Why is the Culture of Tools an issue?

We use tools, and technologies as tools, as extensions of ourselves to enhance our productivity and capability, so as individuals and as a society we are totally dependent on tools and technologies as tools.

For the informed witness, the evidence of our technological dependency is all around us, but technology was only authorised as a curriculum subject on a national basis by the Education Reform Act of 1988. Subsequently, there were three sets of Standing Orders:

• June 1989, Design and Technology for ages 5 to 16,
• December 1992, Technology for ages 5 to 16 (1992), and
• January 1995, Design and Technology.

The three sets of Standing Orders were indicative of the difficulties associated with the introduction of the subject, not the least of which was an appropriate name.

Hence if technology is so manifestly important, it's vital not only to understand why it was introduced as a curriculum subject in 1988, but to evaluate the level of understanding and the progress made. As far as the late introduction of the subject is concerned, the issues are essentially culturally driven; they are about a conflict between educational ideals, and the low intellectual esteem in which 'working with one's hands' is held. But when our Stone Age ancestors fashioned a cutting edge on a piece of stone to use as a tool, it was a deliberate act of hand-eye co-ordination driven by the imagination, and so conceptually visualised.

More than 65 reports on educational issues were published between 1818 and the end of the 20th Century. Some 25 of these are considered in Chapter 7 - Technology in Education - statutory considerations, and show how those who understood the importance of Technology, were unable to influence the real direction of our educational philosophy.

An extract from Chapter 7 serves to illustrate the point:

"After the Great Exhibition in 1851, Paris staged the International Exhibition of 1867, where Britain's fading industrial supremacy was 'alarmingly revealed'; 'Britain took only ten of ninety prizes' - Barnett (1) (1986:99). This dire 'performance' created shock waves, and prompted the House of Commons to appoint a Select Committee, 'the first of repeated … official analyses of defective British education and training for technological success that were to follow over the next century …' - Barnett (ibid)."

Estelle Morris (2) states (2002:4):

"For too long, vocational studies and qualifications have been undervalued. This must change – we must introduce qualifications and pathways that are of an excellent standard, that deserve and are accorded high status, that are not a sink option for failed students, but which can lead the bright and able through into higher education and beyond. …"

So there is official recognition that we have a problem, and it is of enormous proportions. However, owing to our value judgements, the obstacles to change are also just as enormous.

1 Barnett, C, (1990:185), The Audit of War: The Illusion and Reality of Britain as a Great Nation, 1986, Macmillan London Limited, this edition PAPERMAC 1990.
2 Morris E, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Foreword to Green Paper Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards, The Stationery Office.