School-Industry Links (Report) (Hansard, 29 July 1982)

§ Sir Keith Joseph

Schools and business need to understand each other better. Business should be helped to appreciate the aims of the schools and the context in which these seek to achieve them. Conversely, schools and pupils need to be helped to understand how the nation earns its living in the world. This involves helping pupils to understand how industry and commerce are organised; the relationships of producers and consumers; the process of wealth creation; the role played by choice, competition and profit; and the traditional liberal view of the interdependence of political and economic freedom, as well as rival theories of how production and distribution should be organised and the moral basis commonly adduced by those theories.

Much progress has been made in recent years in stimulating a wide variety of school-industry link activities aimed at increasing mutual understanding and improving preparation for adult and working life in practical ways. Many of these activities have been the result of local initiatives; others have been prompted by the national bodies which are active in this area.

In autumn 1980 the Department invited Mr. Neville Cooper, director of administration at Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd. to examine the nature and extent of school/industry link activities undertaken by the major organisations involved; and to consider how their total effectiveness might be improved at both local and national level.

Mr. Cooper submitted his report—a copy of which is in the Library—to my predecessor last autumn. The Department gave it a wide distribution and many comments have been received from the education service and from industry. I have myself had the benefit of a discussion with Mr. Cooper about his findings. I wish now to state my own conclusions on them.

650W

I greatly welcome Mr. Cooper's emphasis on the central importance of the local education authority as a focus for school-industry link activities, and his practical suggestions for ways in which authorities can help. I also welcome his view that the present activities of the Department and the Department of Industry should continue, and that the Department of Education and Science should give a clear lead, at national level, to school-industry liaison. We can, and will, give such a lead, within available resources. I shall be reinforcing these points with a circular letter from the Department to chief education officers reaffirming the importance of authorities' responsibilities not only in offering information and advice, but also in acting as sources of inspiration and encouragement, in regard to school-industry link activities in their areas; drawing attention to the value of other agencies which are active in fostering school-industry links; and urging them, where they have not already done so and where appropriate, to take further steps to bring their schools and local firms closer together.

Mr. Cooper has suggested that the Department should have funds and powers commensurate with those of the Department of Industry's industry—education unit, in order to reinforce its lead by direct support of schools-industry liaison. I understand why he should make such a recommendation. However, I already have powers to give taxpayers' help to certain agencies in this field. For example, the taxpayer already directly supports the standing conference on schools' science and technology, which sponsors the steadily growing numbers of science and technology regional organisations; and Project Trident, which sponsors work experience schemes with the help of co-ordinators from industry and commerce; and the Department's support has recently been increased. I have not found support, however, either from the education service or from industry, for Mr. Cooper's suggestion for a competition between schools. The Department of Education and Science and the Department of Industry already have close working co-operation, and this will continue, for example, in taking forward and supporting the development of information technology in schools.

I further agree with Mr. Cooper, as do the great majority of the organisations consulted, that it is undesirable to set up a national bureaucracy to co-ordinate the support and funding of school-industry link activities. Mr. Cooper's idea of a group of senior industrialists, to focus industry's concern, is primarily a matter for industry itself. I shall, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, be arranging for the recommendation to be discussed further with representatives of industry. Mr. Cooper is clearly right in urging that the various national bodies concerned with school-industry links need to collaborate as closely as possible. It is important that the bodies' complementary roles should be understood and properly valued. I am pleased to learn that the national bodies are already taking active steps to improve their collaboration both nationally and locally. An early fruit of this collaboration can be seen in the new edition of "Schools and Industry", a booklet which explains clearly and concisely the activities of the main schools-industry liaison bodies.

I express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Cooper, who carried out his study on a wholly voluntary basis; to Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd. for the support which it provided; and to Mr. D. P. J. Browning, chief 651W education officer, Bedfordshire, who worked closely with Mr. Cooper. The report has helped to focus attention on the importance of developing links between schools and industry and commerce, and I endorse Mr. Cooper's view of the value of these links.