Supporting success: science technicians in schools and...

Supporting success: science technicians in schools and colleges

The Association for Science Education

page

Preparation of this report v

Summary vii

1. Introduction 1

2. The surveys2.1 The views of science technicians 32.2 The views of Heads of Science 32.3 School and college inspection reports 42.4 International comparisons 5

3. A recognised profession for school technicians? 7

4. Number and management of technicians 9

5. Conclusions and recommendations 11

Appendix 1: Data from survey of science technicians 13

Appendix 2: Data from survey of Heads of Science 17

Appendix 3: Comments from OFSTED and FEFC inspection reports 21

Appendix 4: Joint Bristol scheme for school technicians’ career & grading structure 23

Supporting success: science technicians in schools and colleges

Contents

The Royal Society / ASE Supporting success: science technicians in schools and colleges | January 2002 | v

The members of the working group were:

Mr David Billings Immediate past-Chair, ASE Laboratory Technicians’ CommitteeProfessor Mick Brown FRS Cavendish Laboratory, University of CambridgeMrs Helen Butler Hull High School, AnlabyMiss Sue Flanagan Deputy Headteacher, Forest Gate Community School, LondonDr Ken Gadd Education consultant, 4Science LtdSir John Horlock FREng FRS (Chair) Fellow and formerly Vice-Chancellor, The Open UniversityMr Nick Glass Acting Headteacher, Ansford Community School, SomersetMr John Lawrence Deputy Chief Executive, ASE Dr Davina Lloyd Headteacher, Coopers Company & Coborn School, UpminsterMr Phil Ramsden Deputy-Chairman, Royal Society Education Committee Ms Joyce Stuffins Walton Comprehensive School, PeterboroughMr Nigel Thomas Education Manager, The Royal Society Mr Bob Worley CLEAPSS School Science Service and ASE Technicians’ Committee Ms Janet Wrigley Staindrop Comprehensive School, Darlington

We would also like to express our thanks to Denise Wiles of Bedminster Downs School and Mark Williams and MichaelCope of Bristol City Council for providing the group with advice and information concerning the technicians’ career andgrading structure summarised in Appendix 4.

Preparation of this report

This report has been endorsed by the Councils of the Royal Society and Association for Science Education. It has beenprepared by the joint Royal Society / ASE working group on school and college science technicians.

The Royal Society / ASE Supporting success: science technicians in schools and colleges | January 2002 | vii

In July 2001 the Royal Society and the Association forScience Education published the results of a survey ofscience technicians in schools and colleges. At the sametime, the working group responsible for the surveyagreed to undertake further work to inform the nationaldebate surrounding the role of technicians in scienceeducation, and in particular to examine whether actionwas required to strengthen technician support in schoolsand colleges. As part of its work, the group sought theviews of Heads of Science via a telephone survey andexamined comments regarding technicians in a sample ofOFSTED and Further Education Funding Councilinspection reports. Based on this work, the results of thesurvey of technicians and the working group’sdiscussions, the Royal Society and the Association forScience Education have reached the followingconclusions:-

• Technicians in schools and colleges have a vital role toplay in the provision of high quality science educationand, if they are to play this role to the full, alltechnicians must be supported in their work andaccorded the professional status they deserve. Clearjob descriptions for all technicians, linked to a nationalcareer structure and pay scale are required, as issubstantial investment in technician continuingprofessional development.

• Science is a practical subject, and good quality ‘hands-on’ activities which involve students undertakingexperimentation and investigative work add hugely tothe experience of learning science. A well-trained,professional technician support service is essential ifstudents are to experience such work.

• Up to 4,000 additional science technicians need to berecruited into schools in England in order to provideadequate technical support to all school sciencedepartments. A precise figure for the number ofscience technicians currently working in schools is notavailable.

• The profession of science technician is not attractingyoung recruits; this is perhaps unsurprising consideringtechnicians’ pay and conditions. If young people donot see the profession as an attractive and viable careeroption it seems unlikely that it will be possible to recruitseveral thousand more science technicians into theschool system.

• Without adequate numbers of science technicians inschools and colleges the learning experiences ofstudents will be impaired, raising levels of achievementwill be made much more difficult, and safety in schooland college laboratories will be compromised.

Recommendations

If young people are to have access to the best scienceeducation possible, the Royal Society and the Associationfor Science Education believe that all those involved in theeducation system must work towards implementing thefollowing recommendations:-

1. The Government should commission work toinvestigate the level of science technician support inschools and colleges with the purpose of: a) accurately establishing how many more sciencetechnicians are required to redress the currentshortage; and b) setting national guidelines on themanagement and deployment of technical staff.

2. The Government, working in partnership with unionrepresentatives and other bodies such as the ASE andCLEAPSS, should devise a nationally recognised careerstructure for science technicians, with different levelsof technician showing progression of increasedresponsibilities, qualifications and/or experience.

3. Job descriptions of science technicians working ineducation should be urgently examined at a nationallevel. As part of the work to establish a new careerstructure the Government, working in partnershipwith union representatives and others, should devisegeneric job descriptions for each level of technician.

4. Pay for each level of technician within the new careerstructure should reflect experience, responsibility andqualifications. The Government should establish andmonitor national pay scales for school sciencetechnicians (and other support staff), perhaps byincluding support staff within the remit of areformulated School Teachers’ Review Body.

5. The National Occupational Standards for laboratorytechnicians working in education, and theirassociated S/NVQs, should be promoted morevigorously by the Department for Education and Skills(DFES) to schools in order to: a) provide a frameworkin which existing skills can be formally recognised; b)encourage technicians to continue to develop theirskills throughout their careers; and c) support a careerprogression pathway.

6. The Government should make available to schools inEngland, through the Standards Fund or otherappropriate mechanism, ring-fenced funding for thecontinuing professional development (CPD) of sciencetechnicians. It should be separate from, and inaddition to, funds allocated for classroom assistants inother subjects. The total level of such funding should

Summary

be not less than £3 million per annum. The ScottishExecutive Education Department, National Assemblyfor Wales Training and Education Department, andDepartment of Education for Northern Ireland shouldalso make funds available for technician CPD on thesame basis.

7. Heads of Science, Headteachers and Principals andGovernors should ensure that science technicians intheir school or college are encouraged and supportedto undertake appropriate professional trainingthroughout their career.

8. A nationally recognised induction programme shouldbe included in the new career structure for sciencetechnicians. This programme should includecompetency based training, a skills audit and adevelopment plan for every new technician.

9. Heads of Science, Headteachers and Principals andGovernors should look critically at the way sciencetechnicians are managed in their school or college toensure that the most efficient and effective practicesare in place.

In 2000 the Royal Society and the Association for ScienceEducation, concerned about the dearth of up-to-dateinformation available on the provision and responsibilitiesof science technicians working in education, decided toconduct a survey of the situation. Questionnaires weredesigned and sent by the ASE to technicians at over 4800UK schools and colleges. The response rate was muchhigher than anticipated, with more than 5000 individualtechnicians from over 1900 institutions taking the time tocomplete and return the form. A joint ASE / Royal Societyworking group was established under the chairmanshipof Sir John Horlock to consider the findings and a fullanalysis of the results was published in July 20011. Asummary of the main findings is also included in thisreport (see section 2.1).

Given the substantial response to the survey, the ASE andRoyal Society agreed to widen the remit of the study andundertake further work to inform the national debatesurrounding the role of technicians in science education,in particular to examine whether action was required tostrengthen technician support in UK schools and colleges.To inform its work, the working group decided that theviews of Heads of Science should be sought and, to thisend, a representative sample of schools and colleges wasidentified and telephone interviews were conducted withover 200 Heads of Science. The working group alsodecided to examine comments regarding sciencetechnicians contained in a sample of OFSTED and FurtherEducation Funding Council inspection reports. The resultsof both these pieces of research are summarised insection 2.3 of this report.

It became clear at an early stage of our work that thelinked issues of technician job descriptions and careerstructure would be central to any attempt to strengthentechnician support in schools and colleges. Commentsfrom the technician survey indicated that many sciencetechnicians have job descriptions that are not entirelyrelevant and are often out of date. There was a strong callfor nationally harmonised job descriptions allied to a clearcareer structure. The working group looked at threeexisting types of job structure for technicians: thecomprehensive and long-standing structure adopted foruniversity technicians; a structure under discussion inBristol City Council schools; and a structure used inNorthern Ireland. The issue of career development andjob structures for technicians is discussed in section 3.

It is also obvious from the work we have undertaken that,

perhaps unsurprisingly, the number of techniciansavailable to support practical science varies betweendifferent types of school and college. The number oftechnicians per science lesson is lowest in comprehensiveschools. Taking mean figures, grammar schools have 23%more technicians per science lesson than comprehensives,and independent schools have 29% more. We discuss theissue of provision of technicians, and the associatedconsequences, in section 4 of this report.

In addition to the results of the work outlined above, thisreport gives, in section 5, the recommendations of thejoint ASE / Royal Society working group. Theserecommendations for action are the result of the group’sdeliberations and have been arrived at in the light ofmembers’ own experiences, the technician survey and theresults of the work published here. As the Presidents ofthe Royal Society and ASE asserted in their joint forewordto our first report, technicians in schools and collegeshave a vital role to play in the provision of high qualityscience education and, if they are to play this role to thefull, all technicians must be supported in their work andaccorded the professional status they deserve.

Science is a practical subject, and there is little dissentamong science teachers from the view that good ‘hands-on’ activities which involve students undertakingexperimentation and investigative work add hugely to theexperience of learning science. The introduction to thecurrent science National Curriculum2 acknowledges oneof the roles of practical science when it states: ‘Becausescience links direct practical experience with ideas, it canengage learners at many levels. Scientific method is aboutdeveloping and evaluating explanations throughexperimental evidence and modelling. This is a spur tocritical and creative thought.’ This view is echoed by theHouse of Lords Select Committee on Science &Technology, in its 2001 report on school science,3 whichasserts that ‘practical work catches the imagination of theyoung and can excite them about science from an earlyage’. A recent study of pupils’ views of the school sciencecurriculum4 also confirms the opinion widely held amongscience teachers that pupils ‘expressed a greater interestin work that included opportunities for experimentationand investigation.’

A well-trained, professional technician support service isessential if students are to experience a variety ofexperimental and investigative work. Without adequatenumbers of science technicians in schools and colleges

The Royal Society / ASE Supporting success: science technicians in schools and colleges | January 2002 | 1

1 Introduction

1. Royal Society / Association for Science Education (2001), Survey of science technicians in schools and colleges. London: The Royal Society.

2. Department for Education & Employment / Qualifications & Curriculum Authority (1999), The National Curriculum. London: DFEE / QCA. Quote from p.102 ofhandbook for secondary teachers in England.

3. House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology (2001). Session 2000-2001 First report: Science in Schools. London: The Stationery Office.

4. Osborne, J. & Collins, S. (2000), Pupils’ & parents’ views of the school science curriculum. London: Kings College London.

the learning experiences of students will be impaired,raising levels of achievement will be made hugely moredifficult, and safety in school and college laboratories willbe compromised.

The Royal Society and ASE believe that therecommendations contained in this report are essential ifyoung people are to have access to the best scienceeducation possible and we urge all those involved inscience education to work towards their implementation.

The Royal Society / ASE2 | January 2002 | Supporting success: science technicians in schools and colleges

2.1 Survey of science technicians

In 2000, the Royal Society and ASE sent a questionnaire totechnicians at 4859 UK schools and colleges with the aimof exploring the variety of duties carried out by techniciansand to investigate their conditions of service. Completedquestionnaires were received from 1917 schools andcolleges (a 39.5% response rate) and from 5026 individualtechnicians. The survey thus yielded a unique database ofinformation concerning the provision, roles,responsibilities, working conditions and opinions oflaboratory technicians in secondary schools and colleges. Asummary of the main findings of the survey is given below;additional information may be found in Appendix 1.

Summary of findingsThe number of technicians per science lesson5 was foundto be lowest in comprehensive schools compared to othertypes of schools. In grammar and independent schools,technicians worked with fewer pupils while servicingcomparable numbers of laboratories to colleagues incomprehensive schools (see Appendix 1). The number oftechnicians per science lesson was lower in Wales andNorthern Ireland than in England. The survey found thatScotland also had fewer technicians per science lessonthan England, although this was influenced by the fact thatclass sizes in Scotland are limited to a maximum of 20(leading to more lessons each week).

Working conditions for technicians were extremely varied.Some worked alone, others were members of a team. 36%of institutions surveyed had science laboratories located onmore than one site and 56% had laboratories on differentfloors; both these situations presented difficulties fortechnicians when moving equipment from lab to lab.Technicians suggested that breaks during the day wereoften difficult to take because of pressure of work and thatworking conditions (eg space and ventilation) in preparationrooms were given little consideration.

It was clear from responses to the survey that technicianswanted meaningful job descriptions which were allied toa clear career structure, perhaps built around nationallyrecommended ‘core’ job descriptions and linked toNational Occupational Standards and TechnicalCertificates. Whilst four-fifths of technicians surveyed hadjob descriptions, many said these were not entirelyrelevant, were often out of date and rarely updated.Technicians supported a range of age groups, Key Stages,qualifications and science subjects and, in addition totheir ‘traditional’ duties, skills required by technicians dueto the introduction of new technologies appeared to begrowing.

The ratio of female to male technicians was 3:1 and theage profile of technicians was skewed towards the oldergroup, with 72% being over 40, and 8% being under 30.It seemed therefore that young people were not beingrecruited into schools and colleges as technicians. Manytechnicians enjoyed their work and found it satisfying,often mentioning the fact that they helped students torealise their potential. However, many were disillusionedbecause of their inability to progress as they gainedexperience and qualifications. There was also a generalperception among technicians that school seniormanagement did not understand the job of a technicianand consequently did not value it.

Whilst over 60% of technicians surveyed were aware ofthe S/NVQ qualification for science technicians ineducation, less than 11% were working towards it. Tworeasons were cited for the low uptake: a shortage ofcentres offering the qualification and the difficulty ofobtaining funding for the accreditation process.

A full analysis of the technician survey results, togetherwith representative quotes from technicians on a range ofissues and twelve case studies (illustrating how techniciansupport is being used in a range of schools and colleges)was published in July 2001 as the report ‘Survey ofscience technicians in schools and colleges’. Copies of thisreport may be obtained free of charge by sending an A4self-addressed envelope marked ‘Technicians Survey’ toJohn Lawrence at the ASE, College Lane, Hatfield, AL109AA. The report is also available as a downloadable PDFfile on both the ASE and Royal Society websites.

2.2 The views of Heads of Science

To assess the views of Heads of Science a representativesample of 240 schools and colleges was identified,chosen in the same proportions as the types ofinstitutions from which technician replies had beenreceived in the earlier technicians survey. In 2001, 209Heads of Science were successfully contacted and atelephone questionnaire was used to gain insight intotheir views of the role of technicians in their schools andcolleges. The main findings of the survey are given here;additional data, together with the list of questions asked,may be found in Appendix 2.

Summary of findingsOne broad observation from the survey is the willingness ofHeads of Science to talk about the situation in their schoolsand colleges. They were consistently complimentary aboutthe contribution made by their technicians and it was clearthat they valued this support highly.


2 The surveys

5.Calculated as total number of technician hours per week divided by total number of hours of science teaching per week.

When asked what determined the number of techniciansin their department and the number of hours techniciansworked, approximately 5% of Heads of Science did notknow or did not answer directly. Of the remaining 95%(199 responses), 39% of Heads of Science said the reasonwas historical; 14% said it was a decision taken by theheadteacher, senior management or governors (althoughtheir decision may well be based on finances); 18% said itwas financial; and 24% said it was based on pupilnumbers, number of laboratories or teaching hours. Only7% mentioned that the 1990 ASE formula for quality oftechnician function had been used.6

Overall, 45% of Heads of Science questioned said thatthey considered the level of technician support in theirdepartment to be inadequate. For the comprehensiveschools 53% felt levels were inadequate; for sixth formand FE colleges (taken together) 20% felt levels wereinadequate. This pattern is consistent with inspectionobservations, although (perhaps expectedly) teachersperceived the problem to be greater than did inspectors.Of the 22 independent schools surveyed, 3 had notechnician support; for the remaining 19, only 5% saidsupport levels were inadequate. 40% of Heads of Sciencein the grammar schools surveyed said there wereinadequate support levels.

When asked about the contribution technicians make tothe students’ experience, almost all of the Heads ofScience surveyed praised the work of their technicians. Acommon response concerned the opportunity to offer a“richer range of practicals”; Heads of Science clearly feltthat adequate technician support was essential ifstudents were to experience a variety of experimental andinvestigative work. In schools where the level oftechnician support was judged to be inadequate, Headsof Science commented that the amount of practical workthey were able to offer students was seriously reduced,for example:

“Lessons are reduced to demonstrations and theory,and this seriously affects students’ motivation.”

“The technicians are unable to contribute to thestudents’ experiences because of the pressure ofjust trying to get all the equipment out for lessonsand tidying away. We could do so much more withstudents if we had more technicians.”

“We cannot offer the amount and complexity ofpractical work that we would like to.”

Quantitative evidence for improved students’ achievementdue to increased technician support was difficult to find.However, Heads of Science did mention improvedperformance and examination results, for example:

“Results have dramatically improved because ofincrease in technician hours and the work they do interms of support on field trips, project work etc.Also reduces stress level of teaching staff whichallows for better teaching and hence achievement.”

“Improved grades due to more exciting practicals.Pupils are more engaged with the work and thereare less behavioural problems.”

80% of the Heads of Science in comprehensive schoolsinvited technicians to departmental meetings, rising to93% in sixth form and further education colleges.7 Thepractice in grammar and independent schools, and intechnology colleges, was similar to comprehensives. In allcases where technicians were invited to meetings theyhad the opportunity to contribute to agendas.

Overall, 174 Heads of Science (83%) said they themselvesline-managed the department’s technicians. Incomprehensive schools this figure was 88%, while it waslower (73%) in sixth form and FE colleges. This may reflectdifferent approaches to management in the furthereducation sector. In grammar schools the figure was just60%, while independent schools and technology collegeswere similar to FE.

84 Heads of Science (40%) said their technicians wereappraised each year. There was a marked difference inresponses from comprehensive schools and furthereducation. Across the comprehensives, only 35% of Headsof Science said their technicians were appraised annually,yet in sixth form and FE colleges this figure rose to 93%.

144 Heads of Science (69%) said that their technicianshad direct contact with students. Examples of this contactincluded helping with practical and investigative work,demonstrating the use of equipment, and helping with IT(see Appendix 2 for more details). There was a markeddifference in responses from comprehensive schools andfurther education. Across the comprehensives, 66% ofHeads of Science said their technician had direct contactwith students while in sixth form and FE colleges it was100%. Often the use of technicians working withstudents was limited by time and availability. However, anumber of Heads of Science said this was a technician rolethat they would like to be able to develop.

2.3 School and college inspection reports

To investigate what type of comments regardingtechnician provision and deployment featured in schooland college inspection reports, in summer 2001 theworking group examined a sample of OFSTED and FurtherEducation Funding Council (FEFC) inspection reports.


6. Figures do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

7. In our survey of technicians only 19% said they attended departmental meetings either ‘always’ or ‘frequently’. An additional 34% of technicians attended meetings‘occasionally’, but 47% never attended. It is not clear whether non-attendance was because: a) the technicians were not invited; b) they chose not to attend; or c) theywere unable to attend due to the scheduling of meetings after school and / or outside their working hours.

OFSTED reportsFor maintained schools, 103 OFSTED reports of fullinspection carried out since January 1999 were analysed.8

To obtain our sample, every fifteenth LEA was selectedfrom the alphabetical OFSTED list, giving 10 LEAsrepresenting a mix of county and city, north and south.The first school inspected in each LEA from 1999 onwardswas chosen for analysis, giving a variety of 11-16, 11-18and 13-18 schools. Attainment varied amongst theschools in relation to national average and levels in similarschools. The quality of teaching was mostly good, thoughsome were judged to be satisfactory only. Representativecomments from OFSTED reports concerning the level oftechnician provision are given in Appendix 3.

Of the 103 OFSTED reports sampled, 71 containedspecific mention of technicians. Inspectors frequentlyremarked on the excellent support provided by schoolscience technicians. However, in 28 reports (27%)inspectors stated there were insufficient levels oftechnician support and a further 3 stated that supportwas only just adequate. In the view of OFSTED inspectorstherefore, more than a quarter of the schools sampledhad inadequate levels of technician support. Commentsfrom inspectors about the quality of technician supportwere consistently favourable. Where this was the onlyissue, comments tended to be brief using adjectivesranging from effective through good and hard working toexcellent.

FEFC reportsPrior to the creation of the Learning and Skills Council,the FEFC was responsible for the inspection ofincorporated further education colleges, including sixthform colleges. The inspection process graded cross-college and curriculum provision. For this exercise weanalysed the reports of all colleges with a grade 1 (thehighest grade) and all colleges with a grade 4 for scienceprovision. Grade 5 is actually the lowest grade possible,but this was not given for any college’s science provision.The grades can be slightly misleading however asoccasionally the curriculum area graded was science and

mathematics rather than simply science. The AnnualReports of the Chief Inspector and the ‘Curriculum AreaSurvey Report: Sciences, March 1998’ were alsoconsidered, and quotes from these can be found inAppendix 3 along with representative quotes from theFEFC reports.

Technicians were specifically mentioned in 12 out of 14grade 1 colleges and in 9 out of 19 grade 4 colleges.However, there were no negative comments about thequality of support. In no cases did the inspectors suggestthere was an inadequate level of support. Praise wasfrequently given for the quality of the technicians’ work.

2.4 International comparisons

A brief survey was carried out regarding technicianprovision in a number of other countries by contacting anumber of colleagues working abroad. In general, wherecountries have technicians the situation seems to bemuch as it is in the UK. Teachers from countries wherethere was no technician support (such as Finland,Germany, Ireland and Poland) commented on theconstraints this had on the practical work their studentscould undertake and the type of learning experience thatcould be offered to students. With the limited dataavailable to us we have resisted the temptation to gobeyond this assessment of the situation because differentcountries have different science curricula, different levelsof teacher workload and approach the issue of technicalsupport in a variety of ways. We do consider, however,that there would be value in research being undertaken tolook at science technician provision in other countries toexamine possible correlation with students’ experience ofpractical science.

As the responses received were anecdotal we have notdrawn firm conclusions from them, but they do provide auseful glimpse of the situation in other countries and soare included for information on the Royal Society’swebsite at www.royalsoc.ac.uk/education.


8. This represents about 2% of all secondary schools.

3.1 Introduction

As described above, one message that emerged from oursurvey of Heads of Science was that well-trained,professional technicians are essential if students are toexperience a variety of experimental and investigativework. However, from the comments received in thetechnicians survey it is clear that, whilst they are greatlyvalued within the science department, there is aperception that senior management does not understandthe job of a science technician and consequently does notvalue it. Science technicians often fall between beingrecognised as full members of the science departmentand being viewed as auxiliary staff (eg caretakers andoffice staff). Initiatives which seek to raise awareness ofthe immense contribution technicians make to scienceeducation should therefore be welcomed, and wecommend the Salters Institute for initiating the ‘NationalScience Technician Awards’.9 Much more effort in thisdirection is required however.

The profession of science technician is not attractingyoung recruits – the percentage of technicians under 30years of age is low and falling, from 10% in 1994 to 8%in 2000.10 While this is in itself is perhaps not a cause forconcern, it is symptomatic of the state of technicians’ payand conditions. If young people do not see the professionas an attractive and viable career option it is not clear thatit will be possible to recruit several thousand more sciencetechnicians into the school system (see section 4.1).

In general, the technicians we surveyed felt underpaidand often commented that they have been in the sameposition for many years at the same grade with noopportunity for promotion.11 This was despite the factthat their role had developed to require higher level skillsas new technologies were introduced and more timespent working with students and undertakingadministration. Many technicians also commented thattheir job descriptions were often out of date and rarelyupdated. 60-70% of technicians do not have formalannual appraisals and so lack the opportunity to discusstheir performance, training requirements and ambitionsfor the future.

If the UK education system is to capitalise on theopportunities provided by a professional techniciansupport system it is essential that the situation changes; ifthe current circumstances persist, raising pupils’

achievement in science will be made immensely moredifficult. There is a simple, fundamental rationale: thebetter trained technicians are, the better the support andadvice they will be able to offer science teachers. Bettersupported teachers lead to improved science educationfor young people. Continuing professional developmentof teachers is now firmly established as a priority inscience education,12 and rightly so. It is in the interests ofgood science education that we now invest also in theprofessional development of science technicians. Suchprofessional development is best delivered locally and aspart of a clear career structure in which achievements arerecognised and the opportunity to progress is a real one.

3.2 Career structure and job descriptions

There is a real and urgent need to establish a nationallyrecognised career path for science technicians working ineducation, with different levels of technician showingprogression of increased responsibilities, qualificationsand / or experience. We believe that it will only be possibleto put in place such a career structure if it is accompaniedby national criteria for describing the tasks andcompetencies at each level and we call upon theGovernment to work in partnership with unionrepresentatives and other bodies, such as the ASE andCLEAPSS, to devise such criteria and a career structure. Atthe same time, technician job descriptions must beexamined at a national level and generic job descriptionsdrawn up by the Government working in partnershipwith union representatives and others. It will be importantthat national criteria and job descriptions recognise localdifferences in the science curriculum and the differentways in which science departments are managed. Itfollows that there should also be national guidelines onpay for each level of technician, reflecting experience,responsibility and qualifications. We recommendtherefore that the Government investigates ways toestablish and monitor national pay scales for schoolscience technicians (and presumably other school supportstaff), perhaps by including support staff within the remitof a reformulated School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB).

The working group has not attempted to devise detailedjob descriptions for the different levels of technician, butwe do suggest that an appropriate career structure mighthave four levels, eg:


3 A recognised profession for school technicians?

9. The National Science Technician Awards are due to be launched by the Salters Institute in 2002. See www.salters.co.uk or email [email protected] for more details.

10. During the same period (1994-2000) the proportion of technicians over the age of 40 rose 4% to 72%. Figures taken from 1994 ASE survey of technicians and 2000Royal Society / ASE survey.

11. Under the 1997 single-status agreement, many Local Education Authorities have instigated a review of school support staff salaries. In some cases such reviews havebeen based on job evaluation criteria which bear little relation to the actual duties of science technicians and have led to technician salary levels being lowered orfrozen.

12. See, for example, the Council for Science and Technology report ‘Science Teachers’ (2000) and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology report‘Science in Schools’.

1. ‘Trainee science technician’2. ‘Science technician’3. ‘Senior science technician’4. ‘Science technician team leader’ or ‘Advisory science

technician’ or ‘Advanced skills science technician’ or‘Science technician demonstrator’

At the highest grade (4), we recognise that there is likelyto be a need for flexibility by means of a range of jobdescriptions referring to the particular tasks /responsibilities undertaken. Similarly we recognise that inorder to rise to the higher levels it is likely that manytechnicians will need to move between institutions andperhaps geographical regions during their career; anationally recognised career structure and jobdescriptions would facilitate this mobility. Such a careerstructure would also help facilitate opportunities fortechnicians in schools and colleges to move to positions inthe industrial and higher education sectors and vice versa.

Whilst not trying to produce full job descriptions for thefour levels ourselves, we have noted on-going work in thisarea, particularly by the Consortium of Local EducationAuthorities for the Provision of Science Services(CLEAPSS)13 and the Joint Bristol Scheme (see Appendix 4)and we commend this work as a useful starting point.

3.3 Continuing professional development

At the same time as drawing up a national careerstructure for technicians, the National OccupationalStandards for laboratory technicians working ineducation and their associated S/NVQs should bepromoted more vigorously by the DFES to schools in orderto: a) provide a framework in which existing skills can beformally recognised; b) encourage technicians tocontinue developing their skills throughout their careers;and c) support a career progression pathway.

The new national career structure should reflect, andwhere appropriate make explicit reference to, thecompetencies outlined in the National OccupationalStandards. One worrying fact brought to light in oursurvey of technicians was that whilst 61% of technicianswere aware of the S/NVQs, less than 11% were workingtowards them. Two main reasons were cited for this lowuptake: a lack of centres offering the qualification and thedifficulty in obtaining funding for the accreditationprocess. Both these factors need to be addressed.

The Royal Society and ASE call upon the Government tomake available funding, through the Standards Fund orother appropriate mechanism, for the continuingprofessional development of science technicians. Suchfunding should be ‘ring-fenced’ in recognition of theunique contribution that science technicians make to theeducation of young people. It should be separate from,and in addition to, any funds allocated for classroomassistants in other subjects. We suggest that the total ofsuch funding available should be not less than £3 millionper annum.

We similarly call for the Scottish Executive EducationDepartment, National Assembly for Wales Training andEducation Department, and Department of Education forNorthern Ireland to make funds available for technicianson the same basis. We consider that once this funding isannounced, and demand for professional training andqualifications rises, more training providers will begin tooffer technician training and more centres will offerS/NVQ qualifications. The situation should, however, beclosely monitored to confirm an increase in the availabilityof training and centres and an appropriate distributionacross the country – this will be particularly importantsince many technicians are unable to travel long distancesfor training due to, for example, lack of transport orchildcare arrangements. At the same time, Heads ofScience, Headteachers and Principals and Governorsshould ensure that science technicians in their schools orcolleges are encouraged and supported to undertakeappropriate professional training throughout their career.

A career structure should also include a nationallyrecognised induction programme for science technicians.This should include competency based training, a skillsaudit and a development plan for every new technician.The National Occupational Standards for laboratorytechnicians working in education are currently underreview by the Science, Technology & MathematicsCouncil, and, at the time of writing, discussions regardingthe introduction of a Level 1 qualification are underway. Itseems sensible to examine whether the competenciesrequired for such a qualification could or should form thebasis of an induction programme for new technicians. Wealso note that the Advanced Modern Apprenticeship forscience technicians working in education was approved in2001. This apprenticeship is based upon the NVQ level 3and provides a planned training programme in theworkplace and we commend its introduction.


13. CLEAPSS (www.cleapss.org.uk) has recently seconded a technician to work three days a week on a new project looking at ‘Technicians and their jobs’. The outcome, in2003, will be guidance covering aspects such as technician job descriptions, salaries and grades, working conditions, qualifications, and induction.

4.1 Number of technicians required

Comments received during our survey of Heads ofScience support the widely held view that the level oftechnician provision in a school or college affects both thequality of science education experienced by students andthe overall effectiveness of the science department. Yet inour sample of 103 OFSTED reports, 27% of schools werejudged by inspectors to have insufficient levels of sciencetechnician support.14 Overall, 45% of the 209 Heads ofScience surveyed considered the level of techniciansupport in their department to be inadequate; forcomprehensive schools this figure was 53%.

To ensure that all young people experience the necessaryvariety of experimental and investigative work, all schoolsand colleges must have adequate levels of techniciansupport. It is clear that this is not currently the case.However, arriving at a formula for assessing how manytechnicians a school or college requires is not a trivial task.Whilst the amount of science taught is clearly the mostsignificant factor in determining amount of techniciansupport required, there are a range of other factors whichaffect it including:

• the location of laboratories (eg are they on differentfloors or in different buildings or on different sites?);

• the proportion of time the laboratories are used forteaching;

• the pattern of use of laboratories (eg if all physics istaught in one or two labs then less movement ofapparatus will be required);

• the amount of storage space available for scienceequipment (insufficient storage space may necessitatefrequent moving of apparatus between labs, preprooms and stores);

• other calls on technician time (eg general AV support,etc).

In 1990, the ASE devised a simple formula to provideguidance about the amount of technician supportrequired in schools.15 In it, a ‘service factor’ is defined as:

Service factor = Technician hours per weekHours of science teaching per week

Comparing the results of our survey of technicians withcomments from inspectors, a clear relationship seems toemerge. Inspectors reported 27% of state schools ashaving insufficient technician provision, yet there were nosuch comments in the FEFC inspection reports for the

sixth form and general FE colleges sampled. Thiscorresponds to the service factors calculated forcomprehensive schools, sixth form colleges and furthereducation colleges.16

The suggestion from this analysis is that a service factor ofaround 0.65 is the minimum necessary to provideadequate technical support to a science department. Butwe recognise that this is a crude measure, not leastbecause the management and deployment of thetechnician resource within a school or college is asimportant as the number of technicians. The results of ourwork do however convince us that the current number ofscience technicians in maintained schools is substantiallytoo low, perhaps by as much as 40%.

A precise figure for the number of science technicianscurrently working in schools is not available. In DFESsurveys, schools are requested to identify the totalnumber of technicians working in the school (includingscience technicians, design & technology assistants and ITtechnicians), and a disaggregated figure for sciencetechnicians does not exist.17 However, a reasonableestimate for the number of science technicians in schoolsin England would be 10,000. Working to this estimate,the above analysis suggests that up to 4,000 additionalscience technicians need to be recruited in England alone.

4.2 Management of technicians

In our sample of inspection reports the high quality ofsupport provided by science technicians in schools andcolleges is consistently highlighted. Even in schools andcolleges where science provision is weak, the work oftechnicians is often acknowledged and praised. But somecomments within OFSTED inspection reports do raiseissues concerning the effective management and trainingof technicians. For example:

“Two competent science technicians give goodsupport but their line management, outside thedepartment, causes inefficiencies in theirdeployment.”


4 Number and management of technicians

Type of institution Service factor (median)

Comprehensive schools 0.47Grammar schools 0.58Sixth form colleges 0.62General FE colleges 0.70

14. See Appendix 3 for a selection of representative comments taken from our sample of OFSTED reports.

15. A description the ASE service factor is given in sections 2.1-2.3 of ‘Survey of science technicians in schools and colleges’.

16. See page 31 of ‘Survey of science technicians in schools and colleges’ for full analysis of service factors.

17. For aggregated figures of technician numbers, see Department for Education & Skills (2001), Statistics of Education: Schools in England 2001. London: The StationeryOffice.

“The lack of centralised space for preparation ofmaterials and administration of the departmentmakes efficient management of the very goodtechnical support difficult and seriously limits theextent to which teachers can share good practiceand support each other.”

“In-service training for teachers has beenundertaken and has been adequate, but the level oftechnician training has been low in recent years.”

It is clear from inspection reports that involvingtechnicians as full members of the science team, togetherwith appropriate training and development, leads to themost effective technical support. This view issubstantiated by comments from technicians themselvesand from Heads of Science.

Management considerations also include whethertechnicians are to be employed on a term-time onlycontract or for a full 52-week year. Term-time onlycontracts can provide attractive career opportunities,particularly for people with family responsibilities, butthey can also deter others from entering the profession.For the majority of schools the most practical solution willbe for routine maintenance of laboratory equipment andmajor stocktaking to be undertaken by a technicianoutside of term time. A technician on a full-year contractwill also be able to undertake other duties, for examplecaring for plants and animals in the science departmentduring school holidays. Thus it will be usually be the casethat at least one technician in every school will need tobe employed for a 52-week year.18

4.3 Conclusions

We conclude that the Government should commissionwork to investigate the level of science technician supportin schools and colleges with the purpose of: a) accuratelyestablishing how many more science technicians arerequired to redress the current shortage and; b) settingnational guidelines on the management and deploymentof technical staff. As a step towards this we recommendthat, when seeking information from schools, theGovernment identifies science technicians separatelyfrom other support staff such that the number of sciencetechnicians may be accurately established and monitored.

We also encourage Heads of Science, Headteachers andPrincipals and Governors to look critically at the wayscience technicians are managed in their school or collegeto ensure that the most efficient and effective practicesare in place.

In our first report we drew attention to the variety ofworking conditions for science technicians. The DFEEBuilding Bulletin 8019 makes recommendations about thenumber, arrangement and size of laboratories andpreparation rooms and we trust that the Government’scommitment to modernise school buildings20 will see allschool science departments brought up to the standardsoutlined in Building Bulletin 80.


18. If only one technician is employed to work during school holidays, risk assessments will show that certain activities will be unsafe to undertake if s/he is working alone.

19. Department for Education & Employment (1999), Building Bulletin 80: Science accommodation in secondary schools. London: The Stationery Office.

20. In the 2001 DFES White Paper ‘Schools achieving success’ the Government undertakes to increase its capital investment in schools from £2.2 billion in 2001/02 to £3.5billion in 2003/04.

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the work described in this report, the results ofthe survey of technicians and the working group’sdiscussions, the Royal Society and the Association forScience Education have reached the followingconclusions:-

• Technicians in schools and colleges have a vital role toplay in the provision of high quality science educationand, if they are to play this role to the full, alltechnicians must be supported in their work andaccorded the professional status they deserve. Clearjob descriptions for all technicians, linked to a nationalcareer structure and pay scale are required, as issubstantial investment in technician continuingprofessional development.

• Science is a practical subject, and good quality ‘hands-on’ activities which involve students undertakingexperimentation and investigative work add hugely tothe experience of learning science. A well-trained,professional technician support service is essential ifstudents are to experience such work.

• Up to 4,000 additional science technicians need to berecruited into schools in England in order to provideadequate technical support to all school sciencedepartments. A precise figure for the number of sciencetechnicians currently working in schools is not available.

• The profession of science technician is not attractingyoung recruits; this is perhaps unsurprising consideringtechnicians’ pay and conditions. If young people donot see the profession as an attractive and viable careeroption it seems unlikely that it will be possible to recruitseveral thousand more science technicians into theschool system.

• Without adequate numbers of science technicians inschools and colleges the learning experiences ofstudents will be impaired, raising levels of achievementwill be made much more difficult, and safety in schooland college laboratories will be compromised.

5.2 Recommendations

If young people are to have access to the best scienceeducation possible, the Royal Society and the Associationfor Science Education believe that all those involved in theeducation system must work towards implementing thefollowing recommendations:-

1. The Government should commission work toinvestigate the level of science technician support in

schools and colleges with the purpose of: a) accuratelyestablishing how many more science technicians arerequired to redress the current shortage; and b) settingnational guidelines on the management anddeployment of technical staff.

2. The Government, working in partnership with unionrepresentatives and other bodies such as the ASE andCLEAPSS, should devise a nationally recognised careerstructure for science technicians, with different levelsof technician showing progression of increasedresponsibilities, qualifications and/or experience.

3. Job descriptions of science technicians working ineducation should be urgently examined at a nationallevel. As part of the work to establish a new careerstructure the Government, working in partnershipwith union representatives and others, should devisegeneric job descriptions for each level of technician.

4. Pay for each level of technician within the new careerstructure should reflect experience, responsibility andqualifications. The Government should establish andmonitor national pay scales for school sciencetechnicians (and other support staff), perhaps byincluding support staff within the remit of areformulated School Teachers’ Review Body.

5. The National Occupational Standards for laboratorytechnicians working in education, and their associatedS/NVQs, should be promoted more vigorously by theDepartment for Education and Skills (DFES) to schoolsin order to: a) provide a framework in which existingskills can be formally recognised; b) encouragetechnicians to continue to develop their skillsthroughout their careers; and c) support a careerprogression pathway.

6. The Government should make available to schools inEngland, through the Standards Fund or otherappropriate mechanism, ring-fenced funding for thecontinuing professional development (CPD) of sciencetechnicians. It should be separate from, and in additionto, funds allocated for classroom assistants in othersubjects. The total level of such funding should be notless than £3 million per annum. The Scottish ExecutiveEducation Department, National Assembly for WalesTraining and Education Department, and Departmentof Education for Northern Ireland should also makefunds available for technician CPD on the same basis.

7. Heads of Science, Headteachers and Principals andGovernors should ensure that science technicians intheir school or college are encouraged and supportedto undertake appropriate professional trainingthroughout their career.


5 Conclusions and recommendations

8. A nationally recognised induction programme shouldbe included in the new career structure for sciencetechnicians. This programme should includecompetency based training, a skills audit and adevelopment plan for every new technician.

9. Heads of Science, Headteachers and Principals andGovernors should look critically at the way sciencetechnicians are managed in their school or college toensure that the most efficient and effective practicesare in place.


As described previously, a full analysis of the results of the technician survey is available as a separate report, ‘Survey ofscience technicians in schools and colleges’. The report also includes representative quotes from technicians on a range ofissues and, to help put the survey results into context, twelve case studies outlining how technician support is being used ina selection of schools and colleges. The report is available free of charge by sending an A4 self addressed envelope to JohnLawrence at the ASE.

The following tables and charts are taken from our first report.


(A) (B) (C) TechniciansMean number Mean number Mean number (D) (E)

of pupils on roll of prep rooms of labs Mean technician No. of FTE hours per week technicians*

All schools 900 2.5 7.8 77 2.1Comprehensive (all) 973 2.5 7.7 75 2.0

in Scotland 877 2.2 9.1 68 1.8not in Scotland 980 2.5 7.6 76 2.1

Grammar 867 3.4 8.3 97 2.6Independent 482 2.5 6.9 79 2.1VI form college – 2.5 6.8 94 2.5FE – 2.3 5.2 88 2.4

* The full-time equivalent (FTE) technician is assumed to work 37 hours a week, so column (E) = (D) / 37

Table 1: Data obtained from the survey of technicians regarding average school size, number of laboratories andtechnicians

Appendix 1: Data from survey of science technicians

7.90%

20.40%

37.90%

29.40%

4.40%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

18-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

over 60

Chart 1: Technician age profile

The following table and charts, also taken from our first report, give the distribution of service factor for different typesof schools and colleges, calculated as:

Service factor = Technician hours per weekHours of science teaching per week

Chart 2: Comparison of service factors in different type of institutions

Service factors are compared below as a ‘box-plot’. Each of the five central boxes in the chart below has its ends at thequartiles and hence spans the middle half of the data. The horizontal line within each box marks the median. Thevertical lines extend from the boxes to the smallest and largest observations.


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

SER

VIC

E FA

CTO

R

FE C

olle

ges

ASE Service Factor Levels

Co

mp

reh

ensi

ve

Gra

mm

arIn

dep

end

ent

6th

Fo

rm

2.2

Comprehensive Grammar Independent 6th Form Colleges FE Colleges

Max 1.17 1.00 1.84 1.68 2.223rd Quartile 0.57 0.68 0.74 0.96 1.06Median 0.47 0.58 0.59 0.62 0.701st Quartile 0.37 0.46 0.41 0.52 0.48Min 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.14Mean 0.48 0.59 0.62 0.74 0.82Standard Deviation 0.16 0.21 0.28 0.32 0.46Range 1.08 1.36 1.67 1.48 2.07Count 1406.00 93.00 223.00 38.00 73.00Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.11

Table 2: Analysis of the distribution of service factor between different types of schools


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

Service factor

Num

ber

of e

stab

lishm

ents

2.0

Chart 3: Distribution of service factor in comprehensive schools

0

5

10

15

20

25

Service factor

Num

ber

of e

stab

lishm

ents

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Chart 4: Distribution of service factor in grammar schools


Chart 7: Distribution of service factor in colleges of further education

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Service factor

Num

ber

of e

stab

lishm

ents

2.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

Service factor

Num

ber

of e

stab

lishm

ents

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Chart 6: Distribution of service factor in sixth form colleges

Chart 5: Distribution of service factor in independent schools

0

10

20

30

40

Service factor

Num

ber

of e

stab

lishm

ents

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

As described earlier, a telephone survey was conducted in June 2001 with 209 Heads of Science to seek their views ontechnician provision and support in their departments. Section 2.2 of the main report outlines the findings of thesurvey. In this appendix we list the questions asked and include resultant data not included in the main report.

Question 1: What determines how many technicians you have and the hours they work?

Question 2: Do you consider your level of technician support adequate?See section 2.2 of main report and table of yes / no answers on page 20

Question 3: What evidence do you have that technician support adds to the students’ experiences andachievement?See section 2.2

Question 4: Do you invite the technicians to departmental meetings?See section 2.2 and table of yes / no answers on page 20

Question 5: What are the four most important tasks that your technicians carry out?The free-response nature of the question meant that some judgments were needed to allow categorisation andsubsequent analysis of the data.

Question 6: Do you have a senior technician? If the answer is ‘yes’, what are his/her additionalresponsibilities?A total of 143 (68%) institutions had senior technicians (see table of yes / no answers for breakdown betweeninstitutions). In some instances there was only one technician, but s/he had been designated senior technician. Again,because of the free-response nature of the question, some interpretation was used to categorise them. However, itwas clear that the most frequently mentioned additional responsibilities related to:


Appendix 2: Data from survey of Heads of Science

Task Number of responses

Preparation for lessons (especially practicals) and that which it involves 191Stock control 142Maintenance of equipment 79Health and safety 66General administrative duties (including photocopying) 56Maintenance of laboratories and other work areas 32Supporting the science team 20Support in the classroom 16Supporting the use of ICT 14Looking into new ideas for practical work 11

Comprehensive Sixth form FE Technology Grammar Independent schools colleges colleges colleges schools schools

Finance 28 2 2 3Headteacher or senior 21 1 2 1managementHistory 56 4 2 1 7 7Laboratories 11 1 1 3 3Governors 2Contact hours 16 1 4 2 1 4Mention of ASE formula 12 1

Total 146 5 9 5 15 19

All other tasks given were in single figures.

• responsibility for other technicians (though this ranged from ‘monitoring’ to ‘managing’): 50% of replies includedthis reason;

• stock control and involvement with budgets: 39% of replies included this reason.

These percentages may be rather higher since other responses, while not specifically giving these reasons, gave“organises and oversees all practical work” and “administration of the science department” as the additionalresponsibilities. These could be interpreted as overseeing the work of other technicians and stock control respectively.

Question 7: Are you the technicians’ line manager? If the answer is ‘no’, who is their line manager?Where the Head of Science was not the technicians line-manager, the following were said to be:

Question 8: Do the technicians have job descriptions? If the answer is ‘yes’, who produced them?192 Heads of Science (92%) asked said their technicians had job descriptions. There was a spread of peopleresponsible for producing these. Often the Head of Science had inherited them. Several said that the job descriptionswere currently under review.

Question 9: Are the technicians appraised each year?See section 2.2 and table of yes / no answers on page 20


Number of responses Percentage of total

‘Academic’Deputy head (or equivalent) 4Second in department 2Subject heads (or equivalent) 16Sub total 22 40%

‘Non-academic’Bursar 8Business or financial manager 6Administration or personnel 9Sub total 23 42%

‘Mixed’Head and Science and Bursar 6Head of Science and Personnel/Admin 3Head of Science and subject head 1Sub total 10 18%

Total 55 100%

Job descriptions produced by Number of responses

Head of Science * 95Headteacher or senior management 11Senior technician 2Head of Science in conjunction with personnel 13Head of Science in conjunction with headteacher / senior management ** 31Head of Science in conjunction with bursar / business manager etc** 14School based upon LEA guidelines 11Don’t know 15

Total 192

* where the Head of Science produced the job description it was often in liaison with the technicians** in a few cases this was done without reference to the Head of Science

Question 10: Do your technicians have direct contact with students? If the answer is ‘yes’, please give someexamples.144 Heads of Science (69%) said that their technicians had direct contact with students. Examples of this contactincluded:

Question 11: Who determines the acceptable workload for the technicians and prioritises their tasks?Workload is largely determined by what the teachers asked for and technicians prioritise and manage it. More than oneHead of Science said “It just happens”. In response to the question, Heads of Science answered as follows:


Examples of technician contact with students Number of responses

Helping with practical and investigative work 59Demonstrating the use of equipment and/or experiments 34Being present in the classroom 27Helping with IT (including data logging) 24Working with small groups or individuals 11Trouble-shooting 8Field trips 5

Total 168

Technician workload determined by: Number of responses

The technicians themselves 61Head of Science 45Head of Science and Senior Technician 24Head of Science and technician 39Senior Technician 31Administrative line manager 4

Total 204


Sum

mar

y o

f an

swer

s to

yes

/ n

o q

ues

tio

ns

Qu

esti

on

Tota

l 11

-13

11-1

611

-18

Furt

her

V

I Fo

rm

Gra

mm

arIn

dTe

ch

Co

mp

Co

mp

Co

mp

Edu

cati

on

Co

lleg

eC

olle

ge

[209

][1

][4

7][1

06]

[9]

[6]

[15]

[22]

*[4

]

Yes

%Ye

s%

Yes

%Ye

s%

Yes

%Ye

s%

Yes

%Ye

s%

Yes

%

2. D

o yo

u co

nsid

er y

our l

evel

of t

echn

icia

n su

ppor

t ade

quat

e?11

455

00

2043

5350

778

583

960

1895

250

4. D

o yo

u in

vite

the

tech

nici

ans

to d

epar

tmen

tal m

eetin

gs?

160

771

100

4596

7773

910

05

837

7813

683

75

6. D

o yo

u ha

ve a

sen

ior t

echn

icia

n?

143

681

100

3472

7571

778

467

960

1053

375

7. A

re y

ou th

e te

chni

cian

s’ li

ne m

anag

er?

174

831

100

4289

9388

667

583

960

1579

375

8. D

o th

e te

chni

cian

s ha

ve jo

b de

scrip

tions

?19

292

110

041

8799

939

100

610

015

100

1789

410

0

9. A

re th

e te

chni

cian

s ap

prai

sed

each

yea

r?84

400

014

3040

388

896

100

747

632

375

10. D

o yo

ur te

chni

cian

s ha

ve d

irect

con

tact

with

stu

dent

s?14

469

00

3164

7066

910

06

100

1280

1368

375

* 3

inde

pend

ent s

choo

ls re

port

ed n

o te

chni

cian

s, s

o pe

rcen

tage

s ar

e ba

sed

on 1

9 re

plie

s

As discussed in section 2.3 of the main report, commentsregarding technician provision and management in asample of OFSTED and FEFC inspection reports wereanalysed. Representative comments from these reportsare given below.

OFSTED

The amount of technical support is insufficient toservice the high levels of practical work and also toensure that all health and safety measures are inplace.

Technical support is excellent, though inadequate toservice five laboratories and to support theextensive range of practical work carried out by thedepartment.

Technical support is barely sufficient for adepartment of this size: the technicians provide veryvaluable assistance but there are only two of themand one is part time.

The well-qualified teachers are well supported byreliable technicians who are under pressure of timeto service the nine laboratories.

The quality of teaching is well supported by theexcellent work of the laboratory technicians. Thesepeople work under very difficult conditions yetalways have the apparatus and equipment ready forlessons and, as if by magic, clear it away efficientlyagain afterwards. There has been someimprovement since the last inspection but thequality of teaching and learning would be improvedif there were more laboratory technicians.

Two of the science laboratories have beenrefurbished but the other two are in urgent need ofimprovement. Storage is a serious problem. Thelaboratories which are in constant use are on twofloors and although the technician is very efficient,there is a need for more support to service thedemands of a very practically oriented curriculum.

The department is well supported by aninexperienced technician, but support time is poorfor the range of courses on offer and the number oflaboratories which have to be serviced.

Two technicians provide valuable support butdespite an increase in hours worked, they continueto have an excessive workload, identified in the lastreport.

The teaching staff are well supported by two veryhard working technicians. At the last inspectionthere were three technicians and so there has beenan erosion in the amount of support staff. [Note: the school had nine laboratories]

Technical support has improved since the lastinspection but it is still inadequate.

Further Education Funding Council

Representative comments from grade 1 collegereports:

Well-qualified administrative, technicians andsupport staff work flexibly with teachers to assiststudents in achieving their learning goals. Forexample, the two part-time science techniciansadjust their hours of attendance throughout theyear to meet the varying demands on their services.

…effective technical support for teaching andlearning. Communication between all staff is good.

In some curriculum areas, for example chemistry,technicians are invited to all departmental meetingsand contribute fully to the decision-making process.The level of technician support is good; each sciencesubject has a dedicated technician who hasappropriate experience and qualifications.Laboratories are well managed and clean.

Technical staff are appropriately qualified andexperienced. They provide good support forteaching.

The technicians, of whom 50% are part time, arewell qualified and provide good assistance tolearning.

Most technician staff are well qualified and areexperienced. They work well with teachers andtheir contribution is appreciated.

Representative comments from grade 4 collegereports:

The technician support for science is excellent. Thetechnicians are well managed and haveopportunities to undertake staff developmentactivities.

Technicians provide good support.

Laboratory technicians are well qualified andprovide an excellent service.


Appendix 3: Comments from inspection reports

Teachers are supported in their work by a team ofexperienced technicians.

Quality and Standards in Further Education inEngland

Quotes from the Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector:

1996–1997 Support staff are deployed efficiently butthere is sometimes insufficient technicalsupport for computing work.

1997–1998 Practical lessons are often more effectivethan theory sessions. Teachers and supportstaff are well qualified.

1998–1999 Practical lessons are usually taught morecompetently than theory lessons.Most teachers and technical support staffare appropriately qualified.

1999–2000 There is usually a good balance betweentheoretical and practical activities.Teachers and technical support staff workwell together. Science students developgood practical, laboratory skills and followhealth and safety requirements, thoughsome do not understand the theoreticalprinciples on which their work is based.

Curriculum Area Survey Report: Sciences,March 1998

Quotes from the report:

Features of well-managed provision include soundstrategic planning and effective arrangements formonitoring and evaluating the quality of course,strong leadership, clear objectives which are sharedby teaching and support staff, roles andresponsibilities which are clearly understood, goodcommunications and productive team work.

Weaknesses commonly encountered include:a lack of strategic planning;inadequate management information to supportthe review and evaluation of courses;low attendance at meetings leading to poorcommunications between teachers, support staffand students.

Sufficient help is available from teachers andtechnicians in most lessons.

Colleges have well-qualified and highly valuedtechnical support staff teams who serviceinformation technology and science programmes.They provide technical support for practicalactivities and often order equipment andconsumables, and carry out health and safetychecks. Their role has changed in recent years andmany now act as instructors or trainers. In large,multi-site colleges there is sometimes an imbalancein the technical support across sites. Where thereare insufficient technicians to service equipment,faults are not repaired quickly enough or theequipment does not function efficiently.


The following is the joint guidance issued in September2001 by Bristol City Council and the GMB, TGWU andUNISON unions regarding school technicians. Includedwith the advice was an outline of the progression routefor school technicians (reproduced on the following page)along with generic job descriptions for each grade andemployee specifications.

BackgroundThe grading of technicians in schools had never beenreviewed by either the former County of Avon nor BristolCity Council. Consequently the pay grading for this workgroup has not been considered for many years. SinceSpring 2000, a group of technicians, a head of science, aheadteacher and representatives from the Departmentand the Council’s Pay and Benefits Team have beenworking together to design a set of jobs that accuratelyreflect the role of technicians in the 21st Century.

The work that has been undertaken is also part of a widerreview to develop a set of jobs for all support staff posts inschools. Because of the lack of any up to date jobdescriptions etc, the first work group that was addressedwere technicians. The gradings were determined by a jobevaluation panel in April 2001.

The new jobsThere are 4 jobs in the ‘job family’. They are:1. Trainee Technician (Level 1)2. Trainee School Technician (Level 2)3. Qualified Technician 4. Team Leader Technician

The jobs are generic and represent the duties a technician ina school would normally undertake. It is important torecognise that the job descriptions etc can be modifiedlocally to meet your own specific requirements. Wherethere are changes made at a school level, there should beconsultation with staff and trade union representatives.Where you have posts that have already been evaluatedunder the Hay Job Evaluation Scheme since 1996, egResource Technician and Reprographics Technician, there isno requirement to use these new model job descriptions.

The new job and grading structure is a competency basedmodel. It is designed so staff who demonstrate throughperformance management that they meet the requiredcompetencies can move through from Trainee TechnicianLevel 1 to becoming a Qualified Technician, subject toeffective performance. It is an expectation that staffshould have an annual performance managementmeeting to review levels of experience and training tomeet the requirements of the grading structure.

In respect of the Team Leader Technician post, it is amatter of local discretion to determine whether the postshould be established. It is recommended that a teamleader post is appropriate where there are three FTE ormore technicians that need to be line managed.

Implementation of new gradesIt is a matter for governing bodies to determine whetheror not to adopt the new grading structure. However, it isrecommended that the existing jobs undertaken bytechnicians are reviewed in the light of the new LEAstructure and that staff are assimilated into the newstructure according to their experience and qualifications.This should be undertaken in consultation with staff. It isopen to the governing body to evaluate and develop jobsin line with specific school based requirements and thenew job descriptions would represent a good startingpoint for this work.

Using competency gradesIt is recommended that your school performancemanagement policy is used as the basis for consideringpay progression through the various trainee levels up toand including Technician.

Equal pay considerationsThe new jobs have been evaluated and graded inaccordance with the job evaluation scheme adopted bythe City Council. Clearly, under the School Standards andFramework Act, it is a matter for governing bodies todetermine grades in accordance with LEA pay scales.Governing bodies need to be mindful of equal pay issuesif they decide not to implement the LEArecommendations and staff are undertaking duties at alower grade where the LEA recommended grade ishigher.

Qualification AllowancesQualification Allowances no longer form part of the localgrading structure for this work group. Therefore, there isno requirement for schools to pay the allowance to anystaff appointed to this new grading structure.

Resource implicationsIt is a matter for individual schools to resource any gradeincreases arising from the new structure. It isrecommended that this is discussed with work group atan early stage if grade changes are likely. The LEA will bereviewing the LMS Scheme this summer and it has beenrequested that this area of the Activity Led ResourcingModel is considered as part of the review.


Appendix 4: Joint Bristol scheme for school technicians’ career & grading structure


The generic job descriptions used in the Joint Bristol scheme are available from the Transport & General Workers’ Union.For further information about the scheme please contact Denise Wiles on 01179 9389206.

Job title and grade Essential criteria (technical)

Trainee Technician (Level 1) • Basic numeracy & literacy skills to NVQ level 1 equivalent level.Hay B [Equivalent to APT&C scale points 10-13] • A proven aptitude for working within a technical support team.

• Willingness to undertake further studies.

Trainee Technician (Level 2) • Either 2 full school years experience in a technician role or 1 year plus Hay C [Equivalent to APT&C scale points 14-17] NVQ level 2 in a relevant technical subject.

• An awareness of the role in terms of team working and service delivery.

• Working knowledge of key responsibilities of a school technician.

Qualified Technician • Possess competence equivalent to NVQ 3 in a relevant technicalHay E [Equivalent to APT&C scale points 22-25] subject plus at least 2 years proven experience in a school / nursery / Early

Years Centre etc, or 4 years experience without the qualification, plusevidence of CPD.

• A thorough knowledge of the relevant legislation, policies andprocedures that have an impact upon the role and service.

• Able to work autonomously in planning out workload in short term (upto a month).

Technician Team Leader • Possess competence equivalent to NVQ 3 / BTEC in a relevant technicalHay G [Equivalent to APT&C scale points 30-34] subject plus at least 4 years proven experience in a school / nursery /

college / Early Years Centre etc, and evidence of CPD.(Can lead on to further career opportunities, • Able to organise the work of self and others, allocated resources, andeg FE/HE technician, teacher, Head of ICT unit, assist in curriculum planning.Technical Team Leader in other departments of the City Council etc)

Progression route for the Joint Bristol Scheme

Supporting success: science technicians in schools and...

Documents

Transcript of Supporting success: science technicians in schools and...