THE past few weeks have been good for science education headlines. We have had the Festival of Science in Glasgow, the Scottish Science Strategy and the launch of the Year of Science to name but a few. In announcing the Scottish Science Strategy, Wendy Alexander, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Minister, clearly has designs on keeping Scottish science at the forefront.

A major component is providing good science education in schools, one that will fire enthusiasm and encourage further study. The strategy acknowledges that “there has been relatively little investment in science equipment and accommodation in recent years”. Of the 10 action points then listed, the second last is that the Executive “will work with local authorities to consider how to secure the provision of modern accommodation and resources for science education”.

This is an important commitment that I hope will be properly addressed. As a principal teacher of physics for the past 12 years I have been party to many a discussion (or greet?) about the parlous state of equipment in physics departments. In recent years the Royal Society and the Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre (SSERC) have costed the equipment required to adequately deliver the science curriculum and maintain it in a reasonable condition.

In June, with funds from the Association for Science Education (ASE), I circulated a questionnaire to all physics departments to determine the national funding picture. I received a return of more than 30 per cent from schools in 29 authorities and the independent sector, thus allowing me to make a good comparison of the actual funding situation with the SSERC’s recommendations.

My main findings are that the average school requires 3.2 laboratories to teach physics and the physics components of science courses. The SSERC recommends that such a school requires pound;12,950 a year for physics equipment. In reality a school receives pound;3,798, around half of which is spent on photocopying and stationery. This leaves pound;1,936, or 14.9 per cent of the recommendation, to be spent on equipment. Indeed four of the schools responding spent nothing on equipment last session. There is not much for textbooks either.

The increased use of ICT has also had a negative impact. The built-in obsolescence of much hardware has increased pressure on already stretched budgets. Most schools have spent most of their resources on computer suites, an arrangement little suited to the delivery of physics. A survey by the Scottish Science Advisory Group found that 24 per cent of science departments still used ancient BBCs.

We now have a whole generation of physics teachers who have never worked with adequate resources. Small wonder that pupils may turn to other areas they, quite unjustifiably, see as more modern and relevant to the 21st century.

Jack McConnell, the Education Minister, launched the Scottish arm of the Year of Science at the Glasgow Science Centre and announced funding of pound;8 million to generate greater interest among pupils and improve teacher expertise - not unfortunately a direct allocation to science departments. He has also announced pound;10 million specifically for school equipment.

I would not want to look a gift-horse in the mouth, and appreciate Mr McConnell has moved where others before him have not. However, even if all pound;18 million were spread over the 400 Scottish physics departments it would only come to pound;45,000 each, not even enough to bring equipment up to scratch let alone address the many competing priorities schools have to face. Science departments and their pupils deserve much better.

Stuart Farmer is principal physics teacher at Robert Gordon’s College in Aberdeen, convener of the physics assessment panel of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and a former chair of ASE Scotland.