Design
and Technology is one of the most enjoyable subjects on the school
curriculum. As a technology teacher of over twenty years experience it
never fails to impress me when Year Seven pupils arrive at the workshops
for the first time, all wide eyed and enthusiastic. This enthusiasm
continues as they progress up the school despite constraints employed by
the national curriculum. The general rule is that pupils, whatever age,
enjoy to make. It is only when the paperwork takes over that this natural
enthusiasm for problem solving through making becomes subdued. The cruel
reality of the situation is that poor funding of the subject, coupled with
the need for expensive consumables, force the average Design and
Technology department to minimise making and replace it with paperwork in
the guise of design work.
When I
first started teaching in the early 1980s Design and Technology
Departments delivered woodwork, metal work, technical drawing and Home
Economics. Each course had clearly defined boundaries and rarely did pupil
projects cross these. They were largely practical with specific practical
skills delivered and the majority of pupils enjoyed them. Pupils knew
exactly what they had to learn and most teachers were well experienced in
delivering each O'level or CSE qualification. Change was slow but well
thought, out unlike the last ten years where change to the delivery of DT
has been regular and rushed through by higher authority.
In the
early 1980s change to the delivery of DT was slow but by the late 1980s
the pace of change was accelerating. For instance, Technical Drawing
became Graphic Communication, and then Design and Communication, then
became lost within a general umbrella of Design and Technology during the
mid 1990s. Eventually it became known as Graphic Products having lost many
of the skills associated with technical graphics. Gone were the days when
pupils needed to use T-squares, Set Squares and measure accurately and in
came plenty of sketching and shading. Currently pupils need to know a
whole range of skills in a limited way rather than a few essential skills
in depth.
On a
more positive note subjects such as Systems and Control and Electronic
Products have been introduced over the last ten to fifteen years. These
have added a more academic side to Design and Technology, allowing a
direct link with Science and Mathematics. Their introduction matched the
change in the structure of manufacturing industry with its emphasis on
modern technology and electronics.
During
the early 1990s, metalwork all but disappeared with only a few
well-equipped schools managing to hold on to engineering. Having lost much
of their equipment (this is discussed later) Technology departments had no
alternative but to deliver more generalised courses such as Resistant
Materials or GNVQ Manufacturing.
Design
and Technology requires purposed built workshops but during the late 1980s
and early 1990s these began to disappear. Traditional workshops are very
expensive to set up. Filling a workshop with proper workbenches, lathes,
milling machines, machine drills etc. costs thousands of pounds. I have
been in teaching long enough to remember the days of the early 1990s when
head teachers decided to sell off this expensive equipment encouraged by
changes in the National Curriculum that had watered down design and
technology to such an extend that any teacher could deliver it. I remember
the days when ridiculous combinations such as a GCSE in technology and
music were more than acceptable to the Department for Education. The early
days of the 1990s are best forgotten but for one reason - many schools
took the opportunity to sell off technology workshop equipment leaving
open spaces for design and technology to be taught in. Fortunately, the
National Curriculum was reviewed later in the 1990s and specialist
subjects were again encouraged. However, this left many design and
technology departments with inadequate workshop equipment and facilities.
The
situation for most schools now is that many Design and Technology
departments have been left under equipped. Unless a school becomes a
specialist Technology College funding is not available for equipping
workshops in the way they were in the 1960s. Even becoming a Technology
College may not help the situation as many schools spend the vast majority
of the funding on ICT equipment rather than CNC machinery, other equipment
and tools. It is worth noting that ICT equipment remains useful for three
years until it needs upgrading or replacing whereas a reliable CNC machine
can last a couple of decades. Technology college status usually means the
purchase of ICT networks and broadband Internet access rather than real
investment in Design and Technology.
If
limited funding becomes available a DT department can equip a room for
light Design and Technology work. A range of basic equipment such as bench
top machine drills, sanders etc… can be purchased for less than sixty
pounds each. Light workbenches and vices are also relatively cheap. At
least this will equip a room for model making, Graphic Products or even
Product Design. The only draw back is that some funding needs to be made
available for ensuring that the equipment is installed according to Health
and Safety regulations. Despite having light equipment, pupils will have
access to enough equipment to ensure practical lessons can take place more
regularly.
Good
Design and Technology encourages pupils to problem solve, design and
manufacture. If emphasis is placed on making (rather than designing and a
minimum of making) pupils will retain their inborn enthusiasm for the
subject. Design is important especially if it involves plenty of research
and testing/modelling exercises. The design
should not only be a matter of drawing and shading. It should include the
pupil using numeracy, literacy and ICT skills - all as an integrated
package. The general rule is that pupils enjoy being actively
involved in any lesson and the more meaningful exercises that can be
included, the better learning takes place.
Design
and Technology has recovered in a limited way from the confusing days of
the early to mid 1990s. However, more interference is just round the
corner. The Department for Education is pushing vocational courses. The
theory behind this is sound. The courses should be work related and
prepare pupils for the workplace. However, if we follow the history of
vocational courses in schools, especially GNVQ courses, vocational courses
will be saddled with an immense amount of paperwork. One thinks back to
the early days of GNVQ and the bundles of folders teachers had to keep as
evidence of a pupil’s attainment. Lets hope this does not become the norm
for the new vocation GCSEs. |