This snapshot taken on 13/05/2010, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.

Meetings

SUMMARY OF COUNCIL MEETING ON 24 SEPTEMBER 2001

Purpose

1. The Council met to:

2. Additionally, the Council noted that the Quinquennial Review of the Research Councils (QRC) was on schedule for completion by the end of October, and the terms of reference for the cross cutting review of science and research in the Government's Spending Review 2002. Members agreed to consider the latter more fully at the Council's next meeting on 3 December 2001. In view of these two reviews, the one by Sir Gareth, and a number of others in the same field by Departments and their agencies, including one on student funding, the Council decided to defer further consideration about commencing new work in the field of higher education until their meeting on 4 March 2002.

Attendees

3. The meeting was chaired by Lord Sainsbury. The independent members present were:

Mr Jarvaid Aziz, Mr Euan Baird, Professor Kumar Battacharyya, Professor Sir Alec Broers, Professor Vicki Bruce, Sir Christopher Evans, Professor Dame Julia Higgins, Dr Rob Margetts, Sir Paul Nurse, Dr David Potter, Ms Emma Rothschild, Professor Peter Schuddeboom, Sir Richard Sykes, Professor David VandeLinde and Mr John Weston.

4. Also in attendance were Dr John Taylor (Director General of Research Councils), Ms Jo Durning, Ms Judy Britton, Mr Steve Elton, Mr Maurice Potts (OST).

5. Mr Richard King ( Head/QRC team - OST), Ms Julie Carney (Foresight Directorate - OST), Mr Piers Bisson ( Head/Roberts Review Team - HM Treasury), Mr M. Hopkins and Mr P. Clark ( Higher Education Division - DfES) and Ms Carolyn Swain and Ms Janet Dallas (Curriculum Division - DfES) were present for particular items at various points in the meeting.


Discussions and Outcomes

(i) CST's Imagination and Understanding report

6. Members noted that this report had been published on 6 August 2001 and agreed to receive a response from the Government to it at their next meeting on 3 Decmber 2001. They also noted that.

a) UK education ministers had announced a jointly commissioned review of public funding of higher education research in the arts and humanities, aimed at ensuring that arts and humanities are able to make a full contribution - alongside science and technology - to the nation's cultural and economic growth.

b) This review was due to report by spring 2002, with advice on the best way forward for the administrative structures around arts and humanities research funding, including whether the Arts and Humanities Research Board should develop into a research council.

c) The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), in collaboration with UUK and SCOP, had commissioned a study into the resource requirements of teaching and arts and humanities research infrastructure - buildings, equipment and staff - in universities and colleges, thereby complementing another study on the science research infrastructure for OST. Both reports were expected in November 2001.

d) Through the QCA, the DfES were reviewing various aspects of the Advanced Subsidiary (AS) qualification of Curriculum 2000 in the light of the first year of experience.

e) The recently published White Paper,Schools - Achieving Success, set out plans for developing secondary education, including expansion of the cadre of specialist schools in maths, science, engineering and business.

f) This White Paper also initiated a debate about how best to develop a coherent phase of 14-19 education, including how to ensure, and where desirable extend, breadth in the post 16 academic curriculum, and the recognition of achievement in both academic and vocational subjects, possibly through an overarching award.

(ii) Review of Foresight

7. Members welcomed the direction that the review was taking to refocus Foresight on where it can add most value, namely by concentrating on the application/exploitation aspects of S&T advances that were likely to have major impacts on society or the commercial world in the future. The starting point for Foresight projects could be either a new area of S&T, or a future problem/issue where science might hold solutions or opportunities.

8. They noted that the review team was considering the option of a rolling programme of studies, and that it was paying particular attention to the question of how best to identify and define the subjects for these studies. The studies would take account of socio-economic factors, and identify the actions that need to be taken now to make the most of the opportunities offered. They further noted that OST was intending to publish its proposals for further consultation.

9. Members considered that any future Foresight programme should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate emerging issues, and should have the resources to undertake in-depth reviews of existing knowledge and detailed analysis, in order to deliver compelling and convincing messages. With regard to the sponsorship activities of departments, they stressed the importance of creating new networks and relationships, as well as nurturing those already established through the first and second rounds of Foresight.

(iii) Review of Scientists and Engineers

10. Members agreed that CST's response to Sir Gareth Roberts' consultation paper should draw attention in particular to the pivotal question of what more could be done to attract students into SET studies and career pathways. The response should also highlight issues concerning.

11. They agreed that the response should be published on the Council's website and that it should include suitable references to relevant aspects of CST's previous reports, entitled, Technology Matters, Science Teachers and Imagination and Understandings. A summary of the research evidence on the factors influencing student choice and the important role of top quality teaching and teachers should be included.

12. Members noted that that the secretariat had already provided Sir Gareth's review team with a set of source data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) on the subject choice of undergraduate entrants with A levels, as well as the early results of its analysis of this data to provide the Council with an up to date, factual picture.

13. They considered that the emerging picture was generally more positive, perhaps surprisingly so, than might be expected in view of the widespread concerns about shortfalls in SET student numbers. They agreed to treat the outcome of this analytical work as a CST study paper and to defer a decision about publishing the paper until it had been completed, preferably in time for the Council's next meeting on 3 December 2001.

(iv) Centre of Excellence for Science Teachers

14. Members noted the responses to DfES initial round of preparatory consultations by Ms Carolyn Swain had been very positive and very much in line with the proposals in CST's Science Teachers report, especially the key concept of a "help centre that made CPD easy". More particularly, they noted with approval that the respondents favoured a centre that provided teachers with practical assistance; was structured on the 'hub and spoke' model with a national core, regional arms and 'virtual' elements, acted as an intelligent interface between teachers and the numerous sources of support material and services; brought 'leading edge' scientific developments into the classroom; and that was closely related to national policy developments, e.g. the Key Stage 3 and CPD strategies.

15. The Council decided to sign off this report, now that work on establishing the centre was underway, following the commitment contained in the recent Schools- Achieving Success White Paper.


CST Secretariat
October 2001

Last revised: October 2001