OpenCharities

This text was generated using OCR and may contain errors. Check the original PDF to see the document submitted to the regulator.

2024-08-31-accounts

Charity registration number: 1146064

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2024

1

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Contents (continued)

Reference and Administrative Details 1
Trustees' Report 2 to 53
Statement of Trustees' Responsibilities 55
Independent Examiner's Report 56
Statement of Financial Activities
57 to 58
Balance Sheet 59
Notes to the Financial Statements
60 to 68

The British Physics Olympiad Trust Reference and Administrative Details

Chairman

Mr Robin Hughes

Trustees

Dr Anson Cheung Dr Sian Tedaldi Mr Robin Hughes

Charity Registration Number

1146064 Principal Office

The British Physics Olympiad Trust Department of Physics University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building Oxford OX1 3RH

Independent Examiner

Ajay Bahl FCA Wenn Townsend Chartered Accountants 30 St Giles' Oxford OX1 3LE

1

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report

The trustees present the annual report together with the financial statements of the charity for the year ended 31 August 2024.

The registered charity name is The British Physics Olympiad Trust throughout this report it is also know as BPhO. Information for this charity can be found on the website: www.BPhO.org.uk.

Reference and administration details

The Charity name is The British Physics Olympiad Trust, and is also known as BPhO. The Charity has the registered number 1146064, and its principal address is:

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Department of Physics University of Oxford Denys Wilkinson Building Oxford OX1 3RH

Trustees and officers

The trustees and officers serving during the year and since the year end were as follows:

Trustees:

Dr Anson Cheung Dr Sian Tedaldi Mr Robin Hughes

Chairman:

Mr Robin Hughes

2

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

Structure, governance and management

The charity is governed by a Trust Deed dated 11 January 2012. Trustees are appointed or reappointed at meetings of the Trustees. The organisation has a Child Protection Policy and a Data Protection Policy in place, and DBS checks are carried out on Trustees and on volunteers who interact with young people.

The British Physics Olympiad operates with the support of the Outreach Office of the Physics Department at the University of Oxford (Oxford Physics). One of the Trustees, Dr Sian Tedaldi, is based within the Outreach Office and, in her professional role at Oxford, oversees the BPhO’s outreach activities and manages the BPhO Administrator. The BPhO Administrator is an employee of the University of Oxford and supports the day-to-day running of the BPhO, devoting a proportion of their time to the administration of BPhO competitions and events.

Academic training, paper setting, and the delivery of educational activities are managed and carried out by a committed group of around 30-40 volunteers, primarily teachers (including some retired) and university students. Postgraduate students are employed on casual contracts as competition markers to manage the substantial volume of Round 1 scripts from UK and international participants. This blended model of volunteer expertise and targeted staffing enables the BPhO to deliver a high-quality, wide-reaching programme.

Charitable objects and main activities undertaken

The objects of the Charity are the advancement of education and engagement of students in physics, including:

There are five distinct strategic activities that underpin the running and development of the organisation. Each area is explored further in this report.

1. Competition papers

3

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

2. Selection and training

3. Widening engagement

4. Operations and infrastructure

5. Sustainability and expansion

4

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

Background

Problem solving is central to the BPhO’s mission, helping students build confidence, resilience, and independence when working with challenging material. Competitions, workshops and problem-solving events support both teachers and students in recognising that physics is demanding for everyone, while also highlighting the significant rewards of sustained engagement.

The BPhO promotes good practice in teaching extension and enrichment material, ensuring that students from all backgrounds can access high-quality opportunities beyond the classroom. By sharing resources and expertise developed over many years, BPhO strengthens teaching provision and helps students develop the advanced skills needed for further study. As a national network linking teachers and schools, BPhO maintains regular contact throughout the year to support participation and the exchange of ideas. The skills developed through BPhO activities benefit students personally and contribute to the wider economic need for future physicists, engineers and scientific leaders.

Competition papers

The BPhO set 13 competition papers each year, ensuring consistency, appropriate difficulty, and strong academic value. Information about all our papers can be found on the BPhO website. Individual reports containing detailed breakdowns of the paper results are also produced and made available to participating teachers.

These papers offer three levels of engagement, as outlined below, together with participation figures for the 2023/24 academic year.

• Participate (31,100 students)

Online, multiple-choice quizzes designed to spark interest in physics problem-solving, offering many easy questions alongside a few more challenging ones. There are five papers for ages 11-17 years, including the online Junior and Intermediate Physics Challenge papers and the online Junior Astro Challenge.

• Challenge (18,000 students)

Papers that foster deeper interest and understanding in problem-solving, requiring mathematical techniques and designed to stretch the most capable students. There are four papers for ages 14-18 years, including the Senior Physics Challenge and the Astro Challenge.

• Compete and select (3,350 students)

Our most advanced papers, such as BPhO Round 1, identify and reward the best problem-solvers in UK schools and are used to select the UK teams for international competitions. There are two qualifying Round 1 papers for Physics and Astronomy, with subsequent Round 2 papers, for ages 17-18 years.

5

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

In addition, the Experimental Project (250 students) and the Computational Physics Challenge (110 entries and 1,200 students engaging online) develop students’ practical and analytical skills. Participation numbers continue to rise on average, with a marked increase in BPhO Round 1, which saw a 17% rise compared with the previous year.

New this year we introduced the online (Y7/8) Physics Challenge for Year 7 students. Fifty-one UK schools entered 3,581 students, with 44% girls. The paper encouraged participation and aimed to show ideas and a way of viewing the world through the lens of physics.

Selection and training

We selected two teams of five students to represent the UK in the international Olympiad competitions for both Physics and Astronomy through a five-day Easter residential held at the University of Oxford. The event supports motivated students in developing advanced problem-solving and analytical skills. Further training is provided through a programme of mentoring that includes both in-person and online activities.

This year, the Physics team did not attend the International Physics Olympiad, which was due to take place in Iran, due to safety considerations. The team instead competed in the European Physics Olympiad, travelling to Kutaisi, Georgia, where they achieved strong results.

Widening engagement

Our programme of enrichment activities continues to expand. In 2023/24, we delivered four events for young people, including the Year 10 Physics Taster Day and the Year 12 Physics Masterclass at St John’s College. Working closely with the University of Oxford, we select students using widening participation criteria such as FSM eligibility, POLAR4 data, gender, and ethnicity, ensuring that students from underrepresented groups are prioritised.

To support teachers, who play a critical role in widening engagement, we delivered three events for teachers during the year. These sessions help ensure teachers from all schools can confidently deliver physics problem-solving and prepare students for our challenges. In addition, we continue to expand the resources available to them: we provide nine past papers and resources, and this year we have developed and piloted an online BPhO Round 1 question bank, allowing teachers to search for problems by physics theme and use them flexibly in the classroom. The annual BPhO lecture is published online to reach a wider audience.

Evidence from independent evaluation undertaken during the year indicates that these widening engagement activities are effective in increasing students’ confidence, enjoyment, and engagement with physics, with further detail provided in the Evaluation and Impact section of this report.

BPhO will continue to focus on widening participation, particularly by increasing engagement among statefunded schools and supporting a broader range of students to access enrichment and competition opportunities. We aim to increase teacher involvement in training camps and international events, offering more educators the opportunity to see first-hand the levels that highly motivated students can achieve. This professional insight helps strengthen support for advanced learners across the wider school network.

6

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

Operations and infrastructure

Ongoing support from BPhO’s sponsor, G-Research, has enabled targeted improvements to competition administration and marking processes. Investment in a new online competition platform has modernised the issuing of competition papers and enabled the delivery of online challenges. A new marking platform has improved the distribution of papers and the collection of marks, providing a scalable digital infrastructure as participation increases. Funding also supports dedicated payroll and accounting services, improving overall office capacity. Further improvements to data management systems will streamline the processing of entries and reduce administrative workload, enabling staff to focus more time on programme enhancement.

Sustainability and expansion

The operational and digital infrastructure described above provides a strong foundation for the continued development and expansion of the BPhO’s activities. Ongoing support from G-Research has been central to strengthening delivery and enabling the organisation to develop new approaches and broaden its outreach programme. In addition, G-Research’s support sustains the British Astronomy and Astrophysics Olympiad, a major component of the BPhO’s enrichment offer. Work is ongoing to secure further sponsorship from the space and technology sector to support its long-term future. Income from overseas purchases of BPhO competition papers and from Round 1 entries also contributes to the costs of marking and programme delivery, supporting the financial sustainability of core activities.

The charity maintains unrestricted reserves equivalent to two to three years of running costs, held in an interest-earning account to provide financial stability, meet unexpected expenditure, and support future development. While increased outreach and training activity will entail additional costs, the combination of sponsorship, competition income, and a strong revenue stream from overseas partners, particularly the collaboration with an educational organisation in China, provides a solid basis for continued expansion without drawing on reserves.

To support our continued growth and governance, BPhO is also seeking to recruit additional trustees with expertise across business, finance and charitable leadership.

7

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

Evaluation and impact

In 2023, an independent evaluator, Laura Thomas, was commissioned to undertake a comprehensive review of BPhO’s activities and impact. She has extensive experience working with learned societies, charities, universities, and science centres to support robust evaluation of educational programmes.

The evaluation focused on the following key themes:

  1. Increased levels of participation in BPhO.

  2. Increased confidence and enjoyment for students taking part in BPhO activities.

  3. Skills development for students.

  4. Professional learning and support for teachers.

  5. Barriers to engagement with BPhO.

  6. Student experiences of the selection process and training for the national competitions.

  7. Effect of participation in BPhO on attitudes and intentions in relation to physics-related study and careers.

An evaluation framework was developed around these themes, with a set of tools made available for BPhO to use in ongoing monitoring and review.

Summary of Findings

8

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

Benefits for teachers:

Inclusivity and monitoring:

Opportunities for improvement:

A full report (see Appendix A) summarises the evidence supporting these findings and provides recommendations for areas where further exploration and development would be beneficial.

A complementary Impact Report (see Appendix B) presents headline findings from the evaluation alongside participation and outcomes data from the 2023-24 period. This outward-facing, accessible report highlights the reach and achievements from BPhO activities during the year, providing a clear picture of the programme’s impact on students and teachers

9

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

Appendix A

British Physics Olympiad Evaluation report, Laura Thomas (Ondata Research), December 2024

Appendix B

BPhO Impact Report

10

British Physics Olympiad Evaluation report Laura Thomas December 2024

----- Start of picture text -----
11
----- End of picture text -----

Contents

1.
Introduction and Methodology ..........................................................................................3
2.
Levels of participation in BPhO .........................................................................................6
2.1 Physics Challenge ........................................................................................................13
3.
Professional learning and support for teachers ..............................................................17
4.
Benefits of participation for students ...............................................................................21
4.1 Student attitudes and intentions............................................................................................... 21
4.2 Students’ enjoyment of physics and skills development........................................................22
4.3 Student experiences of the national competitions .........................................................23
5.
Barriers to engagement with BPhO ................................................................................28
5.1
Recommendations ..................................................................................................29
6.
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................31
Appendix A – Overview of Evaluation Framework ..................................................................32
Appendix B – Participation data for BPhO competitions .........................................................33

About the author

Laura Thomas has significant experience supporting organisations such as learned societies, charities, universities and science centres in gaining an in-depth understanding of the impact of their programmes and activities. Following a first degree in Astrophysics, Laura’s career was in physics outreach and public engagement before she moved into the social sciences. After completing her MRes in Educational Research she has progressed on to part-time PhD research into teacher professional learning and retention at the University of Stirling. This is carried out alongside her work leading Ondata Research.

12

1. Introduction and Methodology

The British Physics Olympiad (BPhO) is a charitable organisation offering a range of physics and astronomy problem solving challenges and competitions. In addition to setting and marking papers for thousands of students in hundreds of schools annually, BPhO also selects and trains team members to participate in international physics and astronomy competitions. A series of events and activities for students and teachers are also offered over the course of the year to help people prepare for participating. The challenges and competitions set by BPhO reflect the content of the curricula in the UK but there are international participants who are typically in schools offering English qualifications. The core set of BPhO trustees is supported by a group of dedicated volunteers who make significant contributions to the successful running of the competitions and challenges. Comprehensive reporting is undertaken by the trustees with publicly available annual reports detailing the operational activities of the charity. The intention is not to repeat information collated in these reports, however there will be references to previous reports to provide context.

As part of their ongoing operations, BPhO began discussions with Ondata in 2023 to look at a range of aspects of the challenges and competitions. The following themes were identified by BPhO as being of interest as part of the evaluation. An evaluation framework was developed based on these themes with a set of tools being made available to BPhO to use. The evaluation themes are:

  1. Increased levels of participation in BPhO.

  2. Increased confidence and enjoyment for students taking part in BPhO activities.

  3. Skills development for students.

  4. Professional learning and support for teachers.

  5. Barriers to engagement with BPhO.

  6. Student experiences of the selection process and training for the national competitions.

  7. Effect of participation in BPhO on attitudes and intentions in relation to physics-related study and careers.

This report summarises the evidence base available in support of these themes and makes recommendations where there are opportunities to explore these aspects further.

13

A broad range of both quantitative and qualitative data has been analysed and forms the basis for reporting. The data available is summarised in Table 1 below.

Method/data Purpose
Registrations data from 2022 and 2023.
Selected participation data.

Provided by BPhO		 To provide an overview of the levels of sign
up and participation for each competition
and allow a review to be made of
geographical spread across the UK and
splits between fee-paying and non-fee-
payingschools.
Teacher focus group
(June 2024)

Data collection by Ondata		 To gain insight into how the competitions
are run in schools, discuss the effects of
participation on students and teachers and
identifyanybarriers to engagement.
Student focus group
(June 2024)

Data collection by Ondata		 To discuss impact of participation on
students and better understand their
experiences of the selection process and
trainingfor national competitions.
Post-event student survey for those
attending Y10 Taster Day (June 2023)

Surveytoolprovided byOndata		 To gain insight into impact of event on
students.
Post-event teacher survey for those
attending a Y10 Taster Day (June 2023)
and a teacher problem solving workshop in
London (June 2024)

Surveytoolprovided byOndata		 To gather feedback on the impact of the
event on teachers as a professional
learning opportunity and as preparation for
supporting students to take part in the
challenges.
Post-challenge teacher feedback (available
for SPC Online 2024 and Physics
Challenge 2023)

Provided byBPhO		 To gather information on the teachers’
experiences of running the competitions in
schools.
Competition participation reports

Provided by BPhO		 Multiple reports written by the trustees on
the individual competitions were made
available in order to provide information on
the levels of participation and engagement
from schools and students.

Table 1. Summary of evaluation methods and data available for analysis

In terms of data analysis, a significant amount of time was spent on the registration and participation data. The registration data covered multiple years of entries into more than 10 competitions per year. Data provided included school name, address and whether the school was fee-paying or non-fee-paying. The data was then cleaned and categorised in terms of UK regions and nations (NUTS 1) and then for the English non-fee paying schools, postcode data was used to identify the indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) for the location of the school. A summary of this analysis can be found in the first discussion section. Descriptive statistics were used in general for the quantitative data and reflexive thematic analysis[1] was used to

1 Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 11:4, 589-597

14

review the qualitative data, with coding being drawn from the evaluation themes summarised earlier in this section.

All of the data collection activities were guided by BERA’s ethical guidelines[2] .The student focus group was held online and the teacher focus group was in person. Participants in the focus groups provided consent and had the opportunity to withdraw that consent. In section 4.1 where the case study is discussed, non-gendered pseudonyms have been used for the students taking part to help identify the thread of comments from the individuals in the discussion. For the student focus group a member of the BPhO team was in attendance for safeguarding purposes. Transcripts were generated using an AI software tool with the text being checked for accuracy by Ondata.

The following section provides an overview of the participation in BPhO competitions looking at the geographical spread and the demographics of the location of English non-fee paying schools. English Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) have been used as a way of looking at the demographics of the participants. However, it should be noted that whilst a school may be located in an area of high deprivation that does not mean every single student in the school is experiencing deprivation. Similarly with those in schools where there is low deprivation locally does not mean all students are not experiencing deprivation. The proportions for England have been focussed on due to the higher number of non-fee paying schools. The measures of deprivation vary between the four nations so they are not directly comparable. In the report we have grouped the schools into quintiles, where quintile 1 indicates those schools with postcodes in the 20% most deprived areas and quintile 5 signifies the 20% least deprived areas.

2 British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2024) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research , fifth edition, London. Available: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-fifthedition-2024-online

15

2. Levels of participation in BPhO

To get a sense of the levels of participation in the BPhO activities, this section examines registration and participation data from all competitions in 2023. The competitions and challenges covered by the 2023 data include:

UK Proportion
Competition(Overview/purpose3) schools
Junior Astro Challenge (online) 2023
(Quiz-style questions on astronomy and the night sky. To be
completed online in the form of two 25-minute supervised
sessions in school).		 59 2.1%
BAAO Astro Challenge 2023
(1 hour paper to be sat and marked in schools covering a
range of physics and astronomy topics. Made up of 10 multiple
choice questions, two shorter questions and the choice of one
of two longerquestions).		 115 4.1%
BAAO Competition 2023
(Students and schools invited by BPhO to participate in this,
keepingit a smaller component of the challenges for now).		 6 0.2%
Junior Physics Challenge 2023 (Year10)
(Aim is to encourage students’ interest in physics. Two online
tests, each with 30 questions to be completed within 25
minutes, linked to GCSE topics but extend into general areas
ofphysics).		 266 9.4%
Intermediate Physics Challenge 2023 (Year 11)
(Paper-based problem solving 1 hour paper to be completed
andmarkedinschool).		 336 11.9%
Intermediate Physics Challenge Online 2023 (Year 11)
(Quiz-style multiple choice questions on a range of physics
topics to be completed online. Made up of two 30 minute sets
ofquestions).		 176 6.2%
Senior Physics Challenge 2023 (Year 12)
(1 hour problem solving paper sat on a single day in schools
andmarked by the school).		 575 20.4%
Senior Physics Challenge Online 2023 (Year 12)
(Online multiple choice questions made up of two rounds of
30-minute sets ofquestions,supervised byteachers)		 278 9.9%
Physics Challenge 2023 (Year 13)
(Often used as a selection paper by schools for BPhO Round 1
with questions linked to curriculum topics but in a style different
to those students would experience in their exam diet).		 434 15.4%
BPhO Round 1 Nov 2023
(First round of team selection for the International Physics
Olympiad)		 458 16.2%
Experimental Project Competition 2023/24
(Two entries per school focussed on high quality
investigations,marked byBPhO).		 118 4.2%
2821

Table 2. Number of UK school registrations by competition in 2023

3 BPhO (2023) Trustees annual report. Available here.

16

The BPhO round 2 schools are not listed here as this is where around 120 students from 50 schools are invited to participate in the next round of team selection based on their results for round 1.

There are other STEM-related programmes in the UK with similar participation numbers but BPhO has a very distinct offer for secondary school physics students. There are other subjectspecific competitions, for example maths-focussed competitions are led by the UK Mathematics Trust, which has over 700,000 entries annually across all of their competitions[4] . Chemistry competitions are co-ordinated by the Royal Society of Chemistry and in 2023 they reported over 11,000 participants in the round 1 of their Chemistry Olympiad[5] . Unfortunately there is limited data available on national participation in larger scale STEM competitions and challenges beyond the initial entry numbers.

4 UK Mathematics Trust (nd) Impact. Available here.

5 Van Wyck (2023) The 2023 Chemistry Olympiad round one results. Available here.

17

Looking elsewhere, the British Science Association commissioned a study to look at gaps in STEM engagement provision and inequity across the UK in terms of a number of different factors which may be of interest to BPhO[6] . However, this study did not provide programme level examples of geographical spread. In terms of getting a sense of the geographical spread of participation in some other programmes, data is available for the British Science Association’s CREST awards published via their 2021/2022 Impact report showing the location of participating schools. Please note that whilst this programme reported over 50,000 participants this includes both primary and secondary pupils however it is interesting to consider their geographical spread alongside that of BPhO’s in Table 3 in order to get a sense check in terms of the type of reach these programmes are having. There are broadly similar patterns of participation across England between the two programmes with clearer differences between Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

BPhO Challenges and BSA CREST Awards
Regions/Nation Competitions 2023 2021/20227
East Midlands 5.5% 7%
East of England 12.0% 10%
London 19.4% 15%
North East 1.7% 1%
North West 6.9% 10%
Northern Ireland 0.9% 2%
Scotland 3.0% 5%
South East 19.4% 21%
South West 8.3% 5%
Wales 2.7% 7%
West Midlands 9.5% 12%
Yorkshire and The Humber 5.1% 5%

Table 3. Comparing participation in UK-wide programmes

6 London Economics (2022) Mapping and analysis of science engagement and inequity in the UK. Available here.

7 BSA (2023) CREST Awards Impact Report 2021/2022. Available here.

18

Figure 1 on the following page summarises participation from all schools across all BPhO competitions listed in Table 2. The red circles are fee-paying schools and yellow non-feepaying. The larger the circle, the more competitions the school entered in 2023. The second figure shows London in more detail. Looking across the data more generally for the whole of the UK in 2023, in the registrations data the average competitions entered per school was 2.8 with the median being 2. However, for fee-paying schools this average was closer to 3.5 and for non-fee-paying schools it was 2.4.

Some points to note when looking at the spread of participating schools for 2023:

19

Figure 1. UK entries to all competitions in 2023

20

Figure 2. London entries to all competitions in 2023

21

As outlined in the introduction and methodology, the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) were identified using the school’s postcode. For the 2023 competitions, over half were from the 40% least deprived areas with just over 25% from the 40% most deprived areas (see Table 4). This data was sorted so that schools only appeared once in the data despite entering more than one competition.

n %
English IMD Quintiles schools schools
1 65 11.1%
2 90 15.4%
3 122 20.9%
4 123 21.1%
5 183 31.4%
583

Table 4. IMD for English non-fee paying schools

This split between quintiles could be used by BPhO to help monitor and benchmark participation and this could be used to help target schools in areas of deprivation with the goal of achieving equitable participation across the different quintiles. Again, due to lack of published data it is difficult to directly benchmark against other schemes. However, based on my professional experience evaluating a range of STEM engagement programmes, the distribution where there is higher participation amongst the 40% least deprived areas is common.

Some STEM engagement programmes use IMD to help them target audiences who would benefit. For example, STFC aim to work with what they have described as ‘Wonder audiences’. These are from the 40% most deprived areas of the UK (quintiles 1 and 2) aged 8-14. These groups were chosen by STFC as evidence shows that they have less access to STEM engagement initiatives[8] .

Following a review of the aggregated data for 2023, the next section looks more closely at the registration and participation data for a single competition, the Physics Challenge.

8 STFC (2023) Public engagement: Wonder Initiative. Available here.

22

2.1 Physics Challenge

As noted above, the Physics Challenge is a problem solving paper often used by schools to select those who will go forward into the BPhO Round 1 competition. One hour is allowed for completion and it is marked in school and can be sat anytime between September and December.

Table 5 below summarises the registration of schools for the Y13 Physics Challenge in 2022 and 2023. We can see that UK schools dominate the registrations and that there is a roughly 60/40 split between non-fee paying and fee-paying schools in the UK with small changes between 2022 and 2023. This split reflects the general proportion of non-fee paying/fee-paying schools in England[9] .

Year 2022 2022 2023 2023
n % n %
Total schools 362 481
UK 330 91.2% 429 89.2%
Overseas 32 8.8% 52 10.8%
UK - fee-paying 142 43.0% 170 39.6%
UK - non-feepaying 188 57.0% 259 60.4%

Table 5. Physics challenge registrations by schools

As before we can look at the IMD of the non-fee paying schools in England. A reminder that those in group 1 are located in the 20% most deprived areas of England and those in group 5 are in the 20% least deprived areas of England.

2022 2022 2023 2023
English IMDquintiles n % n %
1 24 13.6% 26 10.8%
2 33 18.8% 33 13.7%
3 42 23.9% 55 22.8%
4 28 15.9% 47 19.5%
5 49 27.8% 80 33.2%
176 241

In 2022, around one third of schools were from the 40% most deprived areas whereas this fell to 24.5% in 2023. We can see that participation from non-fee paying schools grew between 2022 and 2023 with the largest gains in quintiles 3, 4 and 5. This split shows the benefit of not only considering the aggregated data for 2023 but also how the different challenges and competitions can vary year to year. The BPhO team may be able to identify the underlying 9 BESA (2024) Key UK education statistics. Available here.

23

reasons for changes in participation in these quintiles but if the reason is not apparent then it would warrant further investigation.

With regards to the geographical spread of the schools participating in the Physics Challenge, the following figure shows the distribution for 2023. The nations and regions are colour coded by level of participation with the darker grey/black signifying higher participation. The circles then indicate the general location of the participating schools and as in Figure 1 these are colour coded to show whether they are fee-paying or not. Similar observations can be made about the spread of participating schools in the nations of the UK.

Whilst this provides an example from one of the competitions, whilst there is impressive engagement across England there are various areas where further participation could be encouraged. It would also be interesting to further explore differences in engagement in terms of fee-paying and non-fee paying schools, especially when Scotland and Northern Ireland are considered.

24

Physics Challenge 2023 •Fee-paying •Non-fee-paying ,Rr tsR[u￿%]kEL iji sol￿[IN{E.T source." ONS Open GeDgraphy Portal, ONS 25

A reminder that when we considered the registration data for the Physics Challenge in 2022 and 2023, there was a roughly 60/40 split between non-fee-paying and fee-paying schools. When we looked at the proportions who then went on to submit an entry to the Physics Challenge this shifted in favour of fee-paying schools. When looking at 2023 entries from UK schools, 1616 entries were received from fee-paying schools (covering 188 schools) and 1283 entries from non-fee-paying schools (covering 235 schools). This means around 56% of entries were from individuals at fee-paying schools even though they account for around 40% of the schools.

Now considering the gender of the participants, the split for males and females is outlined in Table 6. A small number of students did not provide their gender or they indicated non-binary or gender fluid therefore due to the small numbers in these groupings, the two categories being used for comparison in the table below are male and female.

UK only Fee paying Non-feepaying Non-feepaying
n % n % n %
Male 2174 77.4% 1182 74.9% 1005 80.5%
Female 633 22.6% 396 25.1% 244 19.5%
2807 1578 1249

Table 6. Gender split for Physics Challenge submissions in 2023

Overall, the proportion of female students participating in the Physics Challenge is generally reflective of the proportions taking Physics at A-level in England, which was 23.3% in 2024[10] . It is noted that these proportions vary between fee-paying and non-fee paying schools. However, when we reviewed the gender split for the Intermediate Physics Challenge, this was not necessarily reflective of the school population proportions taking GCSE where 48.8% of the total entries come from female students[11] . Around 69% of UK entries were from male students and 31% from female students.

In summary, with regards to participation in BPhO competitions and challenges, there is a broad geographical reach across the UK however schools in areas of deprivation and nonurban environments could be targeted to encourage participation. The gender split within one example competition reflects the demographic within the A-level population but this is not the case for the Intermediate Physics Challenge. Therefore there is an opportunity to grow participation amongst female students. Based on this analysis it is worthwhile to monitor aggregated data across the competitions but also at the level of individual competitions in order to see who is being reached and where efforts could be made to encourage equitable participation in activities regardless of demographics.

10 IOP (2024) IOP hails physics A-level popularity but low proportion of girls “deeply concerning ”. Available here.

11 CaSE (2024) School exam results analysis 2024. Available here.

26

3. Professional learning and support for teachers

Moving on now from the participation and registration data, this section looks at the feedback provided by teachers on their experiences of BPhO activities. Whilst many students participate in activities without ongoing support from their teacher, teachers can play an important role in preparing students for the activities and encouraging them to participate in the first instance.

There are mixture of resources and activities available to teachers. This section begins with a look at feedback linked to an event held in June 2024. BPhO hosted an in-person workshop for teachers at GResearch in London where the focus for the day was on problem solving skills in physics. There were lots of opportunities for teachers to try problems and work with experienced teachers and there was also a session on ideas for practicals. Information about the BPhO challenges was provided along with an overview of Oxbridge admissions and interviews. During the lunch break a group of four teachers took part in a short discussion with Ondata about their experiences of working with their students on BPhO challenges. In this section we include the discussion relevant to their role in support of students and their experiences of the event and the support they themselves have received from BPhO. The discussion relating to the impact of participation on their students follows in Section 4.

The teachers who participated in the discussion all had different levels of experience with BPhO. The first teacher in the group was just getting involved with BPhO for the first time. They were taking over a co-ordinator role from a colleague who had left the school. Their initial experience was brief and involved supporting one of their students in submitting their entry after being approached by them one week before the deadline. The second teacher has been involved in BPhO challenges on and off for several years and finds students generally approach them when they want to get involved. The third teacher was new to BPhO this year and was working on getting their Year 10s, 11s and 12s involved. In this first year they’ve only been able to organised four hours of preparation before submitting for the challenges and wants to do more in the coming year. The fourth teacher runs a regular out of hours club for students focussing on Olympiad style questions. Participation is open to all and they have tens of students regularly attending.

In terms of their experiences of the problem solving day so far, they had found it extremely helpful. The teachers noted that one of the challenges they had was in approaching novel problems for the first time ‘live’ in front of their students as they were concerned about not being able to solve it immediately. However this event had given them more confidence in tackling problems along with their class and they felt that more of these types of events would be welcomed by teachers. The teachers

27

themselves noted that they get a lot of personal enjoyment from working on the Olympiad style of questions. Based on their positive experience at the event, one of the teachers noted that they now intended trying to use less structured questions with their students more generally in their classes. One remarked that for next year they wanted to bring their whole department as they’d found the day so helpful.

The in-person event in June 2024 was only one of a number of different activities which teachers could participate in. For example there was also a taster session for Y10 students to encourage participation in BPhO. Following both of these events teachers were asked to provide feedback via a survey. Their responses (n=64) have provided some insight into how they intended to use BPhO in school and provided more context about their school.

The majority of teachers attending the in-person workshop and Y10 taster day had previously supported their students with taking part in a BPhO activity (77%). The most common activity schools had previously engaged with was the Physics Challenge (20%), followed by BPhO Round 1 and the Senior and Junior Challenges (all at 15%). In terms of the how they structured the support in schools, only 45% of teachers had an extra-curricular club or extension class for their students. The topic and purpose of these had a very broad range and included a problem solving focus but also extended to engineering and astronomy projects and university interview preparation.

When it came to student participation in BPhO activities, only 11% indicated they intended to engage a whole class. In terms of their plans to engage with students, the majority responded that they would allow students to opt-in to participate (66%) and that it was open to all. However, many teachers also commented that they would target students as well. In terms of only targeting specific students, 19% of the teachers intended to take this approach.

It was clear from the feedback from teachers that they all got something out of the event they attended which they could apply when back in school.

28

use the information was that they didn’t have a role which required them to formally support student applications to university.

One recurring request was for more time for problem solving as part of the teacher workshop. Even though the proportion of time given to this activity was significant, teachers wanted more. There was also a request for some example questions to have worked solutions to help provide structured and model answers which teachers could take away. Teachers appreciated the practical resources and tips discussed, however there were some teachers who would have liked to have seen practical ideas using equipment schools commonly have. Another area where teachers would recommend a review was the length of the session on the Oxbridge admissions process. Some did find it very useful but there did seem to be a preference for having more time on problem solving. Another suggestion related to the language being used by the session leads: teachers encouraged BPhO to be more inclusive in their language in order to move away from always referring to male students and to use examples where female students and other underrepresented groups were featured.

Overall, these events were very positively received by the teachers. They felt they were well run and engaging. Teachers enjoyed being able to spend time on problem-solving strategies in order to guide students and liked having the opportunity to spend time solving problems so that they get a sense of what their students will go through. The events helped to build a sense of community amongst the teachers as they worked together to solve problems and share

29

ideas. The events were also felt to be useful whether they were attended by an experienced teacher or someone new to the BPhO challenges. Teachers were able to discuss their experiences with problem solving and BPhO challenges and this was seen as being very worthwhile and reassuring, especially when some teachers can find themselves isolated as the only physics specialist in their school. Access to the professional facilities and environment at GResearch was also mentioned as a positive. Some teachers noted that they were going away from the day with a reignited interest in problem solving, especially in using more challenging problems with their students. For others, they were motivated to start their own extension class. Teachers were keen for BPhO to provide more of these types of opportunities.

The feedback from these activities helps to provide insight into the benefits to teachers and that regardless of their levels of experience, they were all able to take positives away with them to apply in the classroom. The following section now goes on to look at the benefits to students of participation.

30

4. Benefits of participation for students

The three relevant evaluation themes in relation to benefits of participation for students are discussed in this section. These include:

4.1 Student attitudes and intentions

In the teacher focus group, the discussion of the main benefits of participation brought up several areas. One of the core benefits of participation raised by the teachers was that the students have something tangible and positive to go on their UCAS application form to help them stand out.

When asked about their students’ attitudes and intentions in relation to physics-related study and careers, teachers in the focus group noted that the students who participated were generally planning to study physics, maths, engineering or medicine. They also had aspirations for Russell Group and Oxbridge universities. The teachers observed that those participating were a self-selecting group and were of a higher ability. With regards to thinking about whether participation in BPhO was successful or not, teachers aren’t judging this by the number of silvers and golds achieved, instead for them it is about supporting students who want to participate and being satisfied with the support they are able to give them. For those getting involved for the first time they are already planning what else they can do to support their students next time around.

Following the Y10 Taster day in June 2023 students were asked to feedback about their experiences of the day and their general attitudes and intentions in relation to physics. Those attending had a clear interest in physics and maths with 78% saying they were ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to take physics at A-level and for maths this was 83%. 63% were ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to take physics at university with only 9% ‘unlikely’ and 28% ‘unsure’. In terms of alternative routes into physics, students were much less likely to consider an apprenticeship as an option with only 30% ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to consider it. When it came to career intentions, 80% of students were ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to go into a science career and 65% agreed or strongly agreed that physics would help them to get a job. When asked about what their family thought about studying physics, 37% strongly agreed that their family thought it was a good idea, 35% agreed whilst 24% neither agreed nor disagreed and 4% disagreed.

31

The attendees at the event also enjoyed studying physics (41% strongly agreed and 48% agreed) and felt it was something they were good at (22% strongly agreed and 52% agreed). Over 90% of the students strongly agreed or agreed that they enjoyed problem solving. Whilst physics was clearly something the students enjoyed and were good at, only 21% strongly agreed it was something they talked about to their family, 25% agreed, 28% neither agreed nor disagreed but 25% disagreed and 2% strongly disagreed.

4.2 Students’ enjoyment of physics and skills development

In the feedback from the teacher focus group was one key highlight for teachers was the development of the students’ problem solving skills and their increased resilience in approaching different types of questions in exam settings. The teachers noted that the students enjoyed working with the Olympiad style of questions. One teacher gave an example where the Olympiad questions use an alternative set of units (e.g. hops instead of metres) and that this supported the development of their students’ critical thinking skills.

For the students at the Y10 taster day, when asked about whether the event had helped to increase their interest in physics 70% said ‘yes’, 28% were ‘unsure’ and only one respondent (2%) said ‘no’. Students were asked to elaborate on why they had given this answer and many of the students said that they had enjoyed the event and it was this enjoyment that had increased their interest in studying physics further. In addition to this the comments indicated that being able to explore physics outside of the classroom context and seeing how physics could apply to everyday life was particularly important. This also included being introduced to new topics and ideas and this helped students to see how broad physics is as a subject and improved their understanding of physics more generally. The students enjoyed meeting new people, peers and BPhO staff. They especially enjoyed working with peers on problems in order to get new perspectives on how to solve something. Students felt their problem solving skills had developed and seeing the physics toy demonstrations helped them to appreciate how physics could be found all around them.

In addition to the teacher focus group and event feedback, some teachers provided comments to BPhO following their students’ participation in the Senior Physics Challenge (4 responses) and the Physics Challenge (32 responses). The comments from the teachers indicated really positive engagement from their students with the questions and that they enjoyed solving the problems set. One teacher noted that the level of the questions was suitable as it allowed students at all levels to engage with the Senior Physics Challenge. Another commented that there was a good range of topics and levels of complexity within the questions set. For the Physics Challenge, teachers used the paper as a competition (84%) but also as a classroom

32

resource (15%). Teachers commented that this would be an ongoing resource that they would use to engage their pupils.

In addition to looking at the general attitudes and experiences of students we were also able to talk to a small number of students who were invited to a training camp following successful participation in the Astro and Physics round 1 and round 2 challenges. From the training camps, teams were then selected to go on to participate in the international competitions. The following section looks at these experiences more closely.

4.3 Student experiences of the national competitions

A small group of students who had participated in the competition team selection process took part in a focus group discussion in June 2024 to share their experiences. The students were in Y13 and in the process of sitting their A-levels and each attended a different school. They had come through a variety of routes to participation in the team training and selection process, two of them participated in the physics camp (Alex and Blake) and one of them in the astro camp (Cameron). Alex and Blake had experience with participating in problem solving challenges in other subjects such as maths, chemistry, biology and linguistics but had a core interest in maths and problem solving. They had approached their teachers about taking part in the physics competitions as it was an opportunity they and their friends had identified. For Cameron, everyone in their Year 12 and Year 13 were encouraged by their teacher to take part in the appropriate BPhO challenge and participation in the challenges was seen as a “big thing” in their school. Cameron’s school used the Physics Challenge in order to select those who would go forward to participate in the BPhO Round 1 paper.

Alex talked through their experiences of the different rounds and papers. Along with their friend they prepared for BPhO Round 1 by looking at the online resources available. This is a physics problem solving paper consisting of one set of short questions followed by a second set of questions needing a longer answer and overall 2 hours and forty minutes is the time available to complete the paper. To give a sense of scale, there were around three and a half thousand entries in 2023 and those selected for the International Physics Olympiad team scored 7080%[12] . Alex worked through past papers available on the BPhO website along with their friend and this was done independently in their own time without the direct support of a teacher. If they had questions they were able to approach their school teachers but generally they were self-motivated to practice questions outside of their lessons and extraFollowing their results in Round 1, all three of the students were invited to submit for Round 2 and then ultimately received an invitation to the training camp. Blake was surprised to have

12 British Physics Olympiad (2024) BPhO round 1. Available here.

33

received the invitation and this meant that following the submission of their Round 2 response and the timing of the training camp they hadn’t worked on any BPhO problems.

Alex and Blake summarised their experiences of the physics training camp. They noted that following a tour of to the college facilities and an introduction to the people they’d be working with, they were very quickly into working on physics, maths and problem solving activities. A key difference between their experiences at school and the training camp was that most of the topics were delivered in a lecture style. Blake noted that they were given a lot of questions to tackle but felt they were never given enough time to try and work through them, instead they felt the emphasis was on being “taught all this material”. Alex would have liked clearer instructions on what questions they were expected to do immediately and which were optional or should be done following the training camp.

The length of the day was another factor which was different to what they were used to in school. For Blake, in order to spend time on some of the questions on top of the timetabled sessions they were studying for a total of 12 hours each day. They felt that they would have benefited from more time in between lectures to absorb the material being shared in the sessions. This extra time would be beneficial, especially where many of the topics were new to the students. For example, Alex described how “we kind of had a little underlying idea of what some sort of electromagnetism was, they [the lecturers] kind of really took up a step. And you started looking at like the Maxwell's equations, like the differential form, how you get Gauss’s law and all these different things, which was much more advanced than what we do at school”. It should be noted that the students weren’t questioning being challenged at this level nor was there an issue with the lecture-style, more that they would have liked more time to grasp these ideas which were new to them. Blake commented that “all the lectures were very good” and Alex “found learning all the new topics to be really, really interesting”. The students commented that they benefitted from seeing how other people approached solving problems in a different way to them and they were able to use this experience to improve their own problem solving skills.

Blake noted that there was some material that they were familiar with (e.g. waves) and others which were completely new and it wasn’t clear to them how these topics were going to be useful for solving questions and they wondered if the topics had been selected to pique their interest. Therefore they requested a clearer description of how the different topics and sessions fit into their preparation and the relevance for the competition. Blake summed this up as, “when you're consuming hours and hours of theory a day that can get quite confusing and overwhelming. So yes, it was kind of a very wide and interesting mixture. But it would be nice if all of it was more clearly signposted with what the expectations were of us.”

34

Another benefit for Alex was the opportunity to do more experimental and practical work. They noted that for A-level they don’t enjoy the practicals as “you get given a list of very itemised instructions and have to follow them” whereas the practicals they did at the training camp required much more thought.

When considering the rounds of tests they experienced during the week, Blake noted that there were multiple practical tests, “which is very good and nice to see your own progress” but when it came to the theory test they were confused as to why there was only one hour of theory at the end of the week and that the content wasn’t necessarily linked to what they had covered in that week. So again, the feedback was very much about managing the students’ expectations of where to target their time in the lead up to the theory test and what to make a priority.

Cameron attended the Astro camp noted that it sounded much more “workshop-y” and similar to school lessons rather than the lecture-based experience in the physics camp. However, they did have a similar concern around having “too many problems, and not enough time”. They noted that their theory test was longer at three hours and they definitely needed the time they spent in the evenings outside of sessions answering questions in order to prepare for the test. They felt the teaching was fast paced and they also would have liked more time to absorb what they were learning as there wasn’t much time to go back over things.

In general, the experience of the long days was challenging for the students. All three students agreed that they would have been happy to undertake some pre-reading or preparation for the training camp if it allowed more time to be spent applying the theory from the different sessions to problems in order for them to have a clearer sense of their progression across the course of the week.

Following on from the training camp there have been ongoing impacts for the students who participated. Cameron said they felt that their problem solving skills had greatly improved and that they were more open-minded and creative when it came to approaching novel problems and not just in physics: “that kind of mindset and thinking has made it easier to try and sort of learn new stuff or apply it to things I'm currently studying, and see how that stuff becomes either easier or more accessible”. Alex agreed with this and noted that the training camp gave them the opportunity to “reset your whole ability to encounter new material”.

Blake described how the impact of the experience built up for them over the different rounds and into the training camp. Over the course of the rounds they had been doing a few hours here and there on the questions but then the training camp really accelerated their learning as those dedicated five days helped them to pick up more very quickly and Alex agreed that the

35

intensity of the training camp was a benefit. The experience helped build their confidence and make them feel that approaching novel problems was more achievable.

For Cameron, the Astro camp experience has also positively impacted the school astronomy club which they run. They’ve brought lots of the content from the experience back into the club to share with their peers. They also felt that as a result of the intensity of the camp they had experienced “a permanent change” which has “fundamentally changed my work ethic” and how well they learn and how efficient they now are with their time. The experience helped them to realise that they were able to focus in a high pressured environment, giving them a sense of their own resilience in a way they previously hadn’t experienced.

In terms of pastoral care and the accommodation, the students felt very well looked after and that “everyone was very helpful and friendly”. Thinking ahead to their university experience, whilst the students generally had already been through their interviews, they did find the training camp helped them prepare for the transition to university. They were encouraged to “evolve a bit beyond what you do at A level” and “it required a real change of thought process” and introduced them to topics (e.g. Maxwell’s equations) that they will cover as part of an undergraduate physics course (Blake). It also helped them to gain insight into how to produce more “elegant” solutions more quickly and the independent learning skills and time management will also be valuable for preparing for university life as well as the experience they had of just being in an unfamiliar setting (Cameron). With regards to other experiences, one of the students had been to some engineering related tasters and events to help them narrow down their university choices but for the others they had only been to open days so this was the most significant interaction they’d had with a university setting.

For Alex who worked independently of a teacher, they would have liked to have access to videos of people working through problems and talking about how they approached solving them. This would have given them a better idea of how to start tackling some questions. For Alex, this was the first year their school had taken part and they hope their school will be able to start building some momentum based on their experience but they did feel that because their teacher didn’t have time available to support them they had to “you just got to go for it yourself” which can take a highly motivated student to make that first step. In Cameron’s school there was an established culture of participation in problem solving challenges and competitions and regular support available across the whole school year, helping them to feel comfortable with the prospect of participating in BPhO Round 1. All three of the students were reluctant to go and ask for more support from their teachers beyond what was already on offer within the school, especially when they got to the stage where there were only two of them in the school participating in Round 2. Reflecting on Cameron’s experience, Alex felt that they

36

had a positive experience in being the trail blazer for their school and that they wanted to encourage other people to take the step and to know that they could engage and access the resources they needed online in order to participate. They felt that BPhO could perhaps signpost some of the resources more clearly for those students working independently.

At the end of the discussion, the students were asked to give advice to others who were perhaps considering participating in the next year of BPhO challenges. The key pieces of advice were:

Across this section on benefits there have been a number of positives for participating students. At all levels, there is evidence from students and teachers about the students’ improvement in their problem solving skills and this has resulted in an increased confidence in themselves. Students have certainly enjoyed the various experiences available to them, however, it should be noted that a lot of these students tend to be self-selecting, especially at the senior level, and that physics is already something they are considering. These positive experiences are contributing to an increased interest in physics post-16 and there is evidence of the activities having ongoing impacts for students as they prepare for university life.

The final discussion section of the report reviews the evidence so far and looks at barriers to engagement with BPhO and makes a series of recommendations for consideration by BPhO.

37

5. Barriers to engagement with BPhO

There are different areas which contribute to barriers to engagement with BPhO activities which are discussed in this section. Following this is a short set of recommendations.

Teacher workload

This aspect was of concern to both teachers and students and has the most potential to widen the impact of BPhO’s activities. The students in the focus group were reluctant to go to their teachers to ask for more support and for the teachers in the focus group they had concerns around the time needed for marking. More than one teacher indicated they were going to establish eligibility criteria in order to be submitted to the challenge because they only had limited time available for marking. Teachers recognise the benefits of being involved in the marking of papers but they did say that having some parts of the papers which could be automarked would be appreciated. The Y10 online Junior Physics Challenge was cited as a low workload example way of getting more students involved. The teachers at the Y10 Taster day also made requests for help with marking and it was noted that if this support was provided then the teachers in schools would be able to dedicate more time to supporting the students’ preparation.

Information about competitions and school culture

One element of this is about communicating with students and teachers about the opportunities available. One teacher asked for a simplification of the different challenges available as they find the number of options difficult to navigate. A further comment was made by another teacher who requested a review of the website structure and content in order to make it easier to identify upcoming competitions. The students who took part in the Y10 taster day were asked if they thought they would go on to participate in one of the BPhO challenges. 47% said yes, 2% (n=1) said no and over half (51%) were unsure. They were asked to explain why they gave these responses. For those who said they were unsure, they commented that they didn’t understand what the BPhO challenges involved and also that they were nervous about taking part or they did not have confidence in their own abilities.

Other barriers identified by the students included the timing of the challenges in relation to their GCSE exams, as they weren’t sure how this would all fit together. For another student they commented that they weren’t aware of the BPhO challenges being talked about in school by their teachers as an opportunity. For some who responded ‘yes’ they would participate they noted that it was something which is easily available to them (or indeed mandatory) in their school and some had already completed a challenge. Some students who had previously completed a challenge commented that they had enjoyed it and wanted to do it again.

38

5.1 Recommendations

The following recommendations are focussed on addressing some of the barriers identified in this report, along with other aspects arising in earlier discussion sections. Recommendations are linked to helping to address concerns around teacher workload and information about the competitions and school culture along with monitoring participation levels and encouraging more schools to get involved.

39

Review whether preparatory reading can be provided in order to allow for more time for problem solving within the training week.

13 ASPIRES3 (2023) Young people’s STEM trajectories, Age 10-22. Available here.

14 IOP (2024) Dismantling barriers to inclusion in physics. Available here.

40

6. Conclusion

The BPhO activities have broad geographical reach across the UK and there are significant numbers of submissions to individual competitions. Based on the analysis of registrations data there are further opportunities to expand participation in various areas of the UK and through regular monitoring of participation along with school location, socioeconomic factors (via Indices of Multiple Deprivation) and gender, BPhO will be able to target activities at underrepresented groups and areas. The split of fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools in the UK reflects the general numbers in the sector, as does the gender balance of A-level participation in England (specifically the Physics Challenge).

The benefits of participation to students are well established. There is evidence of increased confidence in problem solving skills and an increased interest in physics. Through participation in the rounds and also in the selection process for the competition teams, students develop independent learning skills and time management skills. They also reported increased selfconfidence and resilience when it comes to approaching novel problems. All of these aspects will be carried forward into their future studies and career. Those participating in the challenges often already have an interest in physics and are planning to go on to a physics-related degree and career and find participation in BPhO can help them to prepare for university as the activities develop their problem solving skills but also encourage an interest in physics topics outside of what they experience in the classroom.

For teachers, they are able to develop their own problem solving skills and increase their confidence in working with complex and challenging problems with their students. This has an effect not only on the students participating in the annual challenges and competitions but it also carries through into the teachers’ professional life in the classroom. By attending workshops and events offered by BPhO they also become part of a supportive community where they are able to share their experiences running the competitions and supporting students and it is where teachers new to BPhO can get advice and guidance about getting started. Workload is of course an ongoing issue and is a significant barrier to participation but teachers do feel well supported by BPhO.

There are of course opportunities to further develop advice and guidance for teachers and students but the activities on offer are successful in positively engaging and impacting people across the UK.

41

Appendix A – Overview of Evaluation Framework

The evaluation themes outlined in Table 7 were identified by the British Physics Olympiad team with advice and guidance provided by Ondata. A set of evaluation tools were development to support data collection for each of themes and these were deployed at events in 2024.

Theme Purpose
1. Increased levels of participation in
BPhO.		 To identify whether there have been
increased levels of participation in BPhO
activities in comparison withpreviousyears.
2. Increased confidence and enjoyment for
students taking part in BPhO activities.		 To understand how BPhO activities support
the development of students’ confidence in
taking part in the competitions, what the
motivation is for students who participate
and how enjoyable they find the activities
and competitions.
3. Skills development for students. To identify which skills the BPhO activities
support the development of and in
particular, how students’ problem solving
skills develop.
4. Professional learning and support for
teachers.		 To gather insight into how effective the
support provided to teachers is in terms of
them being able to support their students’
successfulparticipation in BPhO activities.
5. Barriers to engagement with BPhO. To explore what successful participation
and engagement with BPhO means and
what barriers exist that prevent schools and
students from taking part in activities.
6. Student experiences of the selection
and training for the national
competitions.		 To describe the journey of students through
the different activities and rounds of
competition in order to identify particular
areas of success and potential aspects for
furtherdevelopment.
7. Effect of participation in BPhO on
attitudes and intentions in relation to
physics-related study and careers.		 To investigate the attitudes and intentions
of participating students towards physics-
related study and careers and whether their
experiences of BPhO activities have an
effect.

Table 7. Summary of evaluation framework themes

42

Appendix B – Participation data for BPhO competitions

This section outlines the registration data by competition and year.

Y13 Y13 Y13 Y13 Experime Experime
BPhO BPhO
BPhO
 BPhO
 ntal ntal
Competition Physics Physics

Challeng
Challeng		 round 1 - round 1 - challenge challenge
UK UK

e
e
Year 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023
Total schools 362 481 412 458 92 120
UK 91.20% 89.20% 100.00% 100.00% 97.80% 98.30%
Overseas 8.80% 10.80% 0.00% 0.00% 2.20% 1.70%
UK - fee-paying 43.00% 39.60% 43.40% 42.60% 53.30% 50.80%
UK - non-fee paying 57.00% 60.40% 56.60% 57.40% 46.70% 49.20%
Regions/Nation
East Midlands 7.60% 7.50% 7.00% 6.10% 4.40% 3.40%
East of England 11.20% 12.40% 10.00% 11.80% 16.70% 16.10%
Isle of Man 0.30% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Guernsey 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Jersey 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
London 17.90% 18.90% 20.10% 18.10% 18.90% 19.50%
North East 1.20% 1.90% 1.90% 1.70% 1.10% 3.40%
North West 7.90% 8.40% 8.00% 8.30% 11.10% 5.90%
Northern Ireland 1.20% 1.40% 0.50% 1.10% 2.20% 0.80%
Scotland 3.30% 3.30% 3.20% 3.70% 4.40% 2.50%
South East 22.10% 19.60% 19.20% 20.30% 18.90% 26.30%
South West 8.50% 8.20% 9.50% 10.50% 3.30% 4.20%
Wales 2.10% 3.00% 3.60% 3.30% 1.10% 5.10%
West Midlands 11.20% 8.60% 10.20% 9.80% 16.70% 8.50%
Yorkshire and The
Humber		 5.50% 6.50% 6.30% 5.20% 3.30% 5.90%

Table 8. Year 13 competitions

43

Y12 SPC Y12 SPC Y12 - SPC Y12 SPC
Competition paper UK paper UK
online 2023 online - 2024
2023 2024
Year 2023 2024 2023 2024
Total schools 576 307 278 304
UK 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 88.20%
Overseas 0.00% 0.00% 7.20% 11.80%
UK - fee-paying 42.90% 37.50% 46.80% 46.30%
UK - non-feepaying 57.10% 62.50% 53.20% 53.70%
Regions/Nation
East Midlands 5.00% 7.80% 5.40% 6.00%
East of England 12.20% 14.30% 13.30% 14.20%
Isle of Man 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Guernsey 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Jersey 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
London 22.20% 16.30% 22.30% 17.20%
North East 1.60% 1.30% 1.80% 2.20%
North West 8.20% 10.40% 6.50% 6.30%
Northern Ireland 1.20% 1.00% 0.70% 1.90%
Scotland 3.10% 2.00% 2.50% 3.40%
South East 20.10% 19.90% 20.90% 20.50%
South West 8.50% 7.80% 9.40% 9.00%
Wales 2.80% 3.90% 2.20% 2.20%
West Midlands 9.70% 8.10% 11.20% 11.90%
Yorkshire and The
Humber		 5.20% 7.20% 4.00% 5.20%

Table 9. Year 12 competitions

44

Competition Y11 IPC 2023 Y11 IPC 2024 Y11 IPC 2023 Y11 IPC 2024
- online - online -paper -paper
Year 2023 2024 2023 2024
Total schools 194 177 336 189
UK 90.70% 84.70% 100.00% 100.00%
Overseas 9.30% 15.30% 0.00% 0.00%
UK - fee-paying 59.10% 58.70% 52.10% 46.60%
UK - non-feepaying 40.90% 41.30% 47.90% 53.40%
Regions/Nation
East Midlands 4.50% 5.30% 4.80% 6.90%
East of England 15.30% 13.30% 11.30% 12.70%
Isle of Man 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Guernsey 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Jersey 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
London 20.50% 25.30% 21.10% 22.20%
North East 1.70% 2.00% 1.20% 2.10%
North West 4.50% 2.70% 7.40% 6.90%
Northern Ireland 0.60% 0.70% 1.20% 1.60%
Scotland 3.40% 4.70% 3.90% 3.70%
South East 22.20% 20.00% 23.20% 21.70%
South West 10.20% 8.00% 8.00% 6.90%
Wales 2.30% 4.00% 1.80% 3.20%
West Midlands 10.20% 10.70% 11.90% 6.90%
Yorkshire and The
Humber		 4.00% 2.70% 3.90% 4.20%

Table 10. Year 11 competitions

45

Junior Physics Junior Physics
Competition Challenge 2023 Challenge 2024
(Year10)
(Year 10)
Year 2023 2024
Total schools 296 64
UK 89.90% 81.30%
Overseas 10.10% 18.80%
UK - fee-paying 53.00% 63.50%
UK - non-feepaying 47.00% 36.50%
Regions/Nation
East Midlands 5.60% 5.80%
East of England 12.80% 13.50%
Isle of Man 0.00% 0.00%
Guernsey 0.00% 0.00%
Jersey 0.00% 0.00%
London 20.30% 25.00%
North East 2.30% 0.00%
North West 6.00% 9.60%
Northern Ireland 0.40% 0.00%
Scotland 3.40% 1.90%
South East 19.50% 19.20%
South West 7.90% 5.80%
Wales 2.30% 1.90%
West Midlands 13.50% 11.50%
Yorkshire and The
Humber		 6.00% 5.80%
Table 11. Year 10 competitions

46

Y10&1 Y10&1 BAAO BAAO BAAO BAAO
Astro
Competition 1 JAC 1 JAC Astro Astro Competition
Round
2022 2023 Challenge Challenge 2023
2022 2023 1 2024
Year 2022 2023 2022 2023 2023 2024
Total schools 56 71 101 141 6 31
UK 87.50% 83.10% 89.10% 81.60% 100.00% 100.00
%
Overseas 12.50% 16.90% 10.90% 18.40% 0.00% 0.00%
UK - fee-paying 51.00% 55.90% 45.60% 43.50% 33.30% 51.60%
UK - non-fee
paying		 49.00% 44.10% 54.40% 56.50% 66.70% 48.40%
Regions/Nation
East Midlands 2.00% 6.80% 5.60% 8.70% 0.00% 3.20%
East of England 12.20% 10.20% 15.60% 12.20% 16.70% 9.70%
Isle of Man 2.00% 0.00% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Guernsey 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Jersey 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
London 28.60% 27.10% 16.70% 21.70% 16.70% 25.80%
North East 0.00% 0.00% 1.10% 0.90% 0.00% 0.00%
North West 2.00% 5.10% 8.90% 7.00% 16.70% 6.50%
Northern Ireland 0.00% 0.00% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Scotland 4.10% 3.40% 4.40% 2.60% 0.00% 3.20%
South East 22.40% 18.60% 17.80% 18.30% 50.00% 19.40%
South West 12.20% 8.50% 7.80% 9.60% 0.00% 9.70%
Wales 6.10% 3.40% 4.40% 3.50% 0.00% 3.20%
West Midlands 6.10% 10.20% 8.90% 9.60% 0.00% 16.10%
Yorkshire and The
Humber		 2.00% 6.80% 4.40% 6.10% 0.00% 3.20%

Table 12. Astro competitions

47

BPhO Report 2025 SPQNSOHED BYfyHESEAKH OBPhO , @RESEARCH 48

Chair's Letter

This year marks another exciting chapter for the British Physics Olympiad (BPhO). Thanks to the generous support of our sponsor, G-Research, we have been able to broaden our reach and enhance our programmes significantly. We are now engaging over 60,000 students from across the UK and beyond, providing not only challenging competitions, but also a rich suite of resources that support both students and teachers. Our expanded offerings help develop advanced problem-solving skills and continue to support and encourage the next generation of scientists.

Each year, two teams of top-performing students from the BPhO are selected to represent the UK at the International and European Physics Olympiads, as well as the International Olympiad on Astronomy and Astrophysics. Through intensive training camps, they prepare to compete alongside the best young physicists from around the world. UK teams consistently return with medals, and we celebrate their achievements at our annual BPhO Awards Day sponsored by G-Research at the Royal Society, alongside the domestic competition winners.

The BPhO has gone from strength to strength in relation to numbers of participants and the range of competitions. From our new competition papers, such as Y7 /Y8 Physics Challenge, to our growing portfolio of events and resources, we remain committed to providing high-quality opportunities for young people to stretch their thinking, develop their problem-solving skills and deepen their understanding of physics. We are equally proud of the support we provide for teachers, who play such a vital role in nurturing talent. With continued collaboration and innovation, we look forward to building on this momentum in the years ahead.

Robin Hughes, BPhO Chair

49

Participant Impact

National reach

----- Start of picture text -----
f ,• [I]
;J1'
----- End of picture text -----

1,700 schools across the UK take part in BPhO competitions, with 53,000 young people participating in 2023/24. In addition, nearly 4,000 students follow our online webinars.

Impact beyond participation

Participants develop problem solving skills and have increased resilience and confidence in approaching different types of questions in exam settings.

"That kind of mindset and thinking has made it easier to try and sort of learn new stuff or apply it to things l1m currently studying, and see how that stuff becomes either easier or more accessible."

Student events

Since 2022 the BPh0 has run a number of in-person taster days and masterclasses for young people aged 14-17 years. Following a Year 10 taster day at G-Research, 70% of pupils said the event had helped to increase their interest in physics.

"I enjoyed coming at alternative ways of solving problems which we don1t get to go through as much at school."

Pupils also got a lot of enjoyment from exploring topics that they had not had the chance to explore in the classroom and that the experience of the taster had showed that physics is relevant to real life.

50

The Competitions

Competitions

We provide 15 annual competitions with three levels of engagement:

Participate: Our online, multiple-choice quizzes designed to spark interest in physics problem-solving, offering many easy questions alongside a few more challenging ones. (For ages 11-17)

Challenge: Our challenge papers foster a deeper interest and understanding in problem-solving, require mathematical techniques and are designed to stretch the most capable students. (For ages 14-18)

Compete: Our most advanced papers, such as BPhO Round 1, identify and reward the best problem-solvers in UK schools and are used to select the UK teams for international competition. (For ages 17-18)

"Before taking the Intermediate Challenge I hadn't even considered that I was good at Physics. It helped build my confidence. The problems were interesting and something I hadn't thought of before."

Sophie, University of Oxford, Gold Award in the Physics Intermediate Challenge (Subsequently on the team for the European Physics Olympiad)

51

Activities and Resources

Resources and events

Taster Days and Masterclasses events, both in-person and online, give young people the chance to develop problem-solving skills beyond the classroom.

Teacher events provide guidance and resources to help teachers the confidence to support their students in developing problem solving skills in physics.

Resources, such as the new BPhO Interactive Database and past papers provide teachers with access to past BPhO questions.

Training camps are used to select and train students for international competitions. An annual awards day at the Royal Society celebrates the successes of 70 students.

"Very helpful and informative and reignited my interest in using more challenging problems with my students."

“ I have a much better understanding on how to guide students to solve physics questions in general 1 [not ] [only BPhO-type.][”]

Teachers at the G-Research teachers event

52

With thanks to our sponsor, G-Research

We are deeply grateful to our sponsors, G-Research, for their generous support.

Their commitment makes it possible for us to deliver high-quality enrichment activities, provide free resources to schools, and offer life-changing opportunities for students across the UK. From the first online quiz in Year 7 to the international stage, every step our students take is supported by this vital funding.

Thank you for helping us inspire the next generation of physicists.

53

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Trustees' Report (continued)

The annual report was approved by the trustees of the charity on ...29/01/2026.... and signed on its behalf by:

Mr Robin Hughes Chairman and trustee

54

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Statement of Trustees' Responsibilities

The trustees are responsible for preparing the trustees' report and the financial statements in accordance with the United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) and applicable law and regulations.

The law applicable to charities requires the trustees to prepare financial statements for each financial year which give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the charity and of the incoming resources and application of resources of the charity for that period. In preparing these financial statements, the trustees are required to:

The trustees are responsible for keeping proper accounting records that disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the charity and enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Charities Act 2011, the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008, and the provisions of the constitution. The trustees are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charity and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.

The trustees are responsible for the maintenance and integrity of the corporate and financial information included on the charitable company's website. Legislation governing the preparation and dissemination of financial statements may differ from legislation in other jurisdictions.

Approved by the trustees of the charity on ...29/01/2026....... and signed on its behalf by:

Mr Robin Hughes Chairman and trustee

55

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Independent Examiner's Report to the trustees of The British Physics Olympiad Trust

I report to the trustees on my examination of the accounts of The British Physics Olympiad Trust for the year ended 31 August 2024.

Responsibilities and basis of report

As the charity trustees of The British Physics Olympiad Trust you are responsible for the preparation of the accounts in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011 (‘the Act’).

I report in respect of my examination of the The British Physics Olympiad Trust's accounts carried out under section 145 of the 2011 Act and in carrying out my examination I have followed all the applicable Directions given by the Charity Commission under section 145(5)(b) of the Act.

Independent examiner’s statement

Since The British Physics Olympiad Trust's gross income exceeded £250,000 your examiner must be a member of a body listed in section 145 of the 2011 Act. I confirm that I am qualified to undertake the examination because I am a member of , which is one of the listed bodies.

I have completed my examination. I confirm that no material matters have come to my attention in connection with the examination giving me cause to believe that in any material respect:

  1. accounting records were not kept in respect of The British Physics Olympiad Trust as required by section 130 of the Act; or

  2. the accounts do not accord with those records; or

  3. the accounts do not comply with the accounting requirements concerning the form and content of accounts set out in the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 other than any requirement that the accounts give a ‘true and fair view' which is not a matter considered as part of an independent examination.

I have no concerns and have come across no other matters in connection with the examination to which attention should be drawn in this report in order to enable a proper understanding of the accounts to be reached.

...................................... Ajay Bahl FCA Wenn Townsend Chartered Accountants

30 St Giles' Oxford OX1 3LE

Date: 29/01/2026

56

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Statement of Financial Activities for the Year Ended 31 August 2024

Unrestricted
Total
funds
2024
Note £
£
Income and Endowments from:
Other trading activities 2 296,616
296,616
Investment income 3 6,231
6,231
Total income
302,847
302,847
Expenditure on:
Raising funds (89,925)
(89,925)
Charitable activities 4 (141,754)
(141,754)
Total expenditure
(231,679)
(231,679)
Net income
71,168
71,168
Net movement in funds
71,168
71,168
Reconciliation of funds
Total funds brought forward
354,571
354,571
Total funds carried forward
12
425,739
425,739
Unrestricted
Total
funds
2023
Note £
£
Income and Endowments from:
Other trading activities
2		 232,680
232,680
Investment income
3		 2,751
2,751
Total income
235,431
235,431
Expenditure on:

Raising
funds (35,142)
(35,142)
Charitable activities
4		 (77,347)
(77,347)
Total expenditure
(112,489)
(112,489)
Net income
122,942
122,942
Net movement in funds
122,942
122,942
Reconciliation of funds
Total funds brought forward
231,629
231,629
Total funds carried forward
12
354,571
354,571

57

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Statement of Financial Activities for the Year Ended 31 August 2024 (continued)

All of the charity's activities derive from continuing operations during the above two periods. The funds breakdown for 2023 is shown in note 12.

58

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

(Registration number: 1146064) Balance Sheet as at 31 August 2024

2024
2023
Note £
£
Current assets
Debtors
8		 35,000
-
Cash at bank and in hand
9		 421,289
354,571
456,289
354,571
Creditors: Amounts falling due within oneyear
10
(30,550)
-
Netassets
425,739
354,571
Funds of the charity:
Unrestricted income funds
Unrestricted funds 425,739
354,571
Total funds
12
425,739
354,571

The financial statements on pages 14 to 22 were approved by the trustees, and authorised for issue on ...29/01/2026...... and signed on their behalf by:

Mr Robin Hughes Chairman and trustee

59

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Notes to the Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2024

1 Accounting policies

Statement of compliance

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the second edition of the Charities Statement of Recommended Practice issued in October 2019, the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland (FRS 102) and the Charities Act 2011.

Basis of preparation

The British Physics Olympiad Trust meets the definition of a public benefit entity under FRS 102. The accounts (financial statements) have been prepared under the historical cost convention with items recognised at cost or transaction value unless otherwise stated in the relevant note(s) to these accounts.

Going concern

The trustees consider that there are no material uncertainties about the charity's ability to continue as a going concern.

Changes in accounting policy

The previous years accounts were prepared using the receipts and payments basis. As the revenue threshold for the receipts and payments basis has been surpassed, the accounts for this year have been prepared on an accruals basis.

Income and endowments

All income is recognised once the charity has entitlement to the income, it is probable that the income will be received and the amount of income receivable can be measured reliably.

Interest on funds held on deposit is included when receivable and the amount can be reliably measured by the charity; this is normally upon notification of the interest paid or payable by the bank or deposit taking institution.

Expenditure

All expenditure is recognised once there is a legal or constructive obligation to that expenditure, it is probable settlement is required and the amount can be measured reliably. All costs are allocated to the applicable expenditure heading that aggregate similar costs to that category. Where costs cannot be directly attributed to particular headings they have been allocated on a basis consistent with the use of resources, with central staff costs allocated on the basis of time spent, and depreciation charges allocated on the portion of the asset’s use. Other support costs are allocated based on the spread of staff costs.

Governance costs

These include the costs attributable to the charity’s compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements, including audit, strategic management and trustees meetings and reimbursed expenses.

60

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Notes to the Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2024 (continued)

Taxation

The charity is considered to pass the tests set out in Paragraph 1 Schedule 6 of the Finance Act 2010 and therefore it meets the definition of a charitable company for UK corporation tax purposes. Accordingly, the charity is potentially exempt from taxation in respect of income or capital gains received within categories covered by Chapter 3 Part 11 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 or Section 256 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, to the extent that such income or gains are applied exclusively to charitable purposes.

Trade debtors

Trade debtors are amounts due from customers for services performed in the ordinary course of business.

Trade debtors are recognised initially at the transaction price. They are subsequently measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method, less provision for impairment. A provision for the impairment of trade debtors is established when there is objective evidence that the charity will not be able to collect all amounts due according to the original terms of the receivables.

Cash and cash equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents comprise cash on hand and call deposits, and other short-term highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to a known amount of cash and are subject to an insignificant risk of change in value.

Trade creditors

Trade creditors are obligations to pay for goods or services that have been acquired in the ordinary course of business from suppliers. Accounts payable are classified as current liabilities if the creditor does not have an unconditional right, at the end of the reporting period, to defer settlement of the creditor for at least twelve months after the reporting date. If there is an unconditional right to defer settlement for at least twelve months after the reporting date, they are presented as non-current liabilities.

Trade Creditors are recognised initially at the transaction price and subsequently measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method.

Fund structure

Unrestricted income funds are general funds that are available for use at the trustees discretion in furtherance of the objectives of the charity.

61

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Notes to the Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2024 (continued)

2 Income from other trading activities

2
Income from other trading activities
Unrestricted
funds
Total
General
funds
£
£
Events income;
Other events income 296,616
296,616
Total for 2024
296,616
296,616
Total for 2023
232,680
232,680
3
Investment income
Unrestricted
funds
Total
General
funds
£
£
Interest receivable and similar income;
Interest receivable on bank deposits 6,231
6,231
Total for 2024
6,231
6,231
Total for 2023
2,751
2,751
4
Expenditure on charitable activities
Unrestricted
funds
Total
General
funds
Note £
£
Governance costs 141,754
141,754
Total for 2024
141,754
141,754
Total for 2023
77,347
77,347

62

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Notes to the Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2024 (continued)

5 Analysis of governance and support costs

Governance costs

Governance costs
Unrestricted
funds Total
General funds
£ £
Other staff costs 6,804 6,804
Other fees paid to examiner 7,400 7,400
Legal fees 1,638 1,638
Marketing and publicity 1,422 1,422
Othergovernance costs 124,490 124,490
Total for 2024 141,754 141,754
Total for 2023 77,347 77,347

6 Staff costs

The aggregate payroll costs were as follows:

6
Staff costs
The aggregate payroll costs were as follows:
2024
2023
£
£
Staff costs during the year were:
Wages and salaries (raising funds) 89,925
35,142
Other staff costs 6,804
742
96,729
35,884

The monthly average number of persons (including senior management / leadership team) employed by the charity during the year expressed as full time equivalents was as follows:

2024
2023
No
No
Employee Average 21
20

No employee received emoluments of more than £60,000 during the year

63

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Notes to the Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2024 (continued)

7 Taxation

The charity is a registered charity and is therefore exempt from taxation.

8 Debtors

8 Debtors
2024
£
Trade debtors 35,000
9 Cash and cash equivalents
2024 2023
£ £
Cash at bank 421,289 354,571

10 Creditors: amounts falling due within one year

10
Creditors: amounts falling due within one year
2024
£
Trade creditors 13,543
Other taxation and social security 3,195
Other creditors 12,048
Accruals 1,764
30,550

11 Pension and other schemes

Defined contribution pension scheme

The charity operates a defined contribution pension scheme. The pension cost charge for the year represents contributions payable by the charity to the scheme and amounted to £Nil (2023 - £Nil).

64

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Notes to the Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2024 (continued)

12
Funds		 12
Funds
Balance at 1
September 2023
Incoming
resources
Resources
expended
Balance at 31
August 2024

£
£

£

£
Unrestricted funds
General
354,571
302,847
(231,679)
425,739
Balance at 1
September 2022
Incoming
resources
Resources
expended
Balance at 31
August 2023

£
£

£

£
Unrestricted funds
General
231,629
235,431
(112,489)
354,571
13
Analysis of net assets between funds
Unrestricted
Total funds at
funds
31 August
General
2024
£
£
Current assets 456,289
456,289
Current liabilities (30,550)
(30,550)
Total net assets
425,739
425,739
Unrestricted
Total funds at
funds
31 August
General
2023
£
£
Current assets 354,571
354,571

65

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Statement of Financial Activities by fund for the Year Ended 31 August 2024

Total
Total
Unrestricted
Unrestricted
Funds
Funds
2024
2023
£
£
Income and Endowments from:
Other trading activities 296,616
232,680
Investment income 6,231
2,751
Total income
302,847
235,431
Expenditure on:
Raising funds (89,925)
(35,142)
Charitable activities (141,754)
(77,347)
Total expenditure
(231,679)
(112,489)
Net income
71,168
122,942
Net movement in funds
71,168
122,942
Reconciliation of funds
Total funds brought forward
354,571
231,629
Total funds carried forward
425,739
354,571

66

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Detailed Statement of Financial Activities for the Year Ended 31 August 2024

Total
Total
2024
2023
£
£
Income and Endowments from:
Other trading activities (analysed below) 296,616
232,680
Investment income(analysed below) 6,231
2,751
Total income
302,847
235,431
Expenditure on:
Raising funds (analysed below) (89,925)
(35,142)
Charitable activities(analysed below) (141,754)
(77,347)
Total expenditure
(231,679)
(112,489)
Net income
71,168
122,942
Net movement in funds
71,168
122,942
Reconciliation of funds
Total funds brought forward
354,571
231,629
Total funds carried forward
425,739
354,571

67

The British Physics Olympiad Trust

Detailed Statement of Financial Activities for the Year Ended 31 August 2024 (continued)

Total
Total
2024
2023
£
£
Other trading activities
Exhibitions 296,616
232,680
296,616
232,680
Investment income
Interest on cash deposits 6,231
2,751
6,231
2,751
Raising funds
Wages and salaries (89,925)
(35,142)
(89,925)
(35,142)
Charitable activities
Volunteer expenses (6,804)
(742)
Insurance (1,918)
(269)
Registration fees (1,931)
(7,420)
Office expenses (380)
-
Computer software and maintenance costs (4,403)
(4,222)
Printing, postage and stationery (1,968)
(2,245)
Presentations (22,106)
-
Trade subscriptions (10,048)
(397)
Travel and subsistence (64,428)
(23,239)
Accommodation (16,668)
(32,450)
Advertising (1,422)
(4,001)
Accountancy fees (7,400)
(1,590)
Legal and professional fees (1,638)
-
Bank charges (640)
(772)
(141,754)
(77,347)

68