Been wondering about names for GCSE* specifications (syllabi), i.e. Materials Design and Technology OR Design and Technology (materials) – same goes for Food** and Control (or Systems).

Sounds pedantic (and is), but names are important. I guess that it depends on where the emphasis should be. My gut tells me D&T focus areas should be an ‘appendage’ to Design and Technology***. However, arguments against that are (a) the general lack of understanding of what D&T is, (b) peoples identify (not just teachers) is tied up in the ‘material’ (not a great argument, I know, but it is a factor), and (c) it ties the idea of design and technology (as an activity) to a distinct and ‘definable’ epistemology (i.e. body of knowledge, concepts, etc.).

Again, just thinking…

* General Certificate of Secondary Education – the ‘terminal’ examination for 16 year olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

** The Home Economics degree at Liverpool John Moores University (NOT an initial teacher education programme, I might add) has recently be rebranded as Food Design and Technology. This is possibly the influence of Margaret Jepson (now retired D&T Food teacher educator at LJMU), but interesting nonetheless! The course itself is certainly not the ‘traditional’ Home Economics programme.

*** I’ve listened to discussions (and participated in a few) about the name Design and Technology. So just to nail my colours to the mast, I’m in favour of retaining the name, as the most common alternatives presented, Technology and Product Design, are either too broad or too vocational (respectively). To paraphrase the National Curriculum interim report from 1988 (chaired by Lady Parkes), the intention from the beginning was that ‘Design and technology’ should be said in one breath as a coherent stand alone title rather than a false devision between ‘design’ and ‘technology’ – which breaks down quite quickly when to start to define each word in isolation.