Many teachers feel the current GCSE D&T has become “design-heavy and manufacturing light.” While the specification still expects students to make functional prototypes, the assessment model rewards design documentation far more than practical skill. This risks reducing making to a token gesture, despite the fact that practical work is deeply academic.

Design and making are not opposites, they are partners. Real Design and Technology capability comes from the interplay between concept and execution. If we want D&T to remain inclusive, rigorous and relevant to industry, we must reassert the value of skilful, purposeful making, not just design justification. We must not forget that D&T must be relevant to the real career needs of pupils. Currently it is not relevant to the majority and pupils have voted with their feet.

Let us champion a curriculum where students design like designers and act like technologists. That is the balance our subject needs.

Design and Technology only becomes powerful when design and making are treated as equal partners. If one dominates, the subject collapses into either vague creativity or hollow technical exercises. A strong D&T curriculum needs both, because each strengthens, tests and gives purpose to the other.

This balance is strongly supported by research into design cognition, which shows that designers move constantly between conceptual design work and material interaction to develop viable solutions (Cross, 2011). Crucially, practical work itself is academic. It requires interpretation, prediction, analysis, precision and evaluation, all hallmarks of rigorous intellectual activity.

Why the Balance Matters

Design without skilled making becomes superficial. Students may generate attractive concepts, but lack the technical understanding to judge feasibility. They cannot appreciate material behaviour, tolerances, manufacturing constraints or real‑world performance. Research into material‑led design demonstrates that hands‑on engagement with materials, deepens understanding and improves design quality (Karana et al., 2015). Without this, students produce “poster design” rather than design grounded in reality.

Practical work without purposeful design is sometimes craft for craft's sake. Students learn isolated techniques with no sense of why they matter. But it is important to emphasise: practical work is not the opposite of academic learning, it is academic learning and on equal terms! 

It demands:

· procedural knowledge

· spatial reasoning

· mathematical accuracy

· scientific understanding

· decision‑making under constraints

· evaluation of evidence

Studies in technology education pedagogy show that practical tasks help to build technological capability, when they are embedded in purposeful design problem‑solving (Kimbell, 2004). Without design intent, practical tasks can lose relevance to modern industry, engineering and innovation.

The interplay between design and making builds genuine technological capability. When students move back and forth between designing and making, they iterate ideas, test, reflect, evaluate and improve their outcomes. This mirrors real engineering practice and aligns with research on iterative prototyping, which consistently shows improved outcomes when learners cycle between design and doing (Schön, 1983; Lande & Leifer, 2009). This process is deeply academic: students must justify decisions, interpret data, apply theory and evaluate performance. These are core exam skills and core life skills.

Relevance to Contemporary Industry

Modern design, engineering and manufacturing demand:

· User‑centred design

· Sustainability awareness

· Digital tools and CAD

· Precision manufacturing

· Prototyping and iterative development

These expectations reflect findings from STEM workforce studies, which emphasise the need for graduates who can integrate conceptual design reasoning, with practical competence (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2016). A balanced between designing and making, ensures students experience the full process, not just fragments of it. Some students shine in conceptual design; others in hands‑on making. A balanced approach gives every student a way in. This aligns with research on dual‑pathway learning, which shows that combining cognitive and practical modes improves engagement and attainment across diverse learners (Kolb, 1984). And again: practical skill is not a fallback for weaker learners, it is a sophisticated, intellectual mode of learning that demands mastery.

This balance is essential if D&T is to remain inclusive, valued and academically credible. When design decisions are supported by material knowledge, manufacturing understanding, testing data and evaluation evidence, students produce work that is rigorous, not just expressive. This is what examiners must be trained to recognise and what employers identify as real competence.

The Simple Truth

D&T thrives when students can design like designers and act like technologists and manufacturers.

If we lose either side, the subject loses its identity, its relevance and its academic power.