I would point out that recognising excellence at a departmental level is one thing (and not always easy, as Ofsted has shown, or uncontroversial) but that individual teachers deserve the credit too. You can have great teachers in a mediocre department, or middling teachers in a department that appears to tick all the boxes. I’m not a member of the scheme, but it’s worth noting that the ASE is already involved with awarding Chartered Science Teacher status (CSciTeach) to those professional who demonstrate excellent practice. Advanced Skills Teachers, or the government’s new ideas of ‘senior’ or ‘master’ teachers will presumably be another way to show some of the same skills. The issue, as always, will be for those of us who are involved with CPD, engage with research, maintain good glassroom practice and do the best for our students to attain these standards without a mind-numbing amount of paperwork.

http://www.ase.org.uk/professional-development/ase-chartered-science-teacher-csciteach/

Education is just too complex, contested (politically and educationally) and cultural to make anything like this work in practice. And do we really want our Academies and major scientific charities, august though they are, to back or sit in judgement over this? Are they qualified to do that? In the UK, the solution to our challenges is best met by the traditional messy, pragmatic UK approach and by an emphasis on all of us outside the school and college sector working collectively to support the professional development, professional autonomy, and professional responsibility of teachers and school leaders. We are increasingly doing that, through e.g. the Science Leaning Centres, partnerships like the Big Bang, and all the enrichment activities and resources that the world outside the classroom can and should offer.

I can’t see how a kitemark could be produced that would carry widespread support and credibility, but I’d be very interested to hear if anyone’s planning it.

This is the story of a nation that went from workshop of the world to a nation in debt.

Clement Atlee recognised the opportunities created by the war and formed the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) in 1948. Then in 1975 the National Enterprise Board was founded “to stimulate innovation and create jobs and growth”.
Now in 2004 we have the Technology Strategy Board with the target “to stimulate innovation and create jobs and growth”.
So why after 60 years of stimulating innovation to create jobs and growth has very little happened, in fact most of British industry is foreign owned, unemployment rising and growth hovering around zero.

I have lived through it all, Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, and the words do seem remarkably the same. We were always going to improve education in maths & science, more apprenticeships, investment in new technology, more exploitation of our cutting edge university research and cutting down red tape and barriers to innovation.

Here is one story out of hundreds of similar ones.
There is an idea being developed at Aberdeen University to seal an oil well blowout in a much shorter time than is normal in the oil industry. Eagerly grasped and understood at the engineering and academic level this has been blocked by the slow funding processes at the top. The idea was proposed to BP at the time of the Macondo Gulf of Mexico disaster and considered but not implemented. We think the technique has a 90% chance of success, so if it succeeds it means that the Gulf of Mexico oil leak could have been sealed in 3 weeks instead of 3 months, perhaps an embarrassment for BP. A typical innovative idea, but who will check it out, who will fund a proof of concept?
Will the funding be forthcoming for this experiment? The people at ITF the oil industry’s own innovation body feel very positive, so do the academics at Aberdeen University, we chat on the phone & e-mail regularly . But from past experience the answer to the funding is “probably not”.
A 90% chance is too much of a risk for the people with the cash.
In fact what we need are people who will take a risk with a 50% chance of success or less, because every big world beating idea by its nature looks risky or even crazy to most people. If a jet engine principle was obvious then Frank Whittle would not have had a hard time convincing the RAF top brass, if everyone could see the possibilities for a cyclone vacuum cleaner then James Dyson wouldn’t be where he is. If the above story is typical then we are not short of innovation or ideas, just the risk capital to see if they work or not.
Anyone want to get involved financially at Aberdeen University, funding in thousands, saving to BP alone in billions, please contact me… tonysmee@hotmail.com