Primary design and technology education is on the up. This is the view of those closests to the subject and primary education.
This improved activity for ages 5-11 is linked to the potential for Ofsted inspection of primary schools, in which the breadth of curriculum that would include design and technology, could be potentially scrutinised. Numbers of subject association members from the primary sector are strong, and if the assumption that practice and activity lower down the food chain will subsequently impact what happens higher up it, we “could” expect to see an uplift in secondary school D&T. What “uplift” could potentially look like is hard to predict; more students at GCSE; better work; a greater demand for improved learning in secondary school settings, all or none of these.
If we look at Computer Science as a comparison, it was evident from student voice at the schools I worked at, that once new students had settled into the KS3 curriculum, they ultimately had become frustrated with what they were studying by the time we were surveying their views at the end of year 7. The primary capabilities they had developed in the subject, including working with robotics or confidently programming in Scratch software, were unrecognisable to their KS3 experience, which they felt had taken strides backwards to very basic programming and learning for the subject. Computer Science is a subject currently struggling to catch-up with changes to the curriculum that moved it beyond IT, and a lack of teachers trained or upskilled to deliver the more programming and science content in the subject. Primary computer science education, where lots of improved teaching and learning was taking place, had prepared these students for a secondary curriculum that did not exist.
So what does that mean for secondary education when students enjoying an improved primary D&T curriculum arrive in year 7 in the years ahead? Will they continue the journey or take steps backwards and feel frustrated?
In order to frame my answer to this, I recently did a tour of five local secondary schools. I am currently helping my eldest choose a secondary school for when she leaves primary. As a former D&T teacher, I was personally most keen to visit the D&T departments, where I was best placed to make a judgement about whether the curriculum was right for my child. I know the current landscape of design education in the UK, and as someone who has always championed for the most progressive potential version for design education, I am ever realistic for the reality that I will stand a high chance of being disappointed. Whilst grade outcomes are important, and one of the pieces of information that may inform the decision my child makes, I was most interested in knowing what the look, feel and voices were in the D&T departments, and importantly what was being taught at KS3. For me, this is essential to know, given that it would be the D&T experience my child would get before deciding if the subject was something on her GCSE options list. Here are my observations of those schools, collated against some key questions:
What does the department call itself?
Results from the five schools:
Design and Technology, Technology, Woodwork, Woodtech, Design and Engineering.
What were the KS3 projects?
Results from the five schools:
Steady hand game, hand sewn door stop, catapult, desk tidy, laser cut key ring, box, jewellery box, wind turbine, robot programming, moisture sensor (soldering), picture frame, puzzle.
Were the rooms modern?
4 were very traditional workshops with benches and lots of hand tools, a large and number of pillar drills, one or more bandsaws, sanders, etc. Just one was a modernised room which included more of a surface mounted cad/cam equipment approach.
What was displayed on the walls?
Student sketches, project boards of the work students will do in each project, health and safety poster, Dyson posters, the sustainable development goals.
As a parent and child team visiting the school, we had very little time to fully appreciate the department, so we had to make quick judgements of what happens there, what will be taught, and what the ethos or status of the subject was within the school. We did this by talking to the teacher(s) and students, and noted things like the prominence of the department on a tour map, and activities teachers had set out for visitors to do, and whether beyond the department corridor, if D&T appeared anywhere else in the school. I also spoke to two of the heads of school, about the subject.
My first impressions were that in only one school would I feel confident to make the assumption that the subject would be taught in a positive way, that could prepare my child for a future that might engage her interest (for context, my eldest is relatively tech savvy, can make prototypes with some skill without help, and has made some brilliant things that might be recognisable as D&T). The departments where everything was MDF and pine boxes and recycled textile door stops, for me, rang some big alarm bells. Whilst I maintain in the back of my head that potential cost issues will have influence over how modern the facilities and material choices are in that department, I certainly don’t feel it can be an excuse to hide behind (you can always project an ambitious and digital future even if you have limited money to deliver it) nor that there is an assumption that it costs money to teach the subject in a progressive way (you don’t have to own all the latest equipment to teach what it is or does, and you don’t need anything to teach children to engage in open problem solving instead of making low quality products that already exist like boxes). In short, only one school was taking a positive and ambitious direction of travel for the subject.
As a collective summary of departments that felt dated, they had similar features. These were certainly defining enough characteristics that my eldest and I felt the school more broadly was not right, but remember these were all observations, and all made in a short period of maybe 10 minutes. They were:
• displays were mainly about making stuff, not inspiring the children about the wider world.
• making was seen as the focus for the curriculum (teachers told me what they made, not what children learnt), there was almost no mention of problem solving, creativity, iteration, empathy, collaboration, user centred design, etc.
• there were token pieces of equipment placed out on the workbenches, purely for the open evening, such as a 3d printer, that was churning out school logo style badges, yet no evidence of the machines being used by students anywhere in projects!
• the workshops were built with a focus around a set of workbenches in the room, and most of the room was dedicated to storing tools and static equipment. It was hard to see where inspiration would come from, spaces where students would collaborate, where CAD was available, and where student projects in progress were visible.
• there was no mention of students who were successfully now working in a related design field (no success stories like you see in departments like PE who will shout about a sports person in the professional game)
• the teachers were all white male (this isn’t an issue in itself but again I’m thinking about role models for my daughter, who is acutely aware)
• the room was not central in the school layout or tour. In one school it was clear that the department was in an “out” building away from the main school block.
What would this mean for a impending deep dive into D&T?
If Ofsted were to inspect the schools in my area, I would fear for what the report would say about the overall provision. I feel confident to say that my childs experiences at primary have already surpassed their impending KS3 curriculum in four out of five schools. Cusdos to the one school that has modernised both its spaces and curriculum, but one in five does not accurately represent the wider landscape of D&T nationally.
If an inspection of secondary curriculums does come out this year, knowing the positive shoots of activity going on at primary, I would anticipate that D&T could come under the national spot light, and I hope, lead to some type of national action for design education. What has become quite clear when talking to both industry and education leads in design in my job, is that whilst practical skills and making are enjoyable and add value to the way children learn, an automated future is already here, and we need to shift design education towards more creative/human capability learning for it to remain relevant and benefit the children we are educating. The world of making things on a production line are disappearing, and will in the next 10 years be gone from the modern workplace.
What can departments do?
For me the blueprint is clear. Modernise now. Be cut throat and clear the out all of the equipment that reflects a legacy post war learning approach to design education. For me, when I was subject lead, it was about getting rid of the chisel sharpeners, reducing down the number of lathes, milling machines, having less static equipment, and having more focus on creating collaborative spaces for students to work, a greater focus on creative design, lots of open contexts to design for, less (or no) MDF and sheet man made board projects, less technician pre-prepared making (IKEA style assembly with almost no creative freedoms), and ensuring that what was learnt and experienced each day in the department was modern, progressive, and never static, always iterating forward.
For me, none of this costs money, in fact selling legacy kit is a great way to generate income and help with the investment in modern rooms. I would even vouch for selling off all but maybe one workbench, and if you’re more radical, all of the LEV connected equipment like bandsaws and sanders, stripping out all the equipment students use that creates dust and requires the need for its extraction. It might sound radical, but the modern school that was going places that I visited with my daughter, had rooms just like this, and it felt like the space where progressive D&T was capable of taking my daughters education forward.
The subject can wait for a deep dive into itself, or it can act now.
Phil Holton 