Oral evidence: Legacy—Parliament 2010–15, HC 758Wednesday 3 December 2014

Oral evidence, 3 December 2014.

Witness

Mr Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for School Reform, Department for Education, gave evidence.

Chair

Minister, good morning and welcome. We are thin on the ground because all sorts of other things are happening in the House today, as you are aware. In fact, you were almost whizzed off to another Committee; I think your officials were trying to put you into the Education Committee as well. There is a lot happening in the House, and I apologise that we are a little thin on the ground. First, can you explain to us how the Government’s policy of “exhortation and facilitation” has worked out in relation to science education?

Mr Gibb

If you look at the take-up of A-levels, for example in the sciences, in biology they have gone up from 52,000 in 2010 to 55,000; in chemistry from 40,000 to 47,000; and in physics from nearly 28,000 to 31,000 between 2010 and 2014. We are certainly seeing a higher uptake in A-levels of these key sciences. The Your Life campaign, which is designed to encourage young people to continue taking science at A-level, was recently launched. I think that is going to be very successful, so the exhortation is working. The other statistic is that maths is now the most popular A-level choice for sixth formers. There is a key role for Ministers to play in sending a message from the centre that sciences are very valuable. One of the key messages we have tried to repeat time and again is that those who have advanced level in maths will, on average, earn 10% more than similarly able people who do not have that particular qualification. We continue to press the message, and I think it is having some effect.

Chair

We are on board with the message, and we want to explore some of the details as this session develops. Have you any evidence that that drive—exhortation and facilitation—has increased the number of field trips, or improved the provision of practical science education in schools?

Mr Gibb

In revising GCSEs, as well as making them more rigorous academically and bringing more mathematics into the GCSE sciences, we have a clear expectation. For example, I have in front of me the combined science GCSE subject content. It has things such as “apply a knowledge of a range of techniques, instruments, separators and materials”, and “carry out experiments appropriately, having due regard to the correct manipulation of an apparatus”. If you look at the changes to the A-level, there is now a requirement, which there wasn’t before, of 12 practical activities that you need to carry out as an A-level student: things like “use qualitative reagents to identify biological modules” in biology; in chemistry, “filtration use, including use of fluted filter paper, or filtration under reduced pressure; titration using a burette and a pipette”; and there are similar requirements in physics. Over those three A-levels there are 36 requirements for practical activities, whereas under the previous A-levels you could get away with undertaking just two particular practical experiments.

Chair

As part of that, it is obviously important that we improve the scientific knowledge and skills of teachers. Can you point us to any evidence of success within teaching schools?

Mr Gibb

The teaching schools are a recent innovation, but what we have sought to do is fill the gap in specialist graduates coming into teaching with those degrees. It has always been very difficult, over many years, to fill all the target number of graduates coming into teacher training, but we have been successful in raising the degree level. There is a higher proportion of 2.1s and first-class degrees coming into teacher training now, and we have given very generous bursaries—£25,000 for firsts in those key subjects, £20,000 for 2.1s and so on—to encourage more high-quality graduates in those shortage subjects to come into teaching.

Stephen Metcalfe

I want to touch on the practical exams in science. We heard evidence earlier this year from a large number of people, and although they recognised the improvements that had been made in the way A-level science was examined, and that the 12 activities were now mandated, there was some concern. Can you give us an update on how the exams are going and on Ofqual’s examination guidance for practical science, and when you will judge whether this has been a success or a failure?

Mr Gibb

That is a good question. This is a matter for Ofqual, as you indicate in your question. They were concerned about the previous way practicals were assessed. They felt they did not discriminate properly; that there was a clustering of gradings towards the top end; that students were over-prepared for those assessments; that they narrowed the range of practical work being performed during the two-year course; and there was not a correlation between the grades awarded for practicals and the grades similar students achieved in their written exams. They felt that it was not a reliable process. We gave Ofqual clear independence—we strengthened their independence and their objectives—so we have no power to intervene to change their judgments.

Chair

Of course you have power to intervene; you are a Minister. You appointed Ofqual, so you can do other things as well.

Mr Gibb

Yes, but we gave them very clear independence because they are a regulatory body. We want them to have that independence. We are talking about assessment, not subject content, and it is important that we do not interfere in how they judge, using all their expertise, that subjects should be examined and assessed. They had a concern. We have a policy imperative, which is the same as this Committee’s, that we want students to be equipped and skilled to perform experiments. We are sensitive to the concerns of the universities that too many undergraduates are starting university ill equipped to conduct scientific experiments—ill equipped with bench skills—so we want to ensure that they have those skills. In answer to your question, the way Ofqual decided to assess those skills at A‑level is for a pass/fail grade to be recorded on the certificate, based on teacher assessment of those students over two years of those 12 practical activities, and to have a written element in the A-level exam questioning how they would conduct experiments, but no actual practical assessment as such.

Stephen Metcalfe

I think we all recognise the fact that there was going to be a mandated element to this, which was welcome, but there was a lot of concern about the way it was going to be graded and examined. Ofqual said that no alternatives were proposed, but we heard quite a lot of evidence that alternatives were proposed. I hope you have seen our video letter to you with various other suggestions. Don’t you think we should be listening not just to Ofqual but to the wider scientific community as well when it comes to how we assess practical science skills?

Mr Gibb

I do. I have very frequent discussions with Glenys Stacey and her advisers and I have challenged her very strongly on this issue, because the policy imperative from the content point of view, which we are responsible for, is to have children leaving sixth form equipped to undertake undergraduate science degree study. But there were difficulties with all the alternatives put to Ofqual. For example, I discussed anecdotally with someone how it was assessed in the past. You could bring in 30 dead frogs to be dissected, and measurements had to be recorded. Why can’t you do that? There are all kinds of practical reasons why that cannot be done. Once it becomes clear that 30 frogs have been sent to every school in the country, it is clear what is going to be assessed, and there is a danger that the surprise element of the exam—the unpredictable element—is lost. There are real practical difficulties with that approach. At every stage, we have challenged Ofqual, but at every stage they have given very clear guidance that their judgment, based on their evidence, is that the solution they have come up with is the best approach, and I think it probably is the best approach. One of the changes we made to the key stage two assessments in reading and writing was that the writing element for young people would be assessed by teacher assessment over year six. I think the quality of writing has risen as a consequence. There is a case that having 12 practical skills that young people need to learn in the sixth form per scientific subject will result in young people leaving school with better skills than they would have had if we had retained the assessed practical skills in the previous A‑levels.

Stephen Metcalfe

As you are fully aware, the scientific community outside Ofqual does not agree with that. I understand that reforms are now being proposed for GCSE science practicals. Do you think they are along the same lines? Can you explain the process that you will go through to decide whether or not to do it in the same way as has been done with A‑levels?

Mr Gibb

Ofqual consulted on this last year and they are now considering the responses to those consultations, and also their own position as a result of the research and evidence on the A‑level. We are waiting to hear from Ofqual what they have decided for the GCSE, so that question is still open. We await their advice.

Stephen Metcalfe

But if the changes go ahead as proposed, will an A* fail be better than a B pass?

Mr Gibb

I hope that all young people will pass their practicals if that is the approach taken, whether it is at GCSE or at A‑level.

Stephen Metcalfe

That is not the approach adopted in most other examinations; there is always a degree that has to fail to make the pass valid.

Mr Gibb

Not necessarily. The aim in the driving test is for everybody to pass, albeit that some fail—rightly so, for the safety of our roads. I am hoping that young people will be properly taught how to conduct those practical experiments. Of course, there will be some who do not pass. Schools tell me that practical experiments are a motivating factor in encouraging students to knuckle down on the written element, the academic side of scientific study. I do not think we will see schools skimping on the time devoted to the practical elements at either A‑level or GCSE.

Stephen Metcalfe

From a ministerial perspective, recognising Ofqual’s independence and despite all the objections from all the other organisations, groups and individuals, you are not minded to ask Ofqual to have another look at this; you are supporting them.

Mr Gibb

That is a different issue. We continually challenge Ofqual on a range of issues, but I am always very careful not to step beyond the red line on the ground where we begin to undermine Ofsted’s credibility and independence.

Chair

Ofqual.

Mr Gibb

What did I say? Ofqual and Ofsted, but in this instance it is Ofqual’s independence as an assessor—a regulator of the assessment process.

Chair

We are going to explore this a little further during the course of the morning. At the end of it, hopefully we can all agree that there is a strong message out there from groups with far greater expertise than you and I have that there are alternatives Ofqual ought to consider. It is our contention that they have a duty to consider them and give adequate responses to them.

Mr Gibb

The people you are talking about are experts in science.

Chair

Science education.

Mr Gibb

Yes, but they are not necessarily experts in what motivates schools and they are not necessarily experts in assessment.

Chair

But the point that cannot be avoided is that, if you follow this logic with science practicals, you have to do the same with music and other things that have strong practical elements to them. That does not seem to be in the game, and that is why we are somewhat frustrated by the responses we receive.

Stephen Mosley

Staying on practical science, should all schools have practical science facilities that are fit for purpose?

Mr Gibb

I think they should. Considerable capital has been allocated to schools in this Parliament, despite all the austerity and the problems we have inherited with the public finances. How that money is spent in building, repairing or refurbishing schools is a matter for the school, but as a Minister I believe very strongly that all schools should have libraries and all secondary schools should have very good quality science laboratories.

Stephen Mosley

We have seen evidence that that is not the case. We heard from SCORE. They published a report last year which said that “many state-funded secondary schools and sixth form colleges lack sufficient equipment for basic practical work”. What are you doing to make sure that all of them have fit for purpose science facilities?

Mr Gibb

All we can do from the centre is exhortation, but we also provide the capital for schools to improve the fabric of their buildings and facilities, and a considerable amount of money has been allocated for that over the last four years, despite all the public financial constraints in the public sector. It is very clear from the new curriculum, at both GCSE and A‑level, that practical work is a requirement in the content, and that is something we can determine from the centre. If schools want to do well in performance league tables and want their students to get the highest grades, they will need to have these facilities. That is the way we have to operate from the centre. What we cannot do from the centre is have a dirigiste approach to how every school will be built and operated. That is not the school-led autonomous system we are trying to create in this country. The way to get the best out of our professional teachers and head teachers in this country is to give them autonomy and to have a school-led system. Having said that, the curriculum is very clear, and capital, to the extent that it can be, has been made available to schools to improve their facilities.

Stephen Mosley

If there is a school with inadequate practical science facilities, that is the fault of the head teacher and governors; they are spending their money on other things.

Mr Gibb

It may not necessarily be their fault; they may have inherited poor facilities, and they may be seeking to improve them. If they want to achieve the best Ofsted grade and the best exam results, they will know that the only way to do that is to have good facilities, whether it is in science, literacy or the arts.

Stephen Mosley

When we were speaking to Ofqual about the reformed science practical examinations we were told that, effectively, they had to be dumbed down to accommodate schools with the least resources. As a Minister, should you not be exhorting schools to improve school laboratories that facilitate excellent science practical teaching rather than dumbing down practical examinations to accommodate schools that have not made that investment?

Mr Gibb

I saw Tim Leunig’s evidence, which made that point about pupil referral units. I do not think that is where Ofqual is coming from. Ofqual’s concern is about the reliability of directly assessing practical skills. The difficulty in distinguishing different levels of ability by assessing it in that way is what drives Ofqual’s decision to have a pass/fail approach, and to have this assessed by the teacher over the period of a two-year course.

Stephen Mosley

On a slightly different issue, in 2011 we looked at the pay, conditions and career structures of science technicians and came to the conclusion that they must be improved if we wanted high quality science practicals in schools. The latest report we have seen suggests that problems still exist. What are you doing to try to address that issue?

Mr Gibb

Again, this is not a terribly satisfactory answer from your point of view. Technicians’ pay is a matter for the school. We believe in school autonomy, but we have given schools greater flexibility in how they pay their staff, whether it is teachers or technicians. If schools want the best facilities and the best exam results and if they want to encourage parents to send their children to the school, they will want to make sure they have good quality science facilities, including properly rewarded lab technicians.

Stephen Mosley

From your personal perspective as a Minister, can you reassure us that you appreciate the situation lab technicians find themselves in and that you recognise the important work they do?

Mr Gibb

Absolutely. They are very important. I do not know how any secondary school would be able to function and provide good quality teaching in the three sciences if they did not have well-motivated and skilled technicians ensuring that the laboratories are properly equipped.

Chair

As part of your exhortation you could, for example, encourage schools to ensure that technicians had the opportunity to gain charter status. That would be a good initiative, would it not?

Mr Gibb

It would. They certainly have access to CPD through the National Science Learning Network.

Chair

There is the other side of the coin—it comes back to the same problem. You explained to Stephen Mosley what was happening with investment in buildings, but if I was a head teacher, and Ofqual say that science practicals are nowhere near as important as they used to be, why the heck would I invest in laboratories? Why the heck would I invest in giving CPD to my technicians when I need them to do jobs in the school? There seem to be some countervailing tensions.

Mr Gibb

It is schools that are exhorting us about the importance of practicals. They are telling us as Ministers that it motivates young people to knuckle down and focus on the academic side of science. Given that schools want to do this, I do not believe we are pushing at a closed door. The issue is how you assess it.

Chair

I am sure you did not mean to say what you just said, because it came across slightly wrongly. You are implying that practicals are not academic.

Mr Gibb

They are.

Chair

They are very academic.

Mr Gibb

I agree with you totally, and I stand corrected.

Chair

Our problem is that people are devaluing what is a critically important part of science education.

Mr Gibb

I meant “paper based” for the non-practical academic side.

Stephen Metcalfe

I’d like to move on to the teaching of engineers. I think it is pretty well established that we have a shortage of engineers throughout our economy. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that that gap is filled? Is it the Government’s or the market’s responsibility?

Mr Gibb

It is obviously a combination of both, but clearly the Government have a crucial role to play in ensuring that we have young people leaving the school system and our university system who are properly educated to fill that role. We have a massive shortage and requirement for engineers in this country. One of the key things to do is ensure that young people are better educated in terms of mathematics at primary school level, secondary school level and sixth form. That is a key driver of all the reforms to the primary curriculum. People are not totally aware of what the changes have been in the primary curriculum in raising the standard of mathematics. There is a very significant difference from the previous curriculum. That came into force this September. Even though science has always remained compulsory to 16, we have still seen a rise in the numbers taking sciences at GCSE, and we have seen a huge rise in the numbers taking biology, physics and chemistry at A‑level. We have also improved the quality of engineering qualifications.

Stephen Metcalfe

I accept that more people are doing science, and there is generally a greater focus on science in schools. What I am concerned about is that that does not seem to be translated directly into engineers. While there is greater focus, we are perhaps not focusing enough on the engineering aspects. Is that because in schools the careers advice that is given, where it is, does not necessarily highlight the potential opportunities that engineering brings? Do you think careers advice in schools can bridge this gap?

Mr Gibb

That is an important point. As part of the Your Life campaign, which is about encouraging year 11 children to opt for sciences at A‑level, one of the issues that came up in our discussions with the business leaders leading that campaign was the image of engineering: that you will get oil all over your hands if you become an engineer, whereas the truth is that engineering has a vast array of very well-paid careers. It is a messaging issue. We have to get it across that engineering is a lucrative, interesting and demanding world, and we want to encourage more young people, particularly girls, to go into it. You make an important point about careers advice. There is a duty on schools to provide good quality careers guidance, but I know that the Secretary of State wants to do more to ensure that it is of proper quality and that it is available. She will have more to say on that later.

Stephen Metcalfe

I think Ofsted reported in September 2013 that schools were not fulfilling their statutory obligation to provide good careers advice. Do we know whether that has improved in the last year?

Mr Gibb

We have given the National Careers Service a new role to help schools by providing links with employers. That came in this October, so it is fairly new. We have also revised statutory guidance on the issue to emphasise the importance of face-to-face careers guidance. I think you are right—there is more to do, and that is something the Secretary of State understands. We want to make sure we improve careers guidance in schools, because it is important that students are made aware of every opportunity there is.

Stephen Metcalfe

My opinion rather than the Committee’s is that one of the ways things might be improved is if we could have greater links between schools and people already working in engineering, doing exciting, fascinating and well-paid things, and getting them systematically into our schools to inspire our young people, whether that is at primary or secondary level. We have put into a number of reports that learned societies, trade bodies and so on should encourage or obligate their members to get out into schools, maybe for half a day a year, as part of their membership, to try to make those links. Perhaps one way of achieving that—it happens, but it tends to happen in already good schools—would be if Ofsted were to assess a school on its external engagement, something like, “We can see that you have externally engaged with this number of employers, engineers and artists.” That might be a way of encouraging more schools to do it. Do you think that is a good idea and that that might be a way of encouraging it to be adopted widely?

Mr Gibb

You are right about encouraging more successful engineers to go into schools to explain the attractions of engineering as a career. For example, Speakers for Schools, the Robert Peston organisation, is doing great work encouraging high fliers from industry to visit schools, in the way they routinely do in the independent sector. There is a corporate social responsibility role for major engineering companies to release their employees to visit schools to do that. We always have to be careful about saying we should get Ofsted to do this, this and this. Ofsted inspections are two days. When we came into office in 2010 we were worried that they had 27 different grading objectives, and the academic side of their inspection was just one or two of those 27. We narrowed it down to four, concentrating deliberately on quality of teaching, attainment, behaviour and quality of leadership. The more you spread their inspection objectives and frameworks, the more you dilute their core focus. They look at the quality of careers guidance, but if you emphasise one particular area too much you detract from that core responsibility.

Stephen Metcalfe

You touched on the issue of getting more girls and women to take sciences and then to take engineering. What progress is being made in that area?

Mr Gibb

The campaign was launched last month and is being headed by business leaders, including the head of Dunnhumby—the Tesco Clubcard. She is driving this thing with energy and enthusiasm, and it had a very successful launch. If you look at some of the stats for the proportions of young people taking sciences, of those girls who gain an A* in physics GCSE, only 19% go on to take physics A‑level; among boys it is something like 49%. Both those figures are too low, but for girls, science is particularly low. One of the focuses of the Your Life campaign is to encourage those girls to take physics A‑level, so there is more to do.

Chair

Sticking with engineering qualifications for the moment, the new qualifications were designed in partnership with the Royal Academy of Engineering. Can you give us some idea of the numbers who will study that new qualification?

Mr Gibb

It is a bit early to say on the numbers, but the work with the Royal Academy of Engineering has resulted in—what is it called?—the core learning element of the engineering diploma.

Chair

Principal learning.

Mr Gibb

Yes. That diploma was regarded as probably the most successful of the diplomas we abolished when we came into office, because of other concerns, but the principal learning element of the engineering diploma was highly regarded. That has been turned into four different qualifications, two with Pearsons and two with OCR—two BTECs and two level 1/2 national certificates. I think they will be very successful, but it is too early to say what the uptake is.

Chair

What remit did you give the royal academy in designing those qualifications?

Mr Gibb

They were given the remit to develop new key stage four engineering qualifications, and they worked with the awarding organisations to do that. I am not quite clear what lies behind your question, but they were given a remit to create level four qualifications.

Chair

What is behind the question is that in the end it was a compromise, wasn’t it, between the views of the Department and those of the royal academy?

Mr Gibb

In what sense? Compromise between what?

Chair

Where different subjects were incorporated in the syllabus.

Mr Gibb

Do you mean within different elements of engineering?

Chair

Yes. One of the criticisms I heard from an eminent engineer was that the syllabus includes things that really belong in a catering course, for example.

Mr Gibb

In engineering?

Chair

Yes.

Mr Gibb

I am not aware of those criticisms. To get through the Ofqual process is not easy, so these will be rigorous qualifications.

Chair

One area that we reported on in the past was the TechBac, and we did not get much of a response from the Department. Could you update us on your ambitions for the TechBac and what kind of careers you think it would lead to?

Mr Gibb

The purpose of the TechBac is for people who are particularly interested in a technical career. The new TechBacs are very rigorous, and comprise a level three qualification, such as the BTEC. They are a high quality qualification.

Chair

Will that be equivalent to the EBac?

Mr Gibb

It is a performance measure. It is a sixth-form level three performance measure, so it is slightly different from the EBac, which is a key stage four measure. It comprises one of the existing level three qualifications, like a BTEC, plus a level three maths qualification, which is A‑level, AS or what will be the new core maths qualification, and an extended project qualification from one of the awarding bodies. That is the kind of combination that leads to a TechBac performance measure for a school or college.

Stephen Mosley

A few weeks ago, we had the new chief scientific adviser for the Department for Education in front of us. The role of chief scientific adviser is to ensure that all “departmental policies and decisions are informed by the best science and engineering evidence”. Do you think that is possible when he is working for only just over one day a week?

Mr Gibb

He went through the recruitment process in the normal way and was appointed by the chief scientist. I enjoy my discussions with Tim Leunig, who is a very able man. He is determined to make sure that in the Department we use rigorous evidence in making policy decisions.

Stephen Mosley

You mentioned the recruitment process. Is it not the case that he was chosen from a pool of applicants for what was essentially a completely different job? He said himself he got the job because he ticked a box on the form asking if he would also like to be the CSA.

Mr Gibb

These are matters for the Government chief scientific adviser and the permanent secretary, who make those appointments. I know that the permanent secretary will be responding in due course to Mr Miller’s letter on this very issue.

Stephen Mosley

The Committee is concerned that science and evidence-based decision making is very much at the core when the Department for Education is making its policy decisions. How can we be sure that is the case?

Mr Gibb

You have taken evidence from Dr Leunig. A lot of the scientific advisers in Departments will have continuing academic involvement. You want to have that; you want them to be people deeply engaged in the academic world. That is what they bring to the job, and Tim Leunig, from my experience of working with him, brings that academic rigour to the advice he gives, making sure that policy is based on properly assessed evidence.

Stephen Mosley

In a report we did a couple of years ago on research within the Department for Education, we expressed concern that there was not a ring-fenced budget. Do you know how much has been budgeted for research for the Department this year, and how does it compare with previous years?

Mr Gibb

I do. The peak was in 2008-09, when we were spending £31.1 million. There has been a decline, for obvious reasons, as we sought to tackle the crisis in the public finances. Since 2011-12, research expenditure has been stable at about £11.6 million a year, and last year we saw a slight increase of about £1.2 million. It is still substantial, but it is less than it was in 2008-09.

Stephen Metcalfe

Quite early on the Committee did a report into astronomy and particle physics. One of the areas we looked at was what systematic engagement and outreach was going on between the research councils and schools. Can you tell me what the Department is doing to exhort and facilitate that systematic engagement between those two parties?

Mr Gibb

We do work with the Science and Technology Funding Council and BIS. We also work with and promote the UK European Space Education Resource Office. I do not know whether I am answering your question correctly, but we work with those bodies and promote their facilities, like the National Schools’ Observatory.

Stephen Metcalfe

The next part of my question is that when we had a response to the report, that particular issue was not addressed. It is like the interaction that directly affects primary and secondary schools; the Department does not seem to know a great deal about it, or have a lot to do with it, because it is not part of the core activity. Is that a fair assessment of it?

Mr Gibb

I am not quite sure what it is you are worried about. Explain it a bit more.

Stephen Metcalfe

I am worried that the Department is not fully aware of, and supporting and encouraging, interactions between schools and, in this case, the research councils, because it is not part of the Department’s core activity. It lets it get on; it is left to the research councils to initiate, and if that does not happen the Department is not necessarily aware. It goes back to my point about getting these opportunities into every school in a systematic way, not just the good ones that take them up.

Mr Gibb

We promote the products from those bodies. We promote the good quality engagement with science that comes out of those bodies. We will and do promote them to schools.

Stephen Metcalfe

How do you do that?

Mr Gibb

We have a vast communication approach; we have our website, and we have termly newsletters to schools. That is how we would promote it.

Stephen Metcalfe

Do you make any assessment of how many of those opportunities are taken up by schools?

Mr Gibb

I am not sure that we do, but I will check to see if we have any systematic evaluation of that.

Stephen Metcalfe

It goes back to the earlier point that where a school takes up those opportunities, whatever they are, the school and ultimately the students seem to benefit. In this particular case, we are looking to increase the number of students who will take on STEM subjects and take them further. If they are exposed to people who are enthusiastic about those subjects, they are more likely to see them as things they may wish to do in the future. It is about getting that into every school.

Mr Gibb

I do not disagree with you on that, Stephen. There is evidence from the national science learning centres that teachers who go there for CPD come back enthused, with ideas on how to teach science in a more interesting way. They are very effective.

Chair

One of the topics we touched on in relation to your Department’s engagement with STFC and BIS was the long-term future of the National Schools’ Observatory. This has been bubbling along for some time. From the evidence we have seen, which I am sure the Department accepts, there are manifestly benefits to students who have access to that wonderful facility. They can do it in their classroom with internet tools developed through Liverpool John Moores University. It belongs to BIS. The resource they are using is in the hands of STFC, with La Palma, but having kids work on tools like that excites and encourages future engagement in science. What has happened recently to try to solve that problem?

Mr Gibb

We have never funded the National Schools’ Observatory. As you say, it is funded via Liverpool John Moores University.

Chair

It went through a period when it almost had to close, because STFC had not seen the education benefit in the past and people in the Department for Education had failed to rattle the cage and say, “For goodness sake, don’t let that facility close. It has an enormous education potential”. Our criticism is about the lack of triangulation among the three organisations to say, “This is a wonderful education resource. How are we going to ensure between us that it continues?”

Mr Gibb

You will be pleased to know that there is a working party called the space education and skills working group that brings in those elements both in DFE and BIS to ensure that precisely what you are worried about does not happen.

Chair

From the point of view of the student or taxpayer it does not matter which Government Department picks up the bill. At the end of the day, it is taxpayers’ money. Are you agreeing with us that resources like that have tremendous value in enthusing children about science as a career?

Mr Gibb

I absolutely agree with you. Working groups like the one I described are there to prevent things from falling between stools when responsibilities are split.

Chair

That was exactly the phrase I was going to use in my next question. You read my mind brilliantly. Let’s make sure they do not fall between stools, and this Committee and yourselves will be at one. Turning finally to Ofqual’s argument on science practicals, I listened carefully to your responses to colleagues. You still seem to be saying that the Ofqual position that there are no other alternatives is one that you have accepted. We struggle with that, because we heard from about 20 real experts from Wellcome, SCORE, royal societies and learned societies that there were alternatives. A very simple suggestion by one of the groups, which I slightly paraphrase, is that to avoid what Ofqual regarded as teachers cheating, and hence clustering at the top of the grades—because, on the one hand, every teacher is under pressure to get their school up the league tables and, on the other, they are invigilating the exams which then matter in terms of grading—is to reintroduce the concept of clustering schools, so that teachers circulate and invigilate other schools’ practical exams. That very simple change would remove the so-called incentive to cheat. Surely, there are other alternatives that you ought to look at.

Mr Gibb

I do not accept your criticism of teachers as cheating.

Chair

It is not my phrase.

Mr Gibb

The issue is not cheating but the difficulty of differentiating between students in any meaningful sense in the way it is currently assessed. Even if you moved teachers from one school to another to establish objectivity, that same difficulty would arise.

Chair

It is the lack of objectivity that Ofqual said, very firmly, was the problem—the lack of objectivity of the teacher responsible for their immediate class; they lose objectivity in their marking system. That was their criticism. The word Ofqual used was malpractice, not cheating, but in summary it was criticism of the lack of objectivity of teachers in examining their own class. There is a very simple solution: create clusters. This is not new; it happened 40-plus years ago in the certificate of secondary education.

Mr Gibb

It is not just lack of objectivity. There is a difficulty even with objective teachers from another school coming in to do an assessment. There is also no end product in the assessment as it is currently performed, to help that process. If you could do it in such a way that each individual pupil measured something and recorded it on a sheet, that would be an end product, but the way it is currently assessed, through controlled assessment, means there is not an end product that individual students record, to bring about that differentiation. You cited again all the learned bodies who are critical of Ofqual’s position, but the view of Gatsby, for example, and the Wellcome Trust, of the current approach to controlled assessment, to quote them, is that “it makes teachers focus on a narrow range of externally-set practicals as they hone students to do well in what constitutes 25% of their final grade”.

Chair

We are not saying there is not a problem; we are saying that the solution offered by Ofqual—Wellcome is one of the bodies that agrees with us on this—is not the correct solution in terms of the problem that is facing us.

Mr Gibb

I understand the debate. Ministers have been deeply engaged in the debate, and, as I said earlier, we challenged Ofqual from every angle. This is one of those areas where you could argue that there is a little bit of overlap between the curriculum content and the assessment process. Our clear objective as policy makers was to have practicals well taught and all students leaving the sixth form with strong practical skills in the sciences they are studying, but at the end of the day, after all that challenge, we have to rely on the advice and views of Ofqual, and they are very firm.

Chair

In your comments, you cited what Wellcome said. Wellcome have also said that Ofqual were sidestepping the problem, not solving it. What we are asking you to do, Minister, is consider very carefully the evidence session that took place in this room following a brainstorming session we conducted, part of which you saw in the film. Consider the evidence that came from those bodies, and sit down with Ofqual and say, “Really, it is untrue to say there are no alternatives. There are alternatives. Please go away and think about them.”

Mr Gibb

I will certainly do that. I only read the transcript of your video this morning. I will go away and look at it again and re-challenge Ofqual on those issues both for A‑level and, more importantly now, for GCSE.

Chair

And we will re-challenge the science community to come back with stronger and better ways of doing it. Let’s keep this dialogue going, because we both have the interests of the next generation of scientists at heart. We agree on that.

Mr Gibb

We do agree on that, Mr Miller.

Chair

Thank you very much indeed, Minister. Oral evidence: Legacy—Parliament 2010–15, HC 758 21