But anyone keeping tabs on the state of the subject already knew the most worrisome part – this drop was not the start of a new trend, but rather the continuation of one.
Historically, GCSE DT has been in a nonstop spiral of decline since 2000, when it stopped being compulsory – and quickly went from being the most popular optional subject to one of the least.
The EBacc undoubtedly plays a significant part in the devaluation of art and design sub-jects across the board. It’s not unintentional – the EBacc, after all, was introduced to favour traditional subjects the government deems to carry “real weight” (as it were) with regards to entry to higher education and/or getting a job. A DfE report for the 2012-13 academic year found that the EBacc (which the government began introducing in 2010) had already had a measurable impact on school curriculums; 14% of schools had withdrawn DT as an option.
Regardless of whether the EBacc will be an effective measure: in the case where DT has been negatively impacted, is this unfavourable bias actually misplaced? The aim, after all, is that the focus on traditional core subjects should help students with their careers or entry to university – and this is something a student doesn’t get from a “vocational” subject like DT, right? Wrong.
Last year, 85% of design graduates had taken DT at GCSE. Furthermore, the Royal Academy of Engineers and the Design Council both consider DT to be critical in their industries. The Design Council additionally notes the poor timing of the decline, as the design sector is currently growing at a historic rate – indicating, perhaps, that we should soon expect a short- age of workers with design skills in the UK.
It’s become clear that if we want to give students the support they need for creative subjects like DT, solutions outside of the restrictive EBacc must be found.