Three more cheers for Amanda Spielman

  •  I must admit to being an Amanda Spielman fan. Her latest speech delivered 11 October 2018 in no way diminishes my admiration. I downloaded the text as delivered and went through highlighting what I thought were key comments. I was spoiled for choice. Here are a few:
  • Inspection and regulation are essential to well-run public services. But if they are done in the wrong way, they can do more harm than good. That is why the test of being a force for improvement is so important.
  • I want to make sure that at Ofsted, we focus on the ‘how’ and the ‘what’: the essence of what performance tables cannot capture. This will let us reward schools for doing the right thing by their pupils.
  • We want to know what is being taught and how schools are achieving a good education, not just what the results are looking like.
  • The cumulative impact of performance tables and inspections and the consequences that are hung on them has increased the pressure on school leaders, teachers and indirectly on pupils to deliver perfect data above all else.
  • But we know that focusing too narrowly on test and exam results can often leave little time or energy for hard thinking about the curriculum, and in fact can sometimes end up making a casualty of it.
  • focus on performance data is coming at the expense of what is taught in schools.
  • This next one is my favourite – I don’t know a single teacher who went into teaching to get the perfect progress 8 score. They go into it because they love what they teach and want children to love it too. That is where the inspection conversation should start and with the new framework, we have an opportunity to do just that.
  • And it will make it easier for secondary schools to do the right thing, offering children a broad range of subjects and encouraging the take-up of core EBacc subjects such as the humanities and languages at GCSE, alongside the arts and creative subjects.
  • So to conclude: I‘ve used the word ‘conversation’ a number of times in this speech. The nature and impact of the conversations in an inspection are fundamental. As we shape the new framework, with your help, we really are thinking about how each inspection can be the most productive exchange between a school and its inspection team: how we can make it about substance, more than about numbers.

You can read the entire speech here

I think it’s important for inspectors to get an accurate gestalt impression of any school they are visiting. What is it about the way the school does things that impacts on its curriculum offering? Discussing the following questions at the start of the inspection conversation help build up such an impression.

  • How do you use time in different ways in your curriculum?
  • How do you use teams of teachers in developing and teaching your curriculum?
  • How do you acquire and develop resources, both physical and intellectual, that are appropriate for your curriculum
  • How do you develop and sustain relationships that enable your pupils to be successful and enjoy their learning?

There are of course many different and quite appropriate answers to these questions. They are dependent on the vision for the school and its local community. But it is easy for schools to follow well-trodden paths that meet performance criteria without questioning prevailing practice when such practice could be significantly improved by considering such questions. It takes bravery from SLT to buck the ‘it ain’t broke so don’t fix it’ management bias. And it takes inspirational and supportive leadership to enable teachers to take the risks inevitable in curriculum change.

Amanda looked back at the past as this quote shows: From the 1990s through to the mid-noughties, inspections consisted of large teams of inspectors visiting schools for a full week, with a full range of subject expertise, making it possible to review individual subjects in depth. … – I am not standing here thinking that hordes of schools are lining up at our door, demanding the return ofweek-long inspections.

I agree with that last point but I do wonder about what has been lost through the lack of subject-focused inspections. Might it not be possible to have some subject focused inspections by inspectors expert in those subjects? Some subjects are struggling to do well in many schools in terms of uptake at KS4 and performance in comparison with other subjects. D&T is an example. Wouldn’t looking at D&T in a range of schools, some bucking the trend and doing well, others underperforming and some in the middle, provide a picture which all schools could use to improve the learning that goes on in the subject and its status? Such inspections could be framed as research exercises.

And returning to my four ‘gestalt’ questions this time with regard to D&T.

  • Are you able to use time in different ways for D&T? The occasional whole day working on the GCSE contextual challenge would provide interesting opportunities for pupils to engage in depth.
  • To what extent are you able to use a team approach in devising, planning and teaching your D&T curriculum? Do such teams have to be fixed, with set roles or can there be flexibility?
  • The intellectual resource in your department is probably the most valuable and it is locked up in the staff. Their knowledge, skill and understanding is crucial for the curriculum. How do you ensure that this is maintained and enhanced, especially when there is such concern about physical resources?
  • And relationships – how do you ensure that each of the stakeholders (parents, pupils, teachers, TAs, technicians, SLT, governors) has a voice that is listened to, considered, discussed and acted upon?

I’ll finish with a favourite quote from Neil Postman writing in 1996  (The End of Education: Redefining the value of school) that I believe will appeal to Amanda and is in the spirit of the reforms she has spoken about.

[S]omething can be done in school that will alter the lenses through which one sees the world; which is to say, that non-trivial schooling can provide a point of view from which what is can be seen clearly, what was as a living present, and what will be as filled with possibility. . . . What this means is that at its best, schooling can be about how to make a life, which is quite different from making a living. Such an enterprise is not easy to pursue, since politicians rarely speak of it, our technology is indifferent to it, and our commerce despises it. Nevertheless, it is the weightiest and most important thing to write about. (p. x)

As always comments welcome


Designing a D&T Curriculum from a Big Ideas starting point

In my last post I wrote that I would describe how a department might devise a D&T curriculum starting with a knowledge base of Big Ideas. So here goes … The Big Ideas can be summarise by the following diagram.


These are discussed in more detail here but suffice it to say here that any curriculum you devise will need to teach about materials that we use to create artefacts, systems and environments, manufacturing processes by which we can manipulate materials, functionality through which we enable what we design to work effectively, design through which we use our knowledge and understanding of materials, manufacture and functionality to develop outcomes of value and critique through which we interrogate the worth and impact of these outcomes. And this all has to be done with regard to the fundamental nature of the subject. There are lots of other worthwhile endeavours that have similarities to design & technological activity; devising experiments to test hypotheses in science, or composing music, or writing an essay for example. Although these can to some extent be considered ‘designing’ their prime purpose is not to ‘intervene in the made or natural worlds’ which is the hallmark of design & technological activity. So where does one start. One way is to consider the sorts learning activities through which the Big Ideas might be taught that would be appropriate during each term of KS3. In general terms these activities are making without designing, designing without making, designing and making and considering the consequences of technology. It is likely that your department will have some of these activities already in place and that their sequence defines to some extent the progression in the curriculum. So the next step is to audit these activities with regard to the extent they teach the Big Ideas. It is almost certain that you will find gaps. These can be remedied in three ways. First devising improvements to existing activities. Second removing activities that do not provide sufficient learning opportunities. Third developing new activities. This process is of course iterative. The department will discuss both the sequence of the activities and the nature of each activity making changes to both until a sequence emerges that has the potential to teach across the range of Big Idea during KS3 in preparation for KS4. It is unlikely that you will get this ‘right’ at the first attempt and as with all design tasks there will be several acceptable solutions. As an end result you will want a curriculum that maximises the breadth, depth and progression of the learning and reflects the nature of design & technology.

Here is what a year 7 curriculum might look like. It will almost certainly not be right for your department or your students but it does show the sort of curriculum that the thinking outlined above can produce

Term 1

Making without designing: construct, fly & investigate a kite

Making with some designing: exploring the use of low relief vacuum forming

Together these require learning about the following Big Ideas: materials, manufacture, and functionality (in terms of structure)

Term 2

Designing without making including considering the consequences of technology using a new & emerging technology, possibly QTC

Designing and making concerning containing  Design and make a container that can be formed from one or two nets and will hold one or two favourite small items safely and that, from its appearance, reflects the importance and nature of the contents.

Note the DMA will contain small tasks to provide learning likely to be useful for the ‘big’ task plus considering consequences case studies

Together these require learning about the following Big Ideas: materials, manufacture, functionality (in terms of structure), design and critique

Term 3

Designing and making concerning moving toys Design and make a moving toy that is powered by a small electric motor, taking into account the user of the toy and design a toy that a) moves in a way that will appeal to the user, b) has an appearance which pleases the user, c) can incorporate a range of special effects e.g. light and sound, that will give the toy more play value for the user.

Note the DMA will contain small tasks to provide learning likely to be useful for the ‘big’ task plus CC case studies

Together these require learning about the following Big Ideas: materials, manufacture, functionality, design and critique

Overall these learning activities have strong authenticity with regard to the nature of design & technology.

The process that gave rise to this year 7 curriculum can be used to devise curricula for Year 8 and Year 9. Across the three years of KS3 these should provide an experience of the subject in which there is deep, rich learning that leave pupils wanting more so that they very much want to take the subjecty at KS4. Inevitably some will not study the subject at KS4 but they will have had an introduction to deisgn & technology which will serve them in good stead and help them make sense of the technological world in wjich they live.

Of course the devil is in the detail of the learning activities and this will need to be resolved by the department working as a team to plan and implement the learning activities identified and develop the required resources. This might take place as follows.

  1. The D&T department meet to discuss the requirements of the learning activity. Through discussion the department identifies the knowledge, understanding, skills and values that will be learned through the activity. This gives the learning activity clarity. One teacher assumes the role of leader and is responsible for producing the package of core learning materials and suggestions for the next meeting. This may involve writing new materials or utilising those already within the department.
  2. At a second meeting the package is discussed and constructive criticism made. The activity leader is now in a position to produce the core set of resources which will probably include a PowerPoint presentation and materials for students (as hard copy hand outs or electronic resources on the school VLE).
  3. The involvement of the technician who will support the learning activity. The activity leader discusses the requirements with the technician (hand tools, machine tools, computing facilities, software, consumable materials, components etc.) to ensure availability and gives the technician a clear overview of the topic. The activity leader then writes the technician notes for the activity with the assurance that no impossible demands will be made.
  4. The activity leader then writes the teachers’ notes that can be used as a reference by all those who will teach the activity.
  5. At this stage it is important that all those who will teach the activity meet together to discuss the best way to use the core resources developed so far and to develop further resources to enhance the student experience. This would probably include homework assignments, case study reading, extension work suggestions, help sheets, feedback prompts, joint presentation planning. It is very important that all those teaching have the necessary expertise with the tools and equipment to be used. Those with a high level of competence and subject knowledge can act as mentors to those less familiar with the activity.
  6. During the teaching of the activity it is important that liaison is maintained with the technician so that equipment and materials are readily available throughout the activity.
  7. Assessment of various sorts will have taken place throughout the topic and at the end of the topic using evidence that has been produced by the students. All those who have taught the topic can take this evidence along with their experience of having taught the activity and evaluate its success. This serves two important functions. It allows for improvement in the next iteration of the learning activity AND it provides the basis of CPD for individual team members such that they each become more rounded design & technology teachers.

Perhaps the above seems onerous and implausible as a means of developing a design & technology curriculum. I am sure there are other approaches but whichever approach a department adopts I think it is essential that the curriculum that emerges is based on the knowledge, understanding skill and values that the students are intended to learn. When SLT observe design & technology lessons it seems quite appropriate that they should ask, “What are the pupils learning?” and “How does this learning fit into the overall learning that is taking place this term or this year?” However well behaved,  busy and on task the pupils are unless the activity can be justified in terms of learning SLT are likely to be unimpressed and critical, justifiably so in my view.

As always comments welcome.



The place of Design & Technology in a knowledge based curriculum

s216_Amanda_Spielman__1_ Amanda Spielman has produced an interesting paper based on the research Ofsted has carried out with regard to the way leaders in schools think about and construct their schools’ curricula. It involves only a small number of schools but it makes important points of relevance to the way schools should construct and implement their D&T curricula. She begins her piece by acknowledging her previous writing about the purpose of education.

… the vast, accumulated wealth of human knowledge, and what we choose to pass on to the next generation through teaching in our schools (the curriculum), must be at the heart of education.

She is critical of the curriculum narrowing the research revealed and the downward creep of GCSE success imperative leading to a truncated KS3 with pupils having to “spend their secondary education learning narrowed and shallow test content rather than broader and more in-depth content across a subject area”.

She clearly disapproves of the path that has led to this situation

The curriculum is not the timetable. Nor is it what we think might be on the exam. We all have to ask ourselves how we have created a situation where second-guessing the test can trump the pursuit of real, deep knowledge and understanding of subjects.

By interviewing curriculum leaders in the schools the research identified three curriculum models:

Knowledge-led approach The leaders saw the curriculum as the mastery of a body of subject-specific knowledge defined by the school. Skills were generally considered to be an outcome of the curriculum, not its purpose. Knowledge acquisition, therefore, is the aim of this type of curriculum. This often led leaders to focus on in-depth understanding of fewer topic areas.

Knowledge-engaged approach The leaders identified knowledge as focus, albeit to varying degrees and that it underpinned and enabled the application of skill. Most did not perceive a tension between knowledge and skill, and instead saw them as intertwined. Leaders tended to value both and for them the curriculum was about how they could ensure that pupils can achieve both knowledge and skill.

Skills-led curriculums The leaders considered that the curriculum should be designed around skills, learning behaviours and ‘generic knowledge’ and placed limited value on knowledge within the content of their curriculum. Knowledge was often seen as just disconnected facts. Delivering skills was the priority.

Progression is discussed in the paper and from this it appears that a useful view is that progression can be curriculum driven if curriculum has clarity with regard to the knowledge and skills it is teaching over time. Assessment both formative and summative is seen as important in revealing this progression in ways that are useful in helping pupils ‘learn better’ and teachers to make changes to the way the curriculum will be taught in the future.

Amanda is clear that the development of a good and responsive curriculum, as she and Ofsted envisage it, will require engagement from a range of stakeholders: head teachers, senior leaders, heads of faculty, heads of department and teachers. I would add pupils, as they are often very insightful as to how the teaching of a topic might be improved.

Whist acknowledging the significant importance of knowledge she is not in any way dismissive of skills.

This does not preclude the importance of skill. Knowledge and skill are intrinsically linked: skill is a performance built on what a person knows. That performance might be physical or cognitive, but skills matter and they cannot be separated from knowledge. They are, if you like, the ‘know-how’ in applying the ‘known’. Knowledge and the capacity it provides to apply skills and deepen understanding are, therefore, essential ingredients of successful curriculum design.

She acknowledges that examination results are important but insists there need be no conflict between teaching a broad, rich curriculum and achieving success in exams arguing that a well-constructed, well-taught curriculum will lead to good results because those results will be a reflection of what pupils have learned. But she also states the importance of parents knowing the substance of what their children are learning. Hence the new inspection framework, she argues, will give greater coverage of the curriculum, which, in the long run, should reverse the current incentives that come from inspection being quite so focused on outcomes.

So where does this leave D&T and those who are devising D&T curricula? I think there are four points to make

  1. Ofsted inspectors will consider the nature of the D&T curriculum and its place in the whole curriculum.
  2. It is essential that we do not conceive or promote D&T as skills based in which knowledge plays a minor role.
  3. We need to be clear as to the knowledge base that underpins D&T. Help is at hand here in the shape of a working paper produced by myself and Torben Steeg Big Ideas for Design & Technology  that describes a set of Big Ideas which can inform curriculum development.
  4. The way we assess progress in D&T must relate to the teaching intentions of the topic being taught. Some guidance is available here in the shape of two working papers: Refocusing Assessment – Design and Technology  and Assessment in Design & Technology available on this site.

In a follow up post I’ll describe how a department can devise a D&T curriculum starting with a knowledge base of Big Ideas.

As always comments welcome

In praise of science fiction

Alison Hardy has written an intriguing piece in the latest edition of D&T Practice on the use of design fiction to teach about new and emerging technologies. She goes to some length to explain the nature of design fiction but does not provide an actual example of a piece of design fiction as written by a secondary school student although she indicates that in a follow up piece Natalie Cooke will describe how she has used design fiction in her year 9 lessons to teach about robotics and artificial intelligence. So in a way the piece by Alison is a bit of a teaser. I’m really looking forward to seeing Natalie’s piece in the hope that there will be examples of student’s design fiction. Having followed the link  provided by Alison to James Auger and Julian Hanna’s piece on design fiction it seems to me that in its purist form design fiction is a very big ask. To quote:

Design fiction starts with the storyworld. The artefacts follow, designed for that world like props in a film. The main reason for developing a storyworld – in the design fiction approach – is to provide a new context or set of circumstances to design for.

Auger and Hanna present the idea of developing a storyworld through changing a significant event in history. They ask what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had won the presidential election in 1980 as opposed to Ronald Reagan. The storyworld here simply provides a logic to furnish an alternative history in which large resources are funneled into renewable energy. They have a similar agenda for their own work: to develop a storyworld framework to inform the design of an alternative energy infrastructure.

Science fiction often creates ‘alternative histories’. One of my favourites is Pavane by Keith Roberts which starts with the assassination of Elizabeth I and describes the result as a 20th century England in which the Roman Catholic Church is in control, with bans on innovation, particularly electricity, leading to a roughly mid-19th century technology with steam traction engines and mechanical semaphore telegraphy. Over all, the long arm of the Popes reached out to punish and reward; the Church Militant remained supreme. But by the middle of the twentieth century widespread mutterings were making themselves heard. Rebellion was once more in the air . . . It’s a rollicking good read and now acknowledged as one of the finest of all ‘alternate histories’.

So I have some questions.

  • What does a teacher have to do to enable students to create a suitable storyworld?
  • Does the teacher create a series of What if questions about what might be different in the world now if something significant had happened differently in the recent past?
  • Or does the teacher take a short leap into the future and ask the students to imagine a world in which a particular new and emerging technology has developed to the point where it is widespread or even ubiquitous?
  • In pursuing design fiction is the teacher trying to teach something specific about new and emerging technologies e.g. What counts as a robot? What are the limitations of currently available AI algorithms?

And once we have a storyworld the students then have to design artefact and systems to operate within this world and speculate about the way this plays out for the various actors within this world.

I’m not sure I agree with Alison in the distinction she makes between design fiction and science fiction. Her point is that in design fiction the reality is known whereas this is not the case for science fiction. Yes it is known but it is a speculative construct developed to explore the impact of designs within that reality. I think one might apply that to science fiction especially that sort of science fiction that focuses on what might happen 10 – 20 years hence. But this is a minor point and I want to finish on the value of science fiction with regard to developing the creative imagination. Some science fiction writing becomes science fiction films in which the various artefacts described in words have to be visualised and prototyped. Dune, based on the novel of the same name by Frank Herbert and Blade Runner, based on the novel Do Androids dream of electric sheep? by Philip K Dick are two important examples. The still suit which the Fremen in Dune use to recycle their body water is a wonderful example of prototyping in a storyworld and quite accessible to KS3 students. How the designers and prop makers develop and realise their ideas that eventually reach the film set provides an interesting story for students.

IMG_1914I have The Blade Runner Sketchbook which shows lots of preliminary sketches for the items that were so significant in the film – well worth sharing with students to show virtuoso sketching; there is artwork from Syd Mead and Ridley Scott amongst others.

san-benedetto-del-tronto-italy-260nw-239778334Some science fiction starts as films. I think this is the case for Star Wars. The most iconic figure in this saga must surely be Darth Vader. His mask has become a world wide symbol for tyranny yet it did not start out as a mask but a helmet along Samurai Warrior lines. It was Ralph McQuarrie, a concept artist working on the first film, who suggested that it should become a mask; a suggestion taken up by George Lucas. I wonder if science fiction stories might provide the stimulus for young people to create storyworlds for which they design?

As always comments welcome.

STEM subjects not creative – surely not

Yesterday I listed to Mariella Frostrup’s ‘Bringing up Britain’ on Radio 4 on creativity and children. The panel were all in agreement on the importance of creativity and creative problem solving for both personal fulfilment and employability. They agreed on the importance of play as a means of being creative, particularly for young children. They lamented the lack of uptake of the Arts in school and the impact that this would have on the creative industries. They noted the importance of tasks with no single right answer which encourage creative thinking. So not much to disagree with so far but then they declared that STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects were not creative and what we needed was STEAM where the A stands for the arts. I have to disagree strongly with the notion that the STEM subjects aren’t creative.

Much of science is counterintuitive and it requires great creativity to overcome intuition and gain insight into physical reality. Newton did this in the way he developed the understanding of the nature of force. There is no doubt that many scientific ideas are difficult. Take for example ideas about temperature and energy. How is it the a glass of water has an amount of energy according to how hot the water is, its temperature, but when I separate the water into two glasses of equal size the energy of the water in each of the two glasses is half the energy of the water when it was in the one glass but the temperature of the water in the two glasses is the same as the temperature of the water when it was all in the one glass – huh? Some creative thinking needed to understand that surely. Dreaming about a snake swallowing its tail led Kekulé to develop the ring structure for benzene. The development of the Periodic Table by Mendeleev is a monument to creative thinking. 3D geometry in mathematics is not only beautiful but full of creative surprises as recently reported in New Scientist: the newly discovered scutoid shape explains how cells are packed together in nature. Clearly engineering solutions to problems requires considerable creativity even at the most basic level. Developing a design for a bridge requires choosing materials that are stiff enough, so the bridge doesn’t deform, strong enough so the bridge doesn’t break, as light as possible in order to be economical with materials and there will be no single right answer but a myriad of possibilities as we can see simply by looking at the bridges around us. If we look at new and emerging technologies we are instantly confronted with huge creative potential. Through nanotechnology we are becoming able to create materials the like of which cannot be created in Nature. Through synthetic biology we are on the cusp of creating new life forms and being able to change the course of human evolution. Great creativity and great responsibility combined.

So I’ve a plea to John Holman, Brian Cox, Celia Hoyles (UCL Institute of Education), and Rhys Morgan (Royal Academy of Engineering) – let’s here it for the creativity implicit in the STEM subjects.

And finally I have to comment on the way the panel essentially ignored the school subject design & technology (D&T). This has the potential to develop creativity in young people in a way that no other subject in the school curriculum can. This unique contribution was the reason that it was introduced into the National Curriculum. Note it is far more than product design although designing products does feature. Through D&T young people can acquire two very important educational outcomes:

Technological capability seen as designer-maker capability, capturing the essence of technological activity as intervention in the made and natural worlds

Technological Perspective providing insight into “how technology works”, informing a constructively critical view of technology, avoiding alienation from our technologically-based society and enabling consideration of how technology might be used to provide products and systems that help create the sort of society in which pupils wish to live.

Each of these require creative thinking and are important across a range of educational purposes: the economic, they will help some find employment; the personal, they provide useful practical skills; the social, it helps us decide on where to stand with regard to issues concerning technology and society and cultural, it helps us understand the contribution that technology has made and continues to make to societies throughout history.

So a final plea to Tony Ryan, CEO of the D&T Association, let’s here it for the creativity in D&T, and the contribution it makes from a range of justifications, given as Neil Postman put it, “education should be about making a life which is quite different from making a living”.

Greenpeace, diesel cars and the Anthropocence


I recently watched the Greenpeace video “What’s the deal with diesel?” I thought it presented the science and the facts clearly and accurately and made a good case for phasing out diesel and ‘going electric’. I shared this on Facebook and my colleague John Myerson commented that, “Electric cars are fine but remember that producing the electricity may be polluting too.” And of course he is correct. Clean generation of electricity must be part of the overall system, which enables emission free transport if we are to solve the wicked problem of developing a sustainable transport system. So when Greenpeace asked me for feedback on the video I mentioned John’s point and suggested that they should consider the whole system not just the emission at tail pipe. I was pleased to receive the following reply from Greenpeace.

Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate you engaging with this.  I will put your feedback forward for when we are brainstorming the next steps of the campaign.

In 2016 Greenpeace UK published a study showing that, as soon as 2030, the UK could run almost entirely on renewable energy. The research factors in how the electricity system will have to change to accomodate more electric vehicles and more homes heated electricity as we phase out gas. And to show that we can keep the lights on during varying weather conditions, we looked at 11 years of weather data to show that we can keep the lights on without the need for coal or nuclear.

There’s a more detailed write up at 

http://energydesk.greenpeac -can-get-almost-all-its-power- from-renewables/

https://unearthed.greenpeace.o rg/2016/07/15/tesla-elon-musk- battery-lithium/

https://unearthed.greenpeace.o rg/?s=lithium+batteries

These links show how work is being done to move past Lithium which is finite anyway and to use a far more available substance – Sodium

So plenty for all of us to consider here and it related very strongly to a book I’ve just finished reading. Anthropocene by Erle C Ellis one of the excellent ‘A very short introduction’ series published by Oxford University Press. 9780198792987The main point in this book is that human activity has always had a significant effect on the planet right from the earliest days of homo sapiens but that recently this effect has increased significantly and has now become a major effect in the way the planet and its associated life forms might evolve.

As always comments welcome.

Timely words from Louise Davies

As you will know the Awarding Organisations will be posting the Contextual Challenges tomorrow. I’m sure we are all both interested and nervous. But it is very important that we play this completely by the rules and do nothing that compromises the NEA as happened with the NEA in the Computing GCSE leading to the withdrawal of the NEA as a form of assessment. Louise Davies has posted these timely words of warning on here Food Teachers website.

I am really worried that D&T teachers do not seem to be aware of the new NEA regulations as their NEA is about to be released (D&T is a year behind Food). Some are approaching this like ‘old coursework’, thinking they can use the same writing frames and teach the students through the assessment. This food group is much more knowledgeable than that, so if you have D&T colleagues, please take a few moments to show them your JCQ document. What is the worst that can happen? 1. Your school centre is accused of Malpractice 2. D&T loses NEA as Computing GCSE did once answers and writing frames are posted on websites (this has already started to happen) 3. Food GCSE loses its NEA as if it is found that Computing and D&T could not be trusted with NEA, who knows OFQUAL might take ours away as a consequence. A 5 MINUTE CHAT with D&T is needed, please help them see what is regulated –