The impact of capital cuts will be felt most keenly by learners

If rumours are to be believed, part of the 60% cut to capital spending on schools is to be found in the dedicated ICT funding all new builds and refurbished schools received under BSF and other programmes.
ICT funding for Academies and BSF projects has for the past few years been based on a formula which saw schools receive £1450 per-pupil for ICT equipment and £225 pp for infrastructure. The two sums were kept separate, the infrastructure money typically attached to the main budget, with the build partner delivering the ICT passive infrastructure (cabling and containment, mostly) and an ICT provider being procured through whom to spend the £1450.



These levels of funding (about £1.8m for the average sized secondary) have proved time and again in my experience to be just sufficient to achieve the school’s/ LA’s ambitions for learning, granting schools the freedom to innovate with the interface between space and technology in ways which would otherwise be out of reach for most. New Line Learning, a federation of Academies in Kent, is a particularly good example of this.

However, from talking to several interested parties (builders, ICT equipment providers), the whispered consensus is that this £1450 equipment funding is regarded by the Government as overly generous and will be reduced to somewhere around £800. Presumably this is predicated on the generalisation that ICT is ‘well embedded’ in UK schools and doesn’t require additional investment. Quite how this applies to new builds I am unsure.

This will inevitably impact disproportionately on learners. The cost of server infrastructures, wireless network, smart cards, Management Information Systems and a host of other ‘must haves’ don’t scale very neatly; they cost what they cost. Schools’ only real option will be to reduce their expectations of the number of mobile devices, visualisers, projectors, cameras, etc which their students will benefit from. They’ll simply be able to afford less stuff for learning. The first casualty of this funding skirmish will be innovation, as ‘luxury’ of experimentation will no longer be affordable when set against the harsh alternative of having some spaces lacking even the ability to project, for example.

Some will offer the specious logic that even now some schools don’t have technology in every learning space, but I just can’t see how that has any relevance to an argument about how we should be building (today) the absolute best environments for the next 25 years of children to learn in.

It is probable that the £225 for infrastructure will also suffer similar cuts, which will only serve to hamstring the new environments & approaches it is supposed to enable. Even under current funding conditions, build partners invariably resist schools’ requests for floor boxes (to provide flexibility away from dado trunking) and redundant cables (e.g.providing capacity to expand wireless in future) on grounds of cost. The common number applied is 1.5 data points per student, which is just enough, in my experience. If the £225 becomes, say, £150, I fully anticipate the next round of new/ refurbished schools will be built with partial networks (them::“What do you need it in the sports hall for?” me: “Um, to improve learning in sport through technology?”) and an over-reliance on wireless, in a landscape of ever increasing data demand from a personal devices and changing behaviours. It’s a recipe for unreliability, unavailability and continued reliance on traditional methods. Which is probably the point.

Dom Norrish

Follow me on twitter @domnorrish

Self Review – someone still loves you

This post is about the importance of self review and touches on both the Self Review Framework for ICT (SRF) and Ofsted’s Self Evaluation Form (SEF). My contention is that they have never been so useful as now.

As you will no doubt know, the Government recently removed the SEF from the Ofsted inspection process for schools. Many saw this as a Very Good Thing.

The SEF had been widely criticised by school leaders for being onerous and bloated so, in a further strike against Gove’s current bête noire, it has gone the way of other ‘bureaucratic’ hindrances such as Becta and the QCDA. The sound of supermarket-brand Cava corks popping was heard from staff rooms the length and breadth of the land.

A couple of facts which can be easily forgotten in the initial rush of euphoria should be noted though;
Firstly, schools were never actually required to submit and maintain a SEF by Ofsted. Admittedly to pursue this route you had to be pretty gutsy/ have bullet proof exam results.

Secondly, schools still are required to self-evaluate their performance actively as not only is this by far the cheapest way for Ofsted to get close to understanding a school’s performance, it’s also a pretty rewarding process for the school to undergo. Physician, know thyself.

It seems to me that the SEF is a pretty well designed tool for precisely this, one with which schools are very familiar and which has been further sharpened by the knowledge that its more peripheral chunks can now be safely discarded. My advice is to keep the SEF, or at least it’s tenets, at the core of your schools’ self-evaluation process and use it to continue the detailed discovery and evaluation which leads to school improvement.

Image: sha3teely.com

And so to Becta’s ICT Self Review Framework, the SRF. Those of you who did battle with this tool in its original incarnation will know whereof I speak when I say that the words ‘repetitive, tedious, tangential and fussy’ don’t come near doing it justice. Luckily for me, it’s a big part of my job so I must have been through it with a dozen schools over possibly hundreds of hours.

However, it has recently been revised (from 8 elements and 72 questions down to a more manageable 6 and 57 respectively) and is infinitely improved. Gone too are the same questions asked in 7 different ways (and so poorly worded that it’s hard to tell what they’re asking). In short, it’s been made user-friendly.

What remains is very useful – a simple framework for a school to examine how it uses technology to be more effective across every aspect of its business. It still requires a considerable and coordinated effort to make judgements about each aspect and provide evidence, but it is unlikely to induce homicidal thoughts towards those well-meaning bureaucrats in Coventry anymore.The future of the SRF is still unknown, though Naace are keen to take it back.

Of course, knowledge gained from the SRF can feed into wider school self-review processes (see above) but by far the most beneficial outcome is a Strategic Development Plan which identifies the gaps and sets out achievable steps to bridge them in the coming 2-3 years. For some reason, it’s this step which many schools falter at. What’s the point in self-review which doesn’t lead to change? That’s just narcissism, surely?
All this reminds me of one of my favourite quotes, which puts the case for self-review with a wonderful clarity;

“To understand is hard. Once one understands, action is easy." Sun Yat-sen

Dominic Norrish
Follow me on Twitter @domnorrish

Immersive language learning through technology

I have been working recently with a centre which is being established for the learning languages which are rarely taught (in the Secondary sector currently, at least) – Russian and Arabic being two examples.

The centre aims to provide a really rich offering for local schools (whose pupils might study there part time) and nationally, for distance learning. One of the guiding principles of the centre is that language learning is easier, more enduring and deeper overall if students can be immersed in the language and culture in question. It’s palpably true even for language dimwits– a weekend in Paris and I’m bonjouring and shrugging disinterestedly with the best of ‘em.

Technology is seen as a key enabler of this immersion and I thought I’d share a couple of the ideas which we’ve been developing with the centre’s staff to hopefully achieve this.

The centre is very keen for visiting learners to have a fun experience and to not feel like they are at ‘school’ (not that those two concepts are mutually exclusive, obviously). For this reason, one of the immersive technologies being developed is a serious game for language learning, set in the rich context of the target language’s native country and based around an engaging mission (for example, arriving in a city and trying to track down a long lost friend, encountering challenges and twists along the way, naturally).

 Image: alelo.com

The concept is that learners will play the part of the game’s main protagonist and their progress through the game’s challenges will depend on their accurate understanding and use of language, both textual and verbal, through the use of keyboard, mouse and microphone. Other characters will react differently to learners based on the skill with which they speak and their observation of cultural cues. Varying levels of scaffolding will be available for learners (e.g. English language translation of possible responses) and teachers/ peers will be able to play the part of other characters, to offer help to players. Sub-games will build skills/ vocab and a smartphone application may also be spun off from the main game. Similar games have been developed, mostly with military customers in mind, but this FPS will be more First Person Speaker!

There are lots of little immersive touches (such as target-language console games in the student social area and digital room signage which alters to match the right context) but a second ‘big idea’ is the use of digital facades in one of the large spaces to recreate a street scene in which various interactions can take place.
Footage of shop fronts and interiors will be projected onto and around existing architectural features such as the space’s windows to create the illusion of a living street, assisted by various pieces of furniture and props. Fixed discrete cameras and microphones will help learners record evidence of their capability in various scenarios.

Image: 2dcode.com

The use of QR codes, and an integrated MS Surface-like product to recognise them, will enable objects to be used creatively by the educators planning uses for the space. For example, at a KS2 level, the activity could be around buying ingredients to produce a local speciality dish. Procuring various tagged food objects being ‘sold’ on the street would be the basis of an extended role-play between learners of different abilities/ adults. Successful interpretation of the recipe, negotiation of the buying process with the various ‘shop keepers’ and placing the full set of items on the smart surface would result in an output from the surface’s screen; instructions on how to prepare the dish, perhaps (which would then move this group’s activity to the centre’s kitchen facilities). Equally, if the output could be a hint on where to find the missing ingredients (and the vocab to use).

The above example is just one that occurs to my (History-teacher-who-covered-the-odd-period-of-French-when-Madame-was-on-a-course) mind; the opportunities to create engaging, collaborative language use scenarios for students of all ages are vast for talented MFL specialists.

The project is still at a relatively early stage, but we’re approaching the point at which we’ll go to market (excuse the unintentional pun) for the ICT solution to deliver the centre’s aspirations. Watch this space for updates!

Dom Norrish
Follow me on Twitter

Back to the Future for Schools?

This afternoon’s announcement by Michael Gove (Secretary of State for Education) of the strange death of Building Schools for the Future, a twitstorm raged across the ether as various educators, architects, technologists and seemingly anyone with an interest in this nation’s future expressed their incredulity at the savagery of the cuts. The DfE’s press release is charmingly titled as an ‘overhaul’, in reality it’s the coup de grace on a programme that was, in truth, just too New Labour to be allowed to survive.

For me, the tweet of the day came from @photocritic : “In 'Back to the Future', Doc sets clock in the DeLorean to a day 25 years in the future. Today is that day.”

This co-incidence of policy and zeitgeist is too sweet to ignore.

In 1985, as Michael J. Fox was portraying the time-travelling Marty McFly on our cinema screens, the UK had;

• A Conservative government bent on retrenchment and tradition
• An education system focused on the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next
• An economy failing to adapt to the needs of a changing world market
• A decent national football team

Many things have changed in the interim (well, at least one of those things) but are we any closer to achieving a leading place on the (no longer futuristic) world stage? Are we now well positioned as a nation to provide the next generation of team workers, creative thinkers, collaborative investigators and independent problem-solvers which will characterise the successful economies of the next 25 years?

My personal view is ‘no’. And less so today than yesterday. BSF wasn’t just about school buildings you see, it was about transforming education, it was about producing different outcomes – and this, I feel, was the real target of Gove’s axe. ‘Transformation’ implies change is needed, which is an ideological bridge too far for an Education Secretary on record comparing rote learning of poetry to iPod ownership. Seriously.

BSF’s greatest potential contribution to the UK’s future was in changing what it like to learn at school, providing choice, agency and investment in their education to a swathe of disaffected young people to whom Miss Havisham (Nick Gibb’s barometer of educational success) is an irrelevance, but who nevertheless need to find their place (and a job) in the C21st UK.

£5Bn was saved in a stroke this afternoon, a short-term quick win for a tough-guy Government. The continuing inappropriateness of our education system in the face of technological and global economic reality will cost an awful lot more by the time Back to the Future reaches it’s 50th anniversary, however. Will the Government realise this in time? I doubt it; as Marty McFly says after introducing his parents’ prom dance to Johnny B. Goode “I guess you guys aren't ready for that, yet. But your kids are gonna love it.”

Dom Norrish

Follow me on twitter @domnorrish

Why Becta's demise is a disaster for learning with ICT

The new ConLib government today announced that Becta, the lead agency for ICT in education, is to be scrapped, perhaps as early as November.

I first blogged about this last August, when the sabre-rattling began. What follows is an update to that content:

First up, let me declare an interest; I've worked with several people from Becta on new build school projects and have even freelanced on some research for Becta back in the mists of time when I was an ICT teacher. However, this is offered in the spirit of common sense.

The job of  Becta is/ was to develop the use of technology in schools and colleges and through things like their Self Review Framework, ICT Mark and the targets set for the take up of Learning Platforms, things are (slowly) changing. The pace of this change is the basis for many criticisms of Becta. Schools must bear some of the weight of responsibility to engage in these processes too, though. It is recognised by all the teachers I know that to meet the needs of the '21st Century learner' schools' offerings need to be much more engaging and relevant. ICT is a powerful tool to achieve this, and Becta is doing a pretty good job of pushing schools on this front. It's not fashionable to say it, but I am sure that there are some schools who will take their foot off the gas without this external pressure. The head of steam which has gradually been building will dissipate and progress will stall.

Similarly, working in an industry where it is pretty evident that other organisations are very keen to do things 'their way' (especially if there's a 'saving' to be made), Becta have made themselves fairly unpopular by insisting on a level of standardisation, both technically and in terms of approach. Their guidance on developing visions, for example, ensures that schools think about the full gamut of local and national priorities. Their work on establishing a common framework for MIS data (SIF-UK) will make data transfer between providers effective and timely. Becta's Technical and Functional Specifications have formed the basis for the evolution of many schools' systems. Unless these and similar functions are transferred elsewhere, what we will very quickly see in the Educational ICT Landscape is a return to the 'islands of excellence in a sea of mediocrity' situation, as excellent schools continue to excel and those in different circumstances are left to flounder.

Another criticism always levelled at Becta is that despite all their work, little effect on exam results due to better use of technology is evident. Despite this being not (quite) true (see here), this argument is akin to criticising Usain Bolt for not winning gold in the mixed Dressage - effective use of ICT is only ever going to have a tiny impact on something as structured as the formal summative assessment of what 16 year olds can remember about the Agricultural Revolution... If our assessment system measured creativity, problem solving, the ability to work with others, or working to a deadline and to high standards, I imagine Becta's work would be seen in quite another light. Curiously enough, these kind of 'soft skills' are exactly the type of thing most employers value over a C in GCSE History. And this is the nub of the issue; the incumbent government value the latter and barely acknowledge the former.

Stephen Heppell (@stephenheppell) has rightly and pragmatically declared this an opportunity for the "many wise and helpful bloggers and podders and tweeters that are already providing a mass of inspiration and effective practice for others – a bottom-up army of authentic practitioners" to take up the baton. Let's hope their efforts can be shaped effectively by some kind of structure (Naace perhaps?) and pointed towards the Greater Good, rather than personal hobby horses. Most importantly, any ground-up, crowd-sourced approach has to be adequately separated from the distracting attentions of suppliers and other commercially interested organisations... You know who you are!

Follow me on Twitter @domnorrish

Is there any more of that BSF left?

Following on from my wild pre-election speculation about the future of BSF under a Conservative Government, the events of the last few days have led to Michael Gove becoming the Secretary of State for Education.

It is my opinion that Building Schools for the Future is a Good Thing. I'm sure things about it could be improved, but it's pretty hard to argue against the fundamental tenets of the programme (it's all in the title really). However, it wasn't the Conservatives' idea and apparently in politics this can be a problem.

If you are in any way involved in a BSF project, you may wonder what this means for you. Well wonder no longer, as I have put together a brief, equally speculative and definitely light-hearted

BSF READY RECKONER

Take the quiz, find out what you could have won!

Follow me on Twitter @domnorrish

Integrating ICT into a new build school (Part 3)

This series of blogs draws on my experience from various single-school and BSF new build projects in the UK over the past few years, the aggregated lesson of which is that many, if not all problems related to ICT can be easily overcome if identified and planned for at the outset. The inverse of this is sadly equally true - show me a design team which has failed to consider integration issues and I'll show you a 'new old school' which will transform very little about its students' education. There is a reason why on any Risk Register for ICT you will find, right at the top, next to a big red flag, a risk labelled 'Integration with Design'...

-------------

This week, dear reader, it’s the ever-enthralling topic of… integrating legacy stuff! Hang on in there though, as this is every bit as important as the shiny new kit.

Legacy Hardware

As the majority of new build schools are replacing a predecessor (and sometimes one whose buildings which will be providing interim facilities), it is probable, and a financially attractive proposition, that a proportion of the technology in use in the old school will require integration into the ICT solution in the new building.

The first thing to realise is that legacy kit may not necessarily translate into savings - there are always costs associated with the the integration of legacy into a new ICT solution (and its maintenance thereafter).

Legacy equipment and services;
•    may not be under warranty;
•    carry an increased risk of failure;
•    will require integration with new systems, which will have associated costs;
•    may not represent the best product currently available.

This isn’t to say that everything the school is currently using needs to be junked, just that schools should develop a sensible legacy protocol to sort existing kit based on the level of risk it represents;

•    Establish basic standards for devices which will connect to the network (e.g. 10/100 Networking)
•    Set a minimum specification for staff and student computers to be retained (e.g. meeting Windows 7 requirements)
•    Decide an age limit for each device type at which equipment might reasonably be judged too high a risk for inclusion within the solution
•    Identify legacy kit which can be used with minimal risk until it fails (e.g. peripherals such as voting devices, digital signage screens)
•    Ascertain if any legacy equipment not suitable for live deployment might provide cold spares during repairs (e.g. laptops) and redundancy for single points of failure within the system (e.g. switches), or even have a future with new owner, via eBay or similar

The worst thing that can happen is for capital savings to be made (e.g. buying less stuff and making use of inappropriate legacy) which end up costing the school more in the long run and impacting on what they can do with their revenue funding.

Legacy Software

Integration of legacy software can also carry hidden costs if the predecessor school was under-licensed or cannot, um, evidence its licenses, as the ICT integrator has a legal responsibility to only install licensed products. Put simply, if you can’t prove you own it, the supplier won’t touch it.

Up-licensing can be very expensive, especially if you ask teachers which legacy software is essential: the only answer I’ve ever heard is that it’s all essential. Use of an intelligent discovery agent programme to audit actual software use is recommended, to rationalise/ validate the requests of staff for the integration of legacy software. Often it’s a simple financial argument which moves thinking forward: choose between spending £10k virtualising that ‘must-have’ piece of 16-bit times table software, or spend £2k licensing something produced last year which will actually engage the students and do a much better job…It is often the case that the functionality of a valued legacy programme has been matched or surpassed, for a lower cost.


Some new build schools (such as Academies) open as a ‘new business’, meaning that many of their software licenses will become invalid and require repurchasing. This is of particular relevance in the area of Management Information Systems (MIS). If you’re being legally forced to spend £30-50k on a ‘new’ MIS, why plump for the one you’ve always had, just because you’ve always had it, with no further thought? This is an opportunity seldom given schools – the chance to really consider what you want your MIS to do and to pick one which delivers, freed from the ties that bind. Of course, the market-leader didn’t get there by accident and in this era of 14-19, the decision won’t only be about the needs of a single institution, but schools really should think about their requirements in this area just as they would for any other element of their ICT provision.

So, lots of things to think about in relation to legacy but if I had to boil it down to a single sentence of advice, it would be this: consider legacy kit and software just as carefully as you will the shiny new boxes (with blue neon blinking LEDs, naturally) which glitter so alluringly from the pages of suppliers’ catalogues…

Dominic Norrish
Follow me on Twitter