All Gone Quiet?

Hi All

I've not heard anything since the hub meetings this summer and I notice that there have not been any changes to the documents stored in SharePoint so I thought I would post my response to the meeting just to keep the conversation going. Its all a bit disordered and reflects a train of thought rather then a collection of firm suggestions, but elements might provoke some discussion. Please feel free to comment.

July 2017 

Dear all 

I do thank you for the opportunity to contribute to debate concerning the future of NAACE and your hospitality Christina at the hub meeting Monday. Thank you, a pleasant event and useful discussion I thought 

I began writing this response a couple of weeks ago but wanted the benefit of attending a hub meeting before I finished it, so some elements here will reflect our discussion, others will refer to thoughts I had before the meeting. I do hope that this contribution is helpful. 

I posted the following imperatives prior to the hub meetings…. 

"There is need for NAACE establish an inclusive definition of the use of computers in schools. This definition should recognise that Computing and IT both sit within it and are expressions of the same progressive phenomena. These phenomena are not defined by hardware or software but are the products of a certain kind of human activity and set of aspirations. As such this definition should recognise that activity does take place across the whole curriculum which has responsibility for providing experience that relates to all subjects.  

There is need for NAACE to foster and promote good practice in a structured way and support schools in formulating useful, portable models. Is there any other body in place to take-on this role? 

There is a need for NAACE to support the development of teaching professionals towards developing a skills base that allows teachers to have approach teaching in a creative way and experience full benefit of the administrative efficiencies available. This training should reference the good practice identified above. 

Providers need to be coached into providing outstanding resources to accompany their products and to provide quality training. The current smorgasbord of programming tools available is difficult to negotiate by what is a relatively small number of teachers. Activities that accompany these resources should benefit from good practice, perhaps from models provided by NAACE from the programme of sharing good practice outlined above. 

Badgification is an emerging theme and it is likely that at some point education will begin to adopt the accumulation of badges within the curriculum. There have been some inroads made with some notable schemes including Mozilla’s Open Badges that make use of metadata rich images to validate achievement in schools, and Acclaim that offer a service for more professional achievement.  

In some senses this is familiar territory for NAACE whose early recognition of the use of badges resulted in the introduction of the ICT Mark for schools. If NAACE were to extend this theme and assume a role in co-ordinating and validating the various digital badging schemes available, and extend these to include badges for providers and teachers, as well as learners, they would have a mechanism to achieve the aims above. "

…although I might refine them a little in the light of our meeting, I do still stand by them as they are a product of a train of thought that I have been pondering for some while. I hope you will not mind be sharing these thoughts before I try to address directly the issues as outlined in the framework document. 

ON DEFINITION 

I have a perspective on the arrival of computing into the curriculum that I am not sure many will share, but one I feel has a bearing on our current position and I hope you will not mind if I take time to share it here. I can best illustrate this perspective by comparing the introduction of computing/ICT with the introduction of Design and Technology (or CDT as it was called at the time). Perhaps the most closely related shift in curricular emphasis to the emergence of ICT and Computing. 

 The introduction CDT sought to elevate the place of craft based activities in the curriculum. This arose from, and was supported by, initiatives such as the RSA Education for Capability movement.

In a paper I authored in around 2008 I ponder on the likely, yet largely unrecognised, success of this shift, but concluded that ICT/Computing (in contrast to Technology) lacked the debate and mission behind it to remain safe in the curriculum. I have included the closing paragraphs to this paper here together with a link to the full text. 

In CDT we saw a subject so confident in its value and meaning, so confident in its structure that as soon as it arrived in school it sought to absorb other subjects. Home Economics, Art and even Computing, for example, were tugged under its umbrella at various times and places. I even remember in its heyday English, Maths, Music and other subjects being drawn into CDT based projects. CDT, had a backbone formed of a strong pedagogical tool in the form of the Design Process and this tool allowed the subject to make use of skills and knowledge from across the curriculum. 

In contrast computing drifted into the curriculum with the arrival of computers. This was not accompanied by a manifesto that explored how their use might augment the curriculum nor the structures to determine where they will sit in the curriculum instead there was a general assumption that the whole of the curriculum would benefit from their introduction. Most importantly they were not introduced with any form of schema that provided context for their use. To be fair, why should they? No one know what they did yet and I suspect that NAACE was exactly set up to support the advisory identify and share definitions and practices as they evolved 

Today that manifesto has still yet to be authored and although BECTA, NAACE, the National Curriculum and other stakeholders have explored meaning and terminology of aspects of the use of computers, the process has been focussed on specific aspects of the use of the technology. This has provoked a series of definitions that have been reductive in nature. At the birth of CDT the subject was expansive in and made claim to all corners of the curriculum. In contrast, the use of computers began with the potential to enhance all subjects, but has now distilled to a discredited vocationally based set of skills contained within ICT, and a minority level 2 subject called Computing. 

Today a range of definitions and applications co-exist and there is no shared vision, we have arrived at the present with scant evidence that the use of computers can benefit pupil achievement or that the work of the teacher has been made easier or more efficient through using computers. Maybe we all know that these things are possible and have experience of them, but as a rule these gains are not presented to those who manage schools. Useful outcomes from IT Testbed, BSF and other opportunities to demonstrate enhanced pupil achievement when learning in IT rich environments were not as widespread as hoped and not captured in a useful way when they did occur.  

ON EFFICIENCY, PRODUCTIVITY AND CREATIVITY 

As a result of the above, education has still yet to benefit significantly from the use of computers and associated technology to the same magnitude as business and industry.  

There are obvious difficulties in obtaining empirical data when seeking IT based improvement in schools but a trawl of IT providers at BETT (2017 and 2017) reveals that none seek or retain evidence of the efficacy of their products in empirical terms and this shields from us the true nature of the worth of IT. Schools purchase IT products only on faith and not after consideration of empirical evidence of enhanced productivity, which in the current climate of league tables, is a risk too far for many. 

This principle extends to the training of staff to make best use of IT. There are probably more tools available to enhance the work of the teacher than ever before but most never master these to a level that will allow their skills to be expressed in outstanding support or experiences for pupils, yet staff IT training is at an all-time low.  It is not an exaggeration to state that the expectation most teachers have of their pupils’ use of IT exceeds their own expectations for using IT themselves. 

ON SUPPORTING PROVIDERS 

This week I met Claire Riley, Microsoft UKs lead for Education STEM and Skills at the MOS Four Nations Finals. Clare speaks with great enthusiasm about all that Microsoft are currently putting together to support computing in the curriculum and she described a range of programming tools that are now available to schools. Over recent years we have seen much support for schools in this vein, from the introduction of the Micro:Bit to even Barclay’s bank hosting support for coding on their website. Competitions such as the First Lego League are growing in popularity and are now rivalled by companies such as Rapid Electronics who are establishing their own control technology competitions with their own programming tools. 

As I listened to Claire and the veritable playground of programming platforms she was describing I could not help but wonder if she understood her current target market in the UK and I put that to her. She responded, “But who do I ask?”. We might appreciate that from her perspective there is no obvious answer, and we can assume that she does not consider NAACE to be an obvious source for providing an up-do-date interpretation of the current climate. 

Suggested Actions 

These then are examples of the narratives that have occupied my thoughts over recent years and I hope that the following suggested actions are helpful in addressing the issues we face: 

• I suggest that we begin with a name change to reflect a change in focus. If we are wanting to develop NAACE to be the “must go to” body for Educational IT Advice then what about National Advisory for Computing in Education (NACE)? Enough of a change to imply a weighty difference but enough similarity to keep the legacy connection. I think that this also describes what we are trying to achieve, which a logical step on from an association for advisors. This shift in emphasis suggests an advisory service where schools can buy into our expertise. Established advisory structures are currently in tatters, and this shift would allow us to take advantage of the vacuum created. We should schedule a rebrand and a launch. Claire Riley (EDU Lead for STEM & Skills, Microsoft in the UK) with others, should come to consider NACE is the only place to get a straightforward summary of the situation and guidance on how to negotiate it. 
• Attach ourselves to excellence. NACE should be synonymous with outstanding application of use of computers in education wherever it occurs.  We should be proactive in seeking out and “owning” examples of excellent use of computers in schools. Some of this will be harvested through the SRF process, but we need also to consider ourselves to be the guardians of excellence wherever it might be found. Schools should be encouraged to submit examples whether involved in our review process or not, and we should be willing to investigate and report on examples found in the media or elsewhere. A visit from NACE whether solicited or not, should be a source of excitement in a school. We need to consider how we might reward successful examples.  
• Share examples of excellence. We cannot afford to have recorded outcomes to the SRF process hidden from the public. They are assets and should be used to promote our services (“you too could do this!”) . This implies a rework of our online presence to allow access to libraries that evidence excellent use of computers. 
• Many providers are unable to obtain feedback from clients/schools to prove the efficacy of their products. As (I suspect) a multi-billion pound industry, the educational technology sector sells without ever having to prove the success if its products in terms of productivity (a horrible word to use when referencing education). NACE should offer a service to providers to measure the effects of the application of their products. Easier said than done I know, but who else might be able to quantify? If we are already dealing with seeking out excellence and guiding schools through self review, we should be able to develop the tools. 
• An uncomfortable question! As guardians of excellent use of computers, do we currently model excellence in the use of computers and IT? Does our website and the way NAACE conducts itself reflect exemplary, efficient and contemporary use of IT? How might our use be modernised to address that above?  
• It is evident that the complexities of membership have confused the purpose and mission for NAACE. Perhaps we should consider a two-tier membership? 
• Those that contribute to the work of NAACE and expect to earn an income from providing services.  
• Those that require regular access use of accumulated resources and advisory services. 
• Access to exemplars should be free to all. 

…still needs teasing out though. Would we then have a list of services we could provide, including SRF that would be priced separately and would not require subscription?  

• I retract my suggestion the NAACE should become resellers of training products and fully appreciate the need to not appear partisan. The link between offering an advisory service and providing CPD does though require some teasing out. We cannot ignore the need to generate revenue and that our membership includes some of the finest exponents of the use of educational technology. If we put advisors and trainers in schools to provide CPD are we going to prohibit working with staff towards earning some of the popular branded qualifications? 
• The award of Mozilla’s OpenBadges are accessible to all providers. NAACEMark might be considered as one of NAACE’s successes over the past years, and I feel the principle could be extended to a range of stakeholders and clients. The NACE badge could be the reward we give to recognise excellence at school, teacher, subject or classroom level. A badge would mean the achievement has been captured and shared by NACE. There is another, perhaps fundamental advantage to NACE in adopting the award of badges. There is a danger in restructuring NAACE of taking-on too much too quickly. We are all aware of the complexity of the scenario and the scope of all that might be considered as educational technology. In our eagerness to get up and running again there is a danger that we confuse our mission and services. The availability of badges should be the result of a quality control process which gives us an opportunity to agree what we are looking for and also phase our launch to keep it manageable. “NACE Digital Badges for the Arts will be available next month! Are you ready? (self assessment tools available)”. This also provides the opportunity for a regular media launch. 

All a bit rushed and not structured as well as I would like it to be, but as with us all, it is difficult to find the time do this whole issue justice. I hope though there are some ideas above that prove useful. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute. 

Kind regards 

Laurence