Resourcing practical science in secondary schools
SCORE (Science Community Representing Education) · 2013
grade Dreviewindependentnot-applicable
Sample
teachers from nearly 500 English secondary schools surveyed (companion primary report also published)
Population
English state and independent secondary schools and sixth-form colleges; 2011/12 spending year.
Design
Survey-based resourcing audit by the SCORE partnership (ASE, Institute of Physics, Royal Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, Society of Biology, Science Council). Self-reported departmental spending and equipment inventories against a SCORE-defined list of essential equipment and consumables. No outcome data, no causal claim. NOTE: this measures only the CONSUMABLES AND EQUIPMENT slice of the cost base; the Gatsby/PwC costing shows that slice is small next to teacher time. Recorded at read_depth secondary because the primary PDF could not be retrieved and the figures come from the Royal Society of Chemistry's and British Ecological Society's reporting of the report.
Key findings
The only per-student cost figures located for school practical science, and they demolish the premise that consumables spending is what makes practical work expensive. English state secondary schools reported spending between 75 PENCE and £31.25 per student per year on practical science in 2011/12; independent schools £7.18 to £83.21; primaries 4p to £19.08. A forty-fold spread within the state sector, with a floor that is functionally zero, is not the signature of a resource-intensive activity — it is the signature of an activity whose real cost is somewhere else (teacher and technician time, per Gatsby/PwC). Secondary schools held about 70% of SCORE's list of essential equipment, primaries about 46%, and nearly 70% of secondary staff reported buying materials with their own money. THE STRATEGIC IMPLICATION: if per-student consumables spend varies forty-fold across English schools with no corresponding forty-fold variation in science attainment, that variation is a natural experiment sitting unexploited, and it is the cheapest available route to a causal estimate of what practical resourcing buys.
Genetic confound
Not applicable.
Replication notes
A Scottish counterpart survey (Royal Society of Edinburgh) reports the same pattern. No comparable US figures were located.
DOI / URL
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per-student annual spend on practical science, English STATE secondary schools (2011/12) | GBP per student | £0.75 to £31.25 | mixed | 2011/12 academic year | none | not-applicable | unclear |
| Per-student annual spend on practical science, English INDEPENDENT schools (2011/12) | GBP per student | £7.18 to £83.21 | mixed | 2011/12 academic year | none | not-applicable | unclear |
| Per-student annual spend on practical science, English PRIMARY schools (2011/12) | GBP per student | £0.04 to £19.08 | mixed | 2011/12 academic year | none | not-applicable | unclear |
| Availability of SCORE-defined essential equipment and consumables | percent | secondary schools hold ~70% of what is required; primary schools ~46% | mixed | 2013 survey | none | not-applicable | unclear |
| Teachers personally funding practical science | percent | nearly 70% of secondary staff purchased items from personal funds; 37% of primary teachers contributed personal money | mixed | 2013 survey | none | not-applicable | unclear |
Cited by
- Laboratory and practical work in school sciencemixedconf: mediumgc: low