Ask any chemist, of Nobel standing or otherwise, what inspired them to commit to their profession and they will have memories of good teachers and the most amazing practical lessons. None failed to be awestruck as they witnessed their teachers dropping just a tiny lump of sodium in water, or the explosive reaction between potassium manganate(vii) and glycerol with its white smoke, steam and purple plumes. Colour changes associated with many reactions as they proceed are often cited as being inspirational, as is the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, and exploding methane bubbles. Lessons come alive and the link between theory and practice is forged. 

The thrill of witnessing and indeed doing hands-on practical chemistry has never been more important as a way of inspiring the next generation of chemists, as well as ensuring the wealth and health of the nation. But, over the past few years there have been growing rumours and much anecdotal evidence, in particular from students, that practical work in secondary schools is not only in decline but, importantly, is not actually very inspiring. What are the main reasons for teachers not doing the sorts of experiments that have inspired generations of practising chemists? Are the often mentioned health and safety issues really the main culprits? There is, after all, an abundance of advice on such matters available not only from CLEAPSS (Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Services) and its sister organisation in Scotland, SSERC (Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre), but also from Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Association for Science Education (ASE). 

Surely that's banned?

The RSC, concerned about the teaching of practical science in schools, commissioned CLEAPSS with the help of SSERC to investigate if: 

• there are a number of myths and misunderstandings about presumed bans on particular chemicals, activities or procedures in school science; and 
• much effective teaching of practical science is being inhibited on spurious grounds of health and safety.  

CLEAPSS sent questionnaires to a sample of 1249 secondary schools of all types, in every education authority in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the offshore islands. Similar questionnaires were sent to a sample of 447 Scottish secondary schools by SSERC, and some 634 to education officers in every education authority in the UK outside Scotland. The questions related partly to organisational aspects of health and safety in science but there were also 40 questions about materials and specific experiments - covering biology, chemistry and physics - that schools could do. The response rate from schools was 24 per cent, and from the education officers 10 per cent, representing ca a third of the authorities surveyed.  

Focusing on chemistry, for example, the survey asked, which of the following chemicals or activities are banned in schools and colleges in the UK by health and safety legislation at the national level?  

• Exploding cans of custard powder, icing sugar, lycopodium powder etc. 
• Exploding cans containing methane/air mixtures. 
• Reducing heated copper(ii) oxide with hydrogen. 
• Dropping potassium into water. 
• Heating iron/sulphur mixtures. 
• The thermite reaction. 
• Use of benzene. 
• The iodine/aluminium reaction. 
• Using a blowpipe in lead oxide/charcoal reductions. 
• Using bromine in diffusion demonstrations. 
• Demonstrating ammonium dichromate volcano. 
• Use of genuine crude oil. 
• Use of naphthalene (moth balls). 
• Demonstrating the reaction between propane-1,2,3-triol (glycerine) and potassium manganate(vii). 
• Use of mercury in thermometers. 

Answer: only benzene (and any mixture or solution containing more than one per cent benzene) and crude oil in this list are banned at a national level under COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) regulations because they carcinogens. As far as the others are concerned, you should be able to do them provided you do a risk assessment and take the necessary precautions. (The RSC has a list of banned chemicals, and those not recommended for use in schools on its website). So how does this measure up with the findings of the CLEAPSS/SSERC report?

Main findings in brief 

The complete report, Surely that's banned?, can be found on the RSC's website. According to the findings of the report, the RSC's concerns are substantially justified. 'There are significant misunderstandings on the part of teachers and technicians', the report states, 'about the chemicals and scientific activities which are banned in secondary schools and some teaching is inhibited by unjustified concerns about health and safety'. With few exceptions, however, the blame can't be thrown at over cautious LEA officers. 'In practice', the report finds, 'education authorities have banned very little'. However, almost all of the 40 activities listed on the questionnaire were banned locally by at least one of the authorities (ca 18) which had such prohibitions in place. And the majority of schools believed incorrectly that at least two or three, and sometimes many more, of the activities were banned. According to the report, schools with sixth forms tend to be more adventurous in the variety of activities done in science, and generally maintained schools incorrectly believed more items to be banned than independent schools. Smaller schools tended to believe that more activities were banned when they were not and larger schools were more likely to do the activities on the list. The results suggest, the report speculates, that independent schools, those with sixth form and larger schools would be more likely to have specialist equipment and suitably qualified teachers that come with better resources. The report comments that schools 'did not identify lack of expertise as a problem'. Perhaps, the report states, 'they do not realise what they are missing?'. More revealing, however, were the comments in the questionnaires from teachers. Some said that they did not have the time to do many of the activities mentioned in the survey and others thought that some of the activities were not relevant to their courses. 

The report concludes that despite the efforts of all the mentioned professional bodies, there is still a need to improve the understanding of schools and employers about the balance between appropriate safety in science and exciting and stimulating science lessons. Colin Osborne, education manager, schools and colleges, told Education in Chemistry, 'An overemphasis on teaching to the test to maintain league table positions, together with the recent report from the Institute of Physics on qualifications of physics teachers and soon to be published report from the DfES on the supply and qualifications of science teachers, all point to the fact that science teachers without the relevant subject qualification lack confidence in doing practical work'. 

Close on the heels of this report, Nesta (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) announced the findings of its report, Real science, at the Science Museum in London, in November. Supported by science professional bodies, including the RSC, the report finds that science investigation and experiments in schools are being squeezed out, threatening the UK's economic competitiveness and future capacity for innovation. The findings of this report suggest that this approach to learning has the potential to reverse the apparent decline in young people's interest and engagement in school science. The report recommends that unless a more hands-on approach to science is enhanced and extended in schools, there is likely to be negative consequences for future scientific research and public scientific literacy in the UK. 

Kathryn Roberts