The chemeketas are among the UKs top science teachers.
The government’s Chemeketa Education Program, or CEPS, is the UK government’s flagship public-private partnership to teach chemistry and biology to secondary school students.
It’s been a success.
The program has been in place since the late 1980s, when the National Education Service (NES) was created to provide primary-school teachers with specialist training in chemistry and physics.
The aim was to make chemists better equipped to teach the sciences, and it’s still one of the most popular science courses in the country.
Chemeketis have also become the poster children of government funding for higher education.
And it’s no wonder: the CEPS has spent billions on research, equipment, and teaching over the last 20 years.
But a new analysis by the London School of Economics, London School, and University College London has found that the CEP also makes little to no difference in the quality of science and maths taught by UK secondary school pupils.
The results are published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
The authors looked at the data from all primary and secondary schools in England, from 2007-08 to 2016-17.
They then compared the results to data from the OECD and found that in the first year of the programme, teachers teaching chemistry and maths in primary schools were significantly less effective than teachers teaching science and math in secondary schools.
The researchers used the same dataset to compare teachers teaching chemists and other science and mathematics to teachers teaching physics and biology.
“There is little evidence that the chemekets are more effective than those teachers teaching biology,” said lead author James Tynan, an economist at the London Business School.
“It’s not like there’s some extra training to be done.
It does provide some additional training.”
What’s more, the results suggested that the chemistry and math programmes were not significantly different from teachers teaching the subjects in general.
So how did the chemistry teacher who was doing a better job than the other teachers in the study get the better grades?
“It is a question of the chemistry teachers not teaching chemistry as well as the other chemistry teachers,” Tyna said.
“The chemistry teacher may not have been good enough to teach physics, but that is no excuse.”
Tynnan said that if teachers were teaching chemistry, the reason for that could be that they were learning the subject from an experienced teacher who has previously been doing chemistry.
“If that is the case, the chemistry education program is probably not the best way to go,” he said.
What’s the science?
The UK government sets a target of creating a high-quality science curriculum by 2020.
However, the UK has the highest percentage of people who do not have a high school qualification, and the average UK secondary student has a university degree or a higher level of education.
In a 2016 report, the OECD found that “the UK has one of highest percentages of science teachers who are not highly qualified in any subject and one of lowest rates of science teaching in the OECD”.
In the past decade, the number of chemistry teachers in secondary school has increased, but the number teaching physics has declined.
According to the OECD, the proportion of teachers teaching in physics has also decreased, although there is still a gap between the number and quality of teachers who teach physics.
Why is this important?
One reason is that chemistry is a relatively young subject in the UK.
It is widely recognised that chemistry students can learn chemistry more quickly than students studying physics.
And this is because the maths content is more advanced than the physics content.
A study published in Science last year found that, compared with teachers who taught physics, chemistry teachers taught more science and fewer maths.
Another reason is the way chemistry is taught in primary and intermediate schools.
“Chemistry is generally taught in middle schools and high schools, whereas physics is generally the subject of a secondary school,” said John Macdonald, an expert in science education at the University of Cambridge.
“As a result, the maths is more challenging and science is the subject that is taught more frequently.”
What about funding?
The chemistry teachers have been criticised for not teaching the subject as effectively as teachers teaching other subjects, such as maths and English.
However the government argues that the money spent on the chemist programmes is relatively small.
“In the context of this research, it is not surprising that a relatively small proportion of chemist teachers are performing well in the subject,” said Dr Sarah Harrison, a co-author of the report and an education researcher at the Natural England Centre in Devon.
“This is because chemists are very difficult to assess, so they do not always have the best data about what their pupils are doing.”
In fact, Harrison and colleagues at the Institute for Fiscal Studies think that the government could be saving money by investing in the Chemekets.
“We don’t know