Embedded Files
The Interactive Digital Magazine from CLEAPSS
Welcome to our very special, 10 year anniversary, bumper edition of Futureminds
our very first edition
"Back in spring 2016 I had a chat with the director at CLEAPSS and suggested we put together a termly, online, magazine for design and technology and art. We hoped to be able to get some external contributors who could provide some content, and we would ‘top and tail’ it with CLEAPSS news and advice.
We were not sure it would work, and even if the first edition worked, we were not convinced we could get external contributors to provide content for a second or subsequent editions.
Here we are 30 editions later, having had articles provided by over 200 external contributors, teachers, technicians, suppliers, manufacturers, advisers and a whole range of other interested parties. It has been really interesting reading the articles, working with the authors and celebrating D&T, food, textiles and A+D."
- Dave Parry, D&T and A&D Advisor
In this issue you will find a record breaking 15 articles covering a variety of topics including practical work, digital creation, food, textiles , product design, competitions, conferences and thought pieces. To read the magazine in a linear fashion start HERE, alternatively select articles directly below.
CLEAPSS NEWS
CLEAPSS NEWS
As always in the autumn, UK schools reflect on their results from the summer examinations. This year saw some great results, and we would like to warmly acknowledge the excellent work done by teachers, technicians, pupils and parents for the achievements in the summer.
There are lots of ways of interrogating the data from JCQ on examination results, if you would like to investigate further go to its website: GCSE and Level 1, 2 results - Summer 2025 - JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications where you can find reports and spreadsheet data that you can read through, or use for comparisons.
We have done a very quick comparison of entries in 2024 and 2025, across several subjects. The charts below show the numbers of entries and the percentage of entries against the total GCSE entries across all subjects (which itself fell by around 0.4%). There was a small decline in entries in the principal technology subject areas, with art and design holding up slightly better than food preparation and nutrition. D&T continued to lose entries at a rate above the national decline.
Sum '25
Notes from our termly leadership roundtable meeting
2 - 3 times a year we bring together leading organisations from the strategic implementation of design education in the UK
In July, we held a roundtable meeting, with representatives from:
> DfE
> AQA
> OCR
> Pearson
> Design and Technology Association
> British Nutrition Foundation
> Textiles Academy
> NSEAD
> NTU
> LJMU
> Design Council
> Oak National Academy
The meeting allowed all present to provide updates about recent work and to discuss issues of concern, to technology subjects, in the immediate and long-term future.
As always, these meetings are a great way to have open and interesting discussions amongst representatives from the key bodies in the subject. CLEAPSS is pleased to be able to host these sessions and maintain our impartial position.
In the autumn term we are holding a teacher’s meeting, and will schedule another roundtable meeting to coincide with the release of the CAR materials.
If you wish us to raise any points on your behalf at these meetings, please get in touch.
Assessment
Assessment
The largest part of the meeting was spent discussing assessment. The Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) is moving to more detailed subject work in the next term, and we felt that this group would have some useful points for discussion.
Pearson has already done some work on the relative weighting of assessment in D&T, and it seems to be that teachers may prefer a 70/30 split (70% NEA/portfolio, 30% terminal examination). DATA endorsed this balance.
A larger portfolio requirement, such as that required for 100% coursework, can lead to a formulaic approach to recording the work of the pupils. Although this can be a problem with any portfolio work, it is thought, by some, to be more of an issue as the weighting of the portfolio increases.
If the assessment became 100% coursework, it could be considered by some as an easy option which may affect how subject rigour is perceived by some. In addition, increasing the weighting of assessment increases the portfolio component, which this will have an impact on the time required. In the past schools have often found this difficult. Increasing the assessment proportion of the terminal examination component, increases the time required at the Awarding Organisation, which can also be difficult to manage.
Having a single point of assessment, either 100% portfolio, or 100% terminal examination, increases the perception of the assessment being high risk. However, all of the Awarding Organisations have had such systems in the past, and lessons can be learnt from how well these operated.
It was felt that teachers were keen to move to a greater weighting of the NEA component. However, the assessment criteria must be very carefully developed and explained, so that teachers fully understand what is being assessed, because there remains some confusion over what is assessed in the NEA and what is in the terminal examination.
The current GCSE specifications include detailed knowledge which has to be taught and learned. However, since the specifications have no overall ‘aims’ there is no particular rationale for this knowledge. Future GCSE specifications should avoid falling into this same trap.
It was mentioned that, when the latest GCSE came in, teachers were concerned about the 50/50 weighting of the NEA and terminal examination. There is much less concern now, reflecting increasing teacher experience and expertise, and willingness to remain flexible.
In general, it was felt that the exodus from D&T GCSE toward Art and Design was partly due to the NEA/exam differences, as there is no terminal exam paper in the Art and Design course, and no NEA. It was not perceived as easier but it was less high stakes.
Other points discussed included:
The exodus to Art and Design started before the introduction of the present GCSE. It may have been seen as a positive move for a number of reasons, including staff competence, school facilities, technician support.
The concept of pre-release material. Some felt that this would help with managing the breadth of knowledge required for the present GCSE paper in D&T. There had been complaints that there is too much content in the GCSE, which can all be examined in the terminal paper.
There is very little textiles being delivered in D&T nationally, this has nearly all moved over to Art and Design. This has implications for the textiles industry, as the Art and Design course is less likely to have pupils work with constructional textiles, textiles design, pattern design or tailoring.
An outcome of the CAR may be a change in the GCSE specifications, and it was noted that any new GCSE must avoid the bloat of content that happened with previous changes.
Under the present GCSE, the terminal examination is currently a 2hr paper, and this may be considered too long, especially when time is added for pupils with extra needs.
Any new GCSE specification must be careful not to require pupils to regurgitate facts. The present system expects pupils to do this in the examination, but the NEA could be more about expanding on their ideas. This feels more likely if the weighting of the NEA is 70% to the terminal examination of 30%.
Some schools are still fearful of teaching during the NEA, and so deliver the knowledge aspects of the GCSE in Year 10 and then devote nearly all of Year 11 to the NEA. Good practice is to teach through the NEA. Rather than having dedicated theory lessons, teachers can teach the theory through practical activities, which can be built into the programme across both KS3 and KS4. From pupils, the big issue of what is wrong in D&T is the teaching of ‘theory’.
The present system of the AOs providing contexts for the assessment, may be less relevant now, as schools understand this and the need to contextualise the learning in KS4. Perhaps teachers could be encouraged to develop their own, local and relevant contexts.
The role of option block restriction was discussed, and how this can restrict choice for pupils, as well as build in gender issues.
An interesting point was raised:
Is there a ‘one size fits all’ assessment system? In the past the different exam boards offered different assessment models, but under the present system, they all offer the same weighting.
In Cooking and Nutrition GCSEs, there are two NEAs. NEA1 is considered more difficult, due to the repetitive nature of refining the recipe, and it also creates a lot of food waste, which is poor practice, harmful to the environment, and will now potentially incur a cost to schools, because food waste must, under some circumstances, be recorded.
Oak National Academy
Oak National Academy
The Oak academy provides curriculum support materials with the aim of saving teachers’ time and improving the outcomes for pupils.
All the materials will be made available through the Open Government Licence, which means there are no copyright issues, and schools will be able to use them as they see fit. A somewhat difficult aspect of the process has been that each image, video or other resource has had to be generated specifically for the materials.
Oak is pleased to note that the work with the Design and Technology Association (DATA) and the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) has become a real partnership, and that the resources are now approved and being launched for teachers to use:
For primary there are 106 D&T lessons and 62 food lessons.
For secondary there are 179 D&T lessons and 29 food lessons.
Alongside these, the BNF is developing some relevant CPD materials.
There are a number of specific videos in the food materials For D&T, there are some animated GIFs rather than videos, because it was felt that ‘make along’ videos were not a useful idea for D&T.
NSEAD
NSEAD
NSEAD gave a detailed breakdown of its work on the ‘Big Landscape’. This is a research activity, that has been going on for some time, investigating what the school curriculum for Art and Design actually consists of and how it could be developed further.
The outcome is a ‘landscape of possibilities’ harnessed in a 3-dimensional atlas. The atlas goes through the ‘what, why and how’ of teaching Art and Design, not what could be deemed School Art. It also includes information on the way the hand, the brain and the eye interact in such activities.
The point was raised that all Art and Design activity should start with the ‘Why?’ so that it is grounded in good practice.
The NSEAD is developing an AI template for teachers to use in developing their own activities which are based on the knowledge held in the Atlas.
The NSEAD believes that teachers should remember that they do not work in an Art Department, but in Art, Design and Craft departments. In addition, the NSEAD is a trade union which has a wider brief for teachers working conditions, and factors which influence them, than a subject organisation would have.
DTTEG The Design and Technology Teacher Education Group
DTTEG The Design and Technology Teacher Education Group
The meeting concluded with a discussion about the DTTEG group, which was set up three years ago to bring together teacher training bodies. It offers a forum for everyone involved in teacher training, in Design and Technology education.
The first event took place in June 2025 and went well, and showed how important these meetings can be, where people get together, in person, to discuss the things that matter to those in that group.
The DTTEG collective is looking into funding, so that more activity can take place.
The event was less about pedagogy and more about andragogy (looking more closely at the teaching of adults, rather than the teaching of children).
If you have ideas for future articles, or would like to suggest a theme for a future edition, please do get in touch: dt@cleapss.org.uk
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse