¶ Who is Andy Marston and what does he do?
So this week, I've got another guest on the podcast, I've got Andy Marston, who's up in Yorkshire to come and talk about some of the things that have been in the news about design and technology recently. And he was also part of the project team for the redesigning D and T project that we're running. There's quite a group of us doing that, well, actually, they're all running
it. And I'm in the background and Andy's joining in with that, and contributing to that, which is where this discussion, sort of started thinking about what we'd want in a D and T curriculum. But before we dive into the conversation, Andy, can you just say a little bit about who you are, where you are and what you do?
Hi, I'm a teacher of design and technology and have been since 1986. I have taught in a few different schools, but I've been at the school now, for 27 years. So an old timer I'm on I'm getting close to retiring. And I've seen this object through a huge number of different changes, driven by all sorts of different reasons, mostly from top down from the government down and had to cope with some irrational decisions and some really great
ideas. I love teaching design technology, I work by myself pretty much in Designer technology. And I teach just about everything you can do. I am not very good at textiles, I have to admit it's a new one on me. And I'm kind of struggling with that one. But I'm very focused on on supporting children learning the things that they want to learn and supporting them in their journey.
So if you've been around since 86, that was pre national curriculum. It is. Alright, because I was doing my training as a national curriculum was coming in. So I'm kind of relate to you. Yeah,
yeah, I remember it. Well, I came in at the end of my first year. And I remember sitting in a meeting, and I hadn't really read it in the summer holidays, I've got to admit. And the first meeting back, my head of department knew very well that I hadn't read it. So he went straight to me. What do you think there's national curriculum? And yeah, it's lovely. But interestingly, the food teachers were all were all over it, because they weren't included. The first the first
draft food had gone. And I think the government had they'd been praying there'd been a lot of people pushing design technology, and had been nobody on the food side said anything about it. So there's just ignored it. And ignored completely the fact that schools basically balanced groups, they either in food or or design technology, lessons CDT lessons it was done. So just from a practical point of view, could could you just couldn't get rid of food, because then you'd have
what the rest of kids do. They weren't the facilities for that. So. But the idea that you would not teach food, when every single human has to eat, and has to have some capacity to make decisions about food, even if they don't cook it for themselves, is quite scary, really. But just it just was a an afterthought. They just tacked it in. And that's, I think, work at food technology. So it was drafted in to make it important.
¶ Does food fit into the design and technology curriculum?
Yeah, there was kind of quite a lot of debate. I've written about it in my doctorate about some of the history about food being in and being out of design and technology. And well, it's still an ongoing thing, isn't it? Yes, absolutely. Taking in nutrition, and food nutrition and no, a level progression. We just had a book club last week for the debates book. And we were looking at that chapter does
does food fit? And some of the discussions are, you know, they've been around for the 30 years, we've had the national curriculum, really? I'm not sure they're going to be resolved very easily. But yeah, yeah.
I think it's, it's a subject that has a right to exist without being part of design technology, if it wants to, if it fits in a school, and then it works. Being part of the same department. That's great. But it has absolute value in its own right, just as any other subject that's currently on the curriculum.
Yeah, yeah. It's where you see it kind of where you got staff expertise and what what the place of food is seen in within that school, whether it's a general part of personal health education, whether it's part of a school subject in terms of a qualification, I mean, it's can be both things, but it's kind of understanding that anyway, we digress. We have a whole conversation, spin off
conversation about that. But really, we wanted to kind of talk about the proposals were not so much the proposals for specifically example quite vague at the moment from Pearson's around a proposal for new design and technology curriculum, which is what we're sort of looking at as a group but Pearson has taken a slightly different approach. And you had some some thoughts around that and instead, you want to kick us off with what your thoughts are, and I'll follow lead.
I've spent ever since I heard of this proposal, I can just as I said earlier, a bit irritate aided by about what they do, and I couldn't really put my finger exactly on what it was. And there's a number of things that annoy me about, it's not necessarily the subject matter of sustainability. But more that they've just launched in with a solution without involving the people or teaching it and actually identifying what
the problem is. And this is something that's happened quite a number of times in my teaching career where people have solved a problem that either doesn't exist in the first place, or hasn't really solved a part of the problem, or it solves it from a direction that isn't appropriate. And so is that from from that point, so it hasn't adopted a design and technology
type approach to things. So they haven't sat down and thought, what we're trying to do, it's much more a matter of buzzwords and saying, oh, sustainability, that's the thing at the minute. So let's make a course based on that. And, and the devil will be in the detail, particularly the assessment and stuff, and the amount of coursework, the amount of exam and all that sort of stuff. It's it's difficult to really contribute to this discussion, when you've somebody's coming up with a
vague concept of a solution. And ignored all the professionals.
Yeah, I mean, I think Phil would say when it comes to Phil's defence that he has consulted with some design and technology teachers and attempted to console, I can see him. You know, I'm kind of trying to defend Phil's call. And I've got some concerns about the approach. But I think what you're saying is, it's kind of like a top down approach, rather than really driven and led by the community.
Well, it's it's like the, it's going back to the national curriculum situation where there was a group of vociferous people said, This is what we need. And it was taking design technology to very much more the technology side of things, engineering, and electronics systems and control that type of thing that was seen as being the new thing. And taking, and just ignoring the bits they didn't like, so just
get rid of everything else. And just I think the problem is that there's recognition amongst many people that, that there's a problem with the subject, the numbers of students taking the subject of dropping dramatically. And that's, that's an issue that we really desperately need to address. But the solution for a lot of people is that not a lot of people, but some people is to make the subject give it the greatest
status. But that's, that's, that's taking the subject more and more academic, and taking it down a route, where we're trying to appeal to the people at the top, in the hope that they'll they'll, I guess, put as part of the back and give us that sort of status. And for me, that's gonna
happen. No, I think we've moved on, right. Yeah,
the government's moved on from it, they've forgotten about that. And now that they don't talk about the back, I know, it's a school accountability measure. And that's it. Really, it doesn't account. It doesn't affect any student. I don't, I don't know of any courses that the university that demand any back, they might give a bit of lip service to it. But it's, it's, we've gone from a situation
where we've been compulsory. And I think maybe some departments and some teachers, maybe all of us were a bit complacent about that, and just accepted that we just get all the students through and we were having money thrown at us, and it was wonderful. Then we've become optional. And now we're not part of the back. And we're and I'm right thinking saying that academies can just dismiss dissent, disengaged, get rid of supplies.
For was a dis application of designers. Yeah.
Yes, well, yeah, pricing. So. So you've got this, this a very expensive subject in both material costs and teacher costs that can be got rid of by some schools. So there's a lot of benefit from that point of view. So we're kind of drifting down this path, but I think trying to become more academic, is the wrong wrong approach. And I think there's so many people, so many companies, so many businesses desperately want students with designed
technology skills. But we're kind of trying to make it more academic. And I think that's
¶ How the Pearson's proposals imply that there will be less opportunity for children to realise their designs
just a bad idea.
Yeah, I mean, just the proposals sort of seem to imply that there'll be a, you know, that there will be less opportunity for children to realise their designs sort of physically three dimensionally. That seems one implication because there was a there was a very, very sexy headline and one of them wasn't about landfill. Yeah. So now I know Yeah, well, I
think you I look, we look at the amount of materials going to landfill, I think, yes, there's some projects that don't get completed, that aren't completed. Correct my language, they aren't completed. And Abend but but it seems to be implying that everything that we're doing is a is just rubbish and it should be thrown away. And we could do it, we could do it without doing it. We could be electronic, and it could be online. And that's, I don't know, I just have a lot of problems with that.
Yeah, well, I would argue that if we, if we just do things with the head, that we're missing out using the body as part of the way we learn, you know, one of the things we do in DNC is we learn through that, that touch that smell those other senses.
And it's our USP at the end of the day, because we, if we go do sustainability in in geography, I'm sure and various other aspects and and I can see, I've been a an examiner for written papers for 22 years
or something like that. And you could see how the examples this is the kind of the the other standard, my irritation, the the aim for the exam board is to have an exam paper that's, that's crystal clear, dead easy to mark, it's a one on one answer two answers, possibly they want the you can see how the questions have gone so that
they know the answer. They want the students to give an example, this this last year, a couple years ago, and it was there was a picture of a pillar drill, and pillar, which pillar drill was the only answer that was acceptable. So they couldn't just give drill. And I've seen seen different names for for pillar drilled or a bench mounted drills might be called a drill press. So if the children doesn't have that bit of knowledge, they don't get the
mark. And for me that what you want is students to be able to tell you what they know, and actually be able to explain a process. So I'd much prefer lots of answers to be possible. And for the students to be able to show their understanding of processes and designing by able to be explaining an answer that might be different to the student that's next to them. Because for me, that's what's so exciting, exciting about the subject. There isn't an answer.
That's the whole thing. I teach the children all the time, there isn't an answer ever to any sort any situation a problem. There'll be a range of solutions, and it's up to different people to decide which is the best one for them. And that's yeah, that's what's so good about teaching design technology.
And if we if we reduce it to exam questions where there's a single set answer, I mean, we're relying on teacher subject knowledge, which we know that we, you know, the amount of subject knowledge teachers have to have. We know full well that some of the exam board textbooks aren't always right. And as you say, is it about naming the naming the tool? Or is it about being able to understand why they're
selecting that process? And the pros and the cons and the limitations of it, rather than this is a pillar drill or a bench mounted drill? Or is it a drill press? Or? You know? Yeah, it's I mean, I'm sure the examples will come back and be able to debate
they did I did, I'm sure. I wrote to them, it's the first time I ever wrote written to the exam, because I always thought it'd be a waste of time. And it turned out it was, but there was so many questions where there was a, I'm not gonna name the example. But there's one, one where there's three, three examples of the same toy. And as an expert looking at it, I could see the three different types of timber that used but the question was, why are they? Why are the manufacturers Different?
Different varnishes are different finishes? Which they hadn't? They, they use different timber? And as part of the same question is that how would you make the hole for the eye in this toy, and they wanted pillar drill again, for some bizarre reason. But it was a divine toy, it was almost certainly cut out on a CNC machine of some description. So you wouldn't cut the outline out, and then leave the hole for the AI to be done on a pillar drill. So it's it if you know what you're talking
about. And I'd like to think that my yet ninth grade nine students would would start look at it and think, Well, that's hard. What I would use the CNC router to do that. Because of using a CNC router to cut everything else out. Why would I use a different machine? So if they put CNC router, they don't get the mark. But they know more about it than then the examiner does because the examiner is
after a single answer now. And I know that was when we, when I first started marking 20 years ago, there's a lot of discussion about what you'd accept what you wouldn't accept. And I guess when when the markings done, there's then a lot of people claiming that the marks have been missed, and there's a lot of Appeals and the appeals would be successful because everybody's got an opinion. Whereas if you take it down to just a single answer, that easy you didn't get it right.
¶ Relations between exam boards and school subjects.
Yeah, no I've, yeah, I mean, I've marked example, I've not done it for a long time. I've only kind of do it for so long. And I've marked coursework and moderated coursework and all of that. Yeah, remember all of those, all of those debates, and it is about making things you kind of feel don't do that. It's my making things simpler to mark, but it does also make you realise the power of the examples. Yeah, in controlling the curriculum, and telling
what's taught. And then we end up losing the essence of what the subject is about. I was just looking at up, you know, I remember reading this paper a long time ago, and I'll put a link in the show notes. It's, it's what's his what's his paper title called? Chief examiner's as prophet and priest relations between examination boards, and school subjects and possible
implications for knowledge. So if you've been long title, but the idea but you start to realise how much these chief examiner's or, you know, 13 have over basically determining what happens in schools. And just through the way the questions are asked, and they lose the essence of the subject.
Yeah. Well, that's I think, my my irritation was, was mostly about with that exam paper was the fact that how do I teach it? How do I teach this year's cohort to be able to go into that exam? Be confident that can answer the questions. I can't just show a picture a pillar drill and say, What's a pillar drill? Weld? Only? You can answer last year's question, but but the range of different pieces of equipment that could put off and say What's this, and
it just becomes a lottery. I don't have any more frets, or because I used to, I did a perfectly good Fraxel. But it got condemned because it didn't have the right off button. That's the emergency stop on. And it was more expensive than the machine was to actually replace it. And I didn't, I didn't use it a great deal. And I just couldn't afford to have it updated. So it just went. So I'd have a threat source. So students don't use a threat. So. So that's the sorts of equipment
that a lot of schools have. I don't have a I don't have a sander. Either, that that's because I can't stand. But but you know, you can and then down to what equipment the schools have, what are the what students use, and how much effort teachers have gone into.
Showing, like doing Retrieval Practices, and as the frightened the latest phrase, I think, for people to ramming information into the heads with, you know, here's the peace agreement, if you've never used, you never need to use in this in this world, we don't have access to it in this workshop. So now this
is just for the exam. And I think teaching things just for the exam is one of the things when I first started teaching was actually written into the specifications, that this is a practical subject, children should be learning through practical work. And we've drifted I know that will upset some people, given given the things I've seen on Twitter, and then how keen people are to get rid of the practical work. But it's got real value on no mental No, no end of different levels.
Just mental health reasons, for nothing else much better to make something as valid, so valuable for the students, actually, to
¶ What is the essence of design and technology?
what
the essence of design and technology is, you know, because, you know, just to play devil's advocate, Department for Education and so on would argue that, that the school subject isn't around children's mental health. I mean, I'm not I'm not saying that they belittle children's mental health. So let's get that clear. But what I'm saying is that it's about what what the essence of the subject is, what's, what's the subject for.
And I think we get, we get caught up in practical work, not practical work for guessing that the reason we do practical work, you know, and Richard Kimble in case tables would say, it's about this hand in mind, you know, we and Eddie Norman would say it's about cognitive modelling that we have these ideas in our head. And then what we do is we model them, we kind of realise them three dimensionally, people can't see the fact that I'm hugely gesturing here and three dimensional models in front of
us. But that's what the practical work is primarily for, and also for the children to learn and understand those processes. So they can make effective design decisions when they're coming up with design ideas. Yeah, it we kind of get we kind of lose to me lose that when we start to go down this. I never say this word, right? I want to say declarative, declarative knowledge.
Yeah, yeah. That's basically, yeah. Rubbish. All these posh words that people use. That sounds so clever. I wish I could do. But it's about half an hour later. That was the word I meant to use on that situation. Yeah, I think my approach, which I really enjoy when it's the model if I go back a little bit, so had the most recent version was of the subject and that the assessment of the subject really wasn't that there was moves us to iterative design, which I think is fun is in many ways
fantastic. There's a lot of lots an awful lot of issues with it. But the previous version, I don't know why when this new version was coming in, I had a meeting with I got together with lots of local colleagues. And I was really stunned that in one school, everybody made coffee tables in other cities, and other two schools actually made made them lamps. And another school, everybody made a robot. And each year, every year, so people would come in, in year seven, and know what they were
making in year 11. And I sat there thinking, I missed something. Because I'd have robots, lights, tables, everything, and being where I work, trailers and combine bits and pieces. And so I didn't understand what the kids were making. But they made fantastic pieces of work, which, which mattered to them. And actually, the thing I think I'm really
passionate about now. And then actually, the more I think about, I mean, sort of had volunteered to do this podcast with a really thought thought through in a way I wouldn't normally, I'm really keen that, that students get an opportunity to, to learn and develop skills that they value that they can see a point in, so that I'm not saying we've just got, you've got to do this. So you can pass
the exam. And I spend much less time now saying that to the children, because if they want to come along and learn how to do 3d printing, or working on the CNC routers, or working with a laser cutter, that's fab that can do that, I don't mind. But if they want to do wood turning the can do wood turning. And I'm not going to say to to other teachers or their colleagues, you need to do this as well, because this is where I work.
But what I want is a is an assessment system that allows for that, and that judges children by what they've achieved, and what they've learned, progress have made and helps them to better go to an employer and say, Look, this, these are skills I've got. And will you give me a job and there's this there's lots and lots of jobs out there. And the premise of the this, this latest idea seems to be designers need to know about sustainability. And I think I'm fairly certain designers know about
sustainability. And how many of the 86,000 Are we really expecting is 86,000. We've got now taken a subject I've lost track. So of the cohort each year, how many do we expect? And how many designers do we need from that? 86,000? And I think there's there's an awful lot of plumbers and joiners and mechanics in mechanics I just discovered, which is quite shocking that a car mechanic is earning more than I am. And I think well, I don't have a problem with that particularly.
But, you know, we kind of there's this status sort of issue, I think with design and technology, where we looked out we tend to sometimes look down on on professions, or on job roles that aren't professionals. And we want I know when I was at school, I asked what's the best way of becoming a designer? And I said, I'll go to law school University, Loughborough Brunel, that's what I was told. And I didn't, I was a bit. I was 18, I
suppose 1718. And I didn't, it was a lot harder to find things out in those days pre printing it. But I kind of I went down that I applied to both those got option got offers from both and went to law school university. But friends, I was
¶ The importance of understanding where the children are from.
waiting to see where you're gonna go, because I went to Brunel, because you went yeah,
well, that was that was the thing. But but the the teach that advised me had a lot of respect for him and everything, but he advised me to do that because the school that was good for the school, because I went to university at a time when about 10% of the population went to university, it was an ex secondary modern school. So they wanted to, oh, look, we can get all these people to university. So I, I should have found out more myself, but you know, so I don't have to take the
responsibility for it. But I met a friend who went to DeMontfort and he didn't do a levels he went he left school at 16 went and did a course at college and Art Foundation art. I think he did. And the month had a much better reputation amongst designers. But it was a college. It wasn't a it wasn't a university. So yeah, so the school didn't want to uh, we actually had lessons on how to fill the university form in and they said don't worry about
referees will say that. Oh, but don't forget if to make sure you see such and such a teacher for the form to apply for college just in case you don't get to university. Those are the those are the words that they used and it was for the status of the school that they recommended that and the apprenticeships now fabulous. I'm old enough That should got rid of all the apprenticeships. And that was kind of narrowed my choices now. But, but now we've got these wonderful opportunities for
students. And, and we should be helping them to make the decision that's best for them and have the skills to be able to do that. It's really, really important to me,
is multifaceted, isn't it? I think it's because, as you say, you've you've recognised the fact and you've talked, you know, really passionate there about how you're wanting to respond to the children and where they're at in your locality, we talked before we pressed record about, you know, the size of your catchment area of a diameter of 35 miles. You know, and it's quite rural, you know, I was comparing it with when I taught in, in Lincolnshire, and, you know,
quite a rural community. And you, you've got, they've got, they've got aspirations, and it's kind of sometimes frowned on Is it their aspirations is to go and work for their family business. But also, you do have to, you do have a responsibility, don't you with children to make them look beyond where they're at, to see things from a different
perspective. And I think that's almost where we do get hung up on about employability has been the purpose of education, whereas actually, there's, there's more to it than that. And so yes, giving the children you know, understanding where they're from, and respecting where they're from, I think that's the other thing that sometimes doesn't happen, we forget to respect where the children are, and who they are and their heritage and their locality and their aspirations.
And that's not to say that we shouldn't encourage them to have different aspirations or to look differently. But it's kind of it's that tension between both things. And I think, going back to the Pearson's conceptual proposal, and although I have seen in the last 24 hours, so on LinkedIn, I think on Twitter that, you know, I know, there's been some meetings, Pearson's with some more teachers with some ideas, but again, it's a
small group of teachers. But it is it is an exam board with a particular take on design and technology. So arriving, this curriculum concept, rather than using a kind of a ground up approach of people like yourself, who've been the subject for a long time, but also other teachers who haven't been in for such a long time, or who have different backgrounds and so on, coming together, in a way that's not to meet an example of need, and I can be quite cynical about the example
of need. Yeah, and is sustainability, just a sexy word? We do do sustainability anyway. And didn t even though it's not in the national curriculum, because we weren't allowed to put it in? Because it's a political term. You know, sustainability is there, you know, in Yeah. Anyway, there you go. I've kind of gone off on my one there.
Yeah, it's, the thing is, we're all there isn't designer Technology Association has become much more popular again, it kind of seems to go through waves. But that's the closest we've got to a representative body. And Pearson's seem to have kind of bypassed them. And not gone along, as far as I understand. Because I know that I think it came as a shock to, to the
people at data. And it's a, the thing is, I guess that that there's so many departments now that have gone down a particular path in what they're prepared what they offer, what they want to offer, and what they see is valuable. And there's so many
drivers behind that. Sometimes it's because the teacher thinks of the thing decides that and sometimes it's much more pragmatic, responds to the situation that in the school, because if you've got class sizes of 24 plus, then you there's a limit to what you can do. And I recognise, and one of the reasons I'm still at my school is because I have a very good setup. And I get to teach groups where I can do much more experimental work and much more work where they're all doing
different things. And as the class sizes have gone up here, some things I used to do, I can't do anymore, because it just isn't practical. You just can't. There's only so much you can do and with with groups, they get bigger and bigger.
Yeah, and that's where exams have got to be fit for purpose in terms of they've got to be accessible to all schools. And that's where a concern around going down the CAD route is not all schools can afford all of those PCs and not all those children that it will suit in terms of that desk time. Learning Styles that's
well that's very last year
going down the route of but it's back to this whole way of learning that learning isn't just in the cognition isn't the brain it's in the body.
I went about scenarios I've done to any sort of highbrow lecture type thing I went to listen to Howard Gardner, and his different intelligences. And I think the thing that took away from that, that I think, has been lost a little bit, and it's kind of got mixed up with the different learning styles is the fact that we value particular types of intelligence. And whether that's true or not about, but it kind of, you know, there's a lot of people would definitely show my age, David Beckham, when he
first sort of hit the scene. And he and he could do do with the football amazing things. It's got amazing goals. But he got on a microphone, and it didn't sound at all impressed, as a lot of people put him down. He's got an awful lot of money. He's very, very successful. And it turns out, he's a really nice guy to meet for I've seen, and I think we, we tend to push out, we've been taken, education has been taken on a very academic route, where most subjects now have lost any sort of
coursework. And it's all high stakes, one, maybe two exams students go into, and they've got to remember knowledge and got to write down answers. And there's a certain style of answering the question. And it's very, very good at picking out students who are good at that sort of skill. And I think the amount of shout out to them to famous people, Ken Robinson, I listened to a TED talk from him. And and that sort of, we keep going through education until we
fail. And that's not not very good for for students to be focused and all channelled down that way. Because whatever we might think of learning styles and intelligences and stuff like that, we are different, and we respond in different ways to different things, and we're successful in different ways.
And not everybody can be successful in that sort of I was put into, you know, just learning stuff a couple of weeks before the exam, go into the exam, get a unspell bounce the questions and two weeks, I couldn't remember any of it. And what real value is that to anybody? It's kind of what worries me really a bit.
¶ The importance of understanding what you’re doing.
Well, that takes me back to kind of a point about, you know, we have to understand what it is that we're doing design and technology for, you know, we learning that retrieval practice of the names of things, is only useful to a
very small points. And so children know what the limitations are, what you can do with it, you need to adjust the speed of the of the drill, you know, you have to have a different size drill bit for different size, you know, different thicknesses, different types of materials, because it might snap, it might Splinter, it might, you know, give a rough finish a smooth finish, and so on, you know, safe routes, you know, how you clamp it, you know, can you drill multiple
holes at the same time? Do you use a jig? You know, and all on all of that, that's, that's the richness, so then the children can make pertinent, justified decisions. And that's, that, to me is what, what gets lost. And that's why you do need the practical and I'm kind of using that term really loosely. But some of what we learn about materials and process is through the handling and experience experiencing of it. And I don't mean that is in terms of
experiential learning. But I do mean that in terms of, you know, seeing, feeling and touching to gain to gain that understanding, it can't just be bookwork is the essence, we lose the essence of what the subject is. That's kind of what I keep coming back to.
I think the problem for us all is that we we've kind of evolved from woodwork and metalwork and needlework. I guess it's the other sort of thing that's been brought in. So we're kind of we seem kind of ashamed of that background. But it was certainly in my teach Grade has not been that at all. And in an awful long time I've been teaching so we've we've definitely moved on from that. But that but there seems to be a sort of, well, if we still use wood and metal, we're still very old fashioned.
I know when the assistant had brings people around to see the school and we're in we're in during the day. And this is our this is the woodworking metals workshop. She loves telling me that and it's like, yeah, that's great. And then she goes it's but she just so and of course you can see 3d printers and CNC routers, and so she does point out the rest of the stuff that
we do. But even even then it's not just using 3d printers, it's it's making that decision about whether it's the most effective way of doing something it might be the student 3d prints a model of something in order in order to then make it in a completely
different way. So it might be it might end up with something that it's been cast, either in metal or plastic and it's it's for me that the great joy of the subject is that the students can can learn how to make decisions, and then learn from the experience of doing that and think well, you know that that other than way approach the problem was a bad one or this didn't work quite right. So if I change this a little bit, I can
get that. And it's that resilience and ability to, to actually learn from, from, from what other people are doing as well as what they're doing. And collaborating with each other and sharing knowledge and sharing experience, which is so powerful about the subject. And it doesn't actually matter what they're making, or what material they're working with. And it should be possible for for two
people for a whole group. And this is what I like about the new new curriculum, the new exam, say news for history.
¶ What’s the point of the GCSE?
GCSE specs actually in its 2017.
The thing with ageing, time flies, but, but the that you can not have a start point like space, and you might get somebody out to make a rocket. And then you make somebody Well, I want to make something I got mountain biking, and I want to have something that I can strap on my back and, and it'll help me take the things I need to repair my bike in case of Break, break something. Or you might get somebody who decides to make something to be a storage unit
on a on a table. And all those people all those are valid responses to a start point, which is exactly the same. And that's, I think, where this is gone is right now. But the exam boards aim is taken us to a sort of, well, we've got to teach this because 50% exam, it's significant. And if we don't get that right, they can go in with a nine for the for the NDA and end up with a six because they completely flop in the exam. And I think that's that's the exam borderline is down at the
minute. Yeah, well,
while I'm talking, I was kind of nosing around to the GCSE specs, because this thing about, you know, losing the purpose of design and technology. And I've done some work with quite a few different TNT teachers about GCSE. And I said, What's the point of the GCSE? What's it? What's it aiming towards, and all of them talk about the GCSE and design and technology enables students to understand and apply iterative design process through which they explore, create and evaluate a range of outcomes.
The qualification enables students to use creativity and imagination to design and make prototypes. Oh, that sounds real. And that's when they start off with. And it goes on. But how many teachers look at that bit? What we do, and I've done it when I was teaching, we go straight to the content, what am I going to teach the kids we lose sight of? This is the big picture and everything is working towards that building
that in these children. And we get caught up in this retrieval practice bits of knowledge without what we're actually doing is from a given these bits of knowledge that they can make connections. Yeah, and yeah, and so when a new exam board, an example comes up with a new idea for a spec, we've kind of got to think about, but what's the aim? What's it developing? You know, as you say, you know, we talked quite a little bit there about,
you know, the exam. tail is wagging the curriculum dog, you know, what the purpose of subject is? And what we haven't even touched on I'm conscious of time is, this is talking about GCSE. This subject is taught in key stage one and Key Stage Two early is where does that fit? Not talked about? No,
because I don't know. But But it's, yeah. Be careful. I think, years ago. On one of the mayor, iterations of the subject, I sat down to my colleague, and we went through the curriculum. And we could actually plan what we've always done in the past and think, Well, if we change this a little bit, we do this, we can cover that. So it was quite straightforward. Now it's got to the point where the GCSE spec, you look at it and think, Oh, I must, what I've done is just
look at it. Well, I can't teach any of that I can teach bits of it. But I can't teach all of it, I can't, there's no way I can fit all that knowledge into a two year course. And advising sort of primary schools on helping and supporting primary schools on how they can help prepare students so that they can come into school into secondary school and be more successful. Well, I don't even now expect them to know anything
about trees anymore. The the great joy of primary schools is coming to be sort of squashed by
English and maths. And and I'm sure it's it's the same in a lot of schools that that they get the picking up children that don't have the social skills, they don't have the the ability to share and basic stuff like that, that they could get from from actually joining together and designing and making things and that there's There's just this massive focus certainly in the last few years of not, I'm not criticising primary schools for it, but But you know, actually understanding where
materials are coming from how that affects the choices that they make. And wow, it's just, it feels like it's kind of looking into this massive void and thinking, Oh, God,
I can just come back from the edge.
I'm just gonna give up now and have my read my notes.
Not at all. No, I mean, I think, you know, I've talked to Tony Ryan, the other week at data, and he was saying that, you know, there's been a big shift, the membership in the primary has really kind of exploded, as, and that's really
encouraging to hear. And I've got my got my colleague at the university, Suzanne gomersal, who is involved in prime education and his adiante specialist, you know, and, and there is there is more happening, but yeah, the pressures we've talked about the back of performance measures is, is really tough, it's really tough for a school to resist. And you can completely
understand that. And you've also mentioned, you know, resource heavy subjects, you know, materials, you know, cost living crisis, you know, energy crisis, you know, where you're going to make cuts, you can kind of completely get it so and kind of understand some of the logic of
the Pearsons. But yeah, I think you've raised some really interesting issues there, Andy, that, that I'm sure you're not alone in thinking I'm sure other people have additional views or a bit contradictory views, which I'm hoping they'll come on the podcast. Right, we've kind of kind of come back from the void. Now, it's not kind of quite as
I'm fine. I'll be here tomorrow.
Good. Good. Because those children need you in that classroom. You know, how many years did you say you'd been there? Again?
I've just started my 27th year now. In this school,
in that school, yeah, it was good place to be.
I visit and see I've talked to other people. I think I had to work there. So I'm staying well, and it's
clear that you're not stagnating. You know, I mean, I think it's a real challenge for people like yourself, where you're the only person in the Design Technology Department to kind of keep keep going, you mentioned that you've done the the association sustainability online course and kind of doing all that sort of stuff. And you joined in with the project and everything. Yeah, so he just bought a number.
Got to that point where I keep forgetting. So I'm not quite sure what that says about me. Really.
It is just a number. Myself. Yeah. But yeah. Now look, it's been really good to talk to you, Andy. And thank you for coming on and talking about what you think you know, I kind of we kind of talked a lot about the Pearson's. We've also talked a lot about other different things. It's always good to get different people's viewpoints about what's happening in design and technology. So thanks ever so much.
No problems, no problem.