November 2008 - Posts

Learner Voice - its in the can!

I love this idea, so I thought I'd share it. Now on the market are a number of cheap and attractive coloured small voice recorders that can be used for learners to comment on displays. Some have a multi-message recording feature. All you need to do is place one near a display, and let kids record their thoughts ... cool peer assessment tool, ... and they are really cheap!

There are a number of suppliers of this type of equipment.

Becta ICT Self Review - Ch- Ch- Ch- Changes?

I was in London with Becta / NAACE earlier this week to renew my ICT Mark Assessor status. We are required to attend an annual assessors conference, (although its not really a conference, more of a seminar / workshop), where we get down and dirty with the elements!

John Taylor of Becta gave an interesting presentation on the launch of the Next Generation Learning Charter. I've already covered the move to engaging parent power but there was something new. Its widely agreed that the ICT Mark is a challenging whole school standard for ICT and that Schools have not been queuing to be assessed for the ICT Mark, so it can be assumed that Becta are not meeting their ICT Mark targets as a consequence.

The self review framework is supported by an online tool, and there is soon to be a recognition of schools working towards the ICT Mark with a new set of badges schools they can display on letter headings and websites.

Signing your school up to the self review online tool registers the school as 'committed to Next Generation Learning' and the school can display a badge on letter headings. If a school ticks the radio buttons on the tool and enters evidence that indicates they have reached the requirement for the leadership element and two other elements, and from what was said at the workshop they will be contacted and asked if they wish to be considered for the status of 'recognition of progress'. Provided a trusted party is willing to act as a reference, the school can then display a new logo badge displaying 'recognised for ICT 200X and this can be displayed for up to three years. The expectation is that a school will then work towards the full ICT mark within that time.

  • A school can gain a badge for registering on the self review tool.
  • The new badges are the same design for the different levels so an ICT Mark (see slide 44) badge looks almost identical to the 'committed to ICT badge.
  • The trusted party can be a LA advisor or officer, another Headteacher etc. They are not being asked to verify or assess the evidence but to support the integrity of the school.
  • There is a suggestion that schools considered for an ICT Excellence Award should have the ICT Mark which is currently not the case.

The full Becta presentation can be found HERE.

Badge Levels are:

  • Committed to ICT (registered with the online tool)
  • Recognised for ICT (Leadership and two other elements)
  • Accredited (Full award of ICT Mark by an assessor)
  • ICT Excellence Award
Posted by Sophie
Filed under:

Assessment for Learning - critics vindicated?

Alongside my previous post on personalised learning, the same committee also questioned the Assessment for Learning (AfL) strand. Reported in the TES this week, concerns were raised that the DCSF version of AfL differs substantially from the research that led to its adoption where '... pupils should be told only what they needed to do to improve, rather than being given grades."

Professor David Hargreaves addressing the comittee said: "... unfortunately, what the Government has put in place is a debased version ... all the radical stuff about how teachers teach was removed and it began to focus on targets."

In the same TES issue an article on recent research by Professor Hattie concludes:

'Encouraging pupils to question their teachers on what they do and do not understand about a subject is the single most effective way of improving education.' (Welcome back socratic method!).

'They also needed to allow pupils the freedom to make mistakes, as errors were powerful learning tools.'

As a parent, I have seen appalling examples of assessment (not all in Kent schools, as I live in Medway):

"We only give positive comments in reports so we don't damage self esteem" (Medway Primary School). When asked how assessment levels were agreed, it boiled down to teacher opinion; none were able to show how 'levels' related to evidence.

My daughters school ran a pilot of AfL during her year 8. There was a notable lack of staff knowledge about AfL and a highly questionable methodology was adopted (abandoned after one term).

More recently my daughter came home with a set of 'effort' grades, one from each of her teachers. I asked my daughter what they meant, she replied "its what teachers think of you". I contacted her school, asking how they measures effort, e.g. punctuality? homework completed on time? work finished during lessons? uniform? The Heads response shows that individual teachers set out their own effort indicators, and take into account a range of factors'. So, my daughter is probably right!

Formative assessment must be linked to evidence (and I don't just mean a test) and must enable children to review mistakes and improve outcomes. Assessment should also encourage peer review developed through authentic audience. Just imagine if teachers were assessed by their pupils and parents?? Wouldn't they demand a clear process as a condition (but thats another news story!).

Is 'Personalised Learning' just waffle? ... the Emperors New Clothes?

The term 'personalised learning' has just taken a colossal bashing. David Milliband extolled its virtues and Christine Gilbert promoted it as key to education policy in the 2020 vision. Education is awash with acronyms and 'buzz words' that aim to generate an ethos or credo. Education is much like religion, with adherents forming groups that reflect differing perspectives at different times.

Last weeks (Weds 19th November) meeting of the Children, Schools and Families Committee opened the crack a little wider.

The Chair said the phrase (personalised learning) left him in a 'fog' of confusion.

Professor David Hargreaves is an expert on 'personalised learning', and has done more than most to promote it, yet he concluded to the committee that:

"... the trust (SSAT) had struggled for years to find a definition for personalised learning. “I have concluded it is a total waste of time trying to find a tight definition. It does not work,”

"The current thing from the department quotes the definition given by the Gilbert report, of which I was a member,” he said. “In my view, that is well-intentioned waffle. It means nothing. Many schools will say that’s what they do (anyway).”

Mick Waters, QCA’s director of curriculum is quoted “I use the term as little as possible.”

For the record, the official definition is: Taking a highly structured and responsive approach to each child’s and young person’s learning, in order that all are able to progress, achieve and participate. It means strengthening the link between learning and teaching by engaging pupils - and their parents - as partners in learning.”

I have some questions:

Posted by Sophie | 3 comment(s)

New HSE Whiteboard Safety Advice

The BBC has reported on the Health & Safety Executive's revised guidance for the use of interactive whiteboards.

Much of the advice remains the same as before; however there is recognition that risk is reduced if short throw projectors are used. These are where projectors are built in to the board or connected using a short arm. This type of design means that it isn't possible to acciedntally stare into a projector lamp.

The suggestion is that boards should be replaced with short-throw projector types at the end of their life-cycle. This will raise concerns amongst teachers who currently use the longer throw, (usually ceiling mounted) projectors, particularly as they typically use high power lamps to compensate for not having effective blinds in the rooms. There is no generic guidance as to how schools should identify the hazard or quanitfy the risk though. Its largely down to exposure limts ... the more you use it the higher the risk; but what is a safe exposure limit?

Posted by Sophie

Innovation is risky ... what happens if it doesn't work?

Reading last weeks TES, I came across an article in which OFSTED is reported to have given a 'thumbs down' to themed lessons. Two Essex schools highlighted by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) as innovative and "putting together an excellent curriculum", were reported to be 'inadequate'. Both had implemented an 'integrated approach' that organises lessons by themes rather than traditional subjects. This approach is exemplified by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts' (RSA) 'Opening Minds', recently in the news for their Tipton Academy. One of the Essex schools ins now in special measures.

The reports highlighted a 'lack of academic challenge'; identified that some teachers lack the "subject knowledge or skills they need to implement the colleges thematic lessons successfully"; the thematic approach often resulted in inaccurate marking against national curriculum standards.

Rita Gardner, director of the Royal Geographical Society told MP's last week "I do not think that, for many schools, integrated learning is a good way of organising the teaching and learning of the curriculum".

The Head is quoted as saying "we were too ambitious".

I have seen the approach at work in three schools, one of which is closely linked to the Chafford Hundred model, and I was impressed by two aspects: the group ethos engaged pupils and enthusiastic teachers were key. It can and does work for young people but making it happen is problematic!

Together with my recent post on the Futurelab 'Enquiring Minds' report, a picture is starting to emerge that highlights a divergence between the neo-progressive approaches offered by educational evangelists and a framework of inspection and testing. At every step new approaches require adaptive and super-competent teachers. Teachers are directly accountable if they fail to meet the only two criteria that matter to a school ... exam / test results and inspection reports. Radical change is scary, because if it doesn't work children aren't given a second chance to go back through the system. Commentators often refer to the current system being so poor that we can afford to take risks however; many don't actually recognise the current system as 'broken' as most parents have an ultra conservative view of education. Radical change must be tested which is why research and innovation is valuable, but do we need to learn how to react when things don't work out the way we thought.

Posted by Sophie | 1 comment(s)

Kent gets funding for new and refurbished Primary Schools

Kent has been awarded Category 2 Approval (Approved with modifications) in the Primary Capital Programme. This means that Kent's plans have been approved for 2009-10 with more work needed to secure on-going funding. This brings in funding of £31.7m to oversee 22 projects, including two new schools and four replacement schools. It sounds a lot of money, but Kent CC is required to match this from our own funds. There is also no ring-fenced funding for ICT in the deal as there is with Building Schools for the Future.

Kent participated in one of 23 local pathfinder projects, refurbishing three schools as part of amalgamation projects to reduce surplus places in deprived areas. This amalgamated Oakfield Infants with Oakfield Juniors, and Swanscombe Infants with Sweyne Juniors.

Links

Primary Capital Programme (PCP)

Primary Capital Programme: Latest News


Posted by Sophie
Filed under:

Should we be afraid ... very afraid?

If you have a spare couple of hours, I recommend you read the 'Enquiring Minds' [PDF] report from Futurelab. Enquiring Minds is a joint project between Microsoft and Futurelab, and is to be commended for pushing back boundaries with a radical new approach to education. Although much of the document reads like a turgid pseudo-sociological essay, at its core are the experiences of teachers and children in two Bristol schools who agreed to experiment with a class of year 7 and year 8 pupils respectively. I concluded that the positive outcomes were overshadowed by the negative. Here is some of my favourite excerpts from the report, but please read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

As we worked on the project, it became increasingly clear how different people had different ideas and concerns about the purpose and direction of the project. These were not simply differences of perspective, but were rooted in very different ways of making sense of experience. Consequently, we do not claim this report as the truth of what happened on the project. We sympathise with Maggie Maclure’s belief that educational research is an unavoidably rhetorical affair. Research truths and findings are put together (‘fabricated’ is the word Maclure uses) to achieve particular effects and structures."

Arguments about the types of children we wanted to produce in schools could not be separated from debates about the changing nature of society. Was the lack of interest we saw in some students linked to issues of social class, or their way of acting in relation to knowledge in a media culture? Was the fact that some teachers were resisting the approach taken a result of our failure to be clear about the direction of the project, or was it related to questions of teachers’ involvement or professionalism? Were the voices of the students we talked to authentic, or were they being spoken through powerful discourses of consumerism?

An important aspect of the Enquiring Minds project was that the content of the curriculum was not specified. In these lessons, the question of what counts as worthwhile and valuable educational knowledge kept surfacing. It was the question that would not go away." "In another classroom, more emphasis was placed on the project’s potential for improving the skills needed for learning. The teacher prefaced the project by talking about the poor GCSE scores and his hope that these lessons would improve students’ motivation and ability to learn independently.

One of the most interesting tensions that existed ... was the status of popular cultural knowledge. ... in a highly structured National Curriculum, the question of legitimate or valid knowledge does not come to the fore; it is largely accepted as given.However, teachers and students were faced with a seemingly content-free curriculum, so the question of what counted as valid knowledge had to be negotiated on a daily or lesson-by-lesson basis. ... One example involved a group of Year 8 students who had decided, through a process of discussion and ultimately voting, that the focus for the class enquiry would be fashion. Over the next couple of lessons, the teacher allowed students to discuss what was interesting about fashion for them. The discussions were rich in providing evidence of the importance of fashion in children’s lives. They talked about the issue of how they felt under pressure to keep up with the latest trends, and about perceived injustices on the part of teachers towards dress, and explained how dress and fashion was linked to sub-cultural identity. The discussion was wide-ranging, students were engaged, and there appeared to be plenty that could become the basis for further enquiry. However, during these lessons the teacher found it increasingly difficult to hide his concern about whether the things the students brought to the lessons were of much use or interest. In addition, the teacher was unable to develop critical framings that could have increased the level of cognitive challenge in the classroom. The result of this was that there was very little of interest to focus on in the classroom. Ideas would be aired, and for a brief moment there would be a spark of interest. But without a set of procedures to develop the questions further, activity tended to focus around low-level web-based searches for information."

Whilst there was an explicit call for students to work together and cooperate in the classroom, when it came to getting down to enquiry work, virtually all of the activity centred on individual enquiry. Indeed it was common for teachers to ask students what was their own question and to valorise independent enquiry over collaborative or just paired enquiry.

Before he left the project, Mike (teacher) expressed his doubts about whether the assumptions of the project were valid:

I never was at the beginning and I’m still not entirely convinced that its foundations are strong enough, are valid enough. I’ve got a sense that if we’re talking about getting them to enquire into their own lives and then lead them out wider than that, that actually their own lives are too shallow and too familiar, and they’re not ultimately that interested in their own lives.

I’ve been disappointed that we’ve been so crap at team planning I have to say”. Mike attributed this to the “cult of the individual” that tends to dominate in schools. This means that rather than work together to develop an approach, teachers tended to want to say “this is how I do it”.

What Mike’s story demonstrates (as does the work of the other nine teachers who participated in the first three years of Enquiring Minds activity) is that change in schools is contingent upon the personal biographies and professional identities of staff.

It should be noted that, for some students, the opportunity to define what went on in the classroom was greeted with apathy and a certain amount of disdain. We observed this kind of behaviour most strongly in a few students labelled by schools and teachers as ‘high ability’. These students appeared to think what teachers were offering was a distraction from the more serious business of subject lessons. Some students also worked out very effectively how to play the game, so that they made every appearance of embracing the opportunity but were observed putting in very little effort and spending most of their Enquiring Minds time involved in social chatter."

... the project’s child-centred approach risked adopting an idealised, even romantic view of the child as being innately inquisitive, whose interests and enthusiasm for learning will be freed up and liberated once the restraints of the curriculum have been loosened.

...where aspects of Enquiring Minds have not worked out this is due in part to teachers struggling to reconcile their existing professional identities with the demands of the new identities and positions that go with it.As one teacher on the project glumly assessed it:“Many do not know how to pursue personal curiosity after so many yearsof just being in school and doing what they are told to do

It requires teachers to understand and value children’s worlds, and to develop a repertoire of classroom strategies to support them to take their knowledge further.

Some have really thrived on the approach, while others seem to have found it quite risky to their professional identities."

[Teachers] claim that in order for changes to be made meaningfully the process has to be a slow one, involving the taking of risks and learning from trial and error, followed by continuous reflection alongside teachers going through similar experiences. This kind of supportive peer arrangement, however, has proved challenging to maintain in the context of busy secondary schools; although the organisation of the project made it possible in the first two years, by the third year it had become much less possible to do on a regular basis. An additional consequence of this is that it limits the opportunities for the initiative to grow across the institution.

Teachers’ work is currently caught up in a debate about how to be creative and innovative practitioners whilst also being accountable to standards." ...

Recent years have seen a remarkable outpouring of policy texts and initiatives (including Enquiring Minds) which set out to transform or reform the education system ... Adapting the education system to meet all of these needs and more requires slow and careful metamorphosis, not a seismic shake-up that threatens to destabilise everything in it."

Save money with / on ICT!!

Merlin John has been writing in the Guardian about ways to save money in school using technology. It makes interesting reading!
Posted by Sophie
Filed under:

National Strategies website - something missing??

I notice there is a new National Strategies website in beta, and very comprehensive it is too! ... but ... shouldn't there be a mention of the national e-strategy, Harnessing Technology: Next Generation Learning ... Becta is a mere footnote ...
Posted by Sophie
Filed under: , ,

Resolution on Children's Online Privacy

In October 2008, the 30th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners met in Strasbourg, and passed a resolution.

The resolution supports education approaches, but also calls for legislation  in respective jurisdictions limiting the collection, use and disclosure of personal information about children with appropriate provisions for violations. It also calls for limitations on what can be collected, used and disclosed.

The resolution urges operators of websites created for children to demonstrate social responsibility by "... adopting privacy policies and usage agreements that are clear, simple and understandable... "

Of course, this resolution has no standing in law, and probably won't even result in a code of practice; but it is notable that our own Information Commissioner is a co-sponsor!

Posted by Sophie
Filed under:

Becta: Next Generation Learning - bypassing schools, enlisting parents?

Becta's dedicated 'Next Generation Learning' website marks a new approach. It is aimed at parents and employers, although most won't be aware of Becta, let alone find its website! It has a dedicated parents page, and one of the key features is the ability to find out whether your child's school has the ICT mark. If parents find that their child's  school does not have the ICT mark, it encourages them to:

"Your school is not listed - If your school is not listed you should ask about their ICT plans and whether they plan to work towards the ICT Mark. Schools that integrate technology well across the curriculum and wider school life have reduced absence rates and achieved a higher percentage of A*-C grades at GCSE level.

Parents can 'sign-up' to the Next Generation campaign and receive updates and newsletters. The aim is clearly to influence parents into pushing the idea of the ICT Mark to their schools, but its success will depend on The real issue about the campaign is how it will be communicated to parents. If for instance you type 'school' into a search engine, the BBC is one of the top listings, yet it doesn't list government educational information sites for parents nor has a mention of the campaign.Similarly if you type 'Parent'.

There is plenty of great information on the Internet, but the single point of access for official information is Directgov, which does not register on any search engines unless you know it exists and search for it by name, so Parents wanting to participate more do not have an accessible and easy to find website for education, which goes against one of the 'Quality Standards', stated in 'Quality Standards for Young People's Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) document.

7. Parents and carers know how information, advice and guidance services can help their children and know how these services are accessed

Directgov does not mention the Next Generation campaign. I have little confidence that the Next Generation campaign will have the desired effect because it will remain invisible to most parents, but wish it well. It does of course offer an opportunity for Local Authorities to encourage parents to register and campaign!!

Posted by Sophie
Filed under: ,

... and the ICT Excellence Award for learner experience goes to ... Homewood School and Sixth Form Centre!

Homewood School and sixth form centre in Tenterden was runner up in the prestigious national ICT Excellence Awards. The award ceremony last night was attended by Chris Foreman (Vice Principal Learning Systems) and his team, and was accompanied by CFE's Grahame Ward, Director (Resources).

"This is a cracking school," enthused one judge, commending the progress this large rural comprehensive has made in raising standards through innovation, with ICT playing a key role.

In 2004 the school implemented its 'total curriculum', a thematic and project-based approach, incorporating ICT across five key subjects (English, maths, history, geography and ethical and religious studies). The planning for this innovation was thorough and involved many staff across the departments. The result has been excellent pupil engagement and attainment, with high levels of e-maturity among learners.

For information, Homewood uses Studywiz VLE, and Aruba 'managed' wireless campus.

Posted by Sophie
Filed under: ,

Home Access for teachers ... ?

There are increasing expectations that teachers and pupls will access virtual learning environments from home. Good for pupils, but is it fair to teachers' work life balance?  I can find no guidance or policies articulating an expectation that teachers work online from home. Learning platforms are capable of recording when teachers log in and it doesn't require technical skill for school leaders to monitor activity if they choose to do so, and to see which teachers are 'enthusiastic' and who are 'less enthusiastic' and to manage accordingly, indeed personal targets have been set by some schools for the number of logins by each teacher.

The Home Access initiative aims to ensure that every household with a child has broadband and a computer (bridging the digital divide), and all schools are required to provide learning platforms / VLE's to extend access to learning, so:  

  • Do schools expect teachers to buy a computer and broadband at home and use it for work?
  • Do schools provide laptops for every teacher, and can they be used with home broadband?
  • Do any schools provide teachers with home broadband? If so, what are the expectations in so doing?
  • Are teachers relaxed about using their home computer and Internet for work? Is it a non-issue?
  • Should there be guidance to set out expectations?

Interestingly I was discussing this with a number of teachers who offered the following opinions.

  • "They should provide teachers with free broadband before they give it to kids!"
  • "I can't imagine not having broadband at home, and I don't mind using it for work if it makes life easier for me ... but if it becomes expected I'll probably stop".
How do your schools manage teacher access to technology?
Posted by Sophie
Filed under: ,

Cramster - a viable concept for 'out of school' teaching and learning?

I'm always on the look out for interesting ideas in the Web 2.0 world, and am intrigued by the concept behind Cramster, a free online study community (portal) that claims to bring together those who want to learn and those who want to teach. It appears to be targeted at the advanced end of U.S. High School / college. Having explored it from the outside, it provides online resources, some aimed at supporting specific text books, and an opportunity to live chat as well. The site even provides an applet for Facebook!

Its too new to offer opinions, but the concept could be adapted to provide local 'out of school' community portals that could be shared between schools across an area such as a Local Children's Service Partnership (Cluster in old money). I think the name 'Cramster' is uncomfortable as it smacks of last minute learning for a test. I also think it could be mis-used and in its present form is too risky for children. But I like the concept ...take a look and let me know what you think!

BT - time to step up to the plate?

I have just read a fascinating research paper from Becta, ‘Meeting their potential: the role of education and technology in overcoming disadvantage and disaffection in young people’ [PDF 844Kb]. The report offers a valuable insight into the digital divide, but in its recommendations misses a vital opportunity to identify one of the main reasons for a digital divide; the lack of a universal service offering (USO) for broadband. All the more interesting is that this report is published on the website of Citizens Online, of which BT is a founding sponsor and part of the charitable triad that also includes Everybody online and the Alliance for Digital Inclusion . In an apocalyptic BT report The Digital Divide in 2025 (PDF 293Kb], BT endorse the opinion that “… when an item becomes a ‘must have’, it will appear in the household. This is the case with Sky TV, widescreen television, washing machines etc. Digital technologies are clearly not the priority.”

BT is an interesting organisation, Its ‘Better World’ campaign has lofty aims; prime objective “Helping children in most need” where it sponsors charitable organisations, and Teaching Awards 2008. Its online BT Learning Centre generously offers free samples of commercial courses as tasters … etc.

In practice? BT phenomenally increased wholesale prices for the circuits used by education, ramped up prices for access to the local loop (the copper cables from the exchange to the premises), and lacks the vision to provide the one thing in its gift, broadband to the poorest and most needy families. It can therefore be argued that BT is a contributor to the digital divide. BT is required to meet a Universal Service Obligation (USO) which means that no matter how poor, you should be able to get a telephone service … but not broadband. The Internet access USO is restricted to a narrowband service that often costs more in call charges than broadband.

Interestingly, mobile services offer pay as you go, but this concept isn’t available for landline broadband, despite the fact that the cables in the ground were paid for years ago and on most social housing estates sit in the ground doing nothing.

One of the biggest challenges of the recent Computers for Pupils government initiative aimed at providing kit and broadband to the most needy families in the most deprived areas was getting the connectivity. Where were BT? On the home access task force influencing government, but not proposing meaningful concessions.

The Final Report of the Minister’s Taskforce on Home Access to Technology [PDF 1.34Mb] (Universal Home Access) proposes funding on a sliding scale, with those on out of work benefits receiving an allowance that buys them kit and one years connectivity. What is the point of one years connectivity when it is unlikely to be maintained beyond the year.

BT has a shadowy presence across government and involves itself in every opportunity to lobby on issues surrounding the digital divide but I can’t find one reference to any offer to address the issue directly by offering social tariffs or pay as you go for landline broadband. The Universal Home Access programme offers BT a real opportunity to make an impact at minimal business risk and demonstrate real corporate responsibility by tackling the digital divide in a very direct way. Many of our poorest and neediest children live with their families in social housing on large estates. BT cables already sit in the ground on all of those estates, and for a minimal altruistic investment this country could gain huge social dividends. BT was handed the nations infrastructure on a plate, and seems to squirm at its minimal universal service obligations. Wouldn’t it be good to see a noble BT step up to the plate! Oh, and halting the constant price hikes on connectivity for schools would be a great idea too!

Posted by Sophie