WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY....
AN INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE CURRICULUM & ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Comment by TONY RYAN, CEO of the Design & Technology Association T
he Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review Report, which began in July 2024, led by Professor Becky Francis, has finally reached its conclusions. Here’s what was said and recommended, along with some thoughts on potential next steps, regarding the specific subject recommendations around design and technology.
Firstly, it is recognised that “Evidence gathered suggests that D&T has long been in poor health”. This, as we know, is
a fact. The report does not delve into detail on why this might be the case, stating that the reasons are numerous and complex. We are aware of the reasons why, and whilst we can learn from these, I much prefer to look forward.
The report goes on to suggest that “Evidence suggests that D&T may not be offered consistently between schools”. Again, depending on the skill sets of the school staff, the emphasis placed on the subject by school leadership and the governing body, the resources available, and the time allocated to the curriculum at KS3 and KS4 specifically, it’s no wonder there is a lack of consistency. That said, as a community, we owe it to ourselves to ensure that in every school, the curriculum is up to date, challenging, and as well-resourced as possible. Nothing creates the positive impact of a good teacher, but a well-thought-out curriculum comes a close second.
The review body brings forward some valuable and interesting data. It reveals that 37% of state-funded schools had no entries in D&T in 2024/25. The schools least likely to offer D&T are Free Schools (57% not offering), Sponsor Led Academies (52%), Foundation Mainstream schools (that have to teach NC) (35%), Voluntary Aided (31%) and Community Schools (22%).
In addition, 17% of students surveyed in an Omnibus Survey 2022/23 stated they wanted to study D&T at GCSE in their school, but it wasn’t offered. This is the highest percentage return of all subjects in the survey and at least someway rejects the theory that students don’t see the relevance in our subject so don’t select it at GCSE and beyond. The report also highlights some alarming socio-economic and SEND data related to our subject. In 2024/25, 60% of state-funded schools in the lowest socio-economic zones and with the highest proportion of disadvantaged students had no entries at GCSE. This is stark when compared with only 17% of schools with the most advantaged students, where there were no GCSE entries.
Our vision statement at the Association is to ensure that every student who wants to study design and technology has the opportunity to do so. Based upon the data presented, we still have a lot of work to do!
D&T recommendations The D&T subject aims need to be rewritten to be more aspirational (one December 2025
www.education-today.co.uk 29 Refine the D&T curriculum and GCSE content to:
• Explicitly include how to achieve sustainable resolutions to design challenges
• Embed the teaching of social responsibility and inclusive design explicitly within the curriculum, as appropriate to the key stage, throughout the design process.
• Support the development of critical decision-making skills around material selection.
• Ensure that realising designs remains integral to pupils’ experiences of D&T.
Some of our main issues fall outside the Review Teams’ remit (for example, a severe lack of suitably qualified staff) and instead lie with the DfE; rest assured that we are working on this. We endorse the vast majority of the Review Team’s recommendations, and now, as they say, the devil is in the details.
Cooking and nutrition
The food teaching sector cited issues with carousel delivery and strongly lobbied the Curriculum Assessment and Review Team to uncouple food teaching from D&T. The Review Team has not recommended this, citing the pressures on curriculum time and the additional burden this might place on schools.
Whilst we respect the views of the large number of food teachers who expressed a wish to decouple from D&T, I was personally concerned that decoupling might weaken a subject that, in our opinion, is essential for all young people. We at the Design & Technology Association will continue to work with all related parties to create a new and stronger identity for food teaching within the National Curriculum.
The recommendations are:
• At KS1 to KS3, cooking and nutrition (under a new suggested name) will remain part of the Design and Technology (D&T) Programme of Study.
• At KS4, GCSE Food Preparation and Nutrition is a separate qualification and not part of the Design and Technology (D&T) entitlement.
• The removal of Level 3 qualifications in 2016 has reduced progression pathways, and the Review Team has recommended that this be investigated by the DfE and possibly rectified by the introduction of V Levels.
• The name of the subject field be changed to Food and Nutrition. • Suggestions that the Programmes of Study are under-specified (especially at KS3) should be looked into and detail added where deemed necessary.
We commend Becky Francis and her team on a challenging job, approached diligently and with an approach that was very much ‘listen first, act later’. We are generally pleased with the recommendations made concerning our subject and look forward to working with the DfE and others to further develop this report and help schools implement it across England. The hard work starts now!
of our key requests from the Review Team). Focus on the subject’s distinct body of knowledge and capabilities with a particular focus on KS3.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
