Evans, Maldwyn

Thatcher, Margaret

English

Loughborough University Library: Open Journals

Orange Hill Junior and High Schools30th January, 1981Dear Prime Minister,You recently met one of our pupils, HowardCalvert, who had designed a Portable Gymnasium.It may be of further interest to you that Howardis, in fact, our third Design Council SchoolsCompetition Prizewinner, and that the projectsconcerned all stem from a course at this schoolthat leads to an Oxford 'A' level qualificationin design.In 1977 the prize was won by another 6th formpupil, Graham Smith, with his project 'A ConceptualStudy of Safety in Childrens' Playgrounds', featuredat the time in the 'Tomorrow's World' programme.In 1978 the prize went to a girl pupil of ours,Wendy Allen, who was concerned initially withthe design of teaching schemes and visual aidsfor music in schools. Her considerations led herto design a 'Calculator for Music Notation'; thislater developed into an electronic Sound Visualiserwhich featured in Young Scientists of the Year1979 and still later into a computer-linked'Programmed Learning Aid for Music' - in this formthe project was one of five from the school to reachthe National Finals of the Young Engineer forBritain Competition in 1979, and was placed thirdin the senior section in competition with industrialundergraduates from Rolls-Royce and the DarlingtonCollege of Technology, we were, therefore, the onlyschool to be placed in this section; - another girlfrom the school was awarded the prize for the bestproject overall by a girl in the competition.These achievements and others including a secondappearance in Young Scientists of the Year in 1980(by another team from the school studying 'Humangait in post-operative situations' for which theywere awarded £ 100 and a gold medal by ProfessorFinklestein of the Institute of Measurement andControl) are the results of a course in Design andTechnology which pupils follow from the first year,and which some (boys and girls) continue until theirseventh year. Wendy, whom I mentioned earlier, isnow at University where she is studying Psychology(a course having a very strong design element) andis soon to have books (again stemming from hermajor project) published in a number of countriesby the Cambridge University Press; - a Midlandsfirm is considering the manufacture of hercalculator.I mention these achievements to stress theimportance and future potential of this subjectin all our schools Nationally both Primary andSecondary.However, there are certain difficulties thatprevent rapid expansion of the subject in ourschools, not the least of these being the failure ofUniversities generally to include Design andTechnology 'A' levels on their 'good additional'A' level lists'. It is the experience of pupils thatwe send to University interviews, that in manyinstances they find their interviewers uninformedof the existence of these 'A' levels, let alone ableRecognising:!A' levels inDesign andTechnology:A Correspon-denceto appreciate their significance - they are, however,often surprised at the standard of pupils' 'A' levelproject reports!Many professors have rejected the subject asone of a matriculation grouping, on the groundsthat the academic content of the course cannot beaccurately measured as can subjects like physics andmathematics. To an extent, I can see their point,but tend to think that Universities should at leastbe prepared to accept Design and Technology aspossible additional qualifications, to be assessed onindividual merit and with particular attention tomajor 'A' level design projects.Having said this, some Universities are apparentlyaware of the potential of students undertakingadvanced level project work in design and technologyin schools, despite deficiencies in matriculationgroupings -- for example, Wendy was interviewedat Oxford from their interest in her design project,rather than in her grouping of 'A' level subjects,Psychology, Music and Design; she was told in factat interview that the standard of her work on theproject approximated to that they would expectfrom their second year undergraduates!Until this 'acceptability' problem is solved ona National scale, departments like mine willcontinually lose potentially excellent pupils, as theywill naturally opt for those subejcts clearly listedby our Universities as acceptable for entry.While I would not argue the case unduly forgeneral comparability within the traditionalmatriculation grouping, I would voice an opinionmost strongly that the subject should, at the veryleast, be clearly stated by Universities as a goodadditional or even preferred additional subject.Investment is needed in this important area ofCraft, Design & Technology. As we have investedin the encouragement and development of thesciences, let us now invest in this comparativelynew area of education where the sciences arebeing inventively and creatively applied.Yours sincerely,Maldwyn EvansHead of Design and Technical Studies10 Downing Street16th March, 1981Dear Mr. Evans,Thank you for your letter of 30th January aboutthe work of the Design and Technical StudiesDepartment at Orange Hill School. I was mostimpressed by the achievements of the young peopleyou mention; both they, and you and your staff,deserve much credit.I was less happy to hear of the problemsencountered by those of your pupils who offer'A' levels in Design and Technology for Universityadmission. I find your account of their difficultiesparticularly disquieting since I know that ableyoungsters are increasingly attracted by the challengeof studies in this field and by their relevance tothe 'new technologies' on which our industrialregeneration must be based. I do not think thereis any quick or easy answer to the problem.Universities are, of course, autonomous by virtueof their Royal Charters and there is no way in whichlor my colleagues can intervene in their affairs; thequestion of admission procedures is a particularlysensitive area and one moreover, in which individualuniversities and colleges enjoy absolute discretion.I think you will know that the Standing Conferenceon Universities Entrance recommended that design-based 'A' levels should be given full recognition interms of university entrance requirements; butultimately decisions about the admission ofindividual candidates rest with the institutionsthemselves. It is probably true that some admissiontutors continue to attach undue weight to traditionalacademic disciplines and are reluctant to givesufficient credit to the very demanding project workwhich forms part of the syllabus for advance leveldesign and technology; nevertheless, there are signsof fresh thinking within the university sector andI am told that available evidence suggests thatable students are not now generally handicappedby offering a design-based 'A' level - as one ofthree - when applying for a University place.National and regional design competitions foryoung people (for example, the Department ofindustry's 'Young Engineer for Britain' competition,and that for the Design Council's 'School DesignPrize') have done much to secure wider recognitionof the importance of craft, design and technologystudies in schools; and I understand that the SchoolsCouncil have recently set up a small working partyto examine the present range of 'A' levels and topropose criteria on which they might be judged.For the Government's part, we fully recognise theimportant role of craft, design and technology, botas part of the preparation of pupils for working lifeand for its wider educational value.I very much hope that these and other initiative:will lead to a more general recognition, at all levelsof education, of the importance of design andtechnology work and go at least some way towardssolving the problem of 'acceptability'. I am verygrateful to you for having brought this issue tomy attention.Yours sincerely,Margaret Thatcher

Recognising: 'A' Levels in Design and Technology: A Correspondence

https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/SDEC/article/view/1023/991

Recognising: 'A' Levels in Design and Technology: A Correspondence

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Library: Open Journals