My second reason for being cheerful is that James Dyson is displaying a key designer characteristic – persistence.

Despite numerous and painful setbacks in his crusade to alert the country to the importance of Design and Technology education he has refused to surrender. Keep going James!

This article in the Telegraph provides a wonderfully articulate argument to government. Better still James Dyson has been asked to advise the government on these areas:

Click to download the full PDF here

We need more advocates like the James Dyson and his  foundation. Website here

Design and Technology started well before 1989. I and others wrote a Mode 2 examination in the 1970s despite the awarding body saying it was not mainstream and there would be no demand. Before that the Schools Council produced a booklet called “Problem solving through the use of materials”.  The subject became compulsory in 1989 but has suffered from a shortage of appropriate teachers, a rigid examination system which was too tightly controlled by government and a reluctance to challenge both teachers and students. There is really excellent world class work out there in schools but it is achieved by working around the constraints.

In the 70s and 80s the subject advanced dramatically because teachers were in control (see Assessing Technology by Richard Kimbell OU Press) supported by Mike Ive, HMI, father of Jonathon Ive, the Apple chief designer. Mike Ive is most proud of introducing D&T into primary schools but he also fought hard to spare the subject from the dead hand of political interference and inappropriate examination frameworks. I was a student of Mike Ive – he was very young too!

If you’re reading this James a few suggestions:

• Ask for D&T to be taken out of the current assessment structure. Free it from the dead hand of conformity and political interference.
• Focus on D&T competencies i.e. energy, persistence, problem solving, materials, making/organisational skills, enterprise, collaboration, creative thinking and assess achievement of those attributes not prescribed lumps of knowledge. Allow any material or technology to be used and do not prescribe the approach.
• Assess holistically via peer, public  and teacher/facilitator judgement. Keep it simple, I have a model for this too. A failed product should not necessarily mean a failed assessment – that’s life. Technology allows us to compare and index standards globally
• Use technology to support all involved – collaborative working and assessment. The model’s here.
• Involve real clients and real experts in the process. An example from something I began earlier.
• Mingle students with real designers and technologists – Trevor Baylis visited and inspired two of my able students to start design and technology careers.

Be bold, take a risk – we desperately need that!

Ironically what appears to be very bad news is really the opposite. This article in the independent seems to have triggered considerable interest.  A few years ago it may have raised an eyebrow but we then had a financial crisis and the country woke up to the fact that Britain had become too reliant on the City at the expense of manufacturing and technological creativity.

.

“Although there are other backbenchers with scientific backgrounds, Dr Huppert is the sole MP to have practised past PhD level, specialising most recently on DNA structures.

He said it was a real concern that the Commons – which is full of career politicians, lawyers and economists – lacked scientific expertise. Dr Huppert, a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, argued that all MPs should be obliged to take a short science training course, covering areas such as how research is conducted, numeracy and the use of statistics.” The Independent

Julian Huppert

We have a Civil Service, Judiciary and Legislature which, to use fashionably blunt Prime Minister speak, are technically ignorant. Very few and I stress, very few, have a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering Maths) background.

If an unqualified electrician carries out electrical installation work they can be awarded a prison sentence. Some have been, even though no injuries resulted. Yet key decisions for our country are often taken by people who are ill equipped to understand the subject matter and its significance. Our history is peppered with bad political decisions on science and technology – are we surprised? We are famous both  for our creative genius and sadly,  for allowing others to reap the profit from it.

If this all seems like a rant please read on.

In the last ten years or so I was privileged to attend a number of Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee meetings in the Commons and in Portcullis House. One of those centred on the crisis over expert evidence in court cases. Helena Kennedy was the main speaker. The case of Roy Meadows was discussed in some detail.  I found the discussion chilling. Roy Meadows had provided and opinion based on a flawed understanding of statistics – an area in which he did not have expertise.  The error he made was not noticed by the defence even though it was fundamental. Those who attended the meeting included lawyers and politicians. They admitted and expressed concern about the narrow background not only of lawyers but also of the legislature.

Dr Ian Gibson M.P. for Norwich, prior to the last election, had an academic research background similar Dr Julian Huppert.  Ian Gibson also had similar views to Julian Huppert and gave the 2006 Owers Lecture.

Julian Huppert we desperately need your expertise and energy to bring about change. We hear many MPs demand that Shakespeare and the Kings and Queens of England should be taught in schools but few who fight the corner for STEM subjects.

You are right Julian, MPs who demand that doctors, teachers and electricians are properly qualified should set an example by  passing a competency test themselves. Their SATs results should be also be published for the electorate to see!

Kate Sim explained her work with robotics as part school teacher and part Open University lecturer. The audience were grateful that there are still teachers like Kate who have found their way around the many constraints of finance, curriculum and formulaic testing to inspire students to world class achievements.

A question asked of Stephen Heppell when he proposed a computer science course; “Where will we get the teachers?” “Exactly”, was his reply.

.

.The discussion started with low spirits both Kate and Stephen highlighted what many of the audience knew, that computing and technology education needed for the 21^st century is damaged and under threat. However the fact that the system is under so much strain, and predicted by Stephen to eventually collapse, offers hope as growing pockets of innovation develop here and across the world. At a time when we are constantly reminded about the threat from terrorists, financial collapse and climate change it appears we should be grateful that there are subversives in education. They, Stephen argued, offered hope and pragmatic solutions.

The key points were focused around the inappropriate curriculum, testing and ‘quality control’ and attitudes communicated to girls in a variety of ways. Why is Lego in the boys’ section of ToysRUs? All of this restrictive mixture was considered to be compounded by a risk-averse culture.

Illustrations were given of ICT examination courses which supplant practice with theory and do not reflect the real world of computer technologies.

.

Ian Sillet raised the problem of risk aversion  in education

Ian Sillet raised the issue of risk aversion which was taken-up by Richard Green directorof DATA. Richard described how, very recently, a keen and capable young female teacher had carefully developed an interest and capability in systems and control in her school and approached her headteacher to ask if she could offer it at GCSE level. The headteacher refused on the grounds that it was a ‘difficult’ exam and risked the schools’ league table status.

.

Richard Green of DATA described how ‘Systems and Control’ was considered difficult and threatened league table positions

Kate Sim had earlier explained how she had only been able to finance her robotics activities by exploiting short term funding for the gifted and talented.

The debate continues but hopefully not too long before the country awakens to threat highlighted by Stan Owers and realises that to combat terrorism, global warming and computer dependent financial systems requires the practical, creative and problem solving skills of engineers.

Tweet Mobile pic

The Owers Lecture is sponsored by Oracle

Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink ; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

Derek Wenmoth points out an Albatross, the bird of good omen, and I share his frustration at being becalmed.

He says, “But consider the following…

• a global shortage of skilled science and maths teachers means that we’ll never be able to staff all of our schools with specialists in these areas (and other areas besides!)”

We are on a planet which is mostly covered in water but still we cry drought when we are in the wrong place.

Derek raises the opportunity that technology provides to alleviate the drought.  I just wanted to expand on the HOW.

In the ‘Connate Model’ (combined in one) outlined in my blog post here I describe how the model is centred on the examination system. That is for two key reasons. Most teachers are involved in some external assessment process with their students. Insisting that communication, including some assessments,  happens in one place ensures that teachers have a purpose and are regularly engaged in the online community. It also serves another purpose it allows teachers to identify and communicate with others who can support students in specific ways. That same platform could be used by teachers and students for sharing expertise.

Computer education, for example, in the UK is in a dire state. In 2005 there were 7242 students sitting (815 were female) A Level computing exams. By 2014 that is predicted to drop to around 1500 and all of them will be male, based on figures released by the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ).

It ‘s wasteful to have one teacher to one school with the skills necessary to alleviate the drought when the thirsty are scattered around them. Even more unforgivable is the fact that other experts working day to day in that area of knowledge are only a mouse click away.

All this is obvious when pointed out but that still needs a mechanism for it to happen. It needs that utility, a common national or international grid which all can self manage and exploit.  If the grid is to endure it must be like the internet and have many interconnected nodes ensuring that the network remains robust even when one node fails. Many government initiatives along these lines are innately fragile because they are short term and localised. We need boldness and soon.

One final point, Derek raises the topic of Higher Education. The ‘Connate Model’ suggests participants could be rewarded with qualifications which recognise their expertise and the extent to which they share it. HE has to change too. Most degrees are instruments of selfish endeavour they reward students for what only they know not for how well they share and exploit that understanding. Radical change in H.E. regulations, systems, assessment and attitudes is needed.

The term ‘killer application’ is perhaps overused but this one deserves the accolade. Core education NZ have created a very powerful tool which allows the whole school to ‘hold a mirror’ up to itself.  Carefully developed over 8 years it is currently being employed in hundreds of New Zealand schools and attracted considerable interest in the UK in the past month. The information it generates, with minimal time input, is displayed in a straightforward and readily understood way. I found it simple to use, yet very powerful, it enables users to identify the key points to address without time consuming interpretation, that’s done for you. I was genuinely impressed, even after allowing for my bias.
Dr Julia Atkin explains how she has employed 20 years of experience in this field to structure this sophisticated evaluation tool EPS2.0

More Details here

CORE EDUCATION UK @ ULEARN 08

Core Education UK is offering six sessions at ULearn 08 in Christchurch New Zealand

1,700 educators from New Zealand and further afield descend on Christchurch New Zealand to take part in this massive event over three days from October 7th – 10th 2008.

Core Education UK is represented by Richard Millwood, Sarah Jones and Malcolm Moss and is presenting at five taster sessions:

‘New Theories of Learning in Practice’

‘Creating Reflective Practitioners’

‘Innovation in Assessment’

‘International Collaboration and Enterprise’

‘Patterns for Online ?Community of Inquiry’

and a session to tie it all together:

‘Towards a Connate Approach’

As an exciting new era in qualifications begins this September the Ower’s Lecture this year will ask – Can Diplomas Cure the ‘English Disease’?

Will they overcome the ‘English disease’ which sees vocational and practical learning as less worthy and improve the status, number and quality of recruits into industry generally?

What can we do to help the engineering diploma overcome our society’s failure to recognise the intellectual and creative challenge demanded by careers in industry?

Dr Stan Owers’ thesis addressed the reasons for previous failure and this lecture series is designed to maintain a focus on the action that should be taken to rectify it. The format includes two short focused presentations by our guest speakers followed with a response by Mick Waters leaving ample time for discussion.

Pete Williamson of the Warren School, Barking and Dagenham, will provide valuable insight into development of the engineering diploma and the challenges of teaching it.

Jamie Tuplin of Barking and Dagenham local authority has oversight of all the diplomas programmes in his authority and is working with the related agencies

Mick Waters, as Director of Curriculum at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is charged ‘to develop a modern, world-class curriculum that will inspire and challenge all learners and prepare them for the future’. Mick will respond to the presentations of the guest speakers.

For further background information, please visit www.core-ed.org.uk/tools/lecture-2008.html

If you would like to attend please email enquiries@core-ed.org.uk by Wednesday 17^th September. Attendees will be sent more details nearer the event.

This lecture is supported by Make Your Mark in association with Enterprise Week 2008 www.enterpriseweek.org.uk

Sponsored by, and held at, The Oracle HQ London

Click on the image to view the PDF The URLs are live links.

I drafted the blog comment below several months ago but didn’t publish it. As you will gather from previous posts it’s topic I feel strongly about.

“Shirley Williams was the first Secretary of State for education to suggest that teachers should have guaranteed professional development time. Ken Baker claimed to deliver it by removing 5 days of school holidays for teachers. They are still called ‘B’ days (bidets) by older staff. Funding for PD has increased in the past decade. It was once ring fenced but is now subsumed in school budgets. The reality is that many staff will have limited opportunity to engage with their peers beyond their own school environment. To share ideas, discuss tactics and describe impacts. We have broadband for ICT but only a narrow band system for the sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge by professionals. England does not take PD seriously.”

My spirits lifted when I read this report heralding Institute for Public Policy Research in the Times Educational Supplement

There are a number of key points:

• will recommend that all teachers receive 20 days in-service training per year.
• decisions about what course they go on taken away from schools and given to teachers
• The IPPR will also recommend that responsibility for in-service training budgets is taken away from schools and given to the Training and Development Agency for schools (TDA).
• once a child’s background was taken into account, the quality of their teacher was the single most important factor determining the pupil’s performance
• It recommends making it compulsory for all teachers to watch colleagues teach four times a term
• Money would go to individual teachers who would select their own courses, conferences or visits for 10 days of external training every year.
• could create financial challenges for schools paying for cover.
• Derek Davies, head of Stretford High, Manchester, said: “I agree with the principle of more training but increasing it to 20 days a year is just not going to be practical. It isn’t a problem that more money for extra cover would remedy; it is the break in the consistency of teaching that can be damaging for pupils.”

See my next posting for comment on these points.

Hans Hupperetz, headteacher at the Sophianum school in the Netherlands, helped conclude proceedings at the EU e-learning conference in Lisbon. Link to the full plenary session Hans appears after 1h 24 mins. He raised an issue which is easily forgotten as we invest in hardware and change curricula. None of this innovation will work unless teachers are supported in implementing changes to their practice. Research consistently shows that teaching is cultural, we all teach the way we were taught. Changing that culture requires intensive and continuing professional development and support. The technology exists to offer efficient and effective collaboration to achieve this but funding and appropriate arrangements rarely appear in any initiative. The short video of Hans is available at www.futureknowledge.org,