‘Rowdy Pupil’ Threat to Science

Badly-behaved pupils are forcing many schools to abandon practical science lessons because of the risk of accidents, a survey has shown.

A leading chemist yesterday said the problem was so serious it was damaging children’s science education.

Avoiding practicals was also undermining efforts to get more youngsters interested in science, said Dr Simon Campbell, president- elect of the Royal Society of Chemistry.

The survey conducted by Save British Science showed that practical science lessons had been cancelled at more than three quarters of 67 secondary schools across England alone.

In 57% of cases, the reason given for abandoning classes involving the use of Bunsen burners and dangerous chemicals was rowdy behaviour by pupils.

Poor discipline in class was seen as a bigger problem than lack of equipment, large class sizes, and shortage of laboratory space.

A separate survey by the Royal Society of Chemistry has found that 65% of school labs in Britain are less than ‘good or excellent’.

Dr Campbell said, ‘Fewer kids are having practical classes, largely because of poor discipline. Teachers are worried about pupils misbehaving.

‘If there is a lack of discipline in the lab, it makes teachers feel very vulnerable. They’re going to get the blame if something happens, and they’re afraid of litigation. You don’t have the same safety issues with a classroom-based subject, like French for example.’

Save British Science, which campaigns for more support for science, questioned Heads of Science at a range of schools earlier this year.

Dr Peter Cotgreave, director of Save British Science, said, ‘We were astonished that the main reason for canceling practical classes was behavioural problems.

‘To be honest we expected complaints about equipment and lack of staff. But the single biggest thing we encountered was that naughty kids couldn’t be trusted with gas taps and acid.

‘Often it was an unruly minority who were to blame, which is unfair on the others.’

He said secondary school children aged 11 to 16 would normally be expected to take part in science experiments.

In some cases, where a teacher would previously have demonstrated a potentially dangerous experiment in front of the class, schools were now making do with videos.

A good example was the explosive reaction that occurs when a piece of sodium is placed in water, said Dr Cotgreave.

‘I think if you’re going to do an experiment at all you should do it live,’ he said. ‘What is the point of seeing something burst into flames on a video? For children its an incredible experience to see this tiny bit of metal explode in front of them, it’s so unexpected.

‘To my mind doing away with practicals is deeply damaging. Not everyone’s going to want to be a chemist, but even if you don’t pursue a career in science, in a modern democracy we have to make decisions about things like GMOs [genetically modified organisms], BSE or nuclear power. How can you do that if you don’t understand what an experiment is, and what a control group is, and how it all works?’