I remember when my boss at the time asked me to explain to him what Design was. We spent two days together just talking about the various characteristics of design and in these discussions we mapped out what design encompassed in art and design, and what it could be within the realm of applied technology. It was 1989 and my boss had just been appointed as the first national subject officer for Technology. He was joining the National Curriculum Council (NCC) to write the first subject Order for Technology. As a computer scientist he would admit that he didn't know much about design, but he had been told that this new subject to be created in the new national curriculum would bring together Computer Studies, Craft, Design Technology (CDT), Home Economics, Needlework and Technical Drawing, along with elements of engineering and manufacturing, but embracing at that the new technologies could offer. This new subject was forged following the period where the 'white heat of technology' was rapidly changing our industries and our classrooms. The subject was Technology and was created to update the constituent subjects so that they could exploit these developing technologies prevalent as new computer technologies brought manufacturing and control possibilities into the classroom.
We were joined in these discussions at various times by another colleague who was the Adviser for CDT who also shaped another vision for design in relation to CDT and this wider range of the new Technology subjects. I remember these discussions as very positive and highly amicable. We understood how design could really make these subjects function together with the shared purpose they needed. We started to consider how we could map out the way in which Art and Design and CDT could complement each other.
It was Margaret Thatcher who really wanted to create a subject called Technology, during her period as Education Minister and was then able to achieve this when Prime Minister, through the creation of a National Curriculum. She also believed this new subject or group of subjects needed to include design. She was right in this, but unfortunately, ministers have never really understood what design is. They still don't understand the scope of design, in much the same way that they don't understand creativity. Of course, we all know that there are implicit connections between them. Design is after all a process of creative activity.
The problem, however, was that the first Technology subject Order was published 2 years ahead of the Art, Craft and Design subject Order. In this 2 year period, the new Technology group of subjects had redefined the constituent subjects with a broader definition of design than had perhaps been intended. Remember, it needed design, to make the group of subjects share a process and enable them to function together. To giver shared meaning and purpose to many of the activities. In these first years, they were usually taught as a carousel of experiences, where a model of the design process was used to provide a structure for their programmes of study and as learning model of a process of actions they could all share. Increasingly, this led to limitations on creativity. As we all know, as soon as you set down your creative process as a ‘straight jacket’ of actions and steps, you lose much of the creative flexibility that Creativity needs to flourish.
Very quickly,
concerns were beginning to be expressed by those teachers who could see the
move away from ‘craft’ skills as losing something that had been implicit and of
real value to the engagement of young people in the subject. Namely a
commitment to developing mastery of a skill, that goes back to the work of the
Guilds in European culture. Also The Engineering Council grew increasingly
worried that these new subjects were reducing the skill set needed by young
people who progressed through on pathways to engineering qualifications and
careers in the manufacturing industries. They complained of a curriculum over
emphasising paper and card prototyping, without experience and skill gained in
the skilful handing and consideration of real problems manipulating metals,
plastics, wood and other materials. These concerns have grown over time and
resulted in several changes to The Technology Order, at one point changing it
to Design Technology (DT as it is now known) but resulting in a move (as some
would see it ) as further from developing good engineers and designers, and
from the science of materials technology. The creation of specialist vocational
courses in Engineering and Manufacturing have helped address these concerns
over the last decade, but the current costs and difficulty in providing such
courses in schools, along with changes to vocational funding and value have
resulted in the reduction of provision and a likely return to a curriculum diet
of traditional GCSE and A Level qualifications.
More recently,
concerns by Chefs such as Jamie Oliver and Gary Rhodes, have challenged the
value of Food Technology, and suggested that the focus on design has also
reduced the opportunity for cooking. Many modern chefs have suggested that the
former Home Economics course was a better preparation for life and an
understanding of how to feed ourselves, than the current course provides.
This brings us to
the difficult issue of the impact on art and design from DT. This has increased
over the years as DT subjects referred to themselves in short hand names that
seemed to cover the same areas of experience that several art and design
courses also used, in Graphics, and Textiles. When created, Technology and then
DT was originally mandatory at Key Stage 4, resulting in all students having to
take at least one GCSE, leading schools to see the place of design as sitting
within DT. As Art and Design has always been a discretionary subject,
Headteachers and Principals have in general, not wanted to offer Art and Design
courses at GCSE that seemed to repeat or overlap with what DT already offered.
Surprisingly, this has continued, despite the fact that for most of this
period, the majority of teachers with Design qualifications have been working
in the Art and Design departments, whilst the majority of those teachers without
such design qualification, were being employed to teach DT courses. Needless to
say, in many schools, results were not what was expected and were often less
than the GCSE results achieved by Art and Design Teachers offering the art and
design equivalent course. Over the last decade, design specialists have moved
into DT departments, many with a background of Art and Design, but who could
see that career opportunities in art and design were often less than a growing
DT Faculty could offer.
It is still not
understood by senior leadership teams (and government ministers) that DT does
not prepare students for careers in the vast majority of the design industries.
To become a designer, you still need to study in a college of Art and Design
and to gain access, you usually need a Level 3 qualifications in art and
design. Hence, studying Graphical Products at GCSE and A Level does not prepare
you for entry to a degree in Graphic Design and the same is true of Textile
Technology which does not prepare you for a degree in Fashion and Textiles, but
it does prepare you for a degree in Textile Design and Manufacturing.
Students are
being misled by teachers who refer to these courses in their shorthand form of
Graphics and Textiles. They are neither. Art and Design has equivalent GCSE and
A level versions of these courses, but schools too rarely allow these teachers
to offer these, even when they are the only teachers in the school, with a
specialist degree in the subject!
Things are
changing though and DT faces being redefined as a Basic subject, becoming
optional at Key Stages 3 and 4. Given the cost of resourcing and maintaining
these subjects, schools may well be happy to make cuts and limit the breadth of
the DT options.
DATA would like
the help of art and design to argue in support of the place of Design in the
Curriculum. It may seem petty, but I don't ever remember a time when DT argued
for the place of Design in Art and Design. Throughout all the years of the
National Curriculum, when Art and Design was being cut back, when schools were
removing GCSE Graphic Design and replacing it with Graphical Products, the same
for Textiles and Three Dimensional Design, I never once heard a voice raised by
DT teachers or DATA to suggest we put some clear blue water between both
subjects to enable both to define and keep their place within the curriculum.
Throughout the
last 20 years since Art and Design has been a subject in the National
Curriculum, we have seen across the country a gradual reduction in the
perception of the value of art, craft and design. In this period, we have seen
the loss of kilns and sculpture equipment, the loss of print and textile
facilities, the subject reduced to being defined as Art. We have also seen some
boys being switched off by the subject, a reduction in staffing so that almost
all teachers in schools now have a background in Fine Art and many do not have
the range of technical skills required to teach courses that young people need
to develop their art, craft and design skills, knowledge and understanding. All
of which will not enable young people to make good informed choices, nor will
it prepare them in a way that will enable them to pursue a career in the
creative, media and design industries of the future.
Despite all of
this, I do want to help Design Technology. This is because I believe it is a
subject vital to the future of society and is a significant player in
transforming society and improving the quality of life through design. But I
recognise this is a different design to the design we teach in art, craft and
design. We need both, but for complementary and different reasons. We just need
to articulate and promote the case for both and by defining these, separate
some understanding for beleaguered school leadership teams and politicians, so that
they too can understand and support the value of both areas of learning.
Ged Gast May 2012
