Education and Technology

Royal Society Report on ICT and Computing in Schools

2012-01-19T01:32:00.000-08:00

Michael Gove’s speechwriter had probably read this before drafting the BETT address I discussed in my previous post. The Royal Society’s conclusions align closely with the direction of that address. The speech also refers to the report; Gove says “I'm looking forward to” reading it. It is therefore very likely that the recommendations will shape government strategy.
The Royal Society outlines a number of issues;

the current ICT national curriculum tends to result in some shallow teaching
there is a shortage of qualified teachers who can take it deeper
there is a lack of CPD for teachers of computing
school ICT infrastructures inhibit effective teaching of Computing
the status of computing in schools needs to be lifted, and
there needs to be better computing qualifications.

Here is are their recommendations;

‘ICT’ as a term should no longer be used but be replaced by digital literacy, Information Technology and Computer Science,
the “government should set targets for the number of Computer Science and Information Technology specialist teachers, and monitor recruitment against these targets in order to allow all schools to deliver a rigorous curriculum”,
the government should “set a minimum level of provision for subject-specific CPD for Computing teachers”,
providers of managed service should “prepare a set of off-the-shelf strategies for balancing network security against the need to enable good teaching and learning in Computer Science and Information Technology”,
“technical resources should be available in all schools to support the teaching of Computer Science and Information technology” examples might be “pupil-friendly programming environments such as Scratch, educational micro-controller kits such as PICAXE and Arduino, and robot kits such as Lego Mindstorms”,
the curriculum orders need rewriting,
KS4 computing science courses need developing, and
there should be greater out-of-hours opportunities for doing computer science.

Numbers 3, 5 and 8 have resource implications and are therefore less likely to be enacted by the present government. We already know that Gove is considering (has decided) to suspend the national curriculum orders for ICT so number 6 is similarly ill-fated.

I haven't thoroughly read the report, only the executive summary and then skimmed the main body. It's a sizeable document at 85 pages and 8 appendices. It's also full to bursting with typos; scientists eh!

Michael Gove's Speech at BETT 2012

2012-01-18T04:06:00.000-08:00

The fact that the Secretary of State has made a speech opening the technology in education trade show is in itself a very significant fact. In the first few months after coming into office all the signals were that ICT was very much off the schools agenda. The Harnessing Technology Grant was redirected to fund Free Schools, Becta was closed and the Building Schools for the Future Programme was ended. Michael Gove subsequently stressed traditional educational values and subjects. But this latest speech confirms a new approach; a view that technology is essential to schools and education policy.

Key Messages

Gove offered us some insights.He observed that technology has transformed many industries, but not education.He proposed that technology can make it possible;

“to disseminate learning much more widely than ever before”, and gave the example of the Khan Academy
to change teaching, for example “games and interactive software can help pupils acquire complicated skills and rigorous knowledge in an engaging and enjoyable way”
to bring “unprecedented opportunities for assessment ... Brailes Primary School, for example, a small rural school on the border of Warwickshire and Oxfordshire, uses online tools enabling teachers to use pre-assembled tests, or design tests of their own”

He made it clear that the present programme of study and qualifications in ICT are not good enough.

Solutions

The Secretary of State went on from these remarks to outline a programme that would address these issues and opportunities. He was clear that this was not about “hardware or procurement”.He said that “we need to improve the training of teachers so that they have the skills and knowledge they need to make the most of the opportunities ahead”. The Secretary of State announced a “£2m programme to fund and research innovative technology projects in schools”. He stated that “Teaching Schools across the country are already forming networks to help other schools develop and improve their use of technology. The Department for Education is going to provide dedicated funding to Teaching Schools to support this work”.

To tackle the problems with the current ICT curriculum and qualifications he announced that “the Department for Education is opening a consultation on withdrawing the existing National Curriculum Programme of Study for ICT from September this year” and that no replacement would be provided. He was clear that “ICT will remain compulsory at all key stages, and will still be taught at every stage of the curriculum”. Michael Gove further stated that “we're encouraging rigorous Computer Science courses” and that “Computer Science is a rigorous, fascinating and intellectually challenging subject”. He even suggested that “we will certainly consider including Computer Science as an option in the English Baccalaureate”.

Discussion of these and many other issues is being carried through at http://schoolstech.org.uk.

Ofsted ‘ICT in Schools 2008-2011’ Report

2011-12-15T05:01:00.000-08:00

The last Ofsted report on ICT in schools appeared in 2009 and I wrote a short piece about it in this blog. The highlights then(as I saw them) were
- weaknesses in assessment of ICT capability
- weaknesses in KS4 qualifications in ICT
- consistent use of ICT as an enabler across the curriculum

Now in 2011 we get a further report on ICT and the key findings could have been copied and pasted from that 2009 report.
These weaknesses were found in both primary and secondary schools; tracking progress of pupils was poor leading to “teachers and pupils lacking an understanding of current performance and what was needed to improve” (p. 4), there is insufficient coordination of ICT learning in other subjects and a lack of support for staff teaching more demanding topics (like control and programming), and few schools are systematically assessing the impact of ICT on achievement.
Secondary schools were also found to have limited teacher capability in programming. Students were repeating work from previous years (as a result of poor assessment routines). The gifted and talented were not effectively attended to in ICT. Qualifications for KS4 were not meeting the needs of students; not preparing them properly for further study of ICT. There are fewer girls than boys choosing ICT at KS4. Finally and perhaps most worrying the leadership and management of ICT is no better than satisfactory in half of schools, and the overall effectiveness of ICT is good or better in only one third of secondary schools.
There are strengths revealed by this survey. ICT for SEN students is an area of strength as is e-safety. Primaries seem to be doing well with their leaders understanding the contribution of ICT to their school. These schools have regular audits of staff CPD requirements. The overall effectiveness of ICT good or better in two-thirds of primary schools. It was also good to read that there are some examples of “exciting and ambitious vision for ICT” (p. 30) in outstanding secondary schools (although not exactly a cause for jubilation).
Ofsted pointed to some trends;
- there were less PC suites and now more laptops and handheld devices
- VLEs were being used in most schools
- schools are facing real challenges with the procurement of new equipment.

These are the report's recommendations;
The DfE should “set out clearly the pivotal role of ICT in school improvement and in preparing young people for higher education and for skilled work”
All schools should
- Improve assessment of ICT
- Provide access to whole ICT curriculum
- Provide subject specific support and CPD to up teacher confidence and expertise
- Look into collaborating to procure
- Keep up their focus on e-safety
Secondary schools should
- provide a better range of KS4 ICT courses
- Provide opportunities for KS4 students to engage with ICT use in business
- Get more girls doing ICT KS4
- Make sure all students can benefit from ICT across all subjects

There are some thought provoking sections like para. 16 (p. 12 -13) that lists items found in good/outstanding teaching in primary;
- "well-judged pace was sustained throughout the lesson, with effective strategies for maintaining all pupils’ engagement at a high level, even through periods of time when data needed to be uploaded or equipment had to be changed
- teachers had excellent subject knowledge and teaching assistants were well informed and briefed
- consistent attention was paid to reinforcing pupils’ understanding and their use of key words
- planning was thorough and detailed, with particular attention to meeting the different requirements of individual pupils
- clear and explicit learning objectives were proposed and then discussed with pupils and displayed throughout the lesson
- safe working was emphasised at all times and with all resources
- a range of equipment and resources was available wherever pupils were learning, including laptops, cameras, recorders and alternative operating systems
- excellent use was made of interactive whiteboards to recap and review in a fast-paced manner, and to introduce new learning in a highly motivating, stimulating format
- opportunities were available for pupils to experience ‘real world’ ICT use outside school
- teachers encouraged pupils to be independent and to make sensible choices about appropriate equipment and materials for their task
- questions were used skilfully to challenge and extend learning
- formative assessment, through a variety of means, was an integral part of each lesson and self- and peer-assessment were actively promoted
- explicit links were made with key learning points in other subjects and most especially in literacy and numeracy.”

There is a similar list in para. 56 (p. 23) looking at good/outstanding teaching in secondary;
- “lessons were well planned with a good variety of activity and resources
- assessment for learning was embedded throughout the lesson with feedback, frequent marking and praise linked into planning the next lesson
- lessons were brisk with smooth transitions so that no time was lost for learning
- teachers encouraged well-structured peer and self-assessment
- students were clear about their own current level and what they needed to do to improve
- learning activities were expertly differentiated to meet individual students’ needs
- questioning was used to deepen understanding, rather than just to check knowledge
- key terminology was introduced and reinforced
- relevant and practical contexts were used to bring tasks to life.”
There is also para. 85 (p. 33) that describes additional features of good/outstanding cross-curricular use of ICT.
“The teacher’s skill in selecting appropriate ICT use was key to student progress. Good teachers made discriminating and well-planned use of ICT to support directly the aims and objectives of the lesson. They designed a wide range of activities which provided plenty of opportunities for independent and small-group work and peer review. There was a balance between the use of ICT and other forms of learning and students were encouraged to learn to choose the best ICT tools and applications and to discriminate between different sources of online information.”

I suffered from a confusion when reading these lists, are these recommendations, or commonly observed features, or always present? I’m not sure if they are a definition of what Ofsted considers to be good/outstanding teaching of ICT or what teachers did when another set of characteristics that define good/outstanding teaching were visible? In other words are these enablers or definitions of good teaching? Similar confusions afflict me when reading para 77 (p. 29 - 30) that defines outstanding ICT at a secondary school, as;
- “an ambitious strategic place for ICT as the engine for innovation and raising standards
- a collaborative approach to the development and implementation of ICT plans embracing the whole-school community
- clear and effective delegation, with all staff making a contribution
- commitment to continuing training and coaching
- self-critical monitoring
- planned investment in infrastructure and resources.”

Naace has already published a response to the report that is revealing about the present state of schools ICT policy, visble here. They welcome the report particularly that recommendation about the "pivotal role" of ICT. They are also quite pleased that Ofsted mentions their Self Review Framework and ICT Mark (p. 30) as a national benchmarking scheme. All of us involved in promoting the use of ICT in schools will be tempted to cling to these meagre statements like drowning men clinging to wreckage.

McKinsey Report on Social Technologies and Organisations

2011-11-25T00:49:00.000-08:00

In the last week McKinsey have released a report on the ways that organisations are using social technologies to change and extend their business.

The report is available here.

Bear in mind that you'll need to register (for free) to access the content.

The report shows that of the 4,261 respondants to their survey, 40% indicated that they were using social networking for "scanning the external environment ". Social networking was found to be effective at allowing members of networked organisations access external experts. Furthermore 36% indicated that social networking helped them with "finding new ideas".

These are very interesting findings for any school interested in using social networking. Technology obviously has great potential to enable teachers to access experts external to their school. Social networking could be used to make it possible for teachers to get new ideas from other professionals. The McKinsey Report makes it clear that many commercial and other organisations are using social networking in exactly this way.

Pearson Report on Teachers Using Social Media for CPD

2011-10-21T08:19:00.000-07:00

Pearson (the educational publisher) has just brought out a document entitled 'Tweeting for Teachers'. The document is available to download from http://bit.ly/nXEqMY.
It references some individual developments that are impressive. The #ukedchat twitter conversation that takes place every Thursday evening is perhaps the most convincing demonstration of teachers using social media in an organic and widespread manner.
The report does have weaknesses; most notably that the authors have not drawn from two very rich sources of evidence. These are the fields of Knowledge Management, and that of Communities of Practice. The work of Etienne Wenger is very significant in relation to the latter, and Max Boisot in relation to Knowledge Management (see for example, 1995, Information Space: A Framework for Learning in Organizations, Institutions and Culture, London, Routledge). Wenger maintains a website http://www.ewenger.com with ample references to his work if you have an interest in pursuing further reading.

Online Parental Engagement - Futurelab Research Review

2010-03-25T06:15:00.000-07:00

The actual paper is here http://bit.ly/cyOonZ official Title is 'Developing the home-school relationship using digital technologies'.

It is focused on secondary schools and is particularly interested in the child's role in the relationship (Becta described a three way conversation between child, parents and school Futurelab asserts that there has been little research on child's role in the triangle). The paper is a research review and set of strategy proposals flowing from the literature.

Key findings of research:

Parental involvement has a very important impact on achievement and is more significant than class factors or even how good the school is. (I can't help wondering how researchers were able to disentangle social class from the mix.)
Parental involvement improves attendance and behaviour
Parental involvement is effective where there is talk about learning, where parents model high educational aspirations (how did they discount class!) and demonstrate their educational values to the child.
Parental involvement with school activities isn't valuable in raising achievement
Schools that get parental involvement show that 'parents matter' in the school ethos, mutual trust, respect.
There may often be a mismatch of teacher expectations of parents and parents own views of what they should be doing. This can lead to tension or conflict.

The terms of the home-school 'partnership' are all too often set by the school. One-way communication isn't very effective.

The report points to a Becta bit of research indicating that parents get a lot of 'thin communication' (i.e. asynchronous, impersonal, simple and one-way) and seem to need much more 'thick' (i.e. synchronous, personal, complex and multi-directional). This from the Becta research 'complex, synchronous, two-way, reciprocal, communication with parents, specifically about their child, has the most potential for parental engagement with their children’s learning', p. 4 of the Executive Summary (Get this here)

Research says that the best way to get to 'hard-to-reach' parents is to avoid 'deficit' model. In other words validate parents knowledge and skills and build on existing positive interactions between the parents and the young person. In other words don't enforce a completely alien way of working with their children but enhance and celebrate what they already do.

The report lists some barriers to effective partnership; time, childcare, working life, lone parents, transport problems, language. Quite how a school might mitigate some of these is not explored.

The section on social and cultural differences between home and school is thought provoking. It's easy to assume that the move from one to the other is just geographic. But its is often much bigger - the child may have to adapt language, culture and social behaviours. Research indicates that young people can have different identities in school to the home, and that this isn't necessarily an uncomfortable situation. There may be potential for the home identity to have characteristics that the school could value and recognise.

Where technology is used to connect home and school 'the most successful examples were those where there was already “cultural harmony between home and school” rather than bridging the differences between the two' p. 26. Technology then isn't a magic wand to be waved at the issue of engaging parents but will enhance an already good relationship. 'Using technologies to link home and school without considering the socio-cultural differences and unequal power relationships between home and school may potentially reinforce rather than overcome inequalities' (p. 26)

The implication in the section on 'Children's role and Agency' in all this, is that explicit dialogue with students about what they want, could achieve and what might be practicable is a sensible way to enhance their role in these conversations about their learning.

The paper then goes on to consider the strategy implications of these insights. Expectations around, roles and responsibilities, homework, communication, staff as well as parents all need to be carefully explored and definitions agreed, for school home relationships to flourish. For example Futurelab says being 'clear when communication is for ‘information only’ and when a reply is expected is very helpful for parents' p.34.

The beginning of the section on leadership is worth quoting in full:

'A good home-school relationship that really makes a difference to children’s learning does not just happen; it needs to be embedded in a whole-school strategy and reflected in the school ethos. ... Taking seriously an aim to improve homeschool relationships as an integral part of school strategy means it is likely to have an effect on what happens in school at many different levels. Rather than making homeschool relationships the sole responsibility of just one or two staff members, all staff therefore need to be involved in the process of embedding home-school relationships and given the opportunity for appropriate continuing professional development to support this aim. It is also important to have clear, strong leadership from the senior management team in order to maintain a high profile for this agenda' p. 36.

Technology, the paper asserts can help schools identify and tackle emerging problems swiftly. Schools should reduce the stress for parents of raising issues or making complaints and need to see these as opportunities and not threats.

In the whole conversation; sharing of information, expectations and aspirations 'Children themselves ... need to be visible, and to have some level of control for themselves' p. 42 Schools need to involve students in defining the nature and quality of the conversations.

The point that home needs some insulation from the pressures of school is well made. Young people often see home as 'a space of relaxation, of freedom from the demands and pressures of school, and are as concerned with achieving a good ‘work-life’ balance as many working adults are. For many children, time at home is ‘their’ time. Children can therefore resent what can be perceived as the intrusion of school into their time at home' p. 46.

The report contains a great deal of well considered and helpful insights. It is also a very good starting point for exploring some of the research literature on this topic.

The Future of Educational Technology in the UK

2010-03-02T12:30:00.000-08:00

I don't usually post about an idea I have. More usually policy papers or research makes me think about posting a response. Apologies then for explaining a few ideas that have been developing in my head for the last few months.

I am worried about what is going to happen if education sees a dramatic cut in everything but frontline services. The UK is at the forefront of the introduction of technology into the state educational sector. Very substantial amounts have been invested over the past 15 years. During that period professionals working in the state sector and in private educational companies have gained collective wisdom, knowledge and experience in making the most of technology in schools. That collective knowledge has only been partially captured by our universities and by government bodies such a Becta. If a new government were to make big cuts in educational technology spending the UK would risk losing the value that resides within this group. I imagine a large number of teachers would slowly withdraw from innovative use of technology if the funding fell away and school resources became more aged and unreliable. A number of those working to support schools, or selling consultancy or products to the school sector might well go abroad. Within a matter of months the vibrant community of practice that exists across a number of sectors would begin to whither. This seems to me to be a very negligent disposal of the capital invested in education technology. I think there is a case to be made that the greatest and most valuable asset the past 15 years of investment has created is the body of professionals with a multitude of perceptive insights and experiences around schools ICT.

Parallel to the development of this highly valuable resource, the UK has funded the growth of some very successful educational technology companies that are now beginning to sell their products around the world. Promethean is a good example. They now sell interactive whiteboards globally. The company would not have grown half so quickly, or perhaps not at all without the investment in whiteboards made by the government. If an incoming government cuts away the funding for schools ICT we may not see many future examples.

I think we are very quick to denigrate the progress made with educational technology in this country (I've been guilty myself). Visitors from many other western states are very impressed by where we have got to. I suppose I want to propose that those involved in the developments of the last 15 years build a campaign to highlight the precious resource we possess and the very great dangers in losing it through a period of minimal funding.

Literacy Trust Technology and Literacy

2009-12-03T04:10:00.000-08:00

Just read a fascinating piece of research from the National Literacy Trust about technology and literacy. (http://bit.ly/6njOUX) The whole thing is well worth reading if you have interests in either technology and learning or the development of literacy in young people.

The Trust surveyed just over 3000 9-16 year olds and asked them a whole variety of questions about writing, technology and their own abilities with writing. About 20% of the youngsters were on free school meals and so the survey sample includes more of these kinds of young people than the national population. In other words the results probably don't just represent the views of a bunch of posh kids.

If the survey is accurate, technology is providing these young people with enormous opportunities to write that didn't exist when I was a child. '75% of young people said that they write regularly' (p. 4) in text messages, instant messages, in blogs and on social networking sites. After a quick survey of the staff here, (the other person in the office) it turns out that the only writing we did between the ages of 9-16 was at school or the painfully drawn out and tedious writing of thank you cards for birthday and xmas presents. It would be hard to argue, in the face of this research that technology is a force for harm in the development of literate young people.

The research states it finds 'a link between blogging and (self-reported) writing ability and enjoyment of writing' (p. 4) in the executive summary, but is careful to point out in the main body that 'it may just be the case that young people who have a blog have one because they enjoy writing' (p. 34). Indeed this is a problem for anyone trying to ascribe positive impacts for technology on attitudes or self-confidence from a survey such as this; the causal relationship could run either way.

The research shows a big gap between boys and girls in almost every dimension of the survey. The results show boys don't enjoy writing as much as girls, they ascribe more negative characteristics to writers and they rate themselves as worse at writing than girls. The fact that 'boys were more likely than girls to agree with statements that writing is boring (57% vs. 41%)' (p. 5) seems particularly important. It's hard not to think that this attitude is behind much of boys poorer performance than girls across a number of subjects. At my CLC we are exploring ways to increase engagement and enjoyment of writing using computer games. This research makes me think that this is a good thing to be doing.

Building Schools For the Future: Public Accounts Committee Report

2009-07-14T08:21:00.000-07:00

This came out a while ago and I only just got around to reading it. Anyone wants to read the whole document can access it here. It is only a dozen or so pages.

The Committee outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the programme so far (as they see it). Reading the transcripts of the interviews with the head civil servant and the head of PfS (Partnership for Schools), (David Bell and Tim Byles respectively) it is clear that political allegiances affected attitudes. The labour members seem less critical than their Conservative counterparts.

The bits that held my attention on the train down to London are as follows:

The plans for delivery were unrealistic. Even after a review and a rescheduling the Committee still thinks PfS have got an almost impossible target to complete by 2023. As they say 'poor planning has heightened expectations and created disappointment' p8.
School leaders haven't had the support they need, they 'manage the transition and early operational stages without central support and often feel left to manage alone' p9.
The LEP is the preferred procurement vehicle for each local authority going through BSF and it is a very new thing. It is important to know if it is value for money. The committee has this to say; 'Although on paper LEPs look like they might provide cost benefits it is too early to tell whether they will, and their value for money is unproven.' p10. And, 'only 14% of local authority BSF managers ... believed that their LEP would produce cost savings and only a quarter said that overall it was a good approach' p11. Tim Byles told the committee that 'if you talk to people once they become engaged in the project and in this way of delivery they tend to change their view very considerably'. I hope he doesn't mean that those who are against the LEP approach just don't understand it, but it would be easy to interpret his comments in this way.
The Committee are generally positive about the contribution of PfS. They do say that PfS 'has focused insufficiently on achieving the intended benefits of operational LEPs and the intended educational outcomes in schools' p13. There are some eye-watering figures for funds expended on consultants, for example PfS paid KPMG £ 1.3 million over three years for the services of just one person (p20).

The report underlines some of the issues identified by earlier analyses of the BSF programme. Lack of support for school staff engaged in thinking through how to turn millions of investment in buildings and ICT into significant educational change, is my top concern. In my view, investment in people is the most effective way of transforming our schools. Judging by the actions of government this isn't a very widely shared point of view.

School of the Future (SOF) Philadelphia

2009-06-04T06:19:00.000-07:00

Back in 2005 (or perhaps 2004) I was in the audience at a very excited and self-congratulatory presentation about this planned new school that Microsoft was supporting. Lots of money and clever people were involved in the design and the impression I got was that we in the UK should be able to learn enormously from this visionary project.

The school opened in 2005 and after 3 years Microsoft got together a panel to look at how successful the endeavour has been. The answer is sadly - not very. The panel discussion is reported in eSchool News (well worth a look), here. You'll have to subscribe to read it all. It seems harsh that the writers of the eSchool News Report have entitled it School of the Future: Lessons in failure. The school is only three years old and obviously developing. The fact that Microsoft have been so open about the weaknesses of the project is to their great credit. That said, the issues the panel outline are very familiar to anyone involved in supporting schools make the most of their technology.

People - '"We naively thought, I guess, that by providing a beautiful building and great resources, these things would automatically yield change. They didn't," said Jan Biros, associate vice president for instructional technology support and campus outreach at Drexel University and a former member of the SOF Curriculum Planning Committee.'
Process - the school planners worked 'to design the underlying principles and goals for the school' using a Microsoft framework but '"Working within this framework often felt more like an academic exercise than a productive process," said Biros'
People Development - 'The training that Microsoft gave teachers prior to the school's opening also was extremely limited, panelists said. Educators' participation in the project was confirmed only weeks before the school opened, and as a result, many educators could not adequately work the technology needed to enhance classroom learning.'
Support - there 'was no dedicated technical support', all learning content was supposed to be supplied via wireless 'Yet educators frequently encountered problems accessing the internet, because the school's wireless connection often would not work.'

Thanks to Barry Phillips for pointing out the comments at the foot of the article where a couple of students have sprung to their school's defence. These couldn't be taken to articulate the views of the student body, but they do make for an interesting alternative point of view.

My experience makes me think that BSF planning seems much better than the process described here. There is an attention to detail regarding what actual stuff students and teachers will be using and how they will use it that the SOF preparations didn't achieve (if the panel report is accurate). I am not so sure that the professional development preparations are so much superior or that the ongoing sustainment costs are any better thought through. Happy to be corrected by those more closely involved.

Space Strategies for the New Learning Landscape

2009-03-25T05:57:00.000-07:00

It takes a great deal of heavy duty stimulus before I can manage to have anything like an idea. It is testimony to the clarity and innovative thinking to be found in this piece from Educause that I found myself having a number of ideas even before I'd finished it.
It is an HE focused paper but has a great deal within of use to all who have any involvement or interest in the secondary schools rebuilding programme, BSF. You can download it from http://tinyurl.com/dmaoqn.
The analysis of learning spaces that maps the specificity (spectrum from single-use to multi-use) against the formality (spectrum from informal/unscheduled to formal/scheduled) on the x and y axes of a graph was very thought-provoking. (page 2)

It is an analysis that I think would reveal unintended patterns within the space planning going on in some BSF projects. While secondary schools are going to need a large number of formal scheduled spaces, the new approaches to curriculum and learning do indicate a need for some informal and unscheduled spaces.

The author, Shirley Dugdale, advocates a 'Learning Landscape' approach to building design. This encompasses "the total context for students’ learning experiences and the diverse landscape of learning settings available today—from specialized to multipurpose, from formal to informal, and from physical to virtual." The goal is to "acknowledge this richness and maximize encounters among people, places, and ideas, just as a vibrant urban environment does." In HE students will learn most of their stuff outside the lecture theatre and seminar room, so the thinking makes a lot of sense in that environment. My understanding is that is what BSF is trying to help young people develop towards during their secondary school experience. If I'm right, then this paper should have some important insights for BSF.

To make life easy Shirley explains her top strategies for getting this done. The following ten are described in the main section of the paper.

"1. Analyze the whole campus as learning space.

2. Develop insights from user engagement.

3. Plan to support multiple types of learning.

4. Leverage space strategies to enable experimentation.

5. Leverage growth in hybrid courses to gain improved space utilization.

6. Seek strategic partnerships to develop informal learning space.

7. Consider diffuse vs. centralized distribution of functions.

8. Link space performance to learning assessment.

9. Develop workplace settings that foster learning organizations.

10. Recognize learning space beyond the campus."

These ideas stood out.

In relation to the first of these strategies Shirley asserts "In the future, space types are more likely to be designed around patterns of human interaction than around the specific needs of particular departments, disciplines, or technologies." Which in schools might mean, design in less of those single use spaces like science labs and more highly flexible rooms, because technology is making it easier to do experiment-type stuff with ICT in someones front room (perhaps only virtually but you get the drift). But if the spaces aren't specialised around content or subject based categories, what? Shirley thinks that the answer is "Multiple Types of Learning". She offers the following taxonomy.

"collaborative, with active learning and group work,
blended, with learning and other activities happening anywhere/anytime, enabled with mobile technology,
integrated and multidisciplinary,
immersive, with simulated or real-world experiences, and
hybrid, combining online with faceto-face learning activities, augmented with mixed-reality experiences."

For schools this means, I'd guess, that they need to ensure that the range of spaces they are planning allows for all of these learning experiences. That doesn't just mean the rooms, but also the spaces between them and around. For example she makes the following very clever observation "Food can be a powerful attractor for social learning, providing destinations for diverse campus groups to cross paths and connect. If these destinations are designed as compelling places, they can support learning discourse and the sharing of experiences, as well as strengthen community bonds." How many schools would consider the dining room as a learning space? They probably do, outside the eating times.

The paper suggests that the timetable is not a very helpful tool for learning. Here's why. A sequence of lessons will include a variety of types of learning. Yet the timetable fixes all of these to particular rooms for the whole year, regardless of what learning type each lesson might be. Perhaps devolving responsibility for individual rooms would be better. If the school is divided into sections for each department then in each section there could be spaces for all the different types of learning. Students would know which section they were going to at lesson change-over. The department would manage allocation of spaces to classes based on what the teacher had planned to do.

Another solution to this is build in enough flexibility into each room to allow reconfiguration between lessons for different learning types. The problem with this is teachers finding the energy between lessons to move around furniture and ICT.

I was impressed just by the title of the 4th strategy: "Leverage Space Strategies to Enable Experimentation". As Shirley says "learning space strategy is more likely to stimulate institutional change if it can make a variety of teaching settings available to a greater number of faculty". In other words like the chicken and egg you need both the innovative spaces and the willing staff before any innovation is possible.

Number 8 "Link Space Performance to Learning Assessment" is actually about evaluating the effectiveness of the learning spaces. The paper asserts that "Institutions need to develop an ongoing process for researching students’ and faculty members’ experiences with learning spaces". It is hard to disagree. This only makes sense if the buildings that come out of BSF have the adaptability to be reconfigured in response to the insights arising from such evaluative work.

For me, the most important idea developed by this paper is that school designers need to be thinking about the building and its environs as an entire learning space. It won't do to envision students independently learning throughout the school day if the designers only consider the rooms as learning spaces. BSF needs to look at the variety of types of learning that the building will support, at the balance of formal versus informal spaces and at the number of single use versus adaptable and flexible spaces. I have a hunch that getting these balancing tricks right will be a very important part of creating a successful school building.

Innovation and how to do it

2009-03-18T14:02:00.000-07:00

Every now and then (and not very often) I read something and think 'this is really getting to the heart of it'. That is what I thought when I started to read the research from Becta entitled 'Harnessing Technology: business practices which support risk-taking and innovation in schools and colleges'. If I were a wiser man I'd just end this by pointing you at the paper (here).

My advice is best read it for yourself. It's only 27 pages. For those who haven't the time my observations follow.

Firstly I was frustrated by a few things. The authors don't give much away about the sources of their research. Whilst I know they won't list the names of schools and colleges involved it would be useful to know how many they spoke to; how many primaries, secondaries and colleges, who they spoke to; ICT Coordinators, Senior Leaders, Middle Managers, ordinary teachers, where in the country they were, how they were selected and what they asked them. If I knew the answers to these questions I'd have a much better idea about how much faith to put in the findings.

My other gripe is that the paper doesn't seem to have been copy-edited. In the footnotes on page 8, it says 'Harvard ManageMentor: innovation implementation, provided by NCSL (Could we check this title, please?)'. On page 7, 'If there is an cost to being risk-averse, the importance of creating an environment where risk-taking is encouraged is even greater.' It may seem nitpicking, but these little errors do actually make it much harder to read.

(I hope this doesn't lead to someone going back through all my blog entries and listing all the typos)

Having made those criticisms I should make very clear that this is a fascinating piece. For everyone trying to help schools to use technology to enhance learning, the things that help innovation happen are very important to understand. So hats off to Neil McLean (if it was him) for commissioning this work.

It comes in two parts. Firstly the authors, Helena Renfrew Knight (Senior Associate, The Innovation Unit), Dr Scott Bryan and Dr Gilly Filsner, (both Consultants at Kable), describe other research around what makes innovation happen (and what gets in the way). Enablers include a good deal of material around risk management. Apparently the 'right kind of manager can make the difference in fomenting a culture of innovation' (page 9). The report makes clear that previous research into innovation highlights a blame culture, or fear of failure being a big barrier. There's a pleasing little table on page 11 that summarises the barriers and incentives to innovation uncovered by the NAO/PWC.

The second part is the meat. Here are outlined the 'conditions for innovation and risk taking' (page 12). These are categorised into three types; institutional, systemwide and process related.

Institutionally they identify eight 'practices that successful leaders have implemented.. to create a culture of innovation' (page 12). It doesn't say how 'successful' is defined, or more importantly how they decided which institutions exhibited a 'culture of innovation'. The eight 'practices' are; leadership, shared ownership, a no-blame culture (trust), monitoring of risks, motivation (those working in schools suffer from a 'moral purpose' that can 'inspire innovative behaviour' page 16), money, time, promotion of innovation, team work/collaboration, sharing and groovy (not their word) physical spaces. To illustrate here are some quotes.

'“You’ve got to make people feel as though they can make mistakes. Making mistakes is key. For example, we spent £18k on a behaviour monitoring and registration system. We learned the hard way that technology companies will say what they need to in order to make a sale and the system won’t necessarily do what we need. It puts you in a position to know what you need, how to manage these companies and what it is likely to cost.” (Academy)' (page 14) This is from the bit about no-blame. If the only failure is making a mistake and not learning from it then you'll have very few.

In relation to funding the report says 'Obtaining funding to cover a new approach can be key to innovation happening. Our research indicates that recognition of the funding implications for pursuing innovation is essential. It is not surprising that our findings confirm that NAO’s assessment that lack of resources, financial and otherwise, acts as a barrier to innovation.' (Page 16) I hope someone with the key to the public coffers has read that one.

The final section of the research looks at the process of innovating. There was less in this that struck me. But at the end of the paper this and the preceeding ideas about 'practices' are neatly summarised in a diagram. I might just print that one out and pin it to my wall.

Open Source

2009-03-11T03:57:00.000-07:00

The government's policy announcement has generated some interest.

Merlin John (here) reported Becta's Stephen Lucey, executive director for strategic technologies as welcoming the news.

Computing UK followed all this up (here) with a quote from Tim Byles, chief executive of Partnership for Schools, indicating that BSF managed service providers don't do open source (or words to that effect).

No news on Finland (yet).

Finland Encourages use of Open Source by 'Public Administrations'

2009-03-06T01:46:00.001-08:00

Just read an announcement on the epractice website (http://www.epractice.eu/document/5518) to this effect. This was made on 23rd February - so a little ahead of the UK Government policy announcement. Like that policy this one stresses the use of open standards and the possible reduction of costs. The document apparently asserts that "There are many useful open source applications that no Finnish IT service supplier currently supports. However, if the Public Administration has sufficient knowledge and technical skill, selecting such an application can be justified."

The epractice website is a useful source of european news in relation to ICT in public service across the eu.

Open Source in Government Action Plan

2009-03-03T07:39:00.000-08:00

This is interesting. The UK Government announces a major policy shift towards greater use of open-source software. There's a link to the action plan on this page. The page also has a link to a netvibes aggregation page around this issue. It's all very Web 2.0! In fact the policy looks like a very encouraging statement of intent.

The foreword is by Tom Watson MP Minister for Digital Engagement. (As an aside I've just remembered reading that the Government is looking for a Director of Digital Engagement in the Cabinet Office - Seb Schmoller's website was the source.) I was delighted to see that the government wants to 'share and re-use what the taxpayer has already purchased across the public sector – not just to avoid paying twice, but to reduce risks and to drive common, joined up solutions to the common needs of government.' Sounds great, but I wondered what exactly that might mean. Later in the section on policy this appears: 'Where non open source products need to be purchased, Government will expect licences to be available for all public sector use and for licences already purchased to be transferable within the public sector without further cost or limitation. The Government will where appropriate seek pan-government agreements with software suppliers which ensure that government is treated as a single entity for the purposes of volume discounts and transferability of licences.' (Apologies for lack of page references but the document isn't paginated.)

Microsoft licensing rules are byzantine, but my very shallow understanding is that Microsoft likes the idea of transfer of licenses as much as I like having my teeth extracted. I don't want to drift into Microsoft bashing (others do this much better), so I want to point out how long and difficult it was to persuade a web development software company that licenses could be transferred between the host school that my organisation is based within and the CLC itself. My view is that this policy represents a move to a less cosy relationship with the industry. This is a good thing.

Back to the foreword where Tom Watson is adding that 'We want to encourage innovation and innovators - inside Government by encouraging open source thinking, and outside Government by helping to develop a vibrant market.' This also sounds very admirable. Later it is asserted that a key objective will be to: 'embed an "open source" culture of sharing, re-use and collaborative development across Government and its suppliers, building on the re-use policies and processes already agreed within the CIO Council, and in doing so seek to stimulate innovation, reduce cost and risk, and improve speed to market.' Marvellous. This is the kind of thing commentators have been arguing for, so I hope that this will be heartily welcomed.

The paper is peppered with terms to warm the cockles of all the open-source advocates, 'open standards', 're-use', 'open document format' and so on.

The final section is an action plan. This is well worth reading, but all I want to say is that the actions proposed make me think that the government is deadly serious about achieving these objectives.

As a final comment I wonder how far the procurement policies proposed here will be able to impact on the BSF processes across the country. In my view it would be a very good thing if they did.

Ofsted Report 'The importance of ICT'

2009-03-03T05:44:00.001-08:00

This is worth reading and can be downloaded from here http://tinyurl.com/bllnbb.

The comments about the very slow improvement to achievement in ICT are the main findings highlighted by others including the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7919350.stm). But I'd like to draw attention to the second section of the report (Section B from page 29 onwards).

This section starts by asserting that assessment of capability in ICT is still a very significant problem in the state sector. One in five of the schools Ofsted visited had no systems for making these judgements and so students were given the same work in different places. As worrying is the finding that: 'In the majority of the primary and secondary schools visited, teachers did not evaluate specifically how well pupils and students applied and used their ICT skills when working in other subjects.' (page 29) and that 'Most of the primary schools visited missed opportunities for pupils to become involved in peer or self-assessment...' (page 29).

Ofsted then devote a couple of sides to analysing the qualifications at KS4 in ICT. The report is pretty damning in its judgements on the new vocational qualifications. I was taken aback. Here is a particularly cutting observation.
'Accreditation of the vocational qualifications is based mostly on the assessment of coursework... Consequently, they are often demonstrating what they can already do rather than being taught new and more difficult skills. Sometimes, teachers direct students’ work too much. In some of the lessons observed during the survey, teachers led their students through the steps necessary to demonstrate that their work met the accreditation criteria. Students were able to meet the criteria, whether or not they had understood what they had done.'(Page 31)
It is a view I think I would have to agree with. It doesn't seem to be very helpful to the present issues around the introduction of diplomas that the government is facing. The report also describes the vocational qualifications as 'limit[ing] the achievement of higher attaining students' and failing to develop the really important ICT skills for the future such as 'manipulating data and programming' (page 32). Ofsted really puts the boot in when they state that there needs to be a 'proper evaluation of the challenge posed by vocational qualifications ... if they are to retain credibility with students, parents and employers.' (Page 32) In other words these vocational qualifications aren't rigorous enough, they don't teach the right skills and students can pass them without knowing even the undemanding content they do encompass. Ouch.

For a professional working with schools to embedd ICT I read the final part of section B 'Getting ICT to the learning' (page 35) with very great interest. It contains a very great deal of wisdom about the issues around integrating ICT across the curriculum. For example my own experiences are very much in accord with this observation from the report: 'Nationally ... although the use of ICT in other subjects is generally improving, the picture this survey establishes is one of patchy provision and inconsistent progress.' I nearly shouted aloud in agreement when I read 'Progress in using ICT to improve learning in other subjects is sometimes limited because its use was not sufficiently considered when planning the work or because of individual teachers’ lack of understanding of when and where ICT might make a difference.' (Page 36) Another hallelujah 'Schools have successfully created a demand from teachers to be able to use ICT to improve learning in other subjects but are rarely able to meet it. Most primary and secondary schools have chosen to centralise the bulk of their ICT resources in networked computer rooms. This is necessary for whole-class teaching of ICT but the result is that resources are often extremely limited elsewhere for work in other subjects.' (Page 36) The practical problems of enabling access to ICT for students through all their lessons is still a very big and serious limiter on teacher use of ICT. Ofsted think that mobile devices might be an answer. I'm not sure. You can't edit video on many handhelds I've seen. This is an issue that isn't going to go away.

Online Parental Engagement

2009-02-20T06:50:00.000-08:00

This is a specific DCSF target for schools. Secondary schools are required to report the following information online: attendance, behaviour, progress, attainment and special needs. This needs to be in place by September 2010 (2012 for primaries). It is easy when responding to a national dictat like this to focus on meeting the requirement, without thinking more broadly about what it is intended to achieve. The goal of this process is to create an effective and helpful conversation with parents about their child's learning. The conversation shouldn't be one-sided and it should help both sides tailor what they do to support the development of the child as a learner.

With the schools I work with it seemed that we needed to take a couple of steps backwards and look at the whole communication strategy the school employs. In fact it turned out that the schools had never considered communication with parents in this wider sense before. I've just been supporting this by creating a survey that they have used to ask their parents about how and what they want communicated.

The answers the parents gave were in the end not very clear cut. One said "The preferred method of communication would differ in different circumstances. For general purposes I would prefer letter format, but for emergencies, such as illness I would prefer a telephone call." Letter was still (marginally) the preferred method of communication. But I think the point made by this parent probably means another survey of views with a little more sophisticated questioning needs to happen.

The preference for letters might also mean that parents were thinking about messages and not communication in general.

Once a better picture has emerged I think the schools should then be thinking about how the web based communication fits into that bigger landscape. I'll post further developments with this as they arise.

NAO Report on BSF

2009-02-18T01:59:00.001-08:00

You sit around waiting for analysis of BSF for months on end, and then all of a sudden three reports come along in quick succession.

This one is from the National Audit Office and can be downloaded from here. The NAO is concerned with value for money and effective use of money. This is not a report about the learning and teaching in BSF schools. Nevertheless it is worth a look if you have an interest in BSF, at least read the executive summary (only 10 sides).

The opening sections explain the byzantine funding arrangements. They are baffling.

The report contains a number of very instructive graphics, diagrams explaining the funding arrangements, number of new schools built against the targets and so on, and I've tried to copy some into here but without success. If you want the pleasure of these you'll have to look at the original report.

The substance of the report is about value for money and here the NAO are equivocal. They explain that 'projects have been slow to provide data, and PfS has not yet collected enough on their whole life costs to enable us to come to a firm judgement on the projects’ overall value for money. There is also limited data on schools procured through other routes to provide ready benchmarks of all aspects of their costs.' (p24) The report does find that Academies were significantly more expensive to build than BSF schools, BSF £1,850 per square metre average costs compared to £2,240 per square metre for Academies before the programme was integrated into BSF.
'There is no statistical difference between the average price of BSF schools and PFI schools built before BSF was launched. The prices of schools procured through other routes are not collected centrally.' (p24)

The report also finds some benefits from the use of the LEP as well as some shortcomings. The report echoes the findings of PWC when it says 'BSF requires significant time commitment from school leaders, who told us that it creates considerable pressure on their ability to carry out their other duties. Some Local Authorities provide their schools with additional resources to plan and procure BSF, including to cover teaching while leaders (Governors, Heads, Deputies, and other senior staff) commit time to BSF.' But 'School leaders in our focus groups told us they often felt left to manage alone.' (p27) This is unacceptable. I also wondered about the observation, 'The best design of each individual school developed by bidders during the procurement process does not always win, because: the Local Authority scores bids on a variety of factors of which design counts for only 18 per cent...' I understand that LAs can't make a choice solely on design quality, companies selected must have the capacity and the experience necessary to be successful. Yet 18% seems very low.

It is very interesting that the views of LAs and private sector partners differ significantly when asked about if the LEP is a good approach to renewing school estate and equipping it to be capable of improving educational outcomes. It is hard to say exactly as the figures are not given but around 65% of the private sector partners thought that the LEP was either 'effective' or 'highly effective and worthwhile'. Only about 28% of LAs were of the same opinion. Quite why these opinions differed so widely I couldn't explain. The report does not even note this variation. I would be very keen to hear from anyone involved who thought they could explain this.

There is positive judgement about PfS in the report. But the NAO does note that PfS performance targets are all about timeliness and not quality and an implication that this isn't helpful to the main task at hand.

The report includes detailed case studies from Manchester, Bristol, Kent, Lewisham, Solihull, Lancashire and Ealing. There is a great deal of informative material in these and I'd cover this if I had the time. Again I recommend the report to you, but don't go there looking for answers to questions of educational quality.

Building Schools for the Future and Futurelab

2009-02-13T06:27:00.001-08:00

Futurelab have just released a document called 'Transforming Schools for the Future?'. Download it from here. Four contributors have written short essays designed to stimulate thinking around the BSF process. Tim Rudd (Senior Researcher at Futurelab) argues that BSF will be more effective at changing learning for the better if young people are given a genuine voice in designing these new schools. His argument is very compelling. Tim recognises that personalisation if it has any meaning must imply student choices and empowerment. So, he argues, BSF should embrace learner empowerment. I find this an attractive proposition. I am a great believer in the idea that the means make the ends. The argument would be stronger if it was not based solely on logic. Unfortunately he doesn't refer the reader to any examples of this working in practice.
Nick Page is next and makes some similarly straightforward proposals to improve BSF. He wants greater preparatory work with schools. He wants more testing and experimenting before schools begin. I particularly appreciate his reference to City Learnining Centres (p 11) as good places to do the experimenting. He says 'Every project should have a link university who can help provide the research methodologies and support'. I'm sure most observers would say these are very sensible ideas. His focus on the human process of thinking through the whole thing makes a lot of sense. It made me think about the PWC report I wrote about a few weeks ago - visible here. Lack of funding to schools to help them prepare is highlighted in the report.
Rosemary Luckin, (Professor of Learner Centered Design, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education) has, in my opinion, some of the most interesting reflections.
'Teachers have a vitally important role in the realisation of the transformative power of technology, but this role is continually evolving and teachers need support to operate effectively in a ‘perpetual beta’ world.' (p 14) This made me stop and think for a minute. What makes google docs so powerful is their ability to add functionality, or alter the interface on the fly. They can watch the effects and decide whether or not to keep the change or try something else. Teachers should be able to use technology to support a similar process with learners.
She says on page 15 that BSF needs to 'explore how the school can be designed in a manner that enables it to continue to evolve'. A fabulous point I think. Learning is at the centre of this dynamic, and without the ability to change, what point would there be in educationalists and learners finding out what is effective and suboptimal in their buildings?
Bob Harrison of Toshiba Information Systems is the last contributor. I was struck by this question.
'How do we create a climate for the education workforce to innovate and be creative within a system which is “internally consistent and self sustaining”?' (p 20) This is at the heart of much of the weaknesses in BSF at present. I remember PM Tony Blair asserting that standards not structures matter and being sceptical. Very often the former are shaped by the latter. Our present school system creates institutions that are extremely risk averse and defensive. If BSF can be a tool for decoupling some of the engines that create this climate in schools then I'll be delighted.

PWC Report on BSF

2009-01-23T04:52:00.000-08:00

This has appeared having a publication date of December 2008. The full report can be downloaded from here. This is the teachernet website run by the DCSF. It has the following upbeat summary of the report.
'The report shows that BSF is making good progress, that there is increasing belief in all stakeholders that it will deliver strong benefits for teaching and learning, and particularly from schools as they actually go through the programme. There is strong evidence of satisfaction with their new buildings from the staff and pupils of the first four new BSF schools opened.'

Strange then that the actual report should say:
'.. staff ... were generally less knowledgeable than other stakeholders of the aims and objectives of BSF for their school, or the potential for the programme to have longer-term educational impacts.' and, 'Schools should review their communication strategies in order to ensure that the processes used to inform teaching staff are effective'.

I suppose if staff had known almost nothing at the last review then it would be fair to say they have an increasing belief in the strong benefits. Or perhaps the DCSF doesn't include staff as a stakeholder group?

I found these headline findings very interesting.

'BSF managers and directors in four of the 11 LAs interviewed stated that they did not provide funding to schools to enable them to implement BSF.' Although the remaining 7 did provide funds. I would have thought all schools would need financial support to undertake all the very necessary preparatory work for BSF. The report says 'Most [heads] said there was a shortfall, sometimes a large one, between LA funding received and the actual costs they had incurred' and so it goes on to recommend better funding. I've seen a very great deal of capital investment in schools be less effective because of a failure to invest in human resources. ICT put in to schools where staff receive insufficient training and support is just one example. So this is a particular disappointment.
The effectiveness of the LEP (Local Educational Partnership) as a tool for delivery of BSF is examined. I find it very concerning that this was reported, 'Given that ICT provision and maintenance is one of a number of key responsibilities of the LEP, it is surprising that only one-fifth of headteachers (20%) agreed or strongly agreed that the use of a LEP for ICT provision and maintenance and other related services would be a good thing, and that negative responses were higher than for other questions ... (at 21%).' BSF has been a trojan horse for the imposition of managed ICT services in schools. This is an experiment. The evidence for the effectiveness of managed services in schools is limited at best. (See for example the Becta research I posted about here.)
The views on the LEP itself were also worrying. 'Just under one fifth of headteachers overall (19%) thought that educational interests would be adequately represented in the LEP, with a higher number of positive responses from Wave 1-3 schools than from Wave 4-6 schools (32% and 13% respectively).' So even in the wave 1-3 schools two-thirds of the heads interviewed were not able to be confident that educational interests would be paramount to the LEP. If I was running Partnership for Schools (PfS - the quango steering BSF) I'd be very worried by these numbers!
Further 'A small number of interviewees expressed concern that the contracting company might be too dominant within the LEP (reflecting the fact that the LEP model is 80% private, 10% BSFI and 10% LA controlled).'

So overall not the terrific success the teachernet website claims.

Specialist Schools

2009-01-22T04:30:00.000-08:00

News reports of research don't always represent it as faithfully as they might. Just a moment ago I was looking at the BBC rss feed on education and came across the following headline 'Specialist schools' value queried'. I clicked through to the full article that explained;
'The success of England's specialist schools is an illusion, with the extra money they receive and intake being the crucial factors, according to a report. A University of Buckingham report said the system had led to schools with names that "did not mean very much". It said 2007 research suggested pupils at schools specialising in music were more likely to get A grades in physics A-level than those at science schools. ' 'The authors of the latest study say specialist schools appear to do better because poorer performing schools were not granted specialist status. Professor Alan Smithers said: "All the SSAT's (Specialist Schools and Academies Trust) comparisons amount to is that if you take effective schools and give them extra money, they do better than less effective schools without extra money."
The study showed, he said, that the extra money pumped into specialist schools, as well as their intake of pupils, had the biggest impact on results.'
Goodness I thought this is pretty damning so I went to the University Of Buckingham's website and downloaded the report. That the title of the report is 'SPECIALIST SCIENCE SCHOOLS' is quite surprising. The authors are chiefly interested in the decline in numbers of young people choosing A Level Physics.
'Since 1990, physics entries, based on the annual returns of what is now the Joint Council for Qualifications, went down from 45,300 to 28,100 (38.0 per cent decrease), while total entries went up from 684,100 to 827,700 (21.0 per cent increase).' 'In this report we investigate what has prompted schools to choose particular specialisms and what contribution they are making in their nominated subjects. In particular, it has as its core questions: (1) are science schools increasing participation in physics at GCSE and A-level; and (2) are they improving performance in physics at GCSE and A-level?'
Given these objectives it is hard to understand how the headlines from the BBC came out of the research. The report itself isn't a very impressive piece of work. For example the attention grabbing comparison of Music and Science Specialist Schools looks unconvincing when there are only 12 Music Specialist Schools being compared with 159 Science.

The Sutherland Inquiry into National Curriculum Testing in 2008

2008-12-17T04:49:00.000-08:00

The full report can be accessed here.

The responsibilities for failure are made crystal clear.

Page 1
“The primary responsibility must therefore rest with the American organisation, ETS Global BV (ETS), which won the public contract to deliver the tests and failed its customers.”

“The events of this summer also represent a failure on the part of one of the Government’s Non-Departmental Public Bodies, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), to deliver its remit. ... In practice, the first time QCA notified Ministers that ETS would not deliver test results on time was 30 June 2008. The whole episode was punctuated by similar instances of poor communications, whether to schools, to the marking community, or between the organisations involved.”

Nowhere is it suggested in the report that the number of links in the chain of command makes the effective completion of the marking of tests more difficult. I find it revealing where Jim Knight comments on what happened in July 2008
“That is when the whole business of the relationship between us and QCA, NAA and then the contractor started to come sharply into focus, because clearly we were asking for things from QCA that we then were not getting. You then had to decide whether or not to forgive the QCA because it was actually the contractor’s fault, or whether it was a problem with the QCA. In the end, I had to take the view that our relationship was with QCA, it wasn’t with the contractor. It was up to QCA to come up with the answers and solutions to the problems. How they did it was up to them, they just had to deliver. And frankly, they weren’t.” (Page 80)
In other words DCSF – QCA – ETS chain meant that the government was dealing with the developing crisis at one remove from the operational end.

The inquiry report doesn’t consider the whole contracting approach to tests as a possible source of difficulty. Private sector commissioning of public sector activity is so habituated within government strategy that the question doesn’t even seem to have been asked. Rather Sutherland focuses on the detailed arrangements between all these parties assuming that the solution to the problem lies within them.

Page 35 “The Secretary of State the Rt Hon Ed Balls MP has described:
‘…in terms of the delivery of tests, I don’t think there was ever any doubt that there should be an agency function. It is not sensible for ministers to get involved in the details of the procurement process, but actually the kind of expertise that you need in order to manage a complex contract, isn’t the same as the kind of expertise you need to make good policy…’”

So the advisability of external commissioning of testing is not questioned, only the separation of strategic and operational functions.

Page 36
“DCSF Permanent Secretary David Bell has described the department and QCA’s respective roles:
‘…what we do is delegate by remit letter essentially a large number of our delivery responsibilities. And to some extent that reflects the theology of the last twenty years or so as central government departments have increasingly passed over responsibility to other government agencies…’”
What an interesting choice of words, ‘theology’.

Page 37
“QCA Chief Executive Dr Ken Boston has stated that:
‘Government is at arm’s length only from the detail of the test questions and from the marking and level-setting… Throughout the process of procuring the contract and delivering the tests according to DCSF specification, ministers and officials had access to exactly the same data and information as the NAA and the QCA; they were active participants in the process; and they provided a separate source of advice to ministers. They were properly part of the process, and in no way at ‘arm’s length’.’”
If this is the case it makes Ed Balls comments from page 35 seem misguided.

Questioning the use of private sector providers for public sector functions as vital as national testing, seems unlikely, given David Bell’s view of the current ‘theology’. If private sector involvement had been within the scope of the Sutherland Inquiry and present difficulties had been contrasted with performance when these functions were delivered by the public sector, the conclusions might have been very different.

Interim Report on the Primary Curriculum

2008-12-10T04:48:00.001-08:00

This has just been released and can be downloaded from here.

The press attention has been around the recommendation that primary schools change their organisation from a subject to a more thematic approach. This reflects much of what has been going on in the secondary curriculum of late and is very relevant to the House Committee on Children, Schools And Families examinations that were reported in my last post.

Sir Jim Rose acknowledges the tensions between the two approaches to organising learning and states; "six areas of learning are proposed to give schools optimum ﬂexibility for planning cross- curricular studies, and ample opportunities to teach essential content discretely and directly". In other words lets give schools the ability to do some thematic work but at the same time design the curriculum so that they are influenced to teach the really important building blocks of content. A recommendation is..

"Given the excellent examples of both witnessed by the Review, neither discrete subject teaching nor cross-curricular studies must disappear from primary schools. Schools should protect time when learning is best served by teaching subject content discretely and systematically, and give children ample opportunities to use and apply their developing subject knowledge, skills and understanding in cross-curricular studies."

I am pleased that he highlights the need to develop young peoples' ability to speak and listen.
"Discussion of reading, writing and numeracy in primary education often fails to recognise the central importance of developing children’s spoken communication."

ICT is also given a strong role in helping improve the learning that goes on in primaries. He states "One highly promising route to meeting the demand for in-depth teaching and learning is undoubtedly emerging through ICT." It is clear that he believes that ICT capabilities need to be explicitly addressed and also that ICT itself is an enabler of enhanced learning across all subjects (and themes).

I await the final report with keen anticipation

House Committee on Children, Schools And Families

2008-11-28T01:45:00.000-08:00

Many will have already seen reports of the evidence given to the Children, Schools And Families Committee of the House on the 17th November. Teresa Bergin, Professor David Hargreaves, Tim Oates And Mick Waters were all examined. The reporting has tended to focus on the views expressed on personalisation. These are interesting. For example David Hargreaves was asked about how he defines the term and responded;

'The current thing from the Department quotes the definition given in the Gilbert report on teaching well in 2020, of which I was a member: "It means strengthening the link between learning and teaching by engaging pupils-and their parents-as partners in learning." In my view, that is well-intentioned waffle. It is well intentioned, but it means nothing. In fact, many schools will say that that is what they do. There is no implication of action at all. '

This is unsurprising. In my view personalisation in education policy was an example of strategy flowing from marketing. Number 10 liked the word and it's associations and it was up to the civil servants, education quangos and schools to make something useful out of it. I thought David Miliband's definition at the the North of England Education Conference in January 2004 was the best of many attempts to make the idea coherent. But in the end the poverty of philosophy behind the idea overwhelmed it.
Much more interesting in my view is the discussion of thematic structures for learning.

Hargreaves;
"I know of no hard evidence that teaching thematically, as opposed to under subject labels, would produce better learning, although it might be attractive and engaging to some learners. On the other hand, there is hard evidence that project-based learning-I encourage you to make the distinction-can improve not only students' engagement, but their achievement"

Tim Oates;
"the work of groups such as the science education group at Leeds suggests that unique methodology and bodies of knowledge are intrinsic to subjects. If those are not taught systematically or covered, there will be problems in progression through the education system at all stages. "

So the witnesses described the tensions between project based and subject based learning. A number of very important issues were revealed. Without enormous care project based learning can allow some young people to miss key building blocks in particular subjects. Maths was highlighted as a subject where the understanding and knowledge is hierarchical - a child without a foundational element will never be able to grasp higher concepts.
The issue of rigour was also raised. The witnesses seemed to believe that lack of rigour is a weakness particular to project based approaches. I don't accept this.
I do agree with these very well informed witnesses that the quality assurance issue is key now that central government is beginning to step back from a highly directed approach.

Hargreaves;
"What has been happening in more recent times, and will continue to happen with the loosening up of the national curriculum, is that schools are quite properly trying out new ways in which to engage young people. In my judgment, the centre should be asking, "How can we identify what is really rigorous in what you are trying?" and feeding it back. Matters should be iterative between the centre and the schools. At the moment, we do not have that kind of partnership-we have schools sitting, expecting the centre to dictate to them which does not work. That is the whole point of personalisation. Customisation has to respond to the needs of the clients, but the role of the centre is to say, "Are you sure that you are doing it well?" Although I may be wrong, I am willing to bet that if you asked Ofsted what criteria it uses to judge whether project-based learning is good in schools, it does not have a research-based checklist by which to judge what they observe."

The question of spreading good practice arose from this discussion and it seemed generally accepted by the witnesses that there isn't any one education body with a clear remit for this task. The sharing of good practice by teachers themselves is something I think is much more complex than is generally understood. At one point Mr Chaytor (a committee member) remarks;

"I am amazed that the spirit of Wikipedia has not permeated the whole of the teaching profession, and that teachers in schools up and down the country are not posting up their best ideas."

Actually there are a very large number of websites where teachers share materials. The reason these sites are less useful than they might be is that contexts vary dramatically. One teachers excellent resources are useless for another in a very different school. Teachers own teaching styles vary as well so that resources that work very well for one teacher don't feel right for another. I think teachers rating each others resources is probably the best way to solve this problem. We don't need any more resource sharing websites but something like digg for teachers where they rate resources they find all over the web.

Art History

2008-10-29T04:40:00.000-07:00

It isn't often that I come across an online learning resource that really impresses but http://smarthistory.org does. It's a lovely collection of discussions around some key pieces of art from history. The scope is huge covering classical art to modern. In total the website has 157 artworks and a slightly smaller number of podcasts where the works are discussed. These discussions are what I think teachers will find most useful. Although the language is often sophisticated, the two editors Beth Harris and Steven Zucker do make an effort to explain terms like 'neo-platonic' for example. The great strength of these podcasts is that teachers will be able to play them again and again and offer their own support and commentary alongside.

Becta Review 2008

2008-10-22T08:37:00.001-07:00

Another report from Becta worthy of consideration by all those who work with schools on ICT development. Accessible here
The figures on teachers attitudes and skills with ICT on the face of it look very good.
77% of teachers either very confident or quite confident in using ICT to deliver the school curriculum. Most teachers enthusiastic in 51% of schools.
Bear in mind that the first of these figures represents the views of an ICT Coordinators. It worries me that only a minority of teachers seem enthusiastic about ICT in 49% of schools. In the work we do with schools teacher attitude is as important if not more important than their skills in determining the outcome of an ICT related project.
The research also asked teachers how effective they thought they were in using ICT to support teaching and learning in the classroom. 77% said they were either quite or very effective. Interestingly there was a strong correlation between years of experience and effectiveness. This result somewhat undermines a common assumption that it is the newer members of the teaching profession who are best at using ICT in schools.

Becta Report on Web 2.0 in Schools

2008-10-07T04:30:00.000-07:00

Lots of reports actually, all visible here
http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&&catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=14543

The summary document contains the following sobering finding for all those Web 2.0 utopians:
"Overall, although most learners use the internet for learning, there is only limited use of Web 2.0, and only a few embryonic signs of criticality, self-management and meta-cognitive reflection."
"Relatively few learners are engaging in more sophisticated Web 2.0 activities such as producing and publishing their own content for wider consumption."
In other words most of our school children are passive users of social websites and Web 2.0 sites in general. The teacher has a significant role:
"Lack of significant sophisticated activity by learners that involves more than consumption and social networking suggests that there is a role for teachers in supporting effective learning using Web 2.0. This role may be to ensure that learners have the technical skills to use the tools effectively and the metacognitive, synthesis and critical reflection skills to use Web 2.0 applications to support learning wherever they are."
I'd suggest these are probably fairly fundamental skills for lifelong learners in most media, traditional and new.
The following is perceptive and matches with my experiences in this area:
"...perhaps the greater challenge is that, at present, school students do not often create – they too often copy and learn. Often, teachers are unable to easily engage in formative assessment procedures with their students. Traditionally, they do not mix media – the standard output from school work remains paper-based. Traditionally, it has been difficult to blur boundaries between school work and homework. Traditionally, authority has had to appear too singularly invested in the teacher or the textbook.
Web 2.0 approaches seem to challenge each of these structures, and replace them with open-ended learning environments and assessment procedures, with mixed-media outcomes that are created and evaluated in new authority and ownership structures. It is hardly surprising if teachers are only exploring these spaces tentatively and cautiously. "

Sanctions and Rewards

2008-10-07T02:42:00.000-07:00

The NAO has recently published research examining the use of rewards and sanctions in government. (http://tinyurl.com/4wkxt4) The document considers how effective these are in driving improvements in public sector delivery. Education is mentioned. The report is not impressed by the use of threshold based sanctions such as the present 30% used with schools.
'“threshold” schemes, which target absolute levels of performance and do not take past performance into account, may not reward Agents who improve the most as result of starting from a lower base.' (Page 27)
The material on unintended consequences of reward and sanction regimes should be required reading for anyone working within the public sector.
Of course the question does arise - if the NAO are saying that threshold schemes aren't a good idea - why isn't the government listening. (As if I didn't know).

Becta and Microsoft Kiss and Make Up - Not Quite

2008-09-19T04:15:00.000-07:00

As yet limited reaction in the section of the blogosphere I roam through, to this announcement from Becta http://news.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=37559&page=1658&catID=1633 in relation to the long running disagreement between Becta and Microsoft. Just be clear that there is still a complaint from Becta to the EC about Microsoft and this latest announcement hasn't made that go away.

The ongoing bustup was over two issues. First licensing. Now Becta say MS is going to loosen the very tight threads of Schools Agreement Licensing, but in six months... oh and as a pilot.

Microsoft's own Schools Blog http://blogs.msdn.com/ukschools/archive/2008/09/17/becta-pouring-oil-on-troubled-water.aspx reassuringly states "The Becta release is very specifically comparing the new scheme to Schools Agreement, even though the majority of schools don’t use it. So don’t panic – after reading their news release, you might think you’re being forced to license computers you don’t run our software on! You’re not." Phew, what a relief! This blog says nothing about the other dimension of the dispute about ODF document format.

Meanwhile the more balanced Merlin John http://213.232.94.135/merlinjohnonline/news.php?extend.366 (of TES Online fame -God Rest Its Soul) reports "If you were to deduce ... that licence payers were spending more than they needed, that would not necessarily be correct. Licences are often catch-all to give users a free hand across a range of possibilities. They are better value for some than others. And the licensing pilot that Microsoft is undertaking will check out different possibilities to increase flexibility for schools."

So not much of a change then. The other dimension to the dispute is around MS Office 2007 and the ODF format. First MS didn't have Office 2007 open or create ODF documents. Now MS are saying that this will be reversed. ZDNet http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39488825,00.htm quotes Mark Taylor, chief executive of Sirius Corporation and founder of the Open Source Consortium "[Sirius's view] is that Microsoft has been forced to this position, and that the term 'clear commitment' should be read 'dragged kicking and screaming'. If not for the stance of Neelie Kroes and the European Commission, if not for the OOXML roadshow and the ISO controversy, if not for Becta's OFT complaint, does anyone believe this would happen?"

But Becta welcomes the limited moves Microsoft are making.

I just wish Becta would press a well known MIS supplier as hard...

SWE London Research

2008-09-18T03:29:00.000-07:00

Full title is "The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge" from the Institute of Education, University of London. This came out last year and not surprisingly I missed it.
There's some very useful and tantalising pointers in the research.
These stand out

"Discussion of pedagogy should precede and embed discussion of the technology. Successful CPD is most likely to be effective if it supports individual teachers exploration of their current pedagogy, and helps identify how IWB use can support, extend or transform this. Discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different ways of using the technology for particular purposes should be part of the on-going work of a department." [page 4]

"When creating their own texts, many teachers struggle to incorporate principles of design which can establish clear reading paths for pupils. Lack of familiarity with such principles of design may make it much harder for teachers to create and share resources that can be used independently of their author." [page 5] There isn't, as far as I can see, any reference to these 'principles of design' and how you'd find them in the main body of the research.

"The literature suggests a continuum in which new technologies initially support, then extend and finally transform pedagogy as teachers gradually find out what the technology can do. Familiarity, confidence and time are assumed to be the keys that unlock this gradual process of transformation." [page 6] AND "the introduction of an IWB does not in and of itself transform existing pedagogies." [page 6]

"The use of an IWB does not of itself automatically alter the dynamic of whole class teaching in secondary core subject areas. It does offer up an opportunity to think about the strengths and weaknesses of whole class teaching and how else it might be organised. Where we observed best practice, departments or individual teachers were aware of this dimension and had consciously set aside time to reflect on the most appropriate use of the technology in their own context." [page 7]

"More open-ended discussion between colleagues needs to take place about how IWBs can be used to support, extend, and transform existing practice. Each of these uses has a value under the right conditions. Teachers should be encouraged to consider when it is appropriate to use the technology for any of these purposes and which aspect of the technology might be most appropriate to achieve that aim." [page 8]

"the real value of IWBs for teaching and learning in different subject areas of the secondary curriculum is not yet fully understood" [page9]

Becta Report on Managed Services

2008-09-16T05:14:00.000-07:00

These are a big part of what is being leveraged into schools through the Building Schools for the Future programme. Schools get nice shiny new buildings and in return they pretty much have little alternative but to accept a managed ICT service for their school. So since BSF was first announced in 2003 (or earlier possibly...) it's a bit surprising that in March 2008 Becta publish research addressing how much benefit schools can realise through procurement of a managed service. (http://tinyurl.com/6ef6jl)

Since it is a key part of Government Policy within the one of the most expensive capital projects of the administration forgive me for being a little sceptical about the findings of this research. The research team certainly included reputable academics but also Becta representatives. The researchers contacted 400 sites running managed services collected online survey data from 79 and then 29 sites were identified to be visited. Inclusion of some sites that had considered and then rejected outsourcing or some that had outsourced and then moved back to in-house provision would have added some balance. The description of the methodology in the report does not indicate if these approaches were even considered. The final list of sites visited is as below

Site, Visits/interviews, Case studies
Primary 5 2
Special 0 0
Secondary 14 4
Academy 1 1
College 4 2
Local authority 4 3
Adult community learning 1 1
BSF 0 0
Totals
Target 30 13
Actual 29 13

(Page 16)

Secondary schools made up less than half the sites visited and they were less than a third of the case studies. It is also interesting that the research team note "In discussion with Partnerships for Schools (PfS) and Becta it was agreed that it is too early to draw any conclusions from the experiences of BSF schools beyond that published elsewhere as part of broader BSF evaluation." (Page 17) and so BSF schools were not included. This is odd given that this research will almost certainly be used to support the use of managed services within BSF and given the immaturity of the outsourced services that were examined. (See below)

The picture the research paints is of outsourcing commonly occuring because the in-house provision is poor and some event highlights the need for change. "A common picture emerged in all site visits of underinvestment in ICT prior to the introduction of the managed service. This was often compounded by the evolution of technical support roles and ICT management processes to a point where they were unclear or ill-defined. In some cases, school leaders did not fully appreciate the development needs of technical staff. There was also a tacit acknowledgment that technicians were not effectively managed with too much autonomy delegated without appropriate accountability. In many cases, a vision for the contribution of ICT to the overall mission of the school and the translation of that vision into practice was either missing or ineffective." (Page 19) To summarise the problem is too little money and poor management. What is unclear to me is how a managed service would change these underlying problems. For example how would a managed service enable a school to articulate a vision, or have more money?

I am also concerned about the immaturity of the relationships described in the report. 20 of the 42 services that the research examined were no more than 1 year old. (Page 27)

Headline findings that "the managed service does deliver improved value for money from that investment" (Page 5), dissolve into less impressive findings in the body of the report "The vast majority of sites in general felt unable to give meaningful comparative figures as the costs associated with ICT were so poorly understood before the managed service. Therefore, the evidence presented here is largely anecdotal and the conclusions that can be drawn are limited." (Page 27) Given also that the research states "Establishments considering employing a managed service need to ensure that a senior member of staff is given sufficient time and resource to oversee and champion the process ideally from procurement through to the final implementation." (Page 7) there are clearly a range of costs that might be considered within the question of 'value for money'. Sadly the report gives very little indication as to how the very tentative conclusions about this were calculated. As to headline spending "Of the 29 sites visited only 14 were willing and able to even approximate their change in financial expenditure linked to the managed service, with nine stating an increase and five no change or decrease. " (Page 108) Surely the key question here is whether this increased spending (on balance) resulted in a better service than increasing spending on the in-house support function? Making things better by spending more money on them isn't the kind of finding you'd want if you were driving through very large scale systemic change.

On page 110 the report makes the following strange claim in relation to the above "Most sites indicated a rise in expenditure. However, further (often anecdotal) exploration indicates that the majority of that spend arises from new hardware procurement and installation and is therefore not intrinsic to the managed service." Anyone with the slightest experience of ICT systems knows how much ongoing costs can be reduced by the procurement of all new and consistently built hardware. This comment along with many others in the report makes me very dubious about recommending it's conclusions on outsourcing to schools I work with.

ICT Self Review

2008-09-11T02:14:00.000-07:00

There's a very complex and interesting debate to be had about the role students take within state education in the UK. Are they partners, consumers, commissioning agents, subjects or employees? Probably the one thing most educationalists would agree is they are definitely not employees. Are their parents the customer? Are the local employers the customer as they will be consuming much of the finished product?

In terms of IT services, perhaps there might be a case for considering school students to be employees but I’m not convinced. They don’t, perhaps shouldn’t is a better way of putting it, negotiate with IT about the services they require. The school hierarchy does that in their interests. They are, after all, for most of their compulsory education, children, minors and therefore not fully capable of determining what is in their own best interests. I am completely convinced that their views must be listened to, don't think otherwise. But one of the things schools need to do whether they have a managed IT service or not, is to determine what IT services the school wants and what priority each should have.

This determination is close to the heart of the self review process and so it's very important. As I'm starting to work with three schools on the SRF journey these thoughts arose about what the involvement of students might need to be.

SIF

2008-09-10T08:07:00.000-07:00

Schools Interoperability Framework - Becta have recently published a of proof of concept pilot that was run in Birmingham. (http://industry.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=28188) This got much much less attention than even I anticipated. After all school information data structures are not exciting, probably not even to those working on them.

So why is this worth anyone's time and interest?

Capita and the SIMS monopoly. The company have had a very easy time of it - hauling in school finances for their product and not much competition out there. They even charge third party suppliers of products that leverage SIMS to access a schools data.

A couple of years ago Becta fired a salvo across their bows with the catchily titled "Research report: School management information systems and value for money A review with recommendations for addressing the suboptimal features of the current arrangements." (http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=25917) The criticism of Capita therein was surprisingly hard hitting for a quango. And yet not much has happened subsequently.

The SIF if adopted may unlock the potential of the schools data management market. Becta want it as the standard for all MIS systems for schools. The standard will allow software producers to create add-ons to any MIS without proprietary lockins or issues with interoperability. Instead of a SIMS competitor needing to come to market with a fully comprehensive, mature MIS for schools they could develop one incrementally. Replace one 'suboptimal' element of SIMS with their own every so often until all that's left of SIMS is a stub. Schools could mix and match from a number of suppliers. The potential is enormous as up to now, in my humble opinion, schools data management systems have been lacklustre and unhelpful in the task of automating administrative and other tasks for those working in schools.

Interesting to see what happens...

Hello

2008-09-10T07:55:00.000-07:00

When starting a blog what is the protocol, appropriate form?

The intention is that this will be the place where I offer my point of view on stuff to do with technology in UK schools. What would anyone get from this. Honestly probably not that much. I read a good deal of material and lead a City Learning Centre that has does some pretty groovy things with technology in schools. But the credit for that goes to my staff. I pick up some good ideas from them.

Mind you the stupidity of ideas contained herein is entirely my responsibility. Finally the thoughts, ideas and opinions in this blog are personal and do not represent any of the organisations I work with or for. Phew...!