Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T14:45:45.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Britain's Industrial Skills and the School-Teaching of Practical Subjects: Comparisons with Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Helvia Bierhoff  and
SJ Prais
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Teaching practical subjects (e.g. woodwork, technical drawing, domestic science) in secondary schools can provide a valuable foundation and introduction to subsequent vocational training and qualification. This article compares the way such subjects are taught in secondary schools in Britain with three Continental countries—Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The emphasis on high quality of finish in the making of small articles to a given design, which is the normal approach in these Continental countries, is contrasted with the British emphasis on pupils' developing their own designs to solve larger problems—an approach which leaves less time for making the final article and achieving a high standard of finish. The implications for the current revision of the National Curriculum in Technology are considered.

Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 144 , May 1993 , pp. 55 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) We are indebted, above all, to the many secondary schools, local education authorities and engineering firms on the Continent and in Britain who co-operated in allowing us to make the comparisons reported in this study; and to school inspectors, teachers from British schools and training officers from British engineering firms who joined our visits to the Continent and helped compare teaching standards. We are grateful for helpful comments by our colleagues at the Institute, especially Elaine Beadle and Valerie Jarvis, who participated in these visits and are preparing reports on related factors governing the transition from school to employment. The article has also benefited from comments received on an earlier duplicated version circulated as National Institute Discussion Paper no. 33.

So that the results of the present study may benefit from critical discussion by both economists and educationalists, a parallel version is being published in Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education (Institute of Education, University of London); we are grateful to the Editors of both journals for their agreement. The financial support of the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and of the Economic and Social Research Council is gratefully acknowledged. Responsibility for judgements and conclusions in this paper rests solely with the authors.

(2) See the series of studies reprinted in Productivity, Education and Training (NIESR, October 1990).

(3) More precisely: ‘Technology’ is divided into ‘Design and Technology’ and ‘Information Technology’; practical studies are included in D&T.

(4) The visits in early 1991 by the National Institute's team (which included teachers from English secondary schools) to Continental schools revealed stark contrasts with Britain in the teaching of practical subjects. The contrasts were especially worrying since there had been little discussion of the underlying issues in Britain before fixing on the National Curriculum in Technology; a preliminary report of our findings was therefore issued for discussion at that early stage (Pre-vocational Schooling in Europe Today by SJ Prais and E Beadle, NIESR Report, new series no. 1, October 1991; hereafter referred to as the Institute's Interim Report). The Engineering Council sponsored the report Technology in the National Curriculum: Getting it Right by Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson; the HMI report was entitled Technology—Key Stages 1, 2 and 3, and was accompanied by ‘advice’ from the National Curriculum Council on The Case for Revising the Order. For a selection of academic responses, see J Benyon and H Mackay (eds), Technological Literacy and the Curriculum (Falmer), 1992, esp. chs. 3 and 4 by Medway and Barnett respectively. Earlier comparisons by the National Institute between Britain and Germany—but confined to Berlin—had been included in an article in the National Institute Economic Review, May 1985 (Schooling standards in England and Germany: some summary comparisons bearing on economic performance, by SJ Prais and K Wagner, esp. pp. 66-68).

An influential TV programme Every Child in Britain, produced by David Mills (first transmitted in October 1991, together with a printed report under the same title distributed to all schools in the country with the support of the Gatsby Foundation), included an account of the Institute's findings on these matters. The programme also included a discussion between the then Minister of Education (Mr T Eggar), other politicians, and the ‘Channel Four Commission’ of five educationists—of varied political perspectives—who were all much worried as to the way practical subjects are taught in Britain.

(5) The changes, briefly, were these. Until 1989 Lycées professionnels (LPs) provided vocational instruction and training at secondary-school level for 14-16 year-olds similar to that available in the Netherlands. Following educational reforms, pre-vocational classes technologiques were introduced in the general comprehensive secondary schools (the Collèges) to replace the former practical class at LPs for pupils aged 14-16 judged not academically capable of embarking on the technological or general Baccalaureats (i.e.for the type of pupil who had previously moved to LPs). The LPs continued to provide vocational courses for post-16 pupils as previously; but the theoretical content of their vocational courses was increased. These changes proved disadvantageous for less-academic pupils who had previously benefited from the greater element of practical teaching provided at the LPs (for such pupils the new system was expected to increase 'de façon massive l'échèc scolaire', as borne out in an investigation by G Solaux; see L Tanguy, Quelle Formation pour les Ouvriers et les Employés en France?, La Documentation Française, 1991, p. 31, n. 1). At the end of 1991 the (then) Prime Minister, Mme Edith Cresson, called for a reconsideration of educational plans, and suggested the development of France's apprenticeship system to bring it closer to that of the German model (see Times Educational Supplement, 9 August 1991).

(6) The geographical areas and types of school visited were as follows. Within Germany we visited Hauptschulen (catering for roughly the least academic third of pupils) and Gesamtschulen (comprehensive schools) in Berlin and two highly successful industrial areas—Munich and Stuttgart. In Switzerland we visited Realschulen (note that the term Realschulen in Swit zerland is applied to schools catering for much the same sector of the ability-range as the Hauptschulen in Germany), and the new AVO (almost comprehensive) schools which cover 90 per cent of the attainment-range; some Oberschulen, intended for very low-attaining pupils, were also visited. The Swiss schools were mainly in the Zurich region and are adequately representative for our purposes of German-speaking industrial areas. In the Netherlands, we visited LTO and LBO schools (similar to Hauptschulen, but with a greater vocational emphasis) in Amsterdam and smaller towns in the northern part of the country. For brevity of exposition we often use the term Continent (Continental, etc.) as shorthand for the regions visited on the Continent taken as a whole; and we often refer to ‘English’ or ‘British’ when ‘pertaining to England and Wales’ would be more correct: we trust this will not lead to misunderstanding. The areas visited on the Continent will be recognised as following what Martin McLean has called the ‘Naturalist’ approach to the school Curriculum, in contrast to what he calls the ‘Humanist’ approach of England and Wales (see his Britain and a Single Market Europe, Kogan Page, 1990, chs. 2 and 4).

(7) The visits to Continental schools were carried out by a team of 4-6 British observers (1-2 researchers from the National Institute, and 2-4 British teachers/LEA inspectors/industrial training officers). Visits to British schools were usually carried out by 2 Institute researchers; this paper has also benefited from return visits to British schools by two Continental educationists (a head of a teachers' training college and a secondary school headmaster).

(8) Much depended on friendly cooperation and personal introductions in selecting the schools in all four countries. The schools tended to be in larger cities, and hence had a fair share of ‘inner city problems’. For England we were able to compare our sample schools with the national average on the basis of recently published statistics of the proportions of pupils with five higher-grade passes at GCSE; that proportion varied in our sample schools from 4 to 58 per cent, with an average of 30 per cent, compared with national averages of some 38 per cent for all schools (including selective schools) and 36 per cent for comprehensive schools.

(9) We do not wish to suggest that there then was a ‘golden age’ in Britain: we suspect (and it requires a full historical study to confirm) that too few pupils then reached the higher standards set in external examinations of practical courses, and too few went on to complete industrial apprenticeships and the associated college examinations.

(10) Previous comparisons of this type were presented in the Institute's Interim Report (pp. 7-12); the account given here is based on a wider range of schools (including Swiss schools) and, in addition, is concerned to elucidate the main differences of principle in the approach of Britain when contrasted with the Continent. Appendices to the Interim Report (pp. 39-60) reproduced specimen extracts from teaching materials and from examinations that may be of interest to specialist readers.

(11) For example, in a Sekundarschule visited in Switzerland, 13-year-olds devoted three (45 minute) school-periods a week to wood, metal and textile work, plus 1-2 periods of technical drawing; at ages 14-15 the time devoted to practical subjects was reduced, with a somewhat greater proportionate emphasis on technical drawing. Separate textbooks for these subjects are available in Germany for Realschule pupils and for Hauptschule pupils (cf. S Henzler and K Leins, Mensch, Technik, Umwelt, Handwerk und Technik, Hamburg, 2nd edn. 1992, which is intended for Realschulen; and idem, Technik an Hauptsckulen, 1987).

(12) The most practical of the alternative Craft, Design and Technology (CDT) courses (discussed further in section 4 below).

(13) These judgements—as others in this article—rely on the joint assessment by subject-specialist teachers, school inspectors and the present writers of practical work observed in the course of our visits (see note 7 above). In addition, pupils' texts and teachers' manuals provided a broader indication of the subject matter covered in the whole course and the expected rate of progress; such texts were more frequently available in Continental than British schools (see note 16 below).

(14) In some very small classes we observed in Switzerland, pupils worked on somewhat different projects according to their own designs; however the individual design element was not given the overriding emphasis usual in Britain, and no functional design was required of pupils. This degree of liberty was possible because of the unusually small size of the particular classes observed (around 7 pupils); the teachers' view was that with ‘full’ classes of 20 pupils they would have to ensure that all pupils did the same in order to make effective teaching possible.

(15) In preparing ‘Design Folders’ British pupils are often required, among other things, to ‘justify’ in writing their choice of project (as we observed, this not infrequently took the form ‘I am going to design and make a coffee table because my mother has not got one’). Pupils then draw alternative sketches of the object they chose to make, and give written reasons for their ultimate choice of design. On the Continent very little was seen by way of sketching; and there is no requirement for written verbalisation of pupils' work.

(16) Sometimes printed pages in Dutch vocational textbooks are interleaved with blank sheets which pupils use for taking notes—based partly on their practical work—relating to the printed text opposite.

(17) British pupils today are usually required only to draw objects they can look at; conceptualising a three-dimensional object on the basis of a given two-dimensional drawing, and then adding a third dimension to that drawing according to a specified type of projection, would be regarded as too complex for secondary school pupils in Britain.

(18) Carrying out ‘more complex calculations in plane or solid shapes’, e.g. calculating the volumes of cones and spheres, is expected in Britain at Level 9 in the National Curriculum, i.e. only of the top 10 per cent of pupils at age 16; and of average pupils—if they stayed at school long enough and made progress at a constant rate—at the notional age of 22 (Mathematics National Curriculum, revd., December 1991, p. 16).

(19) Schools Council, Curriculum Bulletin No. 2, A School Approach to Technology (hereafter: Schools Council), HMSO, London, 1967. p. 23, emphasis added. This Bulletin was drafted by DIR Porter, HMI, and subsequently published as a Schools Council document.

(20) In Switzerland pupils were provided with beautiful (of course, Swiss-made) drawing instruments and neat boxes of Caran d'Ache pencils; they used India ink for final drawings.

(21) Other LBO schools provide ‘home economics’ courses closer to the requirements of the typical householder, rather than the catering courses we observed.

(22) Attainment Target 1, example of work at level 8 (NC Technology, p. 5).

(23) Arbeitscharakter is the usual term in Switzerland. We have used the Swiss term here since the concept is particularly explicit in that country. In Germany the words Arbeitseinstellung or Arbeitshaltung tend to be used, and a slightly different connotation may be detected: the concept behind them is a person's attitude towards work in general or to the particular tasks he is to carry out. The term Arbeitscharakter is closer to the notion that work-habits are an integral part of a person's personality.

(24) From the prospectus for the teachers' training college in Zürich: Real-und Oberschule bieten Chancen für die Zukunft, Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich, Zürich, 1982, p.4. The National Institute's team observed training and an oral examination of candidates at this college, and had an extensive discussion with its Director, Professor Dr HJ Streiff, and his colleagues.

(25) Lehrplan für die Hauptschule, Teil 7: Praktisch-technische Fächer, Lehrplan fr das Fach Werken/Technisches Zeichnen, Jahrgangsstufen 7-9, Carl Link Verlag, KMBek vom 16.7.1985, p. 2.

(26) ‘Reliability, compliance and conscientiousness’ are listed by Professor D Layton in his survey article on ‘Science and Technology Education: Vocational Education and Training’ in International Encyclopedia of Education (eds T Husen, TN Postlethwaite), supp. vol. 2, Pergamon 1990, p. 557.

(27) Non-Statutory Guidance: Design and Technology Capability (NCC, April 1990), p.6. Space does not permit discussion of subtle differences in priorities and connotations amongst the Continental lists set out above, nor of the well-worn socio-political debates as to whether school lessons instilling ‘good work-habits’ are merely ways of perpetuating the class-stratification of a capitalist economy (cf. Layton). Here we need only note the agreement on the role of schooling in promoting aspects of character-formation that ultimately have a substantial effect on economic efficiency.

(28) For an early discussion of the main questions raised in this section, see Schools Council, op. cit. No more than a small selection of the many writings in this field can be quoted here; we trust that sufficient is said to give a flavour of the arguments advanced in this period. It is remarkable how little weight was given in these writings to experience and practice in Continental Europe. This deficiency is equally evident in the survey article on vocational education by Layton cited in note 24 above.

(29) Technical schools accounted at their peak in 1959 for only 4 per cent of all secondary school pupils.

(30) Schools Council, p. 13.

(31) These form familiar elements of Dewey's Progressive ‘discovery’ methods of learning, in which the didactic (‘authoritarian’) role of the teacher and textbook was to be replaced by ‘joint adventures in learning’.

(32) Ministry of Education, Central Advisory Council for Education—England, 15 to 18 (Crowther report; hereafter: Crowther), HMSO, 1959, pp. 392 (emphasis added) and 393.

(33) Crowther, p. 214.

(34) An account of such an episode was given by a dispirited teacher of practical subjects on the eve of his emigration in the Times Education Supplement, 19 June 1992, ‘Why John Washington is packing up his tool bag’.

(35) ‘The Design Council always refused to consider products in a commercial context’: as Stephen Bayley put it in a provocative article in The Times, 6 October 1992. Mr Bayley was Founding Director of the Design Museum (not to be confused with the Design Council) opened in 1989 with the help of the Conran Foundation; he had previously directed the Victoria and Albert Museum's ‘Boilerhouse’ section, which was devoted to modern applied design. The Design Council seems to have over-stated the primacy and independence of the design element, rather than its integration with the fundamentals of reliable engineering (Design and the Economy, 1983, revd. 1990; Design Sense, 1991). For a modern view of industrial design, see S Bayley, Taste (Faber, 1991), esp. pp. 23-24 on Braun's chief designer Dieter Rams (‘To me good design means as little design as possible’—the reference here is to styling for its own sake). The issues cannot be treated fully here; the account of Bauhaus ideas given by Walter Gropius remains valuable—note especially his views on craft schools and the need for ‘experience with materials and tools of all kinds’ (W Gropius, Scope of Total Architecture, Allen and Unwin, 1956, pp. 25-29).

(36) Fourteen criteria were laid down under sub-headings such as Sensibility, Problem-Solving, Communication. ‘Construction’ was given a very subsidiary mention—as being no more than one of a variety of means of conveying images of things (sc. model-making) (Design Council, Design Education at the Secondary Level, report of a Working Party, Chairman: D Keith-Lucas, 1980, revd 1991, pp. 36; the quotations are from pp. i, 4, 17-19).

(37) The Design Council put it this way in its recent report: ‘Too often the British have … trust[ed] more to ingenuity, luck or individual genius to provide a “breakthrough” or “giant leap”. But sustained success requires teamwork and a more incremental approach’, together with ‘painstaking thoroughness in every last detail’ (Design Council, op. cit., 1991, penultimate page headed ‘Now for the future’).

(38) Schools Council, p. 10.

(39) This extreme view was widely expressed to us by teachers who support the new approach; earlier references to the declining trend in industry's need for craft skills are to be found in the reports of the Schools Council and Crowther, but without the extreme implications subsequently drawn for the school curriculum.

(40) See e.g. General Certificate of Secondary Education, Syllabuses for 1992 Examinations, Section 2, Creative Arts and CDT, Southern Examining Group, 1990, pp. 19-21, 39-40, 60-61. The origin of this broadening and vagueness of objectives is to be found in the General Criteria for GCSE (DES, 1985), and the associated criteria for individual subjects, which set new and more generalised guidelines for practical subjects previously examined at CSE and 0-levels.

(41) The extraordinary lack of agreement as to what should be included in this ‘new subject’ is to be inferred from the suggestion that it should be taught in a ‘cross-curricular’ basis, i.e. that it should not appear separately on the school timetable. This view was supported by the then Chairman and Chief Executive of the National Curriculum Council: ‘technology could be delivered in history or geography, mathematics or science. the original pure and simple concept was that technology could and should permeate all subjects and that it may not have needed any of its own space in the timetable’ (D Graham with D Tytler, A Lesson for Us All, Routledge, 1993, p. 56).

(42) The requirements varied: some NC documents required four types of materials, others referred to a choice out of five—the fifth being ‘information’.

(43) These terms were recognised by the National Curriculum Council as requiring elucidation—but it is not clear what was intended to follow from their explanations in terms of teaching practice. Artefacts are defined by the NCC as ‘objects made by people’; systems are ‘sets of objects or activities which together perform a task’; environments are characterised as ‘surroundings made, or developed by, people’. The reader is informed that ‘some products will fall into more than one category. A puppet might be: an artefact, if the emphasis is on finish and appearance; a system, if the emphasis is on making an object in which mechanisms work together to provide animation. A car might be: an artefact, if it is considered as a single object (for comparison with other cars, or lorries); a series of systems, if it is considered as a collection of objects (engine, petrol tank, wheels, steering mechanism, driver) which act together to produce movement; an environment, if it is considered as a means of accommodating a group of people safely for a journey’ (Technology in the National Curriculum, Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office (HMSO, 1990): this is the statutory National Curriculum Order). The quotations are from the Non-statutory guidance attached to the Order, p. A3. We quote these categorisations at length—despite the subsequent recognition by HMI of their inadequacy (see section 6 below)—to illustrate the nature of the interpretive problems set to teachers by these official documents.

(44) The following elucidation was subsequently offered by the NCC. Attainment Targets ‘are not meant to define a process. Much less are they to be seen as a sequence of activities to be followed in strict order, with pupils always starting at AT1 and working through to AT4. They should be seen as a series of windows into the interactive processes of D&T through which information useful to teachers about the performance of their pupils can be obtained’ (D Layton, Aspects of National Curriculum Design & Technology, National Curriculum Council, 1991, p. 5, our italics).

(45) On the inadequate ways in which craftwork was previously taught in some English schools, see, for example, the article by G Stein, of the Roehampton [teacher training] Institute, ‘A fish-on-a-stick, a YoYo and a spatula’, Design and Technology Teaching, 1992, No. 3, pp. 35-6.

(46) National Curriculum, pp. 36-9.

(47) J Eggleston (member of the government-funded APU Design and Technology Steering Group), Editorial, Design and Technology Teaching, 1991, No. 3, p. 4.

(48) HMI Report on Technology: Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 (hereafter: HMI Report), 1991, para. 16. Here, and in the remainder of this section, we quote from this report since it confirms and extends our own observations, both in terms of quantity (HMI's observations are based on 900 schools) and in quality (HMI have a reputation for being over-sympathetic to progressive teaching practices).

(49) Ibid. (our italics).

(50) Ibid., para. 17.

(51) If the intention of those who revised the weights in July 1992 was to require the whole 40 per cent to be spent on making (as suggested to us by an official), that was unfortunately not made clear. In any event, there is a great contrast with the earlier British (and current Continental) practice where the majority of the time alloted to practical subjects is devoted to making.

(52) National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group, Interim Report, 1988, p. 42-3 (our italics).

(53) This was elaborated: ‘The point of “making” is that it enables pupils to take “snapshots of reality” through the developing thought patterns in a project.’ The background to this view is the perception that ‘modelling (making)—giving concrete expression to an idea—… exists as a dimension of capability that is … not a separate domain’ (APU, The Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology, 1990, pp. 32-3).

(54) Layton, op. cit., p. 5 (our italics).

(55) HMI Report, para. 18; confirmed by Professor Eggleston in his recent book in which he provides a chapter of examples of current practices (he noted: ‘projects, particularly those for the older pupils, are predominantly paper projects’; Teaching Design and Technology (Open University Press, 1992, p. 81).

(56) National Curriculum, Non-statutory guidance, p. C6 (our italics).

(57) HMI Report, para. 18.

(58) The point was recognised in principle by the NC Working Group, but they seem to have radically underestimated the difficulty of the task (Interim Report, paras. 1.20 and 1.21).

(59) HMI Report, para. 1.

(60) Letter to National Curriculum Council, 2 June 1992.

(61) Technology for Ages 5 to 16 (1992), Department for Education (December 1992, pp. vii + 75). The central rec ommendations occupy a triptych set of ‘fold-out’ pages (pp. 19-24) to be read with the help of operating instructions provided on p. 17.

(62) SEAC, Technology at Key Stage 4, January 1993 (pp. 6).

(63) Technology (1992), para. 19.

(64) Para. 17.

(65) Para. 19.

(66) Para. 10.

(67) Para. 53.

(68) Abbreviated from Appendix D of the Technology (1992) proposals, pp. 63 and 67.

(69) Technology (1992), p. vi.

(70) Technology (1992), p. 38 (identical to p. 42!); and SEAC (1993), p. 1.

(71) See note 32 above on the recent closure of school workshops and the emigration of craftwork teachers.

(72) The calculation is as follows. A ‘short course’ under the NC is expected to take approximately 5 per cent of total curriculum time; if strand (b) of AT Making occupies 20-29 per cent of that 5 per cent, and the school day has 300 minutes, then 3-4.4 minutes per day are available for practical activities. A ‘double-lesson’ of 70 minutes is the minimum time that can sensibly be devoted to a practical subject (allowing for selection of tools and materials and clearing up: Continental educationists would prefer a longer continuous session, say, a whole afternoon). On that basis a practical lesson can be given only once every 3-4 weeks.

(73) Technology (1992), pp. 35, 38 (our italics).

(74) SEAC, p. 1.

(75) Information supplied by a SEAC official.

(76) The list of permitted combinations under SEAC requirements is still being developed. The SEAC document (p. 6) refers to ‘Construction’ as a permitted combination, which we were given to understand relates to Building Construction; Automotive Engineering is not mentioned there, but we understand that permission for such a combined course will be given by SEAC.