Chapter 22 Section 3 Science and Teacher Training

When I joined the Ministry of Education, I personally had a strong interest in science; I was in charge of the work related to science in the Ministry.At that time, according to the suggestions of scientists, a large sum of funds was allocated to five scientific research institutions-they included science and engineering, medicine, agriculture, environment and social sciences.But when science policy was later discussed, the discussion was quickly dominated by the "Central Policy Research Office (or Think Tank) Report," which later became the basis for the July 1972 white paper "A Program for Government Research and Development."The main recommendation of the report is that in the future, a certain proportion of this funding should be allocated to the relevant government department, so that it can decide to fund the project by its own agency-this is the so-called "customer-contractor" principle.I have no objection to this principle, but I worry that doing so will reduce the amount directly at the disposal of research institutions—unless the total budget for research funding is increased.

This question may not be important.Indeed, it really doesn't matter compared to science policy as a whole.That's only part of the problem.Debates about the exact relationship between government departments and scientific institutions are indeed irrelevant compared with the broader and extremely important question of the strategic role of government in scientific research.Ted believes that government-funded research and development efforts should not be purely scientific, although he acknowledges that any research institution will necessarily have a portion of purely basic research.My point of view is just the opposite.It was only after I became Prime Minister some years later that I was able to formulate my own views on the subject.I believe that governments should focus on funding basic science and leave the application and development of basic science to the private sector.But by then I was already deeply disturbed that some policies might starve pure scientific research funding.

On one occasion, I was directly involved in supporting a costly cutting-edge scientific research project, that is, participating in the European scientific research project to build a very large proton accelerator (also known as an atom smasher), which aims to finally reveal the mysteries of the structure of matter.The previous Labor government withdrew from the project in 1968.We also held back on this as part of the government's initial austerity programme, as some felt it would be too expensive given the theoretical nature of the project.But I often think that if Britain had not persisted in its nuclear research in the 1930s, when the economy was severely troubled, Britain and the United States would not have been able to build the atomic bomb, guarantee victory in World War II, and later save Western Europe from Stalin's attacks.This is an extremely important lesson learned.So, in September 1970, Sir Brian Flowers, chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council, and I traveled to CERN near Geneva to see for ourselves what was imagined and learn more about the science behind the project. situation and its prospects.After returning to China, I was convinced that this scientific research project involving 12 countries was worth supporting if we could ensure good financial control, and I managed to convince my colleagues.

But generally speaking, I feel that the government's attitude towards science is not radical enough and imaginative enough.I would expect many scientists - not just those with strong professional views - to feel the same way, and on Tuesday, June 26, 1973, Ted was in the Chancellery for the British Nobel laureates in science - among them me at Oxford. Dorothy Hodgkins, my mentor at university - gave a dinner reception, which of course I attended.The reception was an illuminating gathering for several reasons.Ted discussed the UK's accession to the European Community, a move he believes historians will conclude has been the government's greatest achievement.He described science as something that could be used to help British industry enter European markets.Some people support this view, and some people criticize it, and the criticism represents my position.In essence, I think the government should fund pure scientific research instead of organizing European scientists to participate in huge projects to improve the competitiveness of European countries' economies from a technical point of view.Science is already internationalized; the enlargement of the European Community will not make a big difference; the development of already internationalized science depends on some scientists working in their own countries.It can be said that the less the state organizes them, the better the effect will be.Of course, this rule has its exceptions.For example, if the investment in scientific research projects is too large for one country to afford alone, cooperation is needed - so I support the work of CERN.

So I have my doubts about the science policy that I have to implement as Education Secretary.But our policies have never achieved much.Science doesn't pander to political directions in the way politicians like to imagine.In fact, the history of scientific development is in many respects less like the history of economic development than that of imaginative artistic development.Great scientific developments don't come from "actual" R&D programs, they come from creative scientifically minded people - like the ones who sat around the dinner table with Ted and me that night - who push science to the frontiers of knowledge, The one who revealed the mysteries of the universe.Politicians don't want to accept that fact; they want technology to be immediate, to produce results quickly.And scientists take a longer view, and they're right.Gladstone met Michael Faraday once, and was his research on electricity really of any use?Faraday replied presciently: "Yes, sir. One day you will charge electricity bills."

The second issue that frustrates me is that of teacher training.As I mentioned earlier, the campaign manifesto has promised to investigate this issue.This was one of the actions that was spelled out on the list I handed to Bill Pyle on my first day at the Ministry.I have already had a clear view on this issue.I feel that the huge increase in the number of teachers has affected the quality of teachers to some extent.Complaints of a "lack of teachers" have little basis in fact, although there are persistent instances of difficulty finding trainee teachers willing to teach math and science.What is really lacking are good teachers.Changing the teacher salary structure to reward and encourage long-serving teachers and senior teachers would help address this problem, although the National Federation of Teachers is wary of widening the wage gap.But teacher training is key to the solution.

I would like to seriously investigate whether teachers in training are learning the right subjects in the right way and at the right level.I then appointed Lord James of Rusholmy as Chairman of the Teacher Training Inquiry Committee.He was Headmaster of Manchester Grammar School, one of the finest schools in the country.I insisted that the people who worked with him on the investigation do it full-time and report within a year.As a result, the report was published in January 1972 in a timely manner, with detailed and detailed content and some practical suggestions.The report focuses on my interest in in-service training that gives teachers a practical understanding of how to teach in a classroom full of children.Second, the report recommends the introduction of a new two-year system of higher education--which I also strongly advocate--in which students who will become teachers join other students who intend to enter the trade or professional world. Learn.However, the report is limited to the training structure and does not discuss the content of the training courses, which limits the value of the report.As a result, my attempt to discuss teacher training programs in a planned survey fell through.It was still considered taboo for politicians to get involved in such matters, and 15 years later, the situation has not improved.As prime minister, I am still confused about how to improve the quality of teaching.

However, while I have a problem with the views of many teachers' union members (some have more union members than teachers), my final impression from my years in the Ministry of Education and Science is that most teachers are It is sincere, selfless and conscientious.Sometimes teachers who teach in the most difficult schools come to me in the ministry and tell me about their experiences with "problem" children (student "problems" can often be traced to the parents).On several occasions, I went to their schools and talked with them to see how they solved problems that arose in the classroom.

A teacher can never replace a family, but a good teacher cannot ignore what happens when a child comes home from school, for example, whether they are being abused.Once, a teacher asked a question that put me in a dilemma: At 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon, when the other children have gone home, there is a child who stays with you, please don't let him go home.You sense that something is seriously wrong, but you can't confirm it.Perhaps the child has been beaten or scolded, or left unattended at home, or for one reason or another it has made him extremely unhappy.Should you accompany your child home and tell the parents that the child is feeling down?Of course, you tell them the kid isn't complaining or doing anything stupid, and you just gently ask if something happened.You don't know if the child will be beaten when you leave.Should you report it to the authorities?Doing so may have worse consequences.Or do you take no action and hope that this is a temporary problem that will resolve itself?Mrs Thatcher, what would you do?

There is no simple, suitable answer to this question.We run into this kind of thorny problem a lot, but we haven't found a solution that fits all cases.We need teachers, social workers, and police officers trained to recognize the signs of child abuse, while remembering an idea everyone knows: Most parents love their children.Among these three types of people, the role of teachers is the most important, because they are with the children almost every day and know the children's situation best.If they are asked to perform this delicate and important task, they can do it if their authority, not only over the child but in the eyes of the parents, is fully restored.After doing this, those bad parents may also restrain themselves.