with the rapporteurs, Deputy Richard Bruton and Deputy Denis Naughten.

Irish Research Scientists Association.

Dr. Shane O’Meara

Irish Science Teachers Association

Mr. Seamus McManus

Department of Education and Science

Mr. Carl O’Dálaigh

Mr. Christopher McCamley

IBEC

Mr. Neil McGuinness

Small Firms Association

Mr. Kieran Crowley

ICTU

Mr. Oliver Donohoe

Enterprise Ireland

Mr. Martin Lyes

IDA

Mr. Peter Lillis

FAS

Ms. Patricia Curtin

Higher Education Authority

Dr. Don Thornhill

Mr. Sean O’Foghlú

IFUT(Irish Federation of University Teachers)

Mr. Daltún Ó Ceallaigh

ICSTI(Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation)

Dr. Edward M. Walsh

Faculty of Science Trinity College

Professor Jane Grimson

Faculty of Science UCD

Professor Donald Fitzmaurice

National Centre for Technology in Education DCU

Mr. Jerome Morrissey

* Sean Fleming appointed in substitution for Mary Hanafin on 11/04/00

* Róisín Shortall appointed in substitution for Michael D. Higgins on 7/6/00

* Simon Coveney appointed in substitution for Brian Hayes on 29/06/2000

* Enda Kenny appointed in substitution for Richard Bruton on 29/06/2000