1:03

you're listening to the talking dnt podcast

1:05

. I'm dr allison hardy , a

1:07

writer , researcher and advocate of

1:09

design and technology education . In each

1:12

episode I share views , news and opinions

1:14

about dnt

1:18

. This

1:20

week's episode is part of the Shaping

1:23

D&T series that I'm

1:25

publishing between April

1:27

2024 and August . I've

1:29

got a whole series of different people coming

1:32

on to talk about their thoughts about what needs to

1:34

be shaped , why it needs to be shaped and

1:37

what could be done and what should be done . But I thought it'd

1:39

be useful to just take stock about what has been going on and what could

1:41

be done and what should be done . But I thought it'd be useful to just take stock about what has

1:43

been going on and what is the current situation

1:46

in terms of the curriculum for

1:48

design and technology in England

1:50

at the moment . There will , throughout

1:52

this series , be people coming on from different

1:54

parts of the globe to talk about what design

1:57

and technology education , in its many different

1:59

guises and different names , looks like

2:01

in different parts of the world . But this is

2:03

really focusing on what's happening in

2:06

England , so I make no apologies

2:08

for that , but some people might find this interesting , even

2:10

if you're not teaching in England . So

2:13

in England there is a national curriculum

2:16

and I'll put a link in the show notes for

2:18

those of you who aren't familiar with that . It

2:20

is the seventh iteration

2:23

, I think , of the national curriculum . I've

2:25

written about this previously and talked

2:27

about it in previous episodes about

2:29

the history of D&T , but it

2:31

has evolved over time . Now

2:34

this is the current national curriculum , which

2:36

was 2013-2014

2:39

. Which was 2013-2014

2:43

, was

2:45

actually the longest one that we've had in existence . That's been undisturbed

2:48

or tinkered with or altered , I

2:51

think you know we've gone from 1990

2:54

to 94 to 97

2:56

, to 2000 , 2004

2:59

, 2007 , to

3:01

2013-14 . So you , you

3:03

know this is 10 years . This one has

3:05

lasted . Um , I'm just

3:07

gonna have to apologize . Kip has decidedly

3:09

wants to join in with this episode , so he's going to come and

3:12

sit on my knee for a moment . So

3:15

just turn away from the microphone . Just going to sit there quietly

3:17

, aren't you ? And so

3:20

I think that says an awful lot

3:22

about the fact that the

3:24

government who is currently in

3:26

power in England , that's , the Conservatives

3:28

we're expecting a general election

3:31

later this year have

3:33

stayed true to their ideology about

3:35

curriculum and they have said that they were

3:37

not going to alter the curriculum while

3:40

they were in power . They have a particular ideology

3:42

and they have maintained that

3:44

. Whether we agree with it or not

3:46

is for another debate

3:48

, but that is what they've done and

3:51

they brought this new curriculum in after

3:53

a review in 2011 , where

3:56

they brought together an expert panel . Now

3:59

we can all debate whether they were experts

4:01

or not , but it was chaired by Tim

4:04

Oates , who I really do think is an expert

4:06

around curriculum and

4:09

when I've spoken to him briefly , he's

4:11

a passionate advocate for design and technology

4:14

. But in that review

4:16

they were asked to think about what

4:18

was the best that has been thought

4:20

and said , about

4:24

what should be taught as a result

4:26

of that , and they were very much coming

4:28

from an ED Hirsch and Daniel

4:30

Willingham perspective . They're two

4:33

education philosophers , leading

4:37

researchers in America , who've

4:39

had quite a lot of sway

4:41

over who was then the school's minister

4:43

, nick Gibb and Michael Gove . The

4:46

expert panel reviewed the national

4:48

curriculum kind of with those parameters

4:51

to look at , and they

4:53

came out with a review in 2011 that

4:55

said that I'm just going to focus mainly

4:58

on design and technology . Obviously , I could talk about the

5:00

whole curriculum that design and technology

5:02

didn't have a clear epistemology . So

5:05

it's knowledge structure , it's where

5:08

knowledge came from , how it was formed , how

5:11

we identify whether

5:13

something is true or not is

5:19

contested and there's no clear way

5:21

, whereas they would argue that in history

5:23

and other subjects that

5:26

there was a clear epistemology . So

5:28

what their argument was is if there's no clear epistemology

5:30

, then it hasn't got a strong foundation

5:33

. If it hasn't got a strong foundation , then it's

5:35

difficult to determine what is the best of what

5:37

has been thought and said . I've written extensively

5:39

about this in other places and I'll put

5:41

some links in the show notes to

5:43

do with this . Now

5:46

that caused so the outcome was

5:48

sorry of that was that their design

5:50

and technology would therefore be part

5:52

of what is known . They called it a basic curriculum

5:55

, so it would be determined locally and

5:58

it would be determined who would teach it , what

6:00

would be taught and who

6:02

would study it . Now

6:04

you know it was a review . It wasn't

6:07

a white paper . That

6:09

was going out for consultation , so

6:11

it meant that people could respond and

6:13

critique and there was quite an outcry

6:15

, as you can imagine , from the design and technology community

6:18

. So what

6:20

we did a number of us were

6:22

then pulled together to create

6:25

or to respond to that . So I'm kind of missing

6:27

a whole whole thing out here . I'm slightly distracted

6:29

by kip wriggling around on my knee

6:31

. I do apologize . Let me get the time

6:33

orders . I've got the review . Basic

6:35

curriculum weak epistemology outcry

6:38

. Um , eddie norm , norman

6:41

and Ken Baines put a book out Design Epistemology

6:43

. I wrote a chapter for that and David

6:46

Spendlove who's coming on the podcast later , you

6:48

know really spoke out very vehemently

6:51

about this , as did many others . And

6:54

then what happened is

6:56

a new national curriculum for all school

6:58

subjects was created , but

7:00

the one for design and technology had , as

7:03

far as we can gather , no external consultation

7:05

. It was it was just created and it

7:07

was . It was shockingly bad . Um

7:10

, it's kind of quite difficult to find it online now , but

7:12

, um , it was really bad . It was written by

7:14

somebody who had no understanding of the

7:16

subject and then , as a result , a group of us were pulled

7:18

together about 40 of of us , I think came together

7:20

by invitation to the Royal Academy

7:22

of Engineers and during

7:25

the course of a day and they'd been to preliminary work

7:27

and there was some work afterwards , this

7:29

current national curriculum was , or

7:32

a draft version was , put

7:34

forward that then had to go to the

7:36

then schools . Minister Liz

7:39

Truss , if you're in England , that name might

7:41

send shivers down your spine after she

7:43

was prime minister in England , in Great

7:45

Britain , for a while well , not for about , not for a

7:47

while at all , but anyway I am rambling here , sorry

7:50

. I'm trying to kind of put all these pieces

7:52

together that people can understand how

7:54

we are in this situation in terms of the curriculum

7:56

, that these things don't just appear , they

7:59

evolve and they

8:01

demonstrate what people think of the subject

8:03

. So this current version was

8:05

created by a committee

8:07

, one might argue , in

8:10

a building that was the Royal Academy

8:12

of Engineers , which has a particular

8:14

remit . Obviously

8:16

it's about engineering , but it is a royal society

8:18

so it has more

8:21

power and authority than some

8:23

other groups that might not have that

8:25

, that status . So

8:28

it was good to have them on board as an advocate

8:30

. But then obviously there are tensions

8:32

within that around what the subject is

8:35

. So draft

8:37

curriculum put forward to Liz Truss

8:40

, big tensions

8:42

around food and

8:45

around where it should sit . Previously

8:47

it had been a material that was completely

8:50

embedded in design and technology . Again

8:53

, there's a whole history around that which I talk about in

8:55

a previous episode , and

8:58

this

9:00

time it was decided to

9:02

put it as a kind of a sub-subject

9:04

, one might say , within the national

9:07

curriculum , which

9:09

caused confusion , lack of clarity

9:12

for all sorts of people . Their

9:26

vocational tension is preparing people to do jobs in that sector

9:28

, enabling children to live a flourishing life , so

9:31

to live independently , autonomously

9:33

. So we can see where food

9:35

sits along that . And you

9:37

know , design and technology has had

9:39

those tensions . The utilitarian value

9:42

, let's say so

9:45

. We've got the vocational , leading to jobs , that design and technology

9:48

, maths , science . The utilitarian

9:51

we can see how maths , science , english

9:53

, design and technology and food do that . And

9:55

then we've got this other section which

9:58

is about what contribution does

10:00

a subject make to a child's general

10:02

education . That is unique

10:05

and that's where the subject's epistemology

10:07

comes in . What is makes it unique and

10:09

essential , the best of

10:11

what has been thought and said , and I think that's the general

10:14

. So we've got vocational , utilitarian

10:16

and general . And

10:19

what was going on nationally

10:21

around food politically

10:24

was around the utilitarian

10:26

and the obesity crisis . And

10:30

there's a chapter in the debates book , does Food Fit

10:32

, where they give some of this history

10:35

around it and some of these tensions . It's worth a read

10:37

of that chapter . So

10:42

there that led to food

10:44

being kind of pulled out into this

10:47

sort of subgroup and I'm

10:49

kind of using that word , sub in a in

10:51

a very winceworthy way , because I

10:54

am not saying that cooking

10:56

and nutrition is a sub , but

10:58

it didn't seem to have its own distinction and

11:01

also it was taking away from the fact that food

11:03

had been , in many schools , a

11:06

very clear material for children

11:08

to use as part of design

11:11

and design developments

11:13

as part of

11:15

a general education . So

11:19

it's it . There's all

11:21

these tensions around how the national

11:23

curriculum is structured , where it was done

11:25

by the academy of engineers who was around

11:28

the table , who'd been invited , who wasn't

11:30

invited , where food

11:32

as a material sat and

11:34

food as a subject . And

11:36

again , if you've got politics

11:39

policy uh

11:41

, people with own their own agendas

11:44

having a stake in that , then that um

11:46

affects how

11:48

that then comes into being in the national curriculum . I

11:51

think that's how we've got to this place that we have in

11:53

terms of , we've got a

11:56

design and technology curriculum with

11:58

this sub subject again , I'm

12:00

using sub . You know it's

12:03

almost a subject embedded within , but not

12:05

it's discrete . So

12:07

that makes it very confusing for people , I think

12:09

, who don't understand the nature of design

12:11

and technology . So

12:14

that's where we've got to in terms

12:17

of if you look at the document of

12:19

the national curriculum , there

12:22

was debate when the national curriculum

12:24

as a whole was reviewed about whether there should be aims

12:26

for a subject . I wrote quite

12:28

strongly that I think there should be aims . There's lots of

12:31

tension around that . The national

12:33

curriculum review was influenced quite heavily

12:35

by Professor Michael Young who

12:38

talks about epistemology . He kind of comes from the Basil

12:40

Bernstein if you're interested in research

12:43

school , of thinking about

12:45

the structure of subjects and strong boundaries

12:48

and weak boundaries Design technology , they claim

12:50

, have weak boundaries . Michael

12:52

Young is not an advocate of an aims-based

12:55

curriculum . His counterparts

12:57

at UCL University , college London , michael

13:01

White and no , yeah

13:03

, michael Reese and John White I think I'm

13:05

getting my names wrong are very strong advocates

13:08

for an aims-led curriculum . So

13:10

there's all sorts of debate about whether education

13:13

should be aims-based or not

13:15

. And at that point Michael

13:17

Young and his work and it

13:19

is really good work I mean I'm not

13:21

saying either of these arguments are better or worse

13:24

, but they give a different perspective and

13:26

they have had at that point different leverage in

13:28

terms of policy . And

13:31

Michael Young's work around knowledge

13:34

could be aligned to ED

13:37

Hirsch and Daniel Willingham , which

13:39

I mentioned earlier in the podcast

13:41

, which I mentioned earlier in the

13:43

podcast . So there was a debate do we have an aims-based

13:45

curriculum ? And I think if you look at the GCSE

13:47

specification . There are no aims anymore

13:50

. I

13:52

think , personally I think that's a real loss because then we don't understand the grounding

13:54

of the subject . What

13:57

is the purpose of this GCSE ? What

13:59

is it doing ? What's

14:02

the aim ? What are the young people going to walk

14:04

out of , if they kind of get the whole thing

14:06

? What they're going to walk out as as a complete

14:08

person in design and technology ? But

14:11

they're not there in the GCSE , which I think is a

14:13

real shame . But they are there in the national

14:15

curriculum and they are there for

14:17

design and technology . They're there for every subject and there

14:19

are these purpose statements . On

14:22

reflection , it's a bit of a hodgepodge . I

14:24

was involved in the debate around the purpose

14:27

of study for design and technology . I've

14:29

critiqued it elsewhere , but there is a purpose

14:31

. It's got a mention

14:33

about math , science , engineering , computing

14:35

and arts because again , that was and

14:38

this is not to take the angle of that

14:41

the subject is cross-disciplinary . There

14:46

was a call from government , from

14:48

Department of Education , that maths

14:50

and science influenced and shaped

14:52

subjects like design and technology , and

14:57

also there was an argument around subjects being

14:59

academic and so one of the

15:01

ways that design technology was enabled

15:05

argued to be

15:07

put into that box discussing

15:10

academic invocation as a whole . Other podcast

15:12

episode was to draw

15:15

on maths and science , which again , I think

15:17

, kind of waters it down and leads

15:19

to this idea about this weak , epistemological

15:22

, blurred boundaries between design

15:24

and technology and the subject . So it's

15:26

there . Should it be there ? What does that mean

15:28

? Um , you

15:30

know , I think it's difficult then sometimes to argue

15:32

about the uniqueness of design and technology

15:35

when even the purpose statement

15:37

talks about drawing on other

15:40

subjects and there isn't a clarity about what

15:42

we mean by this broad range of subject knowledge which

15:44

it talks about in the purpose . But

15:47

there are four aims . They are there and

15:49

that's , I think , what the curriculum , when

15:51

we're teaching it in schools , when it's being taught in schools

15:54

, needs to drive what

15:56

is being taught , why it's being

15:59

taught . So those four aims

16:01

are clearly there around

16:03

developing creative technical and practical expertise

16:05

, perform every day task confidently to participate

16:08

successfully in an increasingly technological

16:10

world . Well , that's the first one . I think there's actually two

16:12

in there and I think that hints at

16:15

the reason

16:18

why design technology is an important part of a general

16:20

education designing

16:22

and making high quality products , building and applying

16:24

a repertoire of knowledge , understanding and skills in

16:26

order to design and make high quality , prototypes and

16:29

products for a wide range of users . That's

16:31

design and technology capability , critique

16:34

, evaluate and test of ideas and products and the

16:36

work of others . Again , that's about that

16:38

links to me very much . That aim , the beginning

16:40

, creative , technical and practical

16:42

expertise . Perform everyday tasks , conflict , participate

16:45

successfully . If you're going to participate successfully

16:47

, I think , an increasing technological world

16:49

, you have to be able to critique , evaluate and

16:51

test and understand

16:54

and apply the principles of nutrition and learn

16:56

how to cook . Again , there's two aims in

16:58

there , but it's just written as one , so

17:02

there are from

17:04

there . There's content listed for

17:06

lower primary key stage one , upper

17:09

primary key stage two and lower secondary key stage three and key

17:11

stage two and lower secondary key stage three , and

17:13

then the same for cooking and nutrition

17:15

. So that's where it's at

17:17

. It's broken down in

17:20

the design and technology section

17:22

into design , make and evaluate and technical

17:24

knowledge . Government

17:28

directive was to keep it light

17:31

, not to be too prescriptive , but

17:33

then that kind of if we don't , we don't hold

17:35

on to the aims , if we don't articulate the aims , and it's very

17:37

difficult to understand what knowledge we're selecting

17:40

to teach . So I think that's where the national

17:42

curriculum document sort of starts to

17:44

struggle . And it's not , it's

17:46

the interpretation of it that is

17:48

key in terms of the context

17:50

to me , of what the aims are , of

17:53

the subject . I keep coming back to that the

17:55

aims , the purpose . There are flaws

17:57

in this document , but they are there to

18:00

start thinking about what . What we're doing , why are we

18:02

selecting this knowledge now ? Why

18:04

are we teaching these skills , these procedures , now

18:06

and not later ? What we're doing now that

18:08

they're drawing on that they've taught and that they've

18:10

learned before ? So this

18:12

, this curriculum that's here , um around

18:15

design , make , evaluate and technical knowledge

18:17

. They aren't discrete . They are written as

18:19

discrete um . I'm going to

18:21

talk in a later podcast about some

18:24

of my views around the subject's

18:26

knowledge structure . Um , but

18:28

it's presented here in the national curriculum design

18:30

, make , evaluate and technical knowledge as

18:32

four discrete areas , and in cooking

18:35

and nutrition it's just

18:37

under the three key stages , but

18:40

about principles of healthy and varied

18:42

diets , preparing and cooking , understanding

18:45

ingredients and having a range

18:47

of techniques . So

18:50

the skill then is for a teacher is to take

18:52

those aims and to take that

18:54

knowledge and think about how they're

18:56

, how and when they're teaching

18:58

that knowledge in such a way that

19:01

is building towards

19:03

children achieving those aims , and those

19:06

aims kind of grow over time

19:08

. It not like you say okay , we're going to do all of this key

19:10

stage one , key stage two , and bang , they're all going

19:12

to suddenly appear at the end of key stage three . That's

19:14

not how it is , but it's a real

19:16

skill of a teacher to take all of that

19:19

to think okay , it's an , it's an incremental

19:21

, it's emerging over time . How are

19:23

we doing that ? How are we structuring teaching

19:26

this knowledge ? So , so I think , understanding

19:28

the origins of this current version

19:32

, where it's come from , understanding some of the

19:34

policy

19:36

, research drivers behind

19:38

it , coming to here and then starting to think , as a teacher , what

19:41

you need to think about in terms of how you plan that

19:43

curriculum is really useful , but

19:45

that's where we're at . It's been here for 10 years . This

19:47

national curriculum really useful , but that's where we're at . It's been here for

19:49

10 years , this national curriculum , and there has been calls in the last year , since 2023

19:52

into 2024 , that it's time for a change

19:54

. Whether that will happen with a change of government

19:57

or a new government as we go , moving

19:59

England to a general election later in the year

20:01

, who knows ? But that's where we're

20:03

at at the moment and I still

20:05

argue that I think we need to think about what

20:07

is the knowledge structure , what are the aims of

20:09

the subject , and holding on to those and

20:12

demonstrating those through practice and research

20:14

. That then means that when and

20:16

if another curriculum comes in or is debated

20:19

or there's a review , then we

20:21

have a stronger assurance of the subject

20:23

. I think that lack of assurance that

20:25

had been articulated to policy directors

20:29

, policy makers

20:32

, meant that we actually went through this we

20:34

were blowing in the wind and has led to

20:36

some lack of clarity , I think , in the current

20:38

national curriculum . But there

20:41

is some clarity there and I think there's plenty

20:43

there to building on . So I'm a great advocate

20:45

of not throwing the baby out with the bath

20:47

water . If

20:50

my chair doesn't fit , I don't necessarily

20:52

get rid of it . I might just make a new cushion . I

20:57

think in design and technology it's about evolving the national curriculum rather than dramatically

21:00

changing it , because we have to understand that

21:02

the aims , the epistemology , the purpose

21:04

of the subject remains consistent . We

21:06

just might need to rearrange the furniture occasionally

21:08

and put a new cushion in place , but

21:11

to understand what the new knowledge is that's developing

21:13

over time . So I'm kind of

21:15

starting to hint there at some things that I might talk

21:17

about in a future episode around

21:20

the nature of the subject , where new knowledge

21:22

comes from , how knowledge is structured in

21:24

design and technology and how we can

21:26

think about that to plan curriculum . But for now , today was just a stock take on what

21:28

the plan curriculum . But for now , today was just a stock take on

21:30

what the national curriculum is in England today

21:33

where it came from , how

21:35

we need to hold our own and thinking

21:37

about the implications that's got and what might

21:39

change in the future . And over the

21:41

next few episodes you're going to listen to different viewpoints

21:43

about how people responded to this national curriculum

21:46

, what they've done with it , what they think needs to be changed

21:48

, what could be changed and what needs to be changed

21:50

. Anyway , as ever , thanks for listening

21:52

. Hope you've enjoyed this week . It's been a bit ramble . Kip

21:54

joined for me for a little bit and then he cleared off . Obviously he

21:56

didn't want to hear about the national curriculum anymore . But

21:59

, um , hope you found that interesting . Drop

22:01

me an email and there'll be a follow-up episode

22:03

on thursday as well with some more insight

22:05

and some more background and some links to some

22:08

research in those show notes . That's available

22:10

for subscribers . I'm

22:15

Dr Alison Hardy and you've been listening

22:17

to the Talking D&T podcast . If

22:19

you enjoyed the podcast , then do subscribe , on

22:21

whatever platform you use , and do consider

22:24

leaving a review , as it does help others find

22:26

the podcast . I do the podcast because

22:28

I want to support the D&T community in developing

22:30

their practice , so please do share the podcast

22:33

with your D&T community . If you want

22:35

to respond to something I've talked about or have an idea

22:37

for a future episode , then either leave

22:39

me a voice memo via speakpipe or

22:42

drop me an email . You can find details

22:44

about me , the podcast and how to connect with

22:46

me on my website , dralisonhardycom

22:49

. Also , if you want to support the podcast financially

22:51

, you can become a patron . Links

22:54

to SpeakPipe , patreon and my website are

22:56

in the show notes . Thanks for listening

22:58

.