Raising Technology Steam.
From the Evening Standard 6 July 2000.
Page 2:- ‘Vocational courses to get GCSE status’
Page 13:- ‘Raising esteem’.
"The British have consistently failed to get technological & vocational education right. The announcement by Mr David Blunket MP, Education Secretary, of a range of GCSE’S in such subjects as manufacturing, retailing, engineering, business and information technology is therefore welcomed”. "A clear structure of courses and examinations alongside more academic pursuits could do much to give vocational qualifications what educationalists like to call “parity of esteem”. “Existing General National Vocational Qualifications (GNVQ’s) will be renamed GCSE’S in a bid to create a “parity of esteem” between vocational and academic subjects to help bridge the skill gap in British industry”. “They will sit alongside traditional GCSE’s”.
Comments from the Editor.
Does Mr Blunkett really think that changing the name of a technology subject will alter the mind set of Head Teachers and parents. They see anything “Vocational” as being second rate and non academic, therefore worthless?
Everybody knows that the National Curriculum is too easy for the ‘gifted’ and too academic for the ‘disadvantaged’. Schools at the top are turning away from GCSE’s and schools at the bottom, with or without acknowledgement, are ignoring the National Curriculum.
Who is going to write the course material? If the normal course of events happen, it will not be the Ministry. It will be down to all us teachers working in isolation. Shafted again. Why do we not produce one set of material to be used by all? This is a prime example for the use of a Web Site.
Design and Technology differs from other Sciences as it is concerned with "What might be" as opposed to Science’s concern with the exploring and understanding of "What is".
Design and Technology is a truly creative subject and I define it as:-
Design and Technology is the disciplined process through which man creatively produces man made solutions that must have purposeful needs. These solutions must be artefacts, systems or environments and use acceptable scientific principles, materials technology and human resources.
Scientists have a very limited range of specialist knowledge. They are Biologists or Chemists etc. They are called Academics. From all my years spent in Engineering design, Industrial design and Marketing I have had to be conversant with all the sciences and the ‘ologies’ to do my work. I am a Technologist therefore I am not an Academic. It is far worse, I get my hands dirty as I make things, so I must be a Vocationalist. I am very proud of it.
Technology confuses people. The Times Educational Supplement has two seperate job sections, “Design & Technology” and “Technology”. IT jobs are put in the Technology section.
The academic elite who govern education in this country can never understand Technology. All this tinkering is failing to address the fundamental problems. It is domed to fail. Yet again, we, the teachers are the “Cannon Fodder” to be wasted. So much for “Parity of Esteem”.