The Future for Design and Technology Education

 
      
Examples of student work from http://www.ripley.lancs.sch.uk

Across the range of design education – from D&T to PhD – Britain’s offering is currently highly accomplished, with a great depth and breadth. Design is a relatively young discipline that has had to fight for its territory, thus been far more self-analytical than many traditional subjects. It is a discipline (if in all its variety it can be called a discipline) that, unlike some of the more traditional subjects, in its very nature reflexively responds to the realities and complexities of a changing world and its needs: capabilities which we surely desperately need. 

 

The current perceived threat to this position comes from two proposals: the possible cutting back of statutory subject requirements as part of an impending review of the National Curriculum, and the withdrawal of funding for Arts and Humanities (including design) teaching at Higher Education level. 

 

There are some high profile advocates making the case for continuing support and investment in design – see a recent article quoting James Dyson and RCA Rector Paul Thompson in the Guardian here – so much so that the arguments should by now be familiar. This is not to say that there isn’t value in repeating some very simple and clear messages in the hope that certain truisms will stick. Design teaching is not just about a particular set of facts, but a wholly different pedagogic technique, and one of the few opportunities in schools currently for ‘learning through doing’. Throughout the system it creates ‘multi-disciplinarians’ and problem-solving capabilities. Interesting that design and technology lessons have statistically the lowest truancy level.

 

On the other hand, if there is one thing that is constantly repeated for every area of public sector purview at the moment, it is that no-one, no sphere, is exempt from cuts, therefore ‘special case’ arguments rarely hold water. 

 

In the case of schools, the reasoning is perhaps more ideological – to do with shifting power from the centre. However the risk (as has been seen before with Language teaching) is that, in practice, ‘non-statutory’ becomes ‘easily dropped’: that particular temptation for headteachers in this case is likely to be exacerbated by the high cost of D&T provision. It also makes driving up quality of teaching that much harder. This is vitally important in D&T as taught subject matter must adapt to the reality of changing technologies, but already often seen as a lesser priority than improving teaching quality in the 3Rs. 

 

The design and technology community is aware of the challenges and has mobilised early to address them as the review gets under way with discussions yesterday in Parliament (chaired by Baroness Estelle Morris) on the schools situation and next week at Imperial College on the HE agenda.

 

So early in fact that not even those in government know what the shape of the curriculum review will be. The advantage of this is the design community now has time to develop their strategy in line with some early feedback: what was most evident from the Parliamentary discussion was the importance of acknowledging the Government’s likely position. ‘Going with the grain’ was an often-repeated phrase. And as one speaker suggested, any room of experts and enthusiasts can make the case for their subject with vigour; that on its own won’t convince. It is important to recognise in this case though the advice about D&T is coming not only from teachers, but business and industry too.

 

Baroness Morris, who has for many years now been thinking and writing about education and education policy, pointed out that the long-standing discourse about the national curriculum has trained us all to think about it in a particular way. The framing of the discourse itself has perhaps limited the options under consideration. So this could be seen as a good time to reassess, in the case of D&T education, what the core values, assumptions, competencies and outcomes are, and if necessary, rethink the model ‘with the grain’, innovate in the way it delivers itself. (A design challenge of its own?)

 

Yesterday’s discussion raised questions to this effect: What are the core advantages and benefits of a D&T education? What is unique to the discipline, how is it different to other subjects? How might those core benefits be retained in the curriculum? Is there a half-way house – compulsory provision for a limited age-group, or compulsory ‘access to’? Is there an opportunity in all of this to update and renew D&T as a subject? Assuming the continuation of a silo/ discipline model, are there ways of delivering those benefits, or utilising those pedagogic techniques through other subjects? 

 

In summary: without pre-judging decisions yet to be taken, and in the context of very sparse information coming from the DfE, it would probably be wise to consult on a range of options.