“Dear Curriculum…”

I seem to have fallen into a rabbit hole recently. In truth, one of my own doing.

One related to design education and what might be wrong and right with it. I blame my youngest daughter who has decided that she would like to explore a creative career and – as such – a possible University course focussing on either on the one hand industrial/product design or on the other, fashion and textiles. In an ideal world, it would be a bit of both but it appears these are few and far between. That’s another story.

In looking for University courses that might offer both or either of these options, it has made me think about the teaching of ‘design’. This has been further prompted by the various parents and pupils who have asked my advice on choosing a creative career or even the basics of knowing what to look for in the first place. This advice was covered briefly in my other article ‘Dear Schools’ if you are interested.

Thoughts related to this subject that I’ve posted on LinkedIn have caused a bit of a ruckus and I’ve had a number of conversations with educators at Universities, Schools and at Institutional level all looking to hear what I have to say and for me to hear their thoughts in return. All good. This isn’t about arguing a point per se, but sharing points of view and hearing both sides.

So, I thought it might be interesting to share my thoughts in an article on the ways in which I believe that design education at school level could change (specifically A-Level when students pick the subject as one of only 3 or 4 to study). To potentially better suit the changing dynamics of the industrial landscape and how this might better fit and inform the University application process and the courses themselves.

This isn’t a manifesto or a doctrine. It’s just a series of thoughts that I think might help. Of course the implementation of these ideas are where the real politics and confrontation begins as I’m well aware of the beaurocracy and ‘exam focussed’ thinking that comes with changing the education system.

So, as is typical of my posts, here are some things in no real order of importance…

1. Get rid of theory.

A-Level DT teaching consists broadly of ‘practical’ and ‘theory’. Practical is all the stuff you might associate with the subject. The stuff that invariably students choose the subject to do. Researching, creating, inventing, making, refining, building, evaluating etc. That stuff.

The theory bit is much like any other classroom subject. There’s a textbook. There are topics required to be learned and these are taught for a certain number of lessons, in between the practical stuff. Things like design history, manufacturing processes, materials, maths and so on.

I personally think this side of the A-Level should be scrapped or at best reduced to an absolute minimum. And before you start to throw out your toys, hear me out.

a) If we want people to study Design, then the focus should be on creativity, thinking, prototyping, testing and evaluating. It is highly likely that should anyone wish to become an engineer or a manufacturing led Industrial designer, then they will most likely study Maths and/or Physics alongside DT which would give them the theoretical base for any future degree course. Nothing they learn in the DT theory curriculum is done in enough depth or rigour to arm them with the skills they would need without these additional subjects. Most University courses require these complementary subjects for more technically minded design degrees anyway.

b) The theory genuinely puts people off the subject if they want to do something that allows them to explore their creativity. With 50% of the grade being awarded for a ‘typical’ written exam, there are those students who may flourish within a 100% coursework structure but who collapse in a messy heap when faced with questions about FEA or trigonometry or the advantages of specific plastics.

c) There is the argument that 100% coursework does not give a fair reflection of the students’ abilities as they could have been ‘helped’ significantly. Textiles is 100% coursework and manages fine. It’s the same. If students are significantly helped, then sobeit…they will ultimately come a cropper in the fullness of time if they have zero skill. It’s no different to any coursework element across any subject.

d) Anything in the DT theory curriculum is taught again at degree level and to a more relevant standard aimed specifically at the niche or specific discipline being studied, and often with no required prior knowledge presumed.

My personal view as someone who has taught A-Level DT students for a number of years and whose wife has taught it for her whole career, is that there are practically zero students who would choose the subject purely on the basis that it has a written exam element or that the topics covered in the theory are of any real interest to them, over and above the primary reason to do the subject, which is that they want to do a creative subject that allows them (within their own capabilities and interests) to create and make something they have ‘imagined’ themselves. I appreciate that’s a crude over-simplification but it’ll do for now.

2. Do more, smaller challenges.

This is something I think is true of University courses as well. My personal view is that there is too much focus on the ‘major project’. It relies too much on the student picking the right area of interest and having the full gamut of skills to realise a decent project folder and artefact over the course of a year or more. If the student is talented and likely to go on to study design at degree level, then invariably they will do a decent job, but there are more students who don’t than do.

More, less significant projects will do a number of things.

It will allows students to stay engaged with a more immediate project rather than endure the ‘endless drift’ that invariably occurs with DT projects (other subjects tend to take short term priority over NEA coursework as it covers such a long period of time).

It will permit a certain level of failure in some projects. Something that should be encouraged in design teaching and learning anyway. Build, test, evaluate, iterate. The current arrangement is that if they bugger up their NEA, then all their eggs are in the one basket and they are screwed. If they bugger up 1 out of 3 or 4 smaller projects, then they have a choice.

It builds a greater range of portfolio pieces to share when applying to University courses. It is unlikely that the student’s NEA is complete when interviewing for degree level courses or foundation is underway. Smaller projects will allow students to better showcase their work and will allow them to prepare their portfolios more steadily.

It also means that there is less ‘deadline’ chaos for teachers and students around this time of year. My wife and her colleagues absolutely dread the run up to the Easter holidays and just after. It’s countless ‘after school workshops’, evenings and lunchtime sessions with pupils who have left everything too late and are in full panic mode….no matter how many times they have been fore warned. Both GCSE and A-Level coursework is due in within a few weeks of each other and the workshop is groaning for space, resources and time, when the rest of the school is arranging concerts, sports fixtures, recitals and other events competing for pupils’ time and energy. It’s utterly exhausting for all concerned.

3. Develop the softer skills.

Schools promote individual pursuit. It’s ingrained in the way the education system is structured. Individual attainment. Top of the class. Highest grades.

But industry (and to a certain degree the better University courses) are not structured that way. Of course, at the end of the day the student gets a grade based on their performance, but the course should empower students to work together and build their collaborative, softer skills throughout the two years. Learning how to present their work to a group. How to brainstorm together. How to help each other with ideation. Learning how to work together in small groups to deliver a project.

I know some shudder at the mere thought of group work, and I agree that some in a group can destroy your mojo, but if there were smaller opportunities to work together like this, it would better prepare them for future collaboration, and how to sensitively work with others to build on and harness each others’ skills. I know for a fact that certain Universities ask for direct evidence of ‘group’ work in only one of the few questions asked at application. It’s why I introduced a collaborative brainstorming/ideation mini project with the students I taught.

The ability to present and communicate your work is also hugely undervalued. Learn how to summarise your thinking into a short number of slides. Learn how to structure your ideas and rationalise them so that others can easily understand your thinking.

Embed this into the way that work is shared and the students would soon become more at ease with it, and these skills will stand them in good stead, whatever they go on to study or become.

4. It’s not just about becoming an industrial designer!

Which leads me neatly to be next point. It is a fairly blinkered view that people who study DT go on to become either DT teachers or Designers. Of the A-Level year-group I was involved with teaching through their 2 year course, only 1 was keen to go into a distinct ‘design’ degree and another dabbled with the idea before pivoting to primary school teaching. The rest went on to study Geography, Biology, Law, Classics, Management, Economics….anything but design.

I should add…that isn’t necessarily a measure of my teaching ability (as far as I’m aware!)…just an indication that of those taking DT as an A-Level, it should be considered that most will not use it in the format it is delivered. They may possibly channel some sketching when faced with a workshop and some Post-It notes in the future, but it is unlikely they will use much of the theory and practical skills taught.

Which is why I think the curriculum should ditch the detailed theory and focus on skills that might help other disciplines whilst still allowing those with a passion for design to flourish. Things like collaboration, brainstorming, empathy, prototyping, testing, research….these are all aspects that are immediately transferable to other industries, careers and disciplines. Whether you are a scientist, politician, lawyer or teacher, everyone can find a way to deploy and benefit from them.

The more we accept that the majority of pupils taking the subject will NOT go into a design discipline, the better we can tailor the subject to appeal to a wider cross-section and build numbers to stem the decline.

5. Work with the DT teachers…not against them.

I’ve seen so many initiatives aimed at providing ‘resources’ to teachers so that they can ‘inspire their students’ to ‘think like designers’. Some of these are brilliant, and others are utter tripe. It makes little difference unless you design resources that the established cohort of incumbent DT teachers are happy and willing to teach.

What’s the phrase…”you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”?

All of this well intentioned stuff is great if you are aligned with the comfort zones and skillsets of the majority of DT teachers. But remember for every teacher that has a fascination with 3D printing, there is another who doesn’t have the confidence or the knowledge to promote it. And that’s not a criticism…it’s just a reality. Most teachers have barely enough time to scratch their own arses, so to drop a load of new ‘schemes of work’ on them and expect them to integrate them into their teaching is a big ask, regardless of the types of skills you are promoting in those new schemes of work.

I am absolutely sure that most DT teachers are very open to new ideas and ways of working, but within the construct of their day to day teaching and within the realms of reasonable additional time spent familiarising and learning potentially new skills to share with their classes. A workshop full of rampant 16 year old students is a bearpit at the best of times, so any teacher will need to feel incredibly confident if they are to try out new ways of teaching creativity and ‘making’. I’m not even going to mention the difficulties in budgeting a DT department, where in many schools, it is not considered a ‘priority’ subject, or even an important one. That’s a whole other discussion.

I’m not saying that new ideas and project suggestions are not welcomed, but many of them feel like they have been ‘designed’ in isolation by ‘designers’ and ‘institutions’ without any real consultation or conversation with ‘on the ground’ DT teachers. Having said that, I don’t wish to tar all such resources with the same brush. Some are excellent.

6. Support a ‘studio’ ethos.

One of the hardest things I found when teaching the A-Level students was time. DT will often get a double lesson timetabled for practical reasons, but even this with a relatively small class size is still tricky. Notwithstanding the general view that DT is a more ‘sociable’ subject than say Chemistry (students can typically chat throughout the lesson as long as they are getting on with their coursework), trying to get around a class full of students who are each designing a different product and are invariably at slightly different stages in their work is nigh on impossible. You have to accept that you will manage to see a proportion of them, with the remainder seen in the next lesson.

It is universally accepted that in order to complete an A-Level NEA project, you need to put in proportionally more time outside of the lessons than in them. It is almost impossible to complete your project with just the timetabled lessons. Period. But most schools don’t have suitable rooms to allow students to continue working in a creative way. This isn’t about homework…this is about continued exploration, research, prototyping and creativity in a space that is conducive to it. Many schools have rudimentary workshops that resemble an old man’s woodworking shed….not spaces that support continued creative exploration. Yes, there is a time and place for a sawdust ridden shed, but for approximately 60% of the NEA, the students need something more akin to a studio space than a notched bench with a metal vice permanently fixed to one end!

I would argue that 70% of modern design disciplines have nothing to do with ‘making’ in the way that DT has been accustomed or that parents would imagine when they think of school workshops. Whilst there is absolute relevance to making, testing, prototyping and building (as well as a bit of destroying!), there is also a large part of modern creativity which needs space, technology and emptiness to fill with ideas and thoughts.

7. Work with portfolios and ‘demonstrable skills’ in mind.

See my earlier point about smaller projects. The sooner students are introduced to the idea of portfolios as a vehicle to showcase their work, the better. It will help them in their eventual post-18 pathway applications…be they foundation years, degrees, apprenticeships or even straight into the big bad workforce! It needn’t be a big deal…just a bit of an introduction to the way in which portfolios are used to assess creativity and generate conversation.

I saw evidence of this on the Extended Diploma course (at a local Art College) that my daughter very nearly did instead of A-Levels, and it is clear how these students will have a head start against their peers when applying for future places.

8. It doesn’t have to be about ‘making’ all the time.

I’ve mentioned this a few times throughout this article, but the subject needs to move on from ‘making stuff out of wood’ as the default. By all means, there will be students who choose to study DT because they simply want to ‘make something out of wood’ and they shouldn’t be dissuaded, but in line with points 3 and 4, most students will be taking the subject for very different reasons and with no thought to pursuing a ‘design’ career of any sort at all. For sure, they will have been seduced to a certain extent by their experience studying it at GCSE, but it needn’t be a ‘rinse and repeat…but bigger’ version of the GCSE syllabus.

Not everyone wants to build stuff. Not everyone wants to draw stuff. But all should be empowered to think creatively. If one student wants to design a new welly boot stand for their Grandad’s country home out of pine, then sobeit, but equally another student should be allowed to redesign the way their school canteen queues properly or a card game to play with dementia patients in an old peoples’ home…not everything needs to be made from either 2 kilos of 3D Printed PLA filament or 15mm ply with a tenon saw and some PVA glue!

9. Terminology is killing the industry.

A last point which encompasses the school curriculum right up to large corporates. The design industry is wrestling with its own tail when it comes to terminology and most schools are woefully prepared to advise pupils when it comes to future careers. In fact, I went into the school my wife teaches in and asked to present something to the Year 11 students before they submitted their A-Level choices. I shared a slide with 12 different acronyms, all different potential design disciplines that they may be interested in. Things like IxD, CMF, UX, UI, XR…not to mention the utterly confusing ‘Product Design’.

For those students with an A-Level textbook with ‘Product Design’ written on the front, looking for University courses that might still be called ‘Product Design’ or possibly ‘Industrial Design’, and then Googling careers in ‘Product Design’ they must be confused as hell.

It’s not surprising that teachers and careers advisors within schools are steering clear of these. It doesn’t make a great deal of sense to those working within the industry themselves so how must it appear to those outside?

When all is said and done, I still love DT as a subject and think that it offers something that you simply can’t get elsewhere. But I’m a fully paid up member of the DT club. I wanted to do this stuff from the age of 13. I was a bit weird in that respect.

I know that much of what I’m suggesting will be ‘trap-doored’ by those who have to deal with the intricacies of the education system. I fully appreciate that there are reasons for certain things that we may not be party to. But I try and look at the overall picture and the current one is of a fading subject that is becoming less relevant to modern students and their future career choices.

I’d love the subject to grow up and adapt to the changing landscape of ‘creativity’ rather than ‘making a cabinet’ which is what it gets labelled as by those who don’t know better. When kids engage with their ideas, and get the chance to evolve the, build them and test them with real people and in real scenarios, you can see the lightbulbs fire.

It’s not the expressive, freeform, often abstract creativity you get in Art. It’s not the rigourous scientific diligence of Physics or Maths. It’s one of the few subjects that permits equal measure random magic, obsessive rigour, creative flamboyance and diligent craftsmanship….all with a dollop of intellect, a smattering of invention and a dash of crazy.

What’s not to like about that?