'A Lack of Design at Leaving Cert Level' - an Interview with Leigh Ellis

The following is an extract from my undergraduate thesis, 'An examination into the Lack of Creative Design Education in Post Primary Education'. Although this was written before I began placement, I found it extremely fitting and relevant to my experiences in the classroom - I was lucky enough to work with Leigh as my host teacher for my final placement block, and I found our conversations extremely interesting when discussing design education, as she herself is a ceramicist, versus my design background. The full text can be read on my 'research' page of this site.

When drawing upon the aforementioned research into the current curriculum, I began to wonder why many practising art teachers are so hesitant to advocate for change within such a rigid curriculum, particularly with the recent uptake of applications to single discipline art colleges (HEA, 2022). I interviewed practising art teacher Leigh Ellis to gain a further insight into the discrepancy between Art and Design at Leaving Certificate level. It seems as though design is placed within the art classroom and the curriculum as a token measure, when in reality it does not hold the same standard of importance as fine art disciplines.

When discussing the lack of emphasis placed on design education, it seems that there are two issues to be identified - the lack of information and infrastructure within the curriculum, and the lack of comfortability fine art specialist teachers have within this area. When asked, Ellis (2022) confessed that her teaching, albeit not heavily considered before, may be a ‘bit one sided’, leaning more toward the art areas of the curriculum, rather than the limited design ones.

Specialising in ceramics herself, Ellis believes that for many teachers there is ‘fear within the unknown’, especially when it comes to introducing design elements into the classroom. Not having previously specialised within a design area, these teachers may not be able to provide the support needed when bringing students through a design based scheme, so would rather avoid it altogether.

Ellis also draws on an aforementioned point - the categorising of design into an applied science subject (NCCA, 2019), stating that:

while the DCG curriculum may touch on the more functional aspects of design, ‘there are very few ‘play’ opportunities where students can try to expand/adapt or enhance a product’ (Ellis, 2022).

Conversely, we have the seemingly more playful art curriculum, yet a large discrepancy in the amount of emphasis placed on design elements. Even when considering curating lessons for students myself, as a hopeful graduate in a design field, I and many other teachers are left in a catch-22 situation particularly when preparing students for the Leaving Certificate Art examination; design is either to be ignored completely, or taught in a way which the process is misaligned within the marking scheme.

At surface level, the NCCA specification notes art as a subject open to both fine art and design practices. However, when examining past successful Leaving Certificate submissions, and looking at the overarching curriculum, two options seem apparent. We can break away from what has always been successful, that is, fine art practice, and instead focus on design based practices, but risk unknown consequences with our students around results time. Or, conversely, we can perpetuate the standard that design is almost nonexistent within the art curriculum. Students are left with little tono options, stuck within a curriculum that looks at design as something strictly functional, something that exists to do, rather than to be and create, and teachers are left in uncertainty, unable to show students design as a creative process, and a viable option at third level.

Many teachers themselves avoid the introduction of design schemes as the grading ‘could be pretty detailed, and extremely harsh at times’ (Ellis, 2022), and through this fear of the unknown, teachers are hesitant to push for change within the curriculum.

A key example of this arose when speaking to Ellis, who discussed an increasing interest in digital drawing among her students. Yet, this is avoided within exam work due to a percieved lack of support from the Department of Education, and a lack of training surrounding this subject matter. As Ellis noted,

teachers are left wondering ‘how do I support or grade this work?’.

Furthermore, in recent years there have been criticisms of the use of technology in classrooms, and of technology subject areas as a whole, ‘as they typically place a dominant focus on the artefact over the process’ that led to its development. (Creighton et al, (2022) p3). Through the use of technology in education, we are often product driven, removing the exploration and development phases.

‘This is commonly as a result of the traditional vocational emphasis within the subject areas and an assessment-driven culture within the post-primary school system’ (Creighton, et al, 2022). In an art classroom, there is much more emphasis on the process over the product, (NCCA, 2019) and practising teachers have the baseline knowledge of how to implement technology in a way that counteracts its natural product over process perspective, but they are simply not given the opportunity. As Ellis puts it, teachers want clarity; the interest in implementing technology is there, they just need continuing professional development and the correct support (Ellis, 2022).