Further to the Committee's inquiry into "Science Teaching in Schools", I wish to offer comment on two points raised in the Government's response to the committee's report.

6.2  On students opting for "easier" A-levels over the sciences and mathematics and alternatives to the A-level system

  The Government's response raises the subject of the new 14-19 Specialised Diplomas. The Engineering Diploma is certainly relevant to the issue of young people continuing with mathematics and science learning beyond the age of 16. For this reason The Royal Academy of Engineering has been closely involved in the development of the Engineering Diploma at a national level but also with the preparations for its launch in 2008 in Southwark and Lambeth (areas where the Academy is actively involved in school science and mathematics learning through its London Engineering Project).

  The Committee might be reassured that the Level 2 Engineering Diploma is already taking shape as a qualification where pupils can learn mathematics and science within the Diploma which adds to that learned in the GCSE studies they will complete alongside the Diploma. This should better prepare learners for technical employment as well as progression to technical and scientific Level 3 studies.

  However, the Committee might continue to question how the Level 3 Engineering Diploma will encourage more young people than at present to study mathematics and science beyond the age of 16. Currently the Level 3 Engineering Diploma specification seems relatively ill defined and has proven subject to sudden changes in direction. There is a body of concern that it will not adequately prepare students for engineering studies at university due to a lack of identifiable mathematics and science content. The Academy is working with the wider engineering community to see this situation rectified.

  The Committee might choose to recommend that the DfES School Science Board and its sister School Mathematics Board are given roles in overseeing the science and mathematics content of the new Diplomas. The current focus of these two Boards is solely on GCSEs and A Levels and this is hampering the progress of 14-19 reforms by creating an impression that school science and mathematics only takes place within GCSE and A Level studies. Recent communications from these two Boards reinforces a message to schools that A levels are still seen as the Level 3 qualification required for progression towards an engineering, technical or scientific career. I say this as a member of School Science Board myself.

6.8  On the recognition offered to academics and university students working to inspire the next generation of scientists in schools

  The Committee's suggestion that university links with schools be reflected in submissions to the Research Assessment Exercise was an excellent one and easy to implement. It is surprising to note Government's reluctance to act on this.

  Much of Government's science budget is spent with the Research Councils. Research Council funded work is typical of the kind of research that produces peer-review publications that will always provide the backbone of any Research Assessment Exercise. Already, Research Councils encourage their funded research programmes to incorporate elements aimed at promoting the public understanding of science. University-school links are typical ways of promoting public understanding of the value of research. Therefore the connection between research, the RAE and university-school links is clear. The Committee might further question Government on this issue.

  There is a second related point. The RAE will always require evidence of a researcher's esteem. For long-established researchers, Fellowships and memberships of technical committees count as evidence of esteem. Such evidence, requiring many years of experience, cannot be claimed by younger researchers, but evidence of demand for their work in schools can.

Professor Matthew Harrison

Director, Education Programmes

10 April 2007