Design at the Crossroads: Why Collaboration and Clarity Matter
By Michele Gregson; General Secretary NSEAD
Embedded Files
Since I trained as a secondary art and design teacher opportunities for teachers to collaborate and learn together have dwindled. It is really difficult for subject specialists to engage in professional dialogue between departments and to lead or engage in innovative practice in the curriculum. Which is a bigger issue than ever as increasingly the boundaries between art and design and design & technology are shifting, and curriculum is being defined as much by who is available to teach it as it is by epistemological principles. We need to be talking more than ever about the purpose of design within both subjects, where it overlaps, and where there is clear distinction.
There has been a shift in what is being taught, and by whom. How many of our teachers trained to be a design & technology teacher but are delivering art and design specifications, or vice versa? Are the labels that we have – art teacher, D& T teacher meaningful or do they belong in the past? Are we all design fluid now?
How do learners describe what they are doing and what they are becoming? Are they artists making work for expressive purposes? Are they designers? Or Engineers? Or all three? How do your learners identify when they enter workshops, studios, and classrooms? Would they recognise any of these labels and do they see themselves as being on a defined career pathway? Labels may not be helpful. Perhaps a better question is how do they behave? Design is an intersectional discipline, and when it is being practiced in the context of art and design (which by the way it always is, all designers are artists, and all artists are designers) the scope and scale of what could be covered is limitless.
Definitions are contested and fluid – they move with the times and reflects society's values. It is tempting to think that we can siphon off the elements of our subjects and package them as neat and separate areas of learning. But I think that is a big mistake. If we subtract design from technology, if we decouple it from art, we are left with something meaningless. Both have a symbiotic relationship with design – a ying-yang if you like. Design is the enabler. Sometimes we do the same thing but differently. Sometimes we do different things in the same way. To some that looks like duplication – fertile ground for cost cutting. No! We need to defend the importance of both and make it clear that the interplay between the subjects is vital, one feeds the other. We need both to be brilliantly different, secure, and defined. We need more design, not less.
There are real challenges for design education in our schools and colleges.
We see the impact of dwindling resources, the challenge of recruiting and retaining specialist teachers and the squeeze of accountability measures. It is true that some of these things are not within our direct control. We can lobby, we can campaign to influence policy, but just as importantly, we need to work with what is happening right now if we are to lead what happens in the future for our subjects. We need to ask what is in our sphere of influence, where do we have agency? Well, we do have quite a lot of say in what, why and how we plan our curriculum and organise learning to ensure that it meets the needs of every learner, and that excellent design education is accessible for all.
One of the key principles driving the current curriculum and assessment review is the need to retain a knowledge rich curriculum, I would suggest that getting to grips with and being clear about how we define knowledge in our subject is critical. In art and design knowledge is not fixed, it is fluid, dynamic and changing. In art and design, our knowledge domains are concept not content driven. (If you are interested in exploring that do check out the knowledge section on the NSEAD Big Landscape site, it a comprehensive hub of definitions, research, good practice and ideas – and it is being added to all of the time.)
The nature of our subject means we don’t have the luxury of standing still. If we want to be leading design education, we need to be able to design compelling learning experiences, that speak to the needs of our young people , whichever specialism or disciplines we focus on in our programmes of study, That means ensuring that learning includes all learners, with references and practice that is representative of the real world and the problems that these young people will need to solve. Green skills are right up there as a priority, as are the challenges and opportunities of Artificial Intelligence.
We know that there is a lack of diversity in the student take up – and that is through every lens. To take just one, the gender gap for art and design persists, with three times as many girls as boys opting for GCSE – the reverse is true for Design & Technology. We must address the lack of representation in the art and design curriculum both in terms of who is referenced, but also the practice that is privileged in our classrooms.
.
As long as we are able to take the time to critically reflect upon our practice as design educators, and to be sure that we are actually serving the needs of our learners, preparing them for a fast-moving and increasingly complex world, with a curriculum that reflects their aspirations, interests and lived experience, then we can be sure (whatever we call ourselves), that we are doing the right thing.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse