The role and management of. School laboratory technicians

Transcription

1 Blease and Busher School laboratory technicians The role and management of school laboratory technicians Derek Blease and Hugh Busher Are science technicians taken too much for granted? There is an urgent need for studies of good practice in the role and management of such a valuable resource. At the time, the 1994 Association for Science Education survey, School technicians, an invaluable asset, stood alone as an attempt at a systematic study of the management of technicians in school science departments. The survey concluded that the use of skilled technicians for certain tasks was not costeffective, and that the duties undertaken by experienced technicians had a significant effect on the quality of education offered by schools. Opportunities for development in management practices abound. There were no nationally agreed guidelines relating to conditions of employment to protect individuals from exploitation, and not all technicians had a written job description (Revell, 1990). Training needs were often overlooked or ignored, even though the stable nature of the workforce suggested that investment in the training and development of technicians would be cost-effective. The results of the ASE survey suggested that the majority of employers did not, at that time, fulfil the most basic legal requirements for training of technical ABSTRACT This article discusses the results of a pilot study of the role and management of laboratory technicians in eight science departments in East Midlands secondary schools. Starting with the 1994 ASE survey, it looks at how science technicians have become involved in decisionmaking in their schools, the range of tasks undertaken, the effect of the technicians work on the quality of education on offer, opportunities for development in management practices, conditions of employment, and training needs and opportunities. staff; nor had local managers taken steps to ensure that technicians were provided with the appropriate range of policy documents and guidelines. There was a general absence of both induction training and opportunities for regular update training on matters relating to health and safety legislation. The lack of support and advice services available to some technicians was identified as an area of concern despite the highly valued services of the CLEAPSS School Science Service, the Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre (SSERC) and the ASE. There is very little other research or literature in this field (Busher and Saran, 1995; Hermitt, 1996). While the School Teachers Review Body (1995) noted a 31 per cent increase in the employment of support staff generally in schools in the period , there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that there has been a decline in the number of technicians, a considerable decline in some cases. It seems a matter of some urgency, then, to find out how some of the non-teaching or support staff in a school are being managed, and how they may best be used by teachers to support learning by students in laboratories and classrooms. The study Eight schools participated in a pilot study during the academic year , allowing us to interview laboratory technicians and science staff and to gather data about staff and the organisation of the schools. These schools were a mixture of 11 18, and schools in a variety of semi-rural and urban environments. Two were grant-maintained although, School Science Review, June 1999, 80 (293) 17

2 School laboratory technicians Blease and Busher for the purposes of this study, the experiences of their technicians did not appear to be significantly different from those in the other schools. All of the schools and their science departments were chosen because they were known to be highly regarded in their communities, and had received favourable reports from the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). Twelve teachers were interviewed, nine males and three females, one head of faculty, seven heads of department, one second head of science, one head of chemistry, one head of physics, and one head of biology. Eleven technicians were interviewed, all women and all, bar one, in their mid-30s or older. Eight of the eleven technicians had science-related qualifications equivalent to A-level or higher and all, bar one, had more than eight years experience in their jobs. The findings Conditions of employment All the technicians interviewed had written job descriptions, although five had acquired them only recently, in one case as a result of an OFSTED inspection. Rather than restricting the scope of the technicians duties, some were written in such general terms that almost anything could fall within their remit. None of the technicians kept to their job descriptions: all were doing additional work. In one case, with some resentment, the technician was doing work which was of a responsibility level not normally assigned to their grade of technician. Despite the apparently poor conditions of service, teachers and technicians claimed that the technicians jobs were very important. The department would not run without them, said one teacher, a view echoed by many others. Although there are no nationally agreed guidelines relating to conditions of employment to protect individuals from exploitation (Revell, 1990), the conditions of employment for technicians have improved in some respects. There has been nothing like the prospect of an inspection to focus the attention on such things as schemes of work which enable the delivery of the National Curriculum, and the putting into place of appropriate enabling procedures. The main jobs technicians do regularly There is a high level of agreement between teachers and technicians on the nature and relative importance of most jobs undertaken by technicians. However, there is a detectable, and understandable, shift of emphasis. Teachers are more aware of the things that directly affect whether they are adequately set up to teach the lesson they have planned, giving lesson preparation, stock and ordering, and photocopying a high priority, and placing less emphasis on how things get cleared and cleaned up after them. For the technicians, after lesson preparation, clearing and cleaning up are significant parts of their work. Only one teacher specifically mentioned washing up, which, according to the technicians, was their pet hate. Clearly, If you want to make your technicians happy, buy them a dishwasher! Jobs that take up most of the technicians time There is a high level of agreement between technicians and teachers on this issue. The teachers reported unanimously that lesson preparation took up most of the technicians time. Clearing away and washing up were also mentioned (5). For the technicians, lesson preparation was by far the most time-consuming activity (9), whereas clearing away (2), washing up (1), photocopying (1), and repair and maintenance (1) rarely featured as taking up a lot of their time. Contacts between teachers and technicians Teachers reported that their most common contacts with technicians are ad hoc, informal and occur on a daily basis. Formal meetings are rare. Instructions are regularly given on paper using the agreed job sheet/ requisition slip; however, technicians often reported this method to be unreliable. Where social functions take place, technicians are usually included. Who decides what work the technicians do? The teachers reported that decisions about what technicians did were most commonly made by them (7) on a day-to-day basis, although they also reported technicians deciding on their own initiative (7) as being equally important. Also mentioned was the head of department (5) and the senior technician (1). Knowing what work to do each day Teachers reported that they used weekly (9) or daily (2) job sheets and verbal requests (9) to tell technicians what to do, a view endorsed by the technicians. The length of notice for job sheets varied from one week to 24 hours; however, many technicians complained that teachers did not always adhere to these times. This was often cited as the reason for technicians not being able to plan ahead as much as they would like. In addition to worksheets, technicians reported that verbal requests were common. Only two technicians mentioned that they worked on their own initiative. 18 School Science Review, June 1999, 80 (293)

3 Blease and Busher School laboratory technicians Delegated responsibilities Teachers and technicians largely agreed on which responsibilities are delegated to them, although the technicians accounts are, understandably, more detailed. Teachers mentioned stock monitoring and ordering (10), maintenance of equipment (3), running the prep room (3), lesson preparation (2), lab maintenance (1), and photocopying (1). Technicians reported that most had responsibility for monitoring stock, ordering and maintenance. Chemical supplies and solutions were often mentioned. The day-to-day running of labs, the preparation of equipment and safety instructions to ensure the smooth running of lessons, checking that staff were in lessons, and offering help and advice to inexperienced or nonscience teachers were also included. Also mentioned were health and safety (3), budgeting and petty cash (2), special responsibility for an individual year group or a specific suite of labs (2), disposal of hazardous waste (1), and first aid (1). Senior technicians also reported organisation and running of the prep room, and management of the other technicians. Autonomy in decision-making There was a high level of agreement between teachers and technicians concerning decision-making. However, the technicians accounts were, once again, more detailed. Technicians reported that they were able to make a range of decisions without consulting a teacher. Responsibility for stock keeping, ordering of equipment and materials and making decisions about whether to repair or replace equipment were common. Making decisions about the quantities of equipment, worksheets and handouts needed for lessons, and safety were also mentioned. Responsibility for the organisation of the prep room was commonly in their hands. Generally technicians reported that they worked independently and rarely needed to consult the senior technician for approval. In some cases the final decision concerning the spending of money was retained by the head of department. Involvement in departmental decision-making Technicians were formally involved in departmental decision-making on occasions where it was relevant (teachers 9, technicians 2), including attendance at departmental meetings where they were directly affected. Informal consultation was also thought to be common (teachers 5, technicians 7), where views on current practices or changes in departmental practices or policies were sought. In only one case did informal consultations lead to a formal meeting. One technician reported regular meetings with the head of department and another reported that technicians were consulted through the senior technician. Only one technician reported no involvement at all. Two technicians reported regular support staff meetings from which issues could be passed, by the head of department or senior technician, to staff meetings for further discussion. Provision of training Technicians and teachers reported that, in the previous three years, technician training ranged from the general science technicians courses to more specific topics including health and safety and first aid. Chemical handling and storage courses were common (possibly in response to tightening of COSHH regulations, or more likely the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992). Highly specific skills courses such as management, microscope servicing and soldering were less common (1 of each). Three technicians reported no training within the last three years, even though they thought that it would be useful. Only one technician reported one hour per term set aside for in-house training. Some training was organised by the schools (the department, staff development coordinator, or by a technician), and some by the LEA. All training was paid for by the schools, either directly or through departmental or health and safety budgets. Monitoring and appraisal Most monitoring was seen to be informal by the head of department or other staff. In some cases technicians work was not monitored (teachers 2, technicians 7). The majority of teachers and technicians reported that there was no formal system of regular appraisal in place for technicians (10). Two teachers reported (same school) that something had just been set up in connection with Investors in people, and while one other reported that a system was in place, another teacher from the same school was unaware of it. One senior technician reported informal appraisal with new appointees during their first year in post. Support for the technicians work Department heads were perceived to support technicians, both professionally and personally, by both formal and informal means. Very often it was reported that technicians were given a lot of freedom to make their own decisions but could consult with the head when they had a problem. In some cases, teachers reported instances where the head had protected the technician from attempts by senior School Science Review, June 1999, 80 (293) 19

4 School laboratory technicians Blease and Busher management to increase workload. Technicians reported that the general pattern of cooperation between heads of department and technicians was for the head to seek opinions and ideas from technicians about changes, or to present the technician with a problem, and then to let them get on with the job with minimal or no supervision. Heads would monitor progress informally and expect the technician to decide whether or when to raise questions or problems. Technicians reported that their heads of department were approachable and supportive professionally, and would back them if needed. Only in one case was it suggested that the second head was more supportive. Value of technicians in facilitating delivery of the curriculum The science teachers expressed the unanimous and strong view that they could not function without the help and support of their technicians. It was also agreed that the function and value of technicians was not understood or appreciated outside the science department. All technicians were aware that science staff valued their job highly. Teachers made technicians aware of how much they were appreciated, most often by verbal thanks and small gifts, especially at Christmas. Inclusion in departmental functions was also important, and sometimes included a free Christmas lunch. Few suggested that technicians were not thanked enough. This was generally supported by the technicians. Teachers describe technicians helping and cooperating, whether in terms of in-class support, looking after pupils outside the classroom, covering for illness, or just being there to listen and offer advice. All of this seemed to be over and above the technician s formal duties of preparing resources for practicals, clearing up and repairing equipment. Even though there was a strong view expressed by teachers that resources, or the lack of them, had a greater effect on teachers ability to deliver the curriculum, technician support in the preparation of practical work, or even the ability to do practical work at all, was the single most important factor. Reduction in technicians time was seen as a great threat to the maintenance of practical work in science. Facilities for technicians The technicians often took their coffee breaks in the prep room, often with teaching staff, even if they had been encouraged to use the staffroom (4). Only three mentioned separate facilities, and only two mentioned technicians using the staffroom. Contact with pupils Most contact with pupils is perceived by teachers and technicians to be informal, either in the prep room or in the lab or classroom. Formal contact was much less, often, but not exclusively, involving the provision of support for sixth-form practical work or extra help in class with special needs groups. One technician reported as much as six hours support in year 9. Prep room contacts were restricted to the handing in of work, the distribution of extra equipment or minor first aid and pastoral care. A significant number of technicians reported minimal or no direct contact either in or out of the classroom. Technicians work and contacts outside the department No distinct pattern was reported by the technicians for their involvement in activities outside the science department. Six reported no involvement at all. Two were school governors and one was active in the school community association and the youth club. Two reported repair of equipment outside the science department and two were involved with first aid. Teachers perceived technicians having most contact outside the department with other technicians, reprographics and support staff including the librarian (17), office and administrative staff in connection with the ordering of materials and equipment (13). Other contacts included other teaching staff when they wanted to borrow something or through first aid (5), and contact with caretakers (4). Social functions Where staff functions occurred, either formal or informal, all teachers and technicians reported that they played a full part. In some cases the technicians played an active role in their organisation. Three technicians (2 schools) reported no staff functions. Summary and conclusions We started our discussion by identifying what, on the basis of very little previous research, was or was not happening. Part of our quest was to find out whether anything had changed much in the intervening years, a time when the National Curriculum and OFSTED had stimulated rapid change in almost every other aspect of education. Our conclusions with respect to these and other related issues, can only be thought of as tentative given the small size of our study, but we hope that they are sufficient to guide other researchers in the field, and provide schools, and in particular heads of science departments, with a basis upon which to 20 School Science Review, June 1999, 80 (293)

5 Blease and Busher School laboratory technicians question their own practice. 1 Technicians undertake a wide range of tasks, often with very different levels of competence and skill required. The wide range of tasks undertaken by technicians, both inside and outside the science department, does not appear to have changed. Written job descriptions provide considerable scope for technicians to identify their own priorities, and little formal monitoring, supervision or appraisal of their work is evident. Consultation, and input to decision-making of technicians is not uncommon, but occurs often on an informal basis. 2 The duties undertaken by experienced technicians have a significant effect on the quality of education that schools and colleges are able to offer. There is no doubt that science teachers value the support of their technicians to the extent that they would be unable to sustain practical work without them. However, this key role played by the technicians was not appreciated outside science departments. The technicians even reported supporting non-science staff, support and sometimes supervision of classes, and making sure that teachers turned up for classes on time. Most teachers did not appear to be aware of this behind the scenes activity. 3 Opportunities for development in management practices abound. The high level of technician autonomy, the lack of formal monitoring and appraisal and the failure to involve experienced technicians in formal management and decision-making, reported in this study, suggest that there are still considerable opportunities for efficiency gains. 4 There are no nationally agreed guidelines relating to conditions of employment to protect individuals from exploitation, and not all technicians have a written job description. The demands of the National Curriculum and OFSTED inspections have necessitated the implementation of procedures to ensure that they are met. One consequence of this is that all technicians reported having written job descriptions, even if they were sometimes somewhat general in nature. 5 Training needs are often overlooked or ignored even though the stable nature of the workforce suggests that investment in the training and development of technicians would be costeffective. 6 There is a general absence of both induction training and opportunities for regular update training on matters relating to health and safety legislation. In the light of the tightening of safety regulations, it is not surprising that health and safety courses were the most commonly reported, followed by technical courses. However, our study indicates that there is still considerable scope for further investment in the training of a relatively stable and loyal workforce. References ASE Laboratory Technicians Task Group (1994) School technicians, an invaluable asset. A report. Hatfield: Association for Science Education. Busher, H. and Saran, R. (1995) Managing teachers as professionals in schools. London: Kogan Page (includes a chapter on managing support staff generally). Hermitt, D. A. (1996) The work of science technicians in a secondary school: a case study mimeo. Division of Education, University of Sheffield. Revell, M. ed. (1990) Technical support for school science. Hatfield: Association for Science Education. School Teachers Review Body (1995) Fourth Report. London: HMSO. Derek Blease, Department of Education, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, is Senior Lecturer in Education and Director of the Quality Assessment Unit. He previously taught science in secondary and primary schools in London and the South East. Hugh Busher, School of Education, Leicester University, Leicester LE1 7RF, is Senior Lecturer in Education with particular expertise in school management. School Science Review, June 1999, 80 (293) 21

6 School laboratory technicians Blease and Busher ad for British Agrochemicals to strip in from neg 22 School Science Review, June 1999, 80 (293)