Embedded Files
Design & Technology once consisted of a very popular range of ‘subjects’. In the past it, provided pupils with the opportunity to study specialisms such as ‘Electronics’, ‘Resistant Materials’, ‘Textiles’, ‘Graphics’, ‘Systems and Control’, ‘Food’ and ‘Product Design’. It led to specific career paths and real apprenticeships. Each of the specialisms had a separate, meaningful specification, easy to understand and teach. There was an acknowledged balance between design, theory and practical work.
WHY HAS D&T SEEN A MAJOR DECLINE IN THE NUMBERS STUDYING THE SUBJECT?
The decline in D&Ts popularity, is closely linked to the reduction in skilled, academic practical work and the increase in design and examination / theory work. In simple terms, pupils have voted with their feet. Less practical work, means lower numbers at GCSE. As practical work declines, D&T becomes less relevant to the majority of pupils. Most pupils will not become designers. Many strive for a career that requires academic practical skills, which are now increasingly delivered by Further Education and Training Agencies.
From the 1990s onwards, Examination Board Specifications started to place more emphasis on design work and generalised knowledge. Moderators appeared to be ‘primed’ to mark down what they viewed as traditional skills and a traditional approach. They appeared biassed towards ‘modern design solutions’, which were not necessarily well constructed and in some cases not clearly thought out. There was a growing discouragement of ‘a skilled tried and tested’ approach, to a ‘let’s try it and anything goes’. This was the era when a good evaluation at the end of a project, ‘repaired’ a poor solution.
THE CHANGING ‘SKILLSET’ OF D&T TEACHERS
In the 1980s, there was an influx of skilled people from industry, into CDT (Craft, Design and Technology). Most brought high quality practical skills and experience into the subject and school workshops. By the late 1990s, as UK manufacturing declined, this river of skilled people was down to a trickle. However, there was still a shortage of DT teachers. The new talented influx, did not necessarily possess the same ‘skill set’, of the previous generation. This is another reason why the subject has changed from practical in nature, to a preference for design, graphics and theory.
LET’S END SUBJECT SNOBBERY!
Promoters of the present version of Design & Technology, often use key words and phrases to cast doubt on the importance of skilled, academic practical work and those who teach it. ‘Craft’, ‘woodwork’, ‘metalwork’, ‘vocational’ and ‘industry’, are terms often thrown into conversations and media posts, undermining a practical skills approach. These terms are ‘masked’ derogatory remarks.
D&T ‘Influencers’, often use terms such as, ‘business’, ‘commerce’, ‘entrepreneurs’ and ‘creativity’ in relation to design. On the other hand, the term ‘industry’, is used in relation to ‘old traditional skills’. This creates a deliberately negative and misleading impression of the nature of academic practical skills and the career opportunities they lead to.
Over the years, there has been a relatively successful attempt, to ‘slur’ the immense contribution made by those who taught practical subjects in the 1970s and even up to the 1990s. My memory of my woodwork and metalwork teachers is a very positive one. They were extremely capable people, with the ability to design and make almost anything. I will be eternally grateful that I ended up in their classes, or should I say, workshops.
Another ‘tendency’, is to over emphasise the intellectual and academic nature of design work, whilst at the same time suggesting that practical work is suitable for ‘some’ pupils. The subliminal nature of this, is to plant the belief, that ‘less capable’ pupils should be taught workshop skills and brighter pupils should take a design orientated approach.
CURRENT D&T EXAMINATIONS - ARE THEY FIT FOR PURPOSE?
The written examination, as produced by most Examination Boards, is criticised as being too general and lacking in rigorous questions. Questions are rarely linked to real practical skills or a working knowledge and experience of machines and equipment. Questions tend to be linked to a pupils understanding of the contents of the relevant Examination Board text book.
A high proportion of marks at GCSE, are awarded for the written examination. Many believe that the theory work required to support pupils is far too extensive, focussing on a mountain of generalised knowledge, rather than specific skill sets / specific understanding.
THE NEW SINGLE D&T GCSE AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR STAFFING
Overall, D&T departments have seen a reduction in staff numbers and an increase in class sizes, since the introduction of the new GCSE in 2017. Some schools have seen D&T shut down or move to 3D Art and Design. A direct consequence of a poorly constructed D&T GCSE, the EBacc and financial cutbacks in schools.
An increasing number of departments have struggled to justify employing a full-time technician, due to the reduction in practical work at KS4 and 3, a direct consequence of the new GCSE (less need to prepare materials for practical sessions?) Some departments have even lost their technician or now share a technician with other subjects.
A special mention of Textiles. This was once a very successful subject, in its own right. However, since its inclusion in the New D&T, I suspect it has seen a decline. Pupils who want to study Textiles within the new GCSE, often find that they have to study other ‘materials’, including woods, metal and plastics. This has made D&T much less appealing than GCSE Textiles( which no longer exists).
THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE SINGLE D&T SPECIFICATION
School administrators, plagued by cutbacks and looking for financial solutions, have taken every opportunity to save money, reducing staffing in D&T, reducing D&T’s footprint and increasing class sizes. The new GCSE D&T and its single subject approach, can be regarded as ‘manna from heaven’, for those in charge of school finances. The EBacc and Progress 8 have reinforced the decline of creative subjects, forcing schools to place their priorities away from D&T. The next time a room is taken off your D&T department, it will probably go to Maths, English or one of the Humanities.
3D Art and Design has benefited from the decline of Design & Technology. Its open approach to design with less emphasis on examinations, has attracted many D&T teachers, demoralised by the new D&T specification. D&T should look closely at the success of this course and perhaps adopt aspects of its freedom and creativity.
THE FUTURE - A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION - ONE OVERVIEW
We all need to acknowledge, that the single D&T is probably here to stay. There is not the political will or budget, to enable a return to pre 2017. Returning to the relative sanity of 2016 and starting again, would be the preferred option. Once the disastrous decision was made (New GCSE), there was never going to be an opportunity, to turn back the clock entirely. However, there are several changes that could be made, that are likely to increase take up in D&T and re-establish its relevance to the economy / business world.
Increase the ‘weighting’ given to skilled, academic, practical work. Stop talking down the academic nature of practical skills. Practical work should emphasise real skills and quality practical outcomes.
To achieve this:
Staff training / CPD should concentrate / emphasise workshop skills, including modern technology / machinery / equipment.
Teacher training of D&T teachers, to emphasise the acquisition of workshop skills. As the nature of teacher training has changed (from University based to school based), this may be difficult. In-house training and interschool training may be the way ahead.
Increase capitation for D&T, to reflect greater emphasis on practical work.
Theory to be reduced by at least 50 percent. Continue the specialism approach (Textiles, RM, Graphics, Electronics / Systems). Examinations to emphasise the understanding of real practical skills and the use of machinery, processes, including modern technology, equipment and materials. Emphasise the history of design and design movements, sustainability, graphics etc.... Remove generalised questions from examination papers.
V.Ryan - Originally published in 2021
Below is the response from the World Association of Technology Teachers, to the recent UK Curriculum and Assessment Review - final report published on 5 November 2025. Led by Professor Becky Francis CBE.
OUR SUMMARY - Design and Technology in the Review
1. Subject Status and Curriculum Role
D&T remains a foundation subject at Key Stages 1–3 and an entitlement subject at Key Stage 4.
Cooking and Nutrition is embedded within D&T at KS1–KS3 and becomes a standalone qualification at KS4.
2. Declining Uptake and Access
The report highlights a significant decline in GCSE D&T entries, with many state-funded schools offering no entries at all.
This trend is linked to performance measures like the EBacc, which have constrained student choice and reduced time for arts and vocational subjects.
3. Recommendations for Improvement
Curriculum refresh: The D&T curriculum should be updated to ensure clarity, ambition, and relevance.
Inclusivity and accessibility: The curriculum must be designed to reduce barriers for students with SEND and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Balance of breadth and depth: The report calls for better sequencing and manageable content volume to support mastery and engagement.
Vocational pathways: Introduction of new “V Levels” may offer more applied routes that align with D&T’s ethos.
4. Strategic Importance
D&T is positioned as vital for preparing students for a changing world, especially in areas like digital literacy, sustainability and practical problem-solving.
SADLY - WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS LITTLE HERE TO GIVE US HOPE THAT D&T WILL RECOVER. NOTHING NEW, THE SAME OLD SUSTAINABILITY etc.........A WISHY WASHY REPORT, WITH NO TEETH OR AMBITION.
Design & Technology at KS4 is at a crossroads: unless policy and funding priorities shift, the subject risks further marginalisation
Is there a future for Design and Technology?
Is it likely to be classroom based and delivered by non-specialists?
Will specialist workshops continue to close?
Will it become 'Sustainable Design', a non-subject, destined eventually to disappear completely?
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse