��ɫ����

Design and Technology (D&T) is one of those subjects that everyone has heard of but few people know anything about. As a D&T graduate, secondary teacher and primary coordinator, I see a subject in decline, overlooked and marginalised in public and policy discourse. A recent example of this marginalisation can be seen in Jenkins’ (2025) article in the National Education Union’s journal Educate, focusing on the impact of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) on secondary arts subjects, where D&T was glossed over. Less than 20 per cent of GCSE entries were for non EBacc subjects and the D&T GCSE entries are down 3.5 per cent (Ofqual, 2025).

D&T was created as a suite of subjects in 1988 and was compulsory in English secondary schools between 1990 and 1994. Since then, there has been a steady decline: Tuckett (2022) writes of the 50 per cent drop in GCSE entries (2009 to 2022) and the ongoing D&T specialist teacher shortage. A message of ebb and flow with possible paths to recovery is communicated in publications from the hopeful ‘rebuild’ used by Barlex and Steeg (2016) to the ‘reimagined’ (Design and Technology Association, 2023), and, last year, the call for ‘renewal’ (Design Council, 2024) and ‘search for purpose’ (Hardy, 2024). In contrast, it is of note that the UK has been a world leader in D&T education; Atkinson (2023, pp. 44–46) states that ‘countries meticulously copied the English D&T model’. However, while Sweden (Larsson & Stolpe, 2025) and Japan (Wang et al., 2023) are researching curriculum development, in England the subject once regarded as ‘highly developed’ (Rasinen, 2003) is now focused on survival in a hostile environment of funding cuts, EBacc and lack of attention. The latest report on teacher recruitment, training and retention (Education Committee, 2025) has a single mention – an acknowledgement of failure to meet recruitment targets – but, unlike Maths and Physics, D&T receives no additional funding.

‘In England, the subject of D&T once regarded as “highly developed” is now focused on survival in a hostile environment of funding cuts, EBacc and lack of attention.’

Recent calls to drop the EBacc might refocus attention on D&T. In February 2025, Polly Billington and a cross-party group of MPs wrote a letter calling for the EBacc and Progress 8 to be scrapped. They cite the dramatic 65 per cent fall in D&T GCSE entries (the highest of the arts subjects) and highlight both the positive impact on mental health and the creative sector being a government target area for growth.

In considering the value of D&T as a subject, it is worth returning to the Purpose of Study (DfE, 2013) which states that D&T is ‘inspiring, rigorous and practical … Using creativity and imagination [and links to] mathematics, science, engineering, computing and art. Pupils learn how to take risks, becoming resourceful, innovative, enterprising and capable citizens.’ As a D&T advocate, the inherent value of opportunities to develop skills and knowledge including creativity, technological awareness and problem-solving (Hardy, 2024, p. 21) – all essential for future citizens regardless of their chosen career – is obvious. In the primary D&T classroom, practical work, often in groups, enables team working, communication skills and resilience as things inevitably go wrong! I remain hopeful that D&T will no longer be ignored but saved before the need for resuscitation.

References

Atkinson, S. (2023). Design and technology education in England. In D. Gill, D. Wooff, M. McLain, & D. Irving-Bell (Eds.), The Bloomsbury handbook of technology education (pp. 1–464). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Barlex, D., & Steeg, T. (2016). Re-building design & technology.

Department for Education [DfE]. (2013). Design and technology programmes of study: Key stages 1 and 2.

Design Council. (2024). A blueprint for renewal: Design and technology education.

Design and Technology Association. (2023). Reimagining D&T: D&T Association’s ‘Vision’ for the future of the subject in English schools.

Education Committee. (2025). Teacher recruitment, training and retention: Government response. UK Parliament.

Hardy, A. (2024). A subject in search of a purpose: The evolving identity of design and technology education. Edge Foundation.

Jenkins, E. (2025). Arts and minds. Educate, May/June, pp. 26–31. National Education Union.

Larsson, A., & Stolpe, K. (2025). Situating technology teachers’ personal PCK: An investigation of the material preconditions for technology education in Sweden. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication.

Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation [Ofqual]. (2025). Provisional entries for GCSE, AS and A level: Summer 2025 exam series [Official Statistics].

Rasinen, A. (2003). An analysis of the technology education curriculum of six countries. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 31–47.

Tuckett, S. (2022). A spotlight on design and technology study in England: Trends in subject take up and the teacher workforce. Education Policy Institute.

Wang, X., Loh, L., & Sera, K. (2023). Challenges of teachers to integrate ESD design activities in technology education in Japanese public junior high schools. The Design Society.