From Handicraft to Craft Design and Technology

John PenfoldBruneI University

Editor's Note: This article is an excerpt from John Penfold'sforthcoming book Craft Design & Technology: Past Present &Future to be published by Trentham Books in February 1988.

Supported by a wealth of statistics andself-evident buoyancy of the subjecttoday, many are convinced that the ageof fulfilment in CDT is dawning. Amore cautious assessment which paysdue attention to its history, would be lessoptimistic. A study of the ideas, policiesand events which span the post-wartransition years from handicraft to CDTshows a pattern that is far from orderly.The pendulum of change has swungviolently, propelled by rivalpersonalities and pressure groups, butnever quite violently enough to clear allobstacles from the path.

Post-1944 ReorganisationR.A. Butler's Education Act was awatershed in the history of secondaryeducation in Britain. Raising the schoolleaving age from fourteen to fifteenwhen the birthrate was rapidly risingmeant that an extra million childrenneeded to be educated. This necessitatedan urgent building programme andexpansion in the provision for teachertraining. Secondary education wasrestructured. The tripartite systememerged, in theory if not in practice.Elementary schools, a nineteenthcentury relic, were finally swept awayand replaced by secondary modernschools. Technical schools, vigorouslysupported by Herbert Morrison andChuter Ede, and seen as an essentialelement in the fight for nationalsurvival, were wedged between them andgrammar schools which it was hopedwould broaden their intake and not bewholly class bias. It was believed thatthese changes would encourage the mostable children to fulfil their early promiseand that the huge new investment ineducation would, at last, enable allchildren to develop in accordance withtheir age, aptitude and ability. Deepseated prejudices against practical workand long memories of the pattern andprovision for workshop teaching withinthe old elementary system meant thatpractical subjects were relegatedpredominantly to the domain of thelowest strata - the secondary moderns.In Grammar schools they were generallya peripheral activity. Technical schools,which could have given practical

subjects a boost, were never founded inthe numbers envisaged in the 1944Act.Difficulties associatd with thereorganisation of the secondary schoolstructure were made worse, as we haveseen, by the shortage of properly trainedteachers adding another strain on to thenew system. Despite this, it was in aspirit of controlled optimism thateducationists tackled the enormousproblems of adjusting from a wartime toa peacetime economy and responding tothe ambitious requirements of the ButlerAct.

Dissatisfaction with traditional craftteaching valuesVery soon, however, some craft teachersbegan feeling that the extendedsecondary school curriculum, by stillreflecting the values of an earlier era,was ill-suited to the changing aims andexpectation of post war education. Oncemore disagreement mounted. On theone hand, traditionalists (not all old)elevated, taught and tested performancein manipulative skills as if they were theraison d'etre for teaching woodwork andmetalwork. On the other, progressives(not all young) focused attention onquestioning the aprior assumption thatthe acquisition of manual skills, of littledirect relevance to the society in whichthe boys were maturing, had to precedeeducationally more fulfilling goals. Inbetween, a not inconsiderable numberfound themselves trapped betweenhammer and anvil.

Latterly the banishment of thesorcerers of skill has, in some quarters,begun to take on almost moralovertones: craftsmanship as theunacceptable face of wor kshopactivities. The ghost of William Morrishad to be exorcised. This had not alwaysbeen the reaction to craft values. As ayoung teacher, in a Middlesex secondarymodern school for five years, the authorlike most of his contemporaries gained athorough grounding in woodwork andmetalwork, aspiring always towards thehighest standards of skill and finish. AtShoreditch Training College andLoughborough College, the two mainteacher training institutions forhandicraft, Arts and Crafts values were

highly esteemed. At Loughborough,Edward Barnsley continued to provide adirect link with the Cotswold 'UtopianCraftsmen'. As the majority of lecturersin handicraft elsewhere had themselvestrained at Loughborough or Shoreditch,these ideals were widespread. 4

For teachers imbued with these idealsand with only a short period of teachingpractice behind them, being thrown intothe hurly-burly world of secondarymodern teaching was something of aculture shock. For each boy who couldproduce a decent row of dovetails, farmore could be found discovering thedoubtful joys of brummer stopping orapplying a viscous paste of sawdust andglue to full up the only too obvious gaps.A backlash against the over-emphasison standards of craftsmanship wasinevitable.

Metalwork catches upThe pace of change since 1945 must notbe exaggerated. Metalwork teaching, forso long the neglected partner, had muchground to make up. In an endeavour tonarrow the gap, the Ministry ofEducation published Metalwork inSecondary Schools. It helped bringabout a parity between woodwork andmetalwork provision, but not until thesixties. The advantage of metalworkclaimed the booklet was that there wasno need for skill training courses inwoodwork, so pupils could immediatelystart making useful objects. For youngerpupils, tool-making projects wereparticularly recommended: advice thatproved to be remarkably effective andlong lasting. Advanced instruction forolder pupils consistd of themes derivedfrom instrument making, modelengineering and hammered metalwork.It is interesting that in the fifties,whereas some woodwork practitionerswere wrestling with constraints imposedby prescribed designs, metalworkteaching, with the exception of forgeand hammered metalwork was beingurged to adopt a policy that, for manypupils, permitted little individualresponse to the design of the objects tobe made. Not all followed this policy.

The section on 'Design formetalwork' did not point the route that

many metalwork teachers, along withwoodwork colleagues, were soon topursue.8 The stimulation of designawareness and considerations offunctional design were certainly well tothe fore but the possible directinvolvement of boys in the design oftheir own work was only barelyperceived. Design for most amounted toa consideration of 'alternative methodsof construction or choice of decorativetreatment enabling them ultimately todesign by selection'. Only the 'moregifted boy', the pamphlet maintained,had the ability to 'plan a piece of workon paper and then to carry it through toits conclusion'. According to theInspectorate, of even this select group,'perhaps not more than two or threeeach year may possess in addition,creative imagination' from whom 'maybe expected some success in design at theend of a four year course'.

Sydney Glenister, principal lecturer atTrent Park College of Education, in hisbook The Techniques of HandicraftTeaching published a year after theMinistry's pamphlet, echoed this theme,asking: 'Can the Children Design,9 Heconcluded that, though some theoristshad advocated children should designtheir own projects, 'teachers who havepractical experience in this direction wellknow that very few children have eitherthe skill or the aptitude for this work'.Consequently, he recommended thatteachers should develop in their pupils 'asense of good taste and an appreciationof good design ... and to co-operate inthe planning' (of their work). His owninterpretation of design was somewhatquestionnable but widely heeded andperpetuated an approach to furnituredesign which led to it being widelylampooned by professional designers.Design, instead of being taught as anentity, concentrated almost exclusivelyon matters of styling, shaping anddecoration. Children's contribution todesign, according to Glenister, couldbest be made through such items ashandles. If a teacher designedeverything connected with a box exceptthe handle, the boys could have:

freedom to use their ownimagination in designing andmaking these. As each of thesehandles would use only a scrap ofwood, no harm would be done inallowing each boy to make three or

four handles of different design.This could be followed by a shortdiscussion on the merits of eachdesign. None of the handles anyoneboy made might be suitable enoughto be put to practical use but at leasthe would have been taught therequirements for a well-designedhandle.

Such an approach to design, was widelycopied not least by examination boards.Many children developed designconcepts that revolved round multiplepremutations of tapering the inside of aleg, shaping the underside of rails.

It was time for a change. Manyhandicraft teachers shared a gut reactionthat, despite brave words ofencouragement, their subject was notmaking headway. Few were dissatisfiedwith the teaching of skills as such, butwith the context in which they were usedand the end products themselves. When,for example, a Ministry pamphletsuggested making a pastry cutter(essentially an exercise in tinplate workensuring a working knowledge of safeedges and soldering techniques) plasticones, superior in every way to the home-spun variety, were coming onto themarket.

The Crowther ReportWhatever progress was being madewithin the subject, externally, handicraftcontinued much as before. In 1959 itreceived one of its periodic boosts fromhigher authority which has been aregular feature of curriculumdevelopment over the years. TheCrowther Report of 1956 asked theCentral Advisory Council forEducation:

to consider, in relation to thechanging social and industrialneeds of our society, and the needsof its individual citizens, theeducation of boys and girls between15and 18(the school leaving agethen being 15), and in particular toconsider the balance at variouslevels of general and specialisedstudies between the ages and toexamine the inter-relationship ofthe various stages of education. 11

Crowther argued pervasively for an'alternative road' approach to educationto enable the country to benefit from thecapabilities of all its young people. TheReport advocated the rehabilitation of

the word 'practical' in educationalcircles even though it was aware of itsambiguity: 'practical' carryingpejorative overtones, frequently beingconstrued as the opposite of 'academic'.The Report strongly refuted such a view:

The boy with whom we areconcerned is one who has pride inhis skill of hand and a desire to usethat skill to discover how thingswork, to make them work and tomake them work better. Thetradition to which he aspires tobelong is the modern one of themechanical man whose fingers arethe questioning instruments ofthought and exploration. 12

The Crowther Report was the firstmajor post-war initiative to addressitself to bridging the gap betweeneducation and industry. It met with amixed response. Edward Semper,headmaster of Doncaster TechnicalHigh School and a dominant figure intechnical education in the fifties andsixties, lead the way in the promotion ofthe idea of curriculum research intoapplied science. 13 Craftwork was taughtas an 'instrument of general education'at this school. Semper was clear aboutthe philosophy of the school:

The Doncaster Technical HighSchool differs from a grammarschool mainly in that it has a broadvocational aim and is unashamedlyscience-based. The applications ofscience are used to bring intelligentinterest to the crafts and to create anawareness of our cultural heritageas well as to vitalise the teaching ofpure science. The ethos of theschool is conditioned by technologywhich, far from restricting theprocess of education, provides amost engaging means ofstimulating interest and sustainingeffort. 14

With the growingcomprehensivisation of the secondaryschool system, Semper was instrumentalin changing the nature and title of theAssociation of Heads of TechnicalSchools to the Association for TechnicalEducation in Secondary Schools. Theprincipal concern of the new associationcentred on securing a proper place forthe teaching of young people throughscientific applications, embodied inCrowther's 'alternative road' approach.

The beginnings of school technology:science or handicraft based?In 1964 Harold Wilson became LabourPrime Minister. He declared that the'white heat of the technologicalrevolution' would ultimately permeateevery aspect of our society. TheInstitution of Mechanical engineers,aware that Engineering was failing toattract a sufficient proportion ofbrighter pupils, sought to ascertain theextent of engineering activity in schools,and found it in less than five per cent ofschools. 15 Forty of these schools werevisited. Of this handful, thirteen were inthe independent sector, seventeen inpublicly maintained grammar and ten intechnical high schools. Furtherinformation came from a questionnaireto a further 265 schools. Engineeringproved to be very much the province ofthe science department. This survey byGraham Page dealt with a spectrum ofteaching a world away from that of thegreat majority of handicraft teachers,but he was sympathetic to the potentialvalue of workshop subjects to'engineering. 16The future scientist, everybit as much as the future engineer, Pageclaimed, needed a basic competency inskills and constructional techniques thatwere best taught by the craft teacher. Anumber of influential figures in appliedscience teaching disagreed. GerdSommerhoff, whose Technical ActivitiesCentre at Sevenoaks School did much toput technology teaching on the map, putthe case against technology evolving outof workshop subjects;Manual skills are no substitute forcreative thought. It is our belief that thetraditional kind of schoolmetalworkshop can do more harm thangood to the engineering profession. Itfails to attract brighter children and itleaves children with the impression thatto become an engineer is the same as tobecome a machine operator ormechanic. This, of course, is one of thecommon confusions which havebrought the status of engineer so muchlower in this country than in otherindustrial countries. 17

Sommer hoff's centre was designed asdistinct from the craft departmentwhich continued to flourishindependently, fulfilling a quitedifferent curriculum role. When thecentre opened in 1963, the mainactivities focused on 'mechanics,

aeromodelling, electronics, radiocontrolled models, computers andautomatic devices of all sorts'. Over thenext twenty or so years the schoolconsiderably extended this range. By1983 the list of basic courses consistedof: elementary mechanics and the use ofMeccano, engines and how they work,the lathe, elementary aerodynamics andwindtunnel experiments, model aircraftconstruction, and glass fibre moulding,elementary electricity and circuit design,electro-magnetism and its uses,electronics Parts 1 and 2, Booleanalgebra, transister logic and integratedcircuits, operational amplifiers,microprocessors Parts 1 and 2.Additionally the school runs formalcourses on computer programming. Akey feature of Sommerhoff'sorganisation was that pupils wereexpected to have mastered the basicprinciples of their subject and acquiredbasic practical skills before they couldembark on project work. To this end hedeveloped a range of programmed self-instruction courses combining practicaland theoretical elements, eachconsisting of a folder of some 30-50pages of text. Pupils did the coursesindividually and at their own pace,supervised by the teacher. Sommerhofffound by experience that his boys didthem willingly and well. The Sevenoaksapproach attracted widespreadattention, finding particular favour withthe Federation of British Industrieswhich wishes to see Sommerhoff'system extended and adopted elsewhere.Others were less sure. They pointed outthe highly favourable circumstancessurrounding the Sevenoaks experiment- an innovative and dedicated teacher,excellent facilities, clever children whodid the work as a voluntary activity outof normal school hours, good access tomaterials and components and thespecial nature of public schooleducation. 18Be this as it may, Sevenoaksdid much to popularise technologyteaching in the sixties. GerdSommerhoff appeared frequently ontelevision, especially in connection withthe BBC's Science Fair programmes. Abook and various articles published onthe school together with a film'Creativity in School' stimulated interestin the experiment. 19

In the maintained sector, the appliedscience department ofEaling Grammar

School pioneered the teaching oftechnology at sixth form level. Dr G.T.Sneed, who became head of science,wrote to Professor Blackett at theMinistry of Technology outlining theprinciples of the course. His letterclaimed that:

we are the only grammar school inthe country which has created aspecial course whose aim is to tryand persuade able boys in thescience sixth to take engineeringdegrees at the university.2o

Like Sommerhoff, he saw a cleardemarcation between school metalworkand engineering. Sneed, who developedthe work at Ealing over nearly twentyyears, though conversant withdevelopments in CDT remainedunenthusiastic, writing in 1983 thatsome craft teachers wished to 'elevate'their subject 'to the peerage'. 21

The friction or downright hostilitybetween the scientists and the appliedscientists in one camp and those whoadvanced the idea of technology from ahandicraft base in the other, have beenexhaustively explored in a recent study.22The author is indebted to this source formuch of the information in thefollowing section. Dr Gary McCulloch,Edgar Jenkins and Professor DavidLayton have described the complexinter forces which led to the widerintroduction of technology into thesecondary curriculum and their accountshould be familiar.23

The potential contribution that craftteachers could make to technologyteaching owes much to the almostvisionary thinking of Donald Porter,then staff inspector for handicraft at theDES, who believed strongly in thealternative road approach. In 1964, hespent a sabbatical year exploring ideasthat would extend the teaching oftechnology in secondary schools. Themovement to merge grammar,secondary modern, and technicalschools into a comprehensive pattern ofschooling made his studies especiallytimely. The Schools Council publishedPorter's research two years later,24 andwhen they were considering a feasibilitystudy for the teaching of applied scienceand technology, Porter wrote in asupportive background paper in whichhe suggested that mathematics andscience teachers might be encouraged to'tackle jobs at boy level in an

engineering way'. This requiredoptimism not held by al1.25Despite NUTreservations that support forengineering in schools owed more to theuniversities and the engineeringinstitutions than to the schoolsthemselves, the Schools Councillaunched 'Project Technology'. Its statedobjective was

to help all children to get to gripswith technology as a majorinfluence in their lives, and as aresul t, to help more of them to leadeffective and satisfying lives.26

Over 500 hundred schools from all partsof the country were interested inparticipating. They were divided intogeographical teams linked withuniversities and departments ofeducation under the overall control ofthe project leader Geoffrey Harrison,based at Loughborough College. Tounderpin its curriculum developmentrole, the Project Technology team'sactivities extended from the provision ofattractive teaching material tosupportive research programmes. Theseincluded investigating the educationalvalue of technological project work, itsassessment and evaluation, influencesaffecting girls' attitudes to technologyand the development of creative abilitybu t strained resources meant that thiscould be only superficial.

The authors of 'TechnologicalRevolution? cast G.B. Harrison as thechampion of the craft route totechnology teaching. Harrison publiclydisputed Sommerhoff's assertion thatthe technical project work at SevenoaksSchool was superior to metalwork,maintaining that 'technical activitiesand metalwork are complementary,mutually supporting and of equalimportance,.27 Whereupon H.N.Pemberton and Brigadier J.R.G. Finch,chairman and secretary of the Councilof Engineering Institutions, visitedEaling Grammar School and declaredtheir support for its course, based onscience, not craft. To reinforce theEaling approach, vacation coursesintended 'essentially for science masters,or science teachers and not craftteachers, since Sneed's work has nothingwhatsoever to do with craft training'were proposed.28 Representatives fromthe Association for Science Educationand the Council of EngineeringInstitutions formed an Action Group,

which had the ear ofthe Duke ofEdinburgh. The Group aimed toadvance the teaching of technologythrough a reform of the school sciencecurriculum, and to exclude the'craftsmen,.29 Hostility was ill-concealedand attempts to reconcile the twoapproaches foundered because of theirfundamental differences. ProfessorKevin Kehohane, coordinator of theNuffield Foundation Science Projectand a member of the AdvisoryCommittee of the Schools CouncilTechnology Project, confided his ownreservations to Lord Jackson:

'between ourselves I can't say I havebeen entirely happy. It may be doinga good job at craft level, but I feelthat it is not, perhaps, likely tomake an impact on the most ablepupils whom all of us would wish toenter in greater numbers, to coursesin science and technology,.30

Donald Harlow a scientist with atechnological background and anofficial of the Science Masters'Association confirmed this view:

It seems clear that his (Harrison's)project will not produce greaternumbers of scientists. It is craftbased; it uses the facilities and staffof the handicraft sections and is inmany cases being handled entirelyby the handicraft departments ofLEAs without reference to sciencestaffs.3l

The relationship continued tlJ bestrained between the scientists andProject Technology and meant thatvaluable opportunities were lost to pressfor more technology teaching just whenthe climate for change was especiallyfavourable. Some progress was madewhen the Standing Conference onSchool Science and Technology(SCSST) based at the Institution ofMechanical Engineers and the Scienceand Technology Regional Organisationswere founded. The SATROs were set upto nurture contacts between schools andtechnological activities at local level.When Project Technology completed itsfive year span funding continued for afurther two years. Geoffrey Cockerill,the Schools Council Secretary, professedhis satisfaction with ProjectTechnology;

It had become widely known incolleges of education as well asschools, has produced some

attractive materials, and - viewedas a research and developmentproject - generally fulfilled theexpectations envisaged for it by theCouncil.32

This account is astonishing in beingtotally out of touch with the perceptionsof most handicraft teachers than in theschools. Science teachers wereapparently expecting their territory to beoccupied by a vast army of handicraftteachers led by Geoffrey Harrison andhis Project Technology team. Nothingcould have been further from the truth.Virtually every craft teacher was verysceptical of the claims being made fortechnology in craft shops if not actuallyopposed to it. Harrison established histechnological reputation at DauntseyPublic School and encountered muchcriticism from colleagues in stateschools. His appointment to head of thecraft department at LoughboroughCollege in 1965 caused resentmentamong college staff and ex-Loughborough students who saw him asa betrayer of craft education values.When Edward Barnsley was obliged toleave, this so angered some of thosetrained at Loughborough that theystopped recommending their old collegeto sixth formers. Loughborough'soutput of CDT teachers has neverrecovered. The majority of craftteachers who spent most of their timeteaching average and below averageboys, also found that the ProjectTechnology material was beyond theirpupils and were not even sure of theirown ability to cope.

David Tawney in an evaluation ofaspects of Project Technology, seems tohave underestimated the resistance ofmost craft teachers to technologyteaching.33 Teachers participating inProject'Technology were not arepresentative sample· of craft teachers.This sample, however, was satisfied withProject Technology teaching materialsand publications. A high p·roportion ofteachers did depend on these materialsfor their teaching but, it is uncertainhow many schools introduced orstrengthened their teaching oftechnology through involvement withProject Technology. Many schoolstaking the publications did notimplement curriculum change andothers did not sustain the changes made.If individual teachers had been visited

by the central team, Tawney suggestedthat they might have felt less isolated,and been encouraged. The number ofschools teaching technology within craftdepartments settled between one andfive per cent. Yet, when ProjectTechnology was 'Wound up atLoughborough College the NationalCentre for School Technologyestablished at Trent Polytechnic tocontinue the work gave the impressionof being far more extensive. The cadre ofteachers and lecturers were soon pouringout new material from Trent Polytechnicand developing a highly effective publicrelations operation which kept theteaching of technology high on thepolitical agenda.

Average and below average pupilsThree years before the Schools Councilset up Project Technology, the Ministryof Education published Half our Future(the Newsom Report), on education of'pupils of average and less than averageability,.34 The value of practicalactivities to the education of theseyoungsters featured strongly in theReport. It assessed their 'distinctive'contribution in providing opportunitiesof learning by direct experience and amedium of expression other than thewritten word. But ultimately, warned theReport:

... it all depends on the quality ofthe teaching. Unimaginativeexercises can be as dully repetitive inwoodwork as they can be inEnglish. If practical work is to beused as a means of revitalising theprogramme - and it needsrevitalising - for our pupils,something other than a larger doseof the mixture as before is needed.35

Extending craft teaching horizons inimaginative ways had implications forthe education of all children, regardlessof ability. The Report acknowledged thepride and satisfaction pupils might feelby doing something well, but did notconsider it a sufficiently enrichingeducational experience in itself.Learning and confidence had to bepromoted by giving pupils real problemswith which to grapple. Objects made inthe workshop should work; if they didnot, youngsters should be able to workout why. Time spent in the workshopwas justified only if it

... should lead to thought andexpression: they are not to beregarded as a substitute for thoughtfor the less intelligent.Finally, the Report made a plea that

craft studies should lead to a widerappreciation of manufactured objectsour cultural heritage: the developmentof feeling for the appropriateness ofmaterials to their use; responsiveness tocolour, form and design and theenhancement of sensitivity towards thepersonal and social needs of humanbeings in relation to theirenvironment. 36

The Keele ProjectThe Newsom Report addressed itselfdirectly to problems and opportunitiesconsequent upon raising the schoolleaving age from fifteen to sixteen in1965. Craft teachers, whose mainteaching commitment had always beenwith the average and below average boy,were soon up to their necks with ROSLA(Raising of the school leaving age)schemes that stemmed from Newsomrecommendations. In the longer term,however, the Newsom philosophy founda more cohesive and explicit outlet in theSchools Council Design and CraftProject. Early ideas for the researchprogramme were first explored atLeicester University Department ofEducation under the direction ofProfessor G.H. Bantock. When JohnEggleston, then a lecturer at LeicesterUniversity, became Professor ofEducation at Keele university, the workwent with him. Known initially as theSchools Council's 'Research andDevelopment Project in Handicraft', theresearch team soon established aworking relationship with large numbersof teachers throughout the country. 37The DES and the Schools Council maywell have seen Project Technology, theKeele research and the Art and Craft8-13 project at Goldsmith's College38 asthree curriculum developmentprogrammes that together wouldreinvigorate and give more purpose toworkshop teaching. This may indeedhave happened at the time but not manyteachers saw it like that. Most regardedthe Projects as tugging in opp~sitedirections. As far greater numbers ofcraft teachers identified themselves withwhat became universally known as theKeele Project than with Project

Technology. In part this can beattributed to the greater willingness ofthe Keele research team to visit centresthroughout the country to explain theiraims. More significantly, the KeeleProject was more attuned to thebackgrounds and aspirations of themajority of handicraft teachers thanlooking for ways forward. But even theKeele Project had its limits and manyschools carried on as if the two SchoolsCouncil research projects did not exist.

The pilot study, Education throughthe use of materials only partiallyindicates the direction of the researchteam.39 Craftwork, by combining theteaching of skills with the stimulation ofpupils' own creative ideas, could afforda demanding and enriching educationalexperience. When craftwork consistedsolely of making tangible end productsin one material only restrictededucational opportunities arose.

The Project's proposal was to look atthe possible integration of craft workwith other areas of the curriculum inwhich 'work with materials in theworkshop plays a central part', namingart, home economics and technology asespecially appropriate. The seeds of thecircus arrangement had been sown.More immediately, an appendixassociating craftwork with all-embracing curriculum objectivesincluding intrinsic and extrinsicmotivational factors, personality traitsand attitudes, creative and skilldevelopment and the fostering of logicalproblem-solving strategies wasreassuring about the educational base oftheir subject to handicraft teachers,4obut wanted hard evidence to support theextensive claims being made on behalfof the subject.

Creativity - the 40s backgroundProfessor Eggleston's team provedeclectically adroit and responsive to thecharacteristic creative mood of thesixties, with its explosion of talents infashion, film and thatre, commercialphotography, advertising, pop musicand pop art. Terrence Conran pitchedhis 'Habitat style' to a design-consciousmiddle class. Philippe Garner aptlysummed up the time:

Consumerism was a new thrill to bejudiciously enjoyed and the tastesof this public were to be nourished

after 1962 by the coloursupplements to the Sundaynewspapers - first with the SundayTimes, then with the Observer.With such features as the SundayTimes 'Design for Living', thesupplements, as much in theiradvertising as in their editorialcontent, provided a pot-pourri ofinstant consumer culture andcontributed to the visual educationof a very wide mar ket. 41

An interest in all things creativespread. It permeated space race thinkingand influenced America to believe thatits future society depended on thecreative discoveries and innovations ofits scientists and technologists.Creativity research flourished.42 Socialpsychologist, Irving Taylor analysedover a hundred definitions of creativityand identified five levels of creativityinto the educational vocabulary. Thuscame 'expressive creativity', 'productivecreativity', 'inventive creativity','innovative creativity', and the highestlevel 'emergentive creativity'. Open-ended creativity tests designed tomeasure performance, mushroomed.How many uses for a brick, a matchstick, a paper clip ... ? High scorespredicted creative potential. This ledresearchers - JW. Getzels and PW.Jackson, Carson McGuire and IrwinFlescher - to draw differingconclusions concerning the relationshipbetween intelligence and creativity.Other psychologists directed theirattention to now familiar brainstormingand synectic techniques. Much of thisacademic research had direct relevancefor teachers. Torrence's work, forexample appeared to support the thesisthat educational pressures encouragedconformity in children. Education wasthus held to be a powerful agent forsuppresing 'divergent' and encouraging'convergent' thinking. Liam Hudson'sacademic research at the CambridgePsychological Laboratory even caughtthe popular imagination when hesuggested in a book published byPenguin, that 'convergent' thinkerstended to be attracted to the physicalsciences and 'divergent' thinkers tohistory and literature.43

Younger craft teachers proved veryreceptive to these stimuli; so receptivethat even the appearance of manybecame transformed - short back and

sides gave way and grew into flowinglocks and sideburns and out went thetime-honoured national dress of thefraternity. Well worn, elbow-patchedsports coats, with top pockets ofgleaming pens were discarded in favourof leather and suede jackets andcoloured shirts. These trappings,emblems of the permissive society andof upwardly mobile teachers, causedconsternation amongst staid membersof the profession. But in reality themomentum was in the other direction.Design for craft teachers acquired newconnotations.

The birth of design educationWhilst The Woodworker remainedpossibly the most widely read periodicalamong handicraft teachers, CraftTeacher News and Stanley's CraftEducation (both circulated free ofcharge at first) began to include articlesof wider interest. Leadership of Design,the more prestigious journal of TheCouncil of Industrial Design (now theDesign Council) grew steadily amongworkshop based teachers. During thesixties, they found much in the journalthat was relevant to their work. Oneeditorial sympathised with themovement to institute a combinedapproach to the teaching of designeducation in secondary schools butadvised a realistic attitude.44 To ignore'the powerful and legitimate pressures'on the curriculum exercised by thosebrought up in a non-visual tradition,would be politically naive andjeopardise the implementation of designobjectives.

Kate and Ken Baynes examined thestate of design education in two articlesin Design.45 The first concentrated onthe Leicestershire plan, where thedirector of education, Stewart Mason,believed practical subjects, art, dramaand music, to be a fundamental part ofevery pupil's secondary education. Theauthors found that woodwork andmetalwork were taught in handsomelyprovided accommodation but observedthat:

... educationally and intellectuallythere was an anachronisticatmosphere about the craft roomand the methods used were, with thebacking of conservative-mindedteacher training colleges,extraordinary impervious to change

... Only with the dissatisfaction ofa younger generation of teachers,who have felt the inadequacy of thetraditional teaching methods, hascraft begun to grope its way alongthe tricky path from cosy certaintyof learning known hand techniquestowards a broader consideration ofthe construction and function ofobjects in an industrial society.

Their second article looked at teachertraining provision for craft and designeducation at Cardiff, Hornsey,Shoreditch, Loughborough andGoldsmiths College. Shoreditch with anintake of 240 students in 1966 was theobvious representative of the traditionalapproach. Ted Sawdy, the head of thecraft department, was not one to bow tothe winds of change and told the Bayne'sthat:

The aim of the course is to send outteachers who will teach in all rangesof secondary education, their mainmedium of education beingwoodwork and metalwork ... Thebreadth of the courses is to enablethem to use their specialisation as ameans of educating boys to anappreciation of fine craftmanshipand good design, and to giveavenues for personal intellectualand emotional development.

Ken and Kate Baynes thought theteacher training college was 'the obviousplace to break into the educational cycleneed to bring about change, regardedShoreditch as a major stumbling blockand so did many of the youngerShoreditch staff. Yet the role of teachertraining institutions in curriculumdevelopment was not as straightforwardas they made out. They were morepositive about developments at Hornseyand about Loughborough's tentativesteps towards technology. This alertedthe authors to the potential oftechnology within the field of designeducation, but this was not reallyhappening. Design education almostuniversally excluded technologyteaching, and still does.

Design educationalists were effectivein publicising their cause. A conferenceheld in February 1969 at the NUTheadquarters assembled an impressivelist of speakers, headed by ShirleyWilliams, then Minister of Education.46

She told delegates that:

When it comes to the teaching ofdesign itself, I hope very much thatschools will not regard the teachingof design as being something thattakes place in the woodwork class,or the craft class, or the homeeconomics class or the arts class ...the design approach is also just asbadly needed in the engineeringworkshop, in the metal shop, and inthe woodwork shop. It is neededbeause the future technologist, orthe future engineer, must be asconscious of the possibilities ofdesign in what he is doing, as thefuture designer must be consciousof the limitations imposed bydifferent methods of production. 47

One positive outcome of theconference was the proposal to form theAssociation for Design Education. SirPaul Reilly, Director of the Council ofIndustrial Design, hoped that the newassociation would stimulate teachers ofchildren of all ages and subjects to take'design under their wing', not asspecialists but as part of the generalknowledge with which all boys and girlsshould leave school. Only in this waywould future generations 'grow to speakthe language of design as fluently astheir mother tongue'. Other outcomes ofthe lobbying are discussed below.

Design education literaturePublishers were quickly off the mark tosatisfy the new demand. Books ondesign and design education began toroll off the printing presses. Some weretrite: books with the same tired contentssold, provided the title - be it brassrubbing or basketry included the sixtiesbuzz word 'creative'. Craft departmentswere eager to broaden their approach.At the time most traditionally trainedteachers had never heard of theBauhaus, and the design philosophy ofWalter Gropius. Colour, shape, form,texture and pattern were not part oftheir vocabulary till Maurice deSausmarez's books described Bauhausfoundation course ideas derived fromJohanes Itten's teaching.48

Kurt Rowland's 'Looking and Seeing'series were also phenominallysuccessful. 49His books illuminated theprinciples of visual appreciation of thenatural and constructed environment,providing teachers and pupils alike witha sort of visual grammar to underpin

their work. James Goslingrecommended this 'splendid series' tomembers of the Institute of CraftEducation;50 interesting since theInstitute tended to be known more asguardians of good traditional practicethan as trailblazers. Most books on theprinciples of design were written byauthors with an exclusively artbackground, but Francis Zanker, then alecturer at Eaton Hall, produced a bookwhich helpfully bridged the gap withcraft. 51In refreshing style, it gave craftteachers some confident building on,not debunking their testing skills. Somany craft teachers were enthusiasticabout the Bauhaus exhibition in 1968staged by the Royal Academy of Arts. 52

David Pye, then Professor ofFurniture at the Royal College of Artapproached the understanding of designmore analytically and was dismissive ofsome of the more voguish practices thenin favour. It was a time when tables wereno longer called tables; but wereintroduced in design problems as 'planesin space', and, chairs were 'structures tosupport the human frame'. WasProfessor Pye right? It would beinteresting to know how manyinnovative designs evolved from theseunconventional approaches, butProfessor Pye regarded them as 'idiotic'and declared:

When the problem is old, the oldsolutions will nearly always be best(unless a new technique has beenintroduced) because it isinconceivable that all designers often or twenty generations will havebeen fools. 53

This was nectar to the traditionalistsand lucid thinking did bring into focussome design issues which had distinctlyfuzzy edges. Soon after his book waspublished, Professor Pye was invited tolecture to a large audience of handicraftlecturers and teachers at the Universityof London Institute of Education. Butthe meeting was a flop. As one artcolleague muttered 'they (the audience)may have picked up the odd word or twoof the designer's vocabulary, but theydon't understand the language' whichmay sound deprecating but sums up thecommunication problems that have ledto much misunderstanding over theyears.

Protagonists of design educationproduced books on the movement but

these fell short of providing a coherenteducational rationale that curriculumplanners might use for futuredevelopment. It may not have been whatthese pioneers wanted. They wereprimarily concerned to encouragefluidity, not to establish a possiblyrestrictive framework. The beginningsof design education make interestingreading. The movement arose becauseof dissatisfaction with art teachingtraining, than as a bid to revitalizeworkshop teaching. Teacher trainingdepartments attached to colleges of arttended to be filled with frustrated wouldbe artists and sculptors. Coursedirectors saw design education as ameans of channelling their creativeenergy. This is not to disparage the workof Peter Green, head of the TeacherTraining Department and Ken Bayneswhich made Homsey College of Art(now part of Middlesex Polytechnic)immensely exciting. Ken Baynes, alwaysan engaging writer, captured the spirit ofthe era in the contributions to his bookAttitudes in Design Education. 54Therange of articles demonstrated the widerange he foresaw for design education.Including a piece by John Kingsland,the recently retired headmaster of CrayValley Technical High School and one ofthe pioneers of the 'alternative road'approach, broadened the concept ofdesign education to includetechnological teaching. Peter Green'sarticle also emphasised the key role oftechnology. 55Technological educationhas not, however, been widely seen aswithin the scope of design education.Peter Green's book, apart from anenlightening introductory section,informed by example rather thanprecept. Bernard Aylward, theLeicestershire adviser offered briefpersonal opinions about designeducation in the volume he edited, buthis contributors to develop their ideas, 56pointing out only that an integratedapproach to design must be internalisedwithin the minds of pupils and not bejust an assemblage of traditionalsubjects, each with its own specialism.All three authors gave no more thantantalising glimpses of the vision eachhad for design education. The lack of arigourously argued educationaljustification for its inclusion within thecurriculum left design education cruellyexposed when less favourable winds

began to blow. The journal Studies inDesign Education and Craft from 1978Studies in Design Education Craft and'Technology reflected and encouragednew movements within handicraft.Edited from its inception in 1967 byProfessor John Eggleston, it had itsroots in the Institute of Craft Educationand the College of Handicraft. Thejournal has provided the only consistentforum for the discussion anddissemination of fundamentalcurriculum development ideas in thecraft and design area. The 1972 Winteredition carried a number of articles onintegrated approaches to designeducation. Professor Eggleston,commented in the next issue, that thesehad provoked an unprecedentedresponse, and he devoted the whole ofthe Spring number to the same theme. 57He hoped to deepen teachers'understanding of the resolution ofpractical design problems and, mostimportantly, to examine 'the underlyingjustification of many of the newapproaches'. How influential Studies inDesign Education and Craft was at thetime is difficult to gauge. Its circulationthen, of about 2,500, was relativelysmall, but the readership was far higher,especially among those able to exertpressure for curriculum change.

The substantive reports of the KeeleProject, demonstrated clearly theinfluence of ideas originating in designeducation. 58Professor Eggleston,wearing his hat as Project Director,oversaw the transition of a project whichbegan with a bias towards handicraftand ended with a more broadly basedcurriculum study area. 59Newparameters were set out. Problemsolving strategies became the order ofthe day. Teachers acquired a newvocabulary. Design methodologies usinganalytical and synthetical criteria movedlogically from need identification tooptimised solutions and theirevaluation. Ways of extending thematerial boundaries of wood and metalwere explored. The text encouragedteachers to look afresh at the home,leisure and community work as sourcesfor design-based studies. The work ofthe Keele Project completed, Egglestonbrought all the competing andcomplementary design educationinfluences together in a personal

account of the movement during itsformative years. 60

The response of LEA AdvisersBy the 1960s, advisers had effectivelylost their organiser tag and formedthemselves into the Conference ofHandicraft Advisers to change again inthe next decade into the Association ofAdvisers in Design and TechnicalStudies. A document, Craft Educationpublished initially for the AnnualConference of Handicraft Advisers,aimed at stimulating further discussionamong a wider readership.61It gave little indication of future growthpoints; neither design nor technologywere much featured. The authorsexpressed the hope that, in conducting a'reappraisal' of 'the teaching ofhandicraft, there will be a clarificationof objectives'. These turned out to be, inessence, a digest of the best of pastpractice with an infusion of ideas fromrecent official and Schools Councilreports.

The following year, responding frompressure from a minority group to dosomething about design education, theassociation commissioned a seconddocument, ultimately published asDesign in Craft Education (1974).62Though the working party includedBernard Aylward and Joss Jocelyn, theCheshire Adviser, both leadingadvocates of design education, thereport lacked vitality. Again the authorswould have been mindful of the fact thatany recommendations hadramifications for Association memberswho espoused design education withvarying degrees of enthusiasm. Suchconsiderations had not inhibited theAssociation of Arts Advisers, who in1973 produced a well-thought outstatement on design education.63Considering the overlap of interestbetween the two, any limitation ofcontact smacked of parochialism, a viewreinforced by the limited sources ofreference listed in Design in CraftEducation. One might agree with theadviser's dictum that books should be'appropriate and good' without relyingon the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Design in General EducationWith the end of the Schools Council'sproject, the focus of design educationresearch switched to the Royal College

of Art. In the Spring of 1974 the DESfunded an enquiry at the College into'Design in General Education', underthe direction of Professor Bruce Archer.For three years (1973-76) he and his teamlaboured to designate Design (with acapital D) as a third area of education.They boldly claimed for design discretecharacteristics which separated it fromthe physical sciences and thehumanities. This third area comprised

the collected body of practicalknowledge based upon sensibility,invention, validation and

implementation.64The research team did not primarily

set out to provide quantitative datadetailing the extent of design educationin secondary schools. Apart fromrecognizing the situation as being fluid,the RCA team knew itself to be 'anagency for change itself. The RCAdefined as the most important factors inthe formulation and implementation ofdesign education:

. .. firstly, the quality andmotivation of the staff specialisingin design-related subjects, secondly,the practical support given by thehead teacher. 65

The investigations predictablyproduced mixed responses. Themajority complained that only aminimal amount of teaching materialstemming from the two projectspenetrated into the craft shops. Thismay well have been the case, but ifliterature was reportedly lacking, ideasderived from the two projects were not.Thus ILEA's Design and Technologyadvisory team under staff inspector thenbegan an 'Innovation on CraftEducation' which owed much to Keele.66London was not alone. However, theRCA researchers identified a lack ofcoordination between the SchoolsCouncil's projects which was frustratingto ordinary teachers as was the lack ofeffective support continuing after theresearch programmes ended. ProjectTechnology (as a consequence of theTrent move) came out better in thisrespect.

Robert Clement, Adviser for Devonand Secretary of the Association of ArtAdvisers was one who disagreed with theRoyal College that design is a subjectlike other areas in the curriculum: adefined area of knowledge and

experience Clement observed that,whilst a respectable body of theoryrelating to design had been built up as anabstract or problem-solving activity,'that theory, being based on modes ofactivity external to the school, bearslittle relationship to the philosophieswhich contribute to design,.67This, andother points of fundamental concernwere taken up by Anita Cross from theDesign Discipline of the OpenUniversity, who subjected the RoyalCollege's research to rigorouscriticisms.68 She asserted that:

If Design then, is to be consideredas basic to general education, itmust be amenable to the usualmeanings of basic or generaleducation, i.e. an education whichis, in principle, non-technical andnon-vocational. It can only achieveparity with other disciplinestherefore, by:(a) being organised as an area ofstudy not unlike the Science andHumanities(b) providing instruction inconcepts and methods of enquiryappropriate to life-long learning,and(c) attempting to foster anunderstanding and appreication ofthe contributions that designactivities and specialisms make tothe individual's life and the lives ofothers.69

In Education, interaction betweenthree differing levels of activity isimportant for development and progressin a particular field. These levels ofactivity are conducted by:-1. Scholars and researchers who

develop ideas and provide the basicresearch.

2. Educationists who absorb, translateand suggest ways of utili sing thebasic research.

3. Teachers who apply and testmethods and findings and providefeedback for further research. 70

Anita Cross demonstrated that incomparison with what was available formathematics and English teachers, therewas virtually no carefully structuredreference material written for teachersof design. Though confined herself onlyon design education, her observationsapply to all aspects of CDT teaching.'Research' in CDT has overwhelminglyconsisted of descriptive projects, their

educational validity unquestioned andthe structured learning stage involvedalmost totally ignored. The hard-pressed teacher may not find this aproblem: when you have twenty pupilsqueueing up at the door, you want arange of projects that embody the newphilosophy, not philosophy itself. It istheir mentors who are ill-served.

Nigel Cross, also of the OpenUniversity, stressed this need forfundamental research in his paper'Designer Ways of Knowing',71 whichsought to justify design's position as the'third culture'. Though granting that '...there is still a long way to go before wecan begin to have much sense of havingachieved a real understanding of designas a discipline - we have only begun tomake rough maps of the territory', heidentified five distinct aspects of'designerly' ways of knowing.1. Designers tackle 'ill-defined'

problems.2. Their mode of problem-solving is

'solu tion- focussed'.3. Their mode of thinking is

'constructive'.4. They use 'codes' that translate

abstract requirements into concreteobjects.

5. They use these codes to both 'read'and 'write' in object languages.

From these ways of knowing, Crossdrew three main areas of justificationfor design in general education:1. Design develops innate abilities in

solving real work ill definedproblems.

2. Design sustains cognitivedevelopment in the Piagetian sensein the concrete/iconic modes ofcognition.

3. Design offers opportunities fordevelopment of a wide range ofabilities in non-verbal thought andcommunication.72

Schools swept aside this and othertheoretical considerations as themomentum for design educationgathered pace.

Design Council supportThree reports from the Design Councilsupported the movement for designeducation. Engineering DesignEducation (1976) and Industrial DesignEducation (1977) were concerned withpost-school professional designeducation, while Design Education at

Secondary Level, claimed that 'designshould be an essential part of theeducation of all children at all stages ofsecondary education up to the age of16,.73Ideally this third report preferredthe establishment of new departments'dedicated specifically to the ideals ofdesign education', but accepted as analternative 'to enlarge the design areathrough subjects such as art, homeeconomics and CDT'. Professor DavidKeith-Lucas's working party concludedby making wide-rangingrecommendations, suggesting that theirimplementation:

A national body should be set up tobring together the many interests indesign education and itsapplication to life and work; and tocoordinate the work that will benecessary for the effectivefurtherance of design education.The Design Council is probably themost appropriate organisation toprovide the machinery for settingup and servicing this nationalbody.74

That was in 1980. Things lookedpromising and by April 1982 the designpromotion lobbyists had a seminar ondesign at 10Downing Street. TheDesigner (the journal of the society ofIndustrial Artists and Designers)commented

the occasion ... will mark aturning point in the modern historyof design in this country. We havedevoted the whole of it TheDesigner to a discussion of theimportant initiative taken by MrsThatcher in identifying design asone of the crucial areas ofdevelopment in the regeneration ofour industrial life, and instigatingan enquiry into the steps that needto be taken. 75

Mrs Thatcher's interest in design,nurtured by Lord Reilly, formerchairman of the Design Council wasagain evident in two BBC programmesin June, 1985, where she describedherself a 'design addict'. Furtherprogrammes featuring design havefollowed.

Influences both inside and outside theschools kept design education schemesin middle and secondary schoolsexpanding throughout the seventies.Design faculties became the flavor ofthe decade; often, alas, a bland menu of

woodwork, metalwork, art and homeeconomics. Design educationists likeJohn Hanrahan tried to show what thehaute cuisine end of the marke could dowith the same ingredients. 76The recipewas capable of being adapted,depending whether the background ofthe chef from a CDT background -most common - or from art or evenhome economics. The last two offered afew opportunities for the promotion ofwomen. No examples were found ofscience departments being integratedwithin a design faculty structure with ascientist as a head of faculty.

Tensions within design educationThe wisdom began to be questionned oflumring subjects and departmentstogether without appropriate bonds ofunderstanding. From within CDTFrancis Zanker bewailed the absence ofa specific body of knowledge that couldbe identified with design education.77He rejected the idea that designeducation had a 'self proclaimed right'to subsume all matters of anenvironmental nature. From outsideCDT circles, Colin Tipping ofMiddlesex Polytechnic attackedeverything and everybody that moved,especially if they had college oreducation blood in their veins. 78Hisscepticism that design educationobjectives stood little chance of beingfulfilled with the existing compositionof the teaching force was well founded.But his radical remedies howeverdesirable would have left designeducation in even worse disarray. PhilRoberts of the Design Education Unit atthe Royal College of Art, in a critique ofthe Design Council's Design Educationat Secondary Level criticised therelationship between CDT and itspartners in design education, disputingCDT's assumption to the seniorposition, which the Keith-Lucas reportappeared to support. 79The bias detectedby Roberts was unsurprising in view ofthe number of CDT experts on thecommittee. Roberts concluded that theidentification of design with CDT hadto be regarded as tendentious. RobertClement concurred with efforts beingmade to bring different disciplinestogether but emphasized that the newly-formed departments lacked thehomogeneity of traditional subject

groupings as in the humanities, thesciences and languages:

There has perhaps been too muchemphasis with the DesignEducation movement ... upon theestablishment of a design rationaleor process to which constituentsubjects should conform, ratherthan seek for ways to rationaliseand balance the different contextswithin which the teaching of craftmay take place.8o

All this internecine fightingexasperated Ken Baynes, one of thefounding fathers of design education.He lamented

I want to look towards social andcultural aspects of design educationand away from the debate about thecontent of the curriculum. I amdisenchanted with it. It seems to methat it has rapidly become sterile.The irony is that an enterpriseoriginally undertaken to bringtogether a variety of subjects hasonly resulted in even greaterfragmentation. Like it or not,justified or not, the label 'designeducation' has become stronglyidentified with a particular way ofgrouping school subjects and thereform of content in teaching ofwoodwork and metalwork. Beyondthat, progress is hopelesslyembroiled in considerations ofprofessional pride and the defenceof established subject boundaries.The birth of a 'third area in thecurriculum' looks in danger ofbeing aborted because the midwiveshave resorted to punching oneanother on the nose. 81

It is ironic that the publication ofDesign Education at Secondary Level,instead of launching a concerted drivefor the wider dissemination of designeducation in the nation's schools,marked it high water mark. ProfessorBruce Archer, who works so tirelessly atthe Royal College of Art, for the 'thirdarea' of the curriculum, was forced intoearly retirement and his Design ResearchDepartment lost its individual identity.It is too early to write an obituary fordesign education. However, JohnPilkington, who recently did a one yearretraining course in CDT teaching,spoke for many of his colleagues in a sadepitaph in the TES:

'Coming from Goldsmiths' whichcould be said to be the originalhome of the design-basedapproach, I had not realised that analternative approach even existed.The most damning sentence I heardwas from an ex-Goldsmiths'graduate who said: "come fromGoldsmiths' do you? Well, thatapproach went out 15 years ago" '.

Can the contributions of Goldsmiths'to CDT teaching in the 60s and 70s be sodismissed. Regrettably there areindications that design education's hey-day, ifnot past, is on the wane.

Educational links between design andcraftmanshipThis is not the place to assess theachievements and weaknesses of designeducation overall but its influence onCDT has been considerable. Within thesubject many were never more than luke-warm supporters ofa well-roundeddesign education approach and opposedthe CDT circus. Not for them thedesperate effort to encapsulate all theworld's problems - be theyenvironmental, conservational orpratical- at the expense of what mostregarded as the kernel of their teaching:the end product. These CDT teachersappeared to be wedded to the idea ofmaking, a rite performed in theworkshops that smpassed all otheractivities. Design for them was quitespecific: product design.

This presented difficulties. Accordingto David Pye those with a craft traininghad the impression - he regarded it asan 'illusion' that 'every craftsman is aborn designer,83 Professor Pye believedthat whilst 'there are no born designers',it was possible to acquire the attributesof a designer slowly by much practice.Without wishing to argue for or againstPye's precept, it was one that many CDTteachers shared. Most are pragmatists atheart and aware of their strengths andlimitations: craftsmanship on the creditside, design on the debit. They could seethat when it came to designing - oftenequated with the presentation of ideason paper - they often trailed behindtheir art colleagues. When it came toskill, that was different. Unfortunately,however, there were subversives in theirown ranks. Because it was difficult toevaluate precisely the educational values

stimulated and sustained by practicalwork - judgements being so subjective- critics tended to deny whatever couldnot be proved Craftwork was disparagedas 'mere skill learning', consequentlyeven those values inherent in 'mere skill'became discounted. This never happensto musicians. To raise this issue today isto risk being accused of educationalludditism. Too much was at stake todispose of valued making activities foreducationally seductive but unprovenalternatives; essentially the view takenby HM Inspectorate in Craft Design and1echnology in Schools. 84Theirexamples of good design practice wererestricted to linking designing with themaking of an artefact, albeit by a varietyof ways and means.

In the rush to devalue craftmanship,the opportunity to capitalize on theeducational advantages (previouslyrecognised) of physically makingsomething, were deliberatelyoverlooked. A clearer distinction shouldhave been made in school designbetween 'real' and 'abstract' design; theformer suggests direct contact withthings that could be made and the latterwith the idea of things only. As AvigdorCannon, the scourge of woolly CDTthinkers used to tell his students:

Since design implies a projectedchange of some sort, it would beseen wise for the pupil to deal withchange in circumstances andsituations of which he can claimknowledge. All those changes inform, structure, articulation etc.,which comprise a proposed designare made in response to the variouscontrols of function, materialsbehaviour, fashioning appearanceetc. Without an understanding ofthese factors, the rationality ofdesign is lost and it becomes a seriesof happy accidents. Is itworthwhile, for instance, to setpupils to work on a motorwayflyover, even with the preliminarystudy of traffic statistics? Theknowledge of concrete structures,road form and so on are not likelyto be available and the designproduced under these conditions istherefore more akin to sculpturethan to function. This may be anextreme case but it does go someway to point the weakness ofabstract design.

Designing should be seen as aheuristic activity. It calls for a variety ofskills - motor skills, communicationskills, evaluation skills among them. Ata fundamental level it has to do withthought and feeling. It involves bothlinear (logical) and lateral (creative)thinking. Design education has assistedCDT in making these more explicit. Thenineteenth century women pioneerswould sympathise with designeducationists who feel they have beenstripped of their ideas by the CDT lobby,and deserted. Latterly officialencouragement has helped CDT toacquire educational respectability. Thiscould prove superficial and short-lived.As Anita and Nigel Cross warned, theeducational underpinning forestablishing design the (same could besaid for CDT) as a third area of thecurriculum, on the same footing asother subjects, has barely begun.

The drive towards technologyDespite the excellence of much ofProject Technology's teaching materialfor CDT, many claim that it was in onlya tiny minority of schools. Yet, of CDTsthree components, technology has theappropriate depth of subject knowledgepotentially to wrench CDT from itsnineteenth century origins and make itmeaningful study for today's pupils,especially the academically more able.Its chances are not helped by thetensions between the scientists and someCDT factions.

Within CDT, there were identifiablegrowth points for technology teaching.The staff of the National Centre forSchool Technology at Trent Polytechnic,first under Professor Geoffrey Harrisonand latterly, Geoffrey Shillitoe,struggled to get their message across to awider cross-section. of schools. InBedfordshire, Ron Denny's technologybus brought technology to under-funded and under-staffed schools whichindividually could not afford it. Dr RayPage and John Peele, at the AvonScience and Technology Centre,developed with west country teachers amodular course in Technology thentaken up by the School TechnologyForum's Working Party on Curriculumand Examinations.85 Following advicefrom the Schools Council's CASTCommittee, the initiative was extendedto incorporate Hertfordshire and West

London authorities where teachers werepursuing similar curriculum objectives.

Elsewhere other enterprisingdevelopments could be cited but,overall, progress was quiet rather thanspectacular. During the years 1975-78HM Inspectors surveyed a record 384secondary schools in England, andfound that workshop activities thoughlisted in the index under CDT, weregenerally referred to throughout the textas 'craft' or more occasionally, as simplywoodwork and metalwork.86 Theinspectors observed that most craftdepartments worked in isolation. Amere seven per cent of schools with GCEcandidates made any effort to establishlinks between mathematics and CDT -an essential prerequisite, one would havethought, for the development oftechnology teaching.87 And only threeper cent of science departments madesubstantial use of Project Technologymaterial. Eighty-six per cent regarded itas of 'little or no use'.88Craft continuedto be identified with the less able pupil,academic high-flyers dropping it afterthe first two or three years.

At the same time as this HM survey,the department published CurriculumlJ-16. 89Intended to stimulateprofessional discussion, in CDT circles itwas greeted with mute, deferentialrespect - the new commandment,complete with explanatory text, receivedunquestioning obedience. Theseparation of technology from CDTpassed almost unchallenged. TheSCSST welcomed the report, obviouslyregarding technology as within its ownprovince. Similarly the Art Inspectors'submission which incidentallysandwiched CDT between art andtechnology delineated areas of overlap,devoting one section to the relationshipbetween art and 'making' and'inventing' activities. Design, in thedesign education sense, did not featureanywhere. Design in any capacity hardlyfared better. It appeared CDT hadapparently been subsumed within the'aesthetic and creative' areas ofexperience if one is to judge from theadvice on constructing a commoncurriculum. Bob Doe in The TimesEducational Supplement criticised thedocument as 'Vague, inconsistent,platitudious ... of little help,.91At leasthis article contained some comfort forCDT in the photograph of a youngster

with the steam engine he had conceivedand made from scratch. The boy'steacher saw this as epitomising 'the sortof confidence boosting work that can beachieved in years four and five if there isno rigid insistence on a common core'.

Not surprisingly, when the DESpublished A Frameworkfor the SchoolCurriculum CDT failed to make the bigtime. It was not included in the proposedcore curriculum, which consisted ofEnglish, mathematics, science, a foreignlanguage, religious and physicaleducation. However, in connection withpreparation for adult and working life,the inspectors embraced everyone in thefield:

Schools contribute to thepreparation of young people for allaspects of adult life. This requiresmany additions to the core subjectsin areas such as craft, design andtechnology; the arts, includingmusic and drama, history andgeography ... moral education,health education ... 92

The reasons for CDT's exclusion fromthe core curriculum are not difficult todiscover. Comprehensive schools,though vastly better equipped thanthose they replaced, usually continuedto sustain within their structures thesame stratifications of ability ranges.CDT foundation courses behind them,curriculum pressures deterredacademically able children fromcontinuing with practical subjects. Thecurrency value of CDT examinationsremained low. Within the innersanctums of CDT, more time and energywas devoted more to the impact ofmetrication, the implications of theHealth and Safety at Work Act and thechronic teacher shortage than tocurriculum development issues. Aboveall the majority of CDT teachers hadneither the enthusiasm nor the expertiseto teach technology, thus effectivelylimiting its development.

Reinforcement of education - emlinksAll this was to change in the aftermathof Prime Minister James Callaghan's1976 Ruskin College speech. Was thisthe first step of an increasinglyinterventionalist and centralist DES orthe gut reaction of a socialist primeminister that schools were failingchildren and the nation. Upon resigning

from Parliament he declared the turn-around in our education system to beone of his proudest achievements.

CDT was at centre stage in the 1976'Green Paper' which recommended that:

More attention should be given ininitial teacher training to thenational importance of industryand commerce, to helping them (theprospective teachers) in theirresponsibility for conveying this totheir pupils. 93

Sir James Hamilton, DES PermanentSecretary stressed the necessity of closereducation-industry links in his speeches.Addressing the SCSST in April 1979, heprofessed still to favour the idea of aprotected core curriculum but it did notinclude CDT. Sir James was speakingabout the relationship betweenmanpower planning and education.94He agreed that forecasting had 'not beengood' in the past, but said that theatmosphere 'is now better than it hasever been for moving ahead on thisfront'. Dr A.J. Pope, then ViceChancellor of Aston University in a talkto the School Technology Forum,95 saidhe was amazed that more youngsterswere not queueing up to studyengineering, seeing that 'the whole ofthe toy industry is biased towardsengineering and technology'. Thequestion, according to Dr Pope was not'how do we turn on more able youngpeople to science and technology?' butrather 'what is there in the educationalsystem that turns them off?'

When Sir James returned to addressthe Standing Conference on'Perspectives and Priorities,96 MargaretThatcher had become Prime Minister.Education-industry links continued tobe given high priority, reinforced inHMSO publications. Speaking of TheSchool Curriculum, Sir James wascritical of the 'tortuous discussions' thatpreceded attempts to reform thecurriculum, but which it seemedimpossible to circumvent.

Though he was encouraged to hearthat:

from all the evidence, the businessof links between schools andindustry is booming and willcontinue to boom',

Sir James expressed a 'very personalview' that he did not believe

that we have in the schoolcurriculum moved as far and as fast

as we could towards what I mightcall a pre-vocational approach tothe educational of 14-16 year olds.Now let me make it clear that whenI talk about pre-vocationaleducation I am now asking for asystem that produces ready-madefitters or welders at 16. That waylies disillusionment of a very highorder. Nor am I talking about theprocess of putting those people whohave been turned off byconventional approaches toeducation, on to tinkering withaged motor cars just to keep themout of mischief. What I have inmind is an approach that, withoutyielding an inch on rigour,recognizes the need for some youngpeople to learn from doing, throughpractice, through action, ratherthan by more the conventionalacademic canons which haddominated school education for solong.97

The dust-gathering Crowther Reporthad not been entirely forgotten.

Sir Alex Smith, then Director ofManchester Polytechnic, did not mincehis words at the 1980 Stanley Lecture atthe Royal Society of Arts:

We are at a crisis now in our history.I call it a crisis, but even that is toobland a word to describe ourcondition. A crisis has about it thenature of an emergency which canbe corrected by emergencymeasures. What we are experiencingis properly called a climacteric, aprolonged period of steady declinewhich needs much more profoundmeasures to correct it. It is a lesscommon word, however, and so Iwill continue to call ourpredicament a crisis. The crisis isone of our capacity, our ability toearn a living amongst thecommunity of nations.98

On another occasion, Sir Alexcriticised the Finniston Report for notaffecting change in the schoolcurriculum, recommending that:

Every child in every school, everyyear, should be required to designsomething and make it ...Education through designing andmaking is a basic need, even if ourindustries were blazingly successful,which they are manifestly not. 99

Mrs Thatcher became an effectiveproselytizer for design. She presentedthe prizes to the winners of the DesignCouncil's annual Schools DesignCompeition, so drawing the attention ofthe national media. The annual designcompetition cannot, however, be seen asa reliable measure of the health ofdesign activities in the nation's schools.At the time entries ranged between200-300. Fewer still entered for theYoung Engineer for Britain competition- from over 5000 schools. Latterly thenumber of entries for the designcompetition has risen, especially fromart departments.

Newspapers - popular and qualitynow regularly carried articles oneducation - industry links. The Times,for example, reported the visit of sixteensenior industrialists to King Edward VIComprehensive School inNorthumberland, 100 and their view thatchildren should 'have a broad educationand be able to analyse problems andexpress themselves'.

Under the aegis of the SCSST SirDenis Rooke, Chairman of British Gas,gave a lecture on the topic of 'Educationand national economic effectiveness', IOJ

in which he challenged how effectivelyeducation could respond to industry'sneeds:

Education is certainly changingnow in response to externalpressures, but will it ever be able tochange fast enough to reflect thevocational needs of each cohort offuture students? Would attempts atearly specialization be any moresuccessful in matching the outputof our schools and universities withneeds in the future than it has beenin the past? I believe that the answerto these questions is 'EmphaticallyNo!' And yet clearly we have toimprove the system.

Certain solutions he considered wellintentioned but somewhat simplistic. Hesingled out TVEI

The controversial Technical andVocational Initiative is a braveexperiment introducing avocational element into educationat an early age as low as 14. It isintended that this should improve'relevant and transferable skills';and be about helping students'learn to learn!' But at this age whomakes the selection? While

endorsing what I understand to bemany of the principles involved, yetI would urge caution. Can we besure that youngsters specialising ina technical and vocational courseare those who might ultimately bethe most suitable for craft, ortechnical training? Moreimportantly, will it provide a sourceof future innovators, as distinctfrom technicians? While the firstindustrial revolution was led by menof practical skill, the foundation ofknowledge and experience requiredfor innovation today is now bothconsiderably higher and broader.

Vocational initiativesFew in the CDT fraternity have any suchreservations, yet it is not impossible thatthis road could take the subject rightback to where it started a century ago.The purpose behind TVEI is essentiallyto provide industry with skilled workers,as they understand 'skills'. White coatsmay have replaced the dungarees of thenineteenth century, but the destinationis the same and again the edges betweeneducation and training are beingblurred. Lord Young in the Timesdismissed the division between the twoas 'sterile', arguing that he trained as anaccountant, as do some architects,surgeons and so forth. 102 But to equatethe training of professional people intheir twenties with youngsters in theirformative years is hardly to compare likewith like. Moreover, as John Mann,former chairman of the Schools Councilpointed out in the Joseph PayneMemorial lecture:

Vocationalism may be anappropriate response to animmediate crisis but as DonaldSchon observed, 'A man whodefines himself as a chemicalengineer, a shoemaker or aspecialist in internal medicines,runs in increasing risk of buildinghis identity on an unstable base'. 103

As already seen, most CDTteachers until recently believedfirmly in teaching their subject foreducational and not vocationalreasons. It is time to reopen theseold Victorian files and refreshmemories. Headmasters whovalued manual instruction at thetime still believed their charges to bebetter served by continuing with a

broad general education that wouldenhance not limit eventual careerchoices.

Secretarial courses for girls are thebest example of vocational training atsecondary level. A high percentage oftheir teachers had commercialexperience incidentally. Taughtcorrectly, secretarial subjects can havemuch educational as well as vocationalvalidity, yet how many academicallyable girls were encouraged to pursuethese courses, courses which led to anemployment stratification from whichfew escaped? Wage rates may have beenrelatively high and working conditionspleasant but too many able womenended up employed in propping up malebosses. The pattern of secretarial wagelevels has implications for the widerintroduction of vocational trainingwithin CDT. When the word processorscame in, women with word processingskills at first commanded high rates. Asthe supply increased, rates fell. Therehas always been an element ofvocational preparation with the CDTand the popular image 0 f wor kshopssubjects always has hazy associationswith industrial employment. Craftteachers, especially those with industrialexperience often ran courses geared toemployment in local industry, helped bythe Associated Examining Board'sEngineering Workshop Theory andPractice examination. Similarly,booming City and Guilds foundationcourses gave some indication of the sizeof the market that could be tapped. 104

The vocational nature of these coursesmost attracted pupils: disenchantedyoungsters were regularly reported to beworking with 'enthusiasm' and'motivation'. Despite this, theseexaminations were cold-shouldered bythe CDT establishment, whose ownefforts to reform practical subjectexaminations took an entirely differentroute. It was feared that earlyspecialization might restrict generaleducation opportunities. Some teacherswere reported to be 'angry' at the Cityand Guilds Institute for actingopportunistically and so threaten thesuccess of some of the more broadlybased GCE and CSE examinations. TheInstitute replied that new vocationalcourses were developed solely inresponse to demands from schools andcolleges.

The Engineering Industry TrainingBoard - a cautionary taleThe pitfalls of gearing school coursestoo closely to the needs of industry areencapsulated in CDT's dealing with theEngineering Industry Training Board'sproposals to reform apprentice training.Its research document School Learningand training was enthusiasticallyreceived in CDT circles. The Boards'findings revealed

... trainees who had taken craftsubjects at school tended toperform better in training thanthose who had not, even though atthe start of training the people whohad taken craft subjects did nobetter in the test of intelligence,arithmetic, spatial ability andplanning skill. This finding accordswith the general opinion ofinstructors, who mostly prefer crafttrainees who have some experienceof craft subjects. The finding thattechnicians who had taken craftsubjects tended to get a betterassessment in their training thanthose who had not was less to beexpected. It does, however,highlight the importance ofexperience of practical subjects forall school pupils, not just thoseregarded as academically 'less able'.It can indeed be argued thatpractical work should be part ofany balanced curriculum 106

Subject specialists preened themselvesupon learning that apprentices with acraft background out-performed thosewho had taken science in respect of'planning skills'. Ironically no onecommented that aprentices in thesample would generally have takentraditional metalwork examinations-precisely the type the CDT hierarchy wasbusily trying to demolish! However, thelove affair between CDT and theEngineering Board grew stronger.

Bench and machine skills, the Boardproposed, should be taught in theschools, not by industry. 106 Its proposalswere hailed as an historic contributionto craft education. The Minister ofEducation, Shirley Williams, greetedthem with enthusiasm, but she and theBoard had miscalculated and the CDTestablishment even more so. Traditionalcraft teachers remained the only loyalsuitors. The relationship faltered andwas replaced by a modular system.

Trainees who had completed anappropriate technical/practical optionat school were to be given specialdispensation that would speed theirbasic training course. 107

Hardly had the print dried on theEngineering Board's modular coursethan apprentice recruitment fell to crisislevels as manufacturing outputcollapsed. One can imagine what wouldhave happened to the 'enthusiasm' and'motivation' of youngsters in the fourthand fifth forms had school courses beenmore closely tied in with industry. In1984 - only three years after theintroduction of the modular course -the Engineering Training Board decidedto change the whole basis of its trainingcourses to meet the new technologicalskills demanded by engineering andelectronic firms. Where it would haveleft schools that had geared themselvesto meet Board requirements? This isprobably not an isolated episode ineducation-industrial cooperation. Asthe pace of technology quickens howcan schools - desperately short of staffand resources - continually adjust tothe changing demands of industry?

References3. Ministry of Education 15-18 (The

Crowther Report), (1959).4. L. Lambourne Utopian Craftsman TheArts and Craft Movementfrom theCotswolds to Chicago (1980), M. CominoGimson arid the Barnsleys (1980).

7. Ministry of Education Metalwork inSecondary Schools (1952). Thirdimpression 1959.

9. S.H. Glenister The Technique ofHandicraft Teaching (1953),88-98.

10. S.H. Glenister Contemporary Design inWoodwork (1955). S.H. Glenister with B.Larkman Contemporary Design inMetalwork (1963).

11. Ministry of Education 15-18 (TheCrowther Report), (1959).

12. Ibid., 392.13. National Centre for School Technology,

W.S. Brace 'Profile: Edward Semper'School Technology (6th March 1973),7;Schools Council Field Report No.3 (1965).

14. 'Doncaster Technical High School- APictorial Survey' (May 1959), 23-25.

15. Institute of Mechanical Engineers, G.T.Page Engineering Among the Schools(The Page Report), (1969).

16. Ibid., 161.17. G. Sommerhoff Creative Technology at

Sevenoaks School (1979).18. G.M. McCulloch, E. Jenkins and D.

Layton Technological Revolution? ThePolitics of School Science and Technologyin England and Walessince 1945. Studiesin Curriculum History 2 (1985), 128.

19. G. Sommerhoff 'The Technical ActivitiesCentre' in L.C. Taylor (Ed.) Experiments inEducation at Sevenoaks (1965), 57-72.

20. G. McCulloch, E. Jenkins and D. LaytonTechnological Revolution? (1985), 128. Seealso Schools Council Project Technology,G.T. Sneed 'Applied Science at Baling'Bulletin 4 (July 1968), 74.

21. G. McCulloch, E. Jenkins and D. LaytonTechnological Revolution? (1985),151.

22. Ibid.23. Ibid., 131.24. Schools Council, D.I.R. Porter A School

Approach to Technology (1967).25. G.M. McCulloch, E. Jenkins and D.

Layton Technological Revolution? (1985),132.

26. Schools Council Technology and theSchools Project Technology Pilot StudyReport (November 1967), 6.

27. G.B. Harrison, letter to The TimesEducational Supplement (21 May 1965).

28. H.M. Pemberton to Sir CyrilHinshelwood, (16 March 1967)(Hartleypapers Box 229) in G. McCulloch, E.Jenkins and D. Layton TechnologicalRevolution? (1985),153.

29. Ibid., 159-160.30. Ibid., 171. Professor K. Keohane to Lord

Jackson (31 January 1968) (Jacksonpapers, file FH7).

31. Ibid., 171. DW. Harlow to Sir H. Hartley(29 January 1968) (Jackson papers, fileFAI2).

32. Ibid., 180. G. Cockerill to Sir F. Mason (15October 1971) 180 (SCSST papers). Seealso Schools Council Project TechnologyThe Next Two Years 1970-1972 (1970).

33. Schools Council Research Studies, D.Tawney 'Project Technology' Evaluation inCurriculum Development: Twelve CaseStudies (1973) 159-176. See also SchoolsCouncil Project Technology 'TheEvaluation of Project Technology'Bulletin 12 (January 1970), 6.

34. Ministry of Education Half Our Future(1963) (The Newsom Report).

35. Ibid., 33.36. Ibid., 130.37. Schools Council Research and

Development Project in Handicraft Survey3 (December 1969), 3.

38. Schools Council Art and Craft Education8-13. See report Children's Growththrough Creative Experience Art andCraft Education 8-13 (1974).

39. Schools Council Working Paper 26Education through the use of materials:the possible role of school workshops inthe education of secondary-school pupils(1969).

40. Ibid., 37.41. P. Garner Contemporary Decorative Arts

1940to the Present Day (1980),23.42. M. Tyson 'Creativity' in B.M. Foss New

Horizons in Psychology (1966),167-182.43. L. Hudson Contrary Imaginations (1966).44. Council of Industrial Design 'A combined

approach to design education in schools'Design (August 1966).

45. Ibid., K. &. K. Baynes 'Classroomconsumers/the moulding of a designpublic' (January 1967), 15. 'Teaching the

teachers/educating for an industrialsociety' (March 1967).

46. National UJ;lion of Teachers Design inEducation Conference Report (19February 1969).

47. Ibid., 5.48. M. de Sausmarez Basic Design: the

dynamics of visualform (1964).49. K. Rowland The Development of Shape

(1963);Pattern and Shape (1964).50. J.G. Gosling 'Design Text Books' Practical

Education 68 (October 1970),24.51. F. Zanker Design and Craft Education

(1971).52. Royal Academy of Arts Bauhaus (1968).53. D. Pye The Nature of Design (1964), 65.54. K. Baynes (Ed.) Attitudes to Design

Education (1969).55. P. Green Design Education (1974).56. B. Aylward (Ed.) Design Education in

Schools (1973).57. Studies in Design Educatio.'l and Craft 6

(Spring 1974), 3.58. Schools Council Materials and Design: A

FreshApproach (1974). Designfor Today(1974). You are aDesigner (1974).Education Through Design and Craft(1975).

59. S.J. Eggleston, 'The Transformation inDesign Education: an analysis of the KeeleProject' Studies in Design Education andCraft 7 (Spring 1975),49.

60. S.J. Eggleston Developments in DesignEducation (1976).

61. Association of Advisers in Design andTechnical Studies Craft Education (1972).

62. Association of Advisers in Design andTechnical Studies Design in CraftEducation (1974).

63. Association of Art Advisers, TheEstablishment of Design Departments inSchools Statement (June 1973).

64. Royal College of Art, 'The Three R's'Design in General Education (1979), 14.

65. Ibid., 31.66. Inner London Education Authority, R.T.

Noot, 'Innovation in Craft Education'Craft and Technical Studies Journal(Summer 1973), 1.

67. Royal College of Art Summer SchoolReport(l976),19.

68. Open University, A. Cross Design inGeneral Education - a comparativeintroductory review (November 1978).

69. Ibid., 4.70. Ibid., 4.71. Open University, N. Cross 'Designerly

Ways of Knowing' Design EducationResearch Note (1982).

72. Ibid., 17.73. Design Council Design Education at

Secondary Level (1978), 5.74. Ibid., 19.75. Society of Industrial Artists and Designers

Designer (April 1982).76. J. Hanrahan Design in General Education

(1978).77. F. Zanker, 'Design Education - A Change

in Name Only?' Studies in DesignEducation and Craft 8 (Winter 1975/6),27.

78. C.C. Tipping 'The Design EducationMyth'Ibid., 12 (Autumn 1979), Ill.

79. National Association for DesignEducation, P. Roberts, 'A contribution tothe development of design curriculumstudies:. a critique of the Design Council'sReport, Design Education at SecondaryLevel' NADE Journal (Spring 1981).

80. R. Clement, 'Developing Craft Activitiesin Schools' Journal of Art and DesignEducation 3 (November 1984),291.

81. K. Baynes, 'Beyond Design Education'Journal of Art and Design Education 1(November 1982), 106.

82. J. Pilkington, 'Retraining ... one year on'The Times Educational Supplement (18October 1985),41.

83. D. Pye TheNatureandArtofWorkmanship (1968), 64.

84. DES Craft, Design and Technology inSchools - some successful examples(1980),30.

85. R. Page, 'A Modular 0 LevellCSE Coursein Technology' Studies in DesignEducation Craft and Technology 10(Spring 1978), 91.

86. Department of Education and ScienceAspects of secondary education inEngland (1979).

87. Ibid., 148.88. Ibid., 205.89. Department of Education and Science

Curriculum 11-16 Working papers by H.M.Inspectorate: a contribution to the currentdebate (1977).

90. SCSST 'A Frameworkfor the SchoolCurriculum' Response by SCSST(1977).

91. The Times Educational ~upplement (23June 1978), 6.

92. DES A Frameworkfor the SchoolCurriculum (1980).

93. DES Education in Schools: AConsultative Document (1977).

94. sccsr, J. Hamilton, 'Trends in Educationfor an 1ndustrialised Society' KeynoteAddress Ninth annual meeting of theStanding Conference on Schools' Scienceand Technology (23 April 1979).

95. SCSST, J.A. Pope, 'Technical manpowerneeds of industry', ConferenceTechnology: A Curricular DilemmaSchool Technology Forum Working PaperNo.4 (17 March 1979), 11.

96. Standing Conference on Schools' Scienceand Technology Conference 'TheContribution of Education to EconomicRecovery'. J. Hamilton Perspectives andpriorities (18 November 1981).

97. Ibid.,8.98. A. Smith, 'A Coherent Set of Decisions'

The Stanley Lecture (22 October 1980).99. A. Smith, 'Uprooting the dead ideas' The

Times Educational Supplement (11 April1980),4.

100. 'Top businessmen tell teachers what:ndustry wants' The Times (10 November1983),3.

101. British Gas, D. Rooke, 'EducationInvestment in Human Assets' TheStanding Conference on School Scienceand Technology Annual Lecturefor 1984(1984).

102. 'Maths + Metalwork = Motivation' TheTimes (4 December 1985).

103. Education (I November 1985), 385. The

Times Educational Supplement (8November 1985), 10.

104. 'Booming C & G courses alarm the examboards' 'Foundations for a life?' TheTimes Educational Supplement (13October 1978),5; (24 November 1978), 12.

105. Engineering Industry Training BoardSchool Learning and Training (1977), 9-10.

106. E1TB Review of craft apprenticeship inengineering (1978).

107. E1TB The Training of EngineeringCraftsmen (1981).