thesis, University of Sunderland.
Downloaded from: http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/5763/
Usage guidelines
Please refer to the usage guidelines at http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/policies.html or alternatively
contact sure@sunderland.ac.uk.
The Capacity of ICT to Transform Teaching
and Learning: A Critical View from Within a
Building Schools for the Future Project
REPORT
by David Haw
A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Professional Doctorate
University of Sunderland
Contents
Contents ... iiPortfolio Referencing ... ivTable of Figures ... vAcknowledgments ... viAbstract ... viiGlossary ... ix1 Chapter 1: Introduction ... 11.1 Political Context ... 11.2 Professional Reflection ... 21.3 Embryonic Study ... 5
1.4 Rationale and Aims ... 6
1.5 What is Transformation in an Education Context? ... 8
2 Chapter 2: Literature Review ... 11
2.1 Transformation, ICT and Teaching and Learning ... 11
Rhetoric or Reality ... 13
Links with Attainment Outcomes ... 16
Where is the evidence? ... 17
Issues of Pedagogy and Structure ... 18
Comparable Projects ... 20
Was the Technology Provided by BSF Right? ... 22
Change ... 23
2.2 Government Policy and Review ... 24
Education, Education, Education ... 25
Policy Stream Conflict ... 27
Going Private ... 29
A Rush to Show Impact ... 31
2.3 Marketisation and Commercialisation of Education ... 34
2.4 Theories of Learning and ICT ... 38
2.5 Teacher Professional Development and ICT ... 43
3 Chapter 3: Research Methods ... 49
3.1 Research Background ... 49
3.2 Research Question ... 50
3.3 Research Methodology ... 52
The Research Landscape in the Context of Education ... 52
Evolving a Methodology ... 53
Design ... 56
3.4 The Plan ... 60
Early Exploratory Research ... 60
Instruments ... 61
Questionnaires (P5.5) ... 70
Lesson Observations (P5.6) ... 70
Validity and Reliability ... 73
Practicalities ... 73
Evolving and Approach to Analysis ... 74
Data Analysis ... 77
4 Chapter 4: Research Findings ... 80
Analysis by Interviewee Category ... 80
Analysis by Theme... 97
5 Chapter 5: Reflection and Conclusion ... 119
5.2 Conflict 2: Business priorities set against educational priorities ... 120
5.3 Conflict 3: The Clash of conflicting government policy agendas ... 123
5.4 Conflict 4: Change ... 125
5.5 Conflict 5: Too many things to do and not enough time to do it ... 126
6 Chapter 6: Impact and Future Work ... 129
7 References ... 132
Portfolio Referencing
The Portfolio of Evidence that accompanies this report is divided into 5 sections list below. In the
main report the Portfolio content is therefore referenced using these section or sub-section headings.
P1. BSF Background
P2. Embryonic Study
P3. Testimonials
P4. Professional Impact
P5. Appendix
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Planning for Transformation (PFS) ... 9
Figure 2: ITU Report on Telecommunication ... 12
Figure 3: Zone of Proximal Development ... 39
Figure 4: Development of Research... 62
Figure 5: Diagram of Data Sample Relationships... 66
Figure 6: Lesson Observation Numbers... 72
Figure 7: Data Analysis Flow Model ... 74
Figure 8 : Diagrammatic representation of stages to code the data, after Fereday, 2006, p84 ... 77
Figure 9: First codes from initial analysis ... 78
Figure 10: Questionnaire respondents by teacher use ... 88
Figure 11: Questionnaire respondents by teaching service ... 91
Figure 12: Questionnaire respondents by service in this school ... 91
Figure 13: ICT Reliability (Q25) ... 98
Figure 14: Technical Support (Q26) ... 98
Figure 15: Teacher Personal ICT use (Q7) ... 103
Figure 16: Teacher self-evaluation of classroom ICT use (Q8) ... 104
Figure 17: Teacher perceptions about amount of CPD (Q20) ... 106
Figure 18: Do you communicate with your pupils? (Q16) ... 110
Figure 19: ICT tasks used in teaching (Q9) ... 111
Figure 20: Activities seen during lesson observations. ... 113
Figure 21: Ranked Popularity of Tasks using ICT (Q12) ... 114
Figure 22: Transformation Index ... 117
Figure 23: Impact of Broadband Transformation Index ... 117
Figure 24: IWB TI Plotted at 2 different times ... 118
Acknowledgments
I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me throughout the
course of this Professional Doctorate project.
I express my warm thanks to Prof Caroline Walker-Gleaves and Prof Peter Smith for their support in
setting me on the road and to all the staff and pupils in the schools involved for providing me with a
rich supply of data along the way.
I would particularly like to thank my supervisors Prof Bridget Cooper and Dr John Grey without
whose constant guidance and challenge this work would not have been completed.
I owe a huge debt to of all my colleagues in my own school who have offered support at multiple
levels and through this demonstrate our organisations commitment to Life Long Learning.
Lastly I would like to thank my wife Valerie for her fastidious use of the green pen and David Jnr,
who as he completed his own PhD study in Complexity Science, proved to be a critical friend and
Abstract
Announced in 2003, Building Schools for the Future (BSF) was New Labour’s attempt to
revolutionise secondary education in the UK, both in terms of infrastructure and pedagogy. The
country’s school building stock was decades (and in some cases centuries) old and in poor repair,
built for a different age with a history of lack of investment in modern technologies. BSF was to
change all that with massive investment and plans to transform teaching and learning. The new
buildings were to be of contemporary and revolutionary design more akin to modern office spaces
than their Victorian predecessors. Each school project had £1,400 per pupil (approximately £1.4m) of
its budget ‘ring fenced’ to be spent on Information Communication Technology (ICT), as this was to
be a major transformational tool; the key to equipping students with the skills needed for a 21st
Century economy. This Doctorate report is written from within one of the first BSF projects in the country, planned from 2005 and opened in 2007, with the ICT contract coming to an end in 2014. The
author is the only surviving member of the original BSF planning team still working within the LA as
a Deputy Head Teacher.
The main research questions ‘To what extent and in what ways has the huge investment in ICT during
BSF transformed teaching and learning and what was the perspective of this from the three main
stakeholder groups; those leading, those teaching and those learning?’ sets out to investigate the impact of the ICT component of BSF, it does however also reflect on the BSF process as a whole
because this set the context in which the ICT systems were deployed; through a Managed Service
Provider (MSP) procured from the private sector. This contract cast a long shadow over the prospect
of transformation as BSF became largely about procurement, contracts and cost, the ‘B’ prevailed;
teaching and learning were marginalized. Another major influence was that the schools in BSF
re-opened in the same educational climate of accountability, curriculum, timetables and assessment
methodology as they had had in their old accommodation. Conflicting government policy streams
only served to make this more evident. Teacher and pupils assimilated their new environments and
That is not to say the ICT did not have an impact; there were many positive outcomes ranging from a
greatly reduced pupil to device ratios and multimedia lesson content readily available to all. Pupils in particular were delighted (initially at least) with their new environments. Communication and the
sharing of ideas and resources were the result of modern networks and systems that meant efficiencies
for some and up to date information for most.
Overall, classroom teachers had little capacity to transform their professional lives with the ICT
provision, and there was no real pressure for them to do so given the unchanged nature of the
structures of education within which they worked. Although many saw the potential of the new ICT,
the opportunities to improve their skills were frustratingly lacking or not suited to their needs,
consequently most incorporated the ICT into their classroom practice at a level with which they were
comfortable.
The cancellation of BSF in 2011 was one of the first acts of the new coalition government, although
the schools included in this work had a managed ICT service that ran until August 2014. At the end of
this contract schools were left with both expensive change and refresh costs that were likely to be a
financial burden many could ill afford and so they were hindered in their ability to embr ace newer
Glossary
BECTA British Educational Communication and Technology Agency. The government ‘quango’ created to advice schools on the use of ICT in schools, funded by the DfE BSF Building Schools for the Future; the name given to the British government's
investment programme in secondary school buildings in England.
MSP
Managed Service Provider. The private company contracted to install and manage the ICT component of BSF, using the BSF capital and monthly revenue from schools.
NGFL
National Grid For Learning. Government-funded gateway to educational resources on the Internet. It featured many individually selected links to resources and materials deemed to be of high quality. The NGfL was specifically set up to support English schools; separate 'grids' were set up for schools in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
NoF
New Opportunities Fund. Paid for through lottery funding; training to raise the standard of pupils' achievements by increasing the expertise of serving teachers in the use of ICT in subject teaching.
Ofcom
The Office of Communication; the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom.
RaiseOnline
Online document produced annually by DfE. Analyses individual school performance against national norms for all groups and sub-groups of children. Results are rated as in line with, above or below expected.
PFI
The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was announced in the 1992 Autumn Statement with the aim of achieving closer partnerships between the public and private sectors. It was one of a range of policies introduced by the Conservative
Government to increase the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services.
PfS Partnerships for Schools. Government quango set up to manage BSF.
PPP
Private Public Partnerships. The overarching description of public sector projects funded by a combination of private sector and government funding, PFI is a example.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1
Political Context
Building Schools for the Future (BSF), initiated by the New Labour Government in 2003 was aimed
at delivering what they described as the ‘transformation’ of teaching and learning, through the rebuilding of every secondary school in England and Wales. These new schools were to be of
contemporary design, with ‘learning environments’ replacing classrooms and built to meet the
supposed needs of 21st century students. The Information Communication and Technology (ICT) 1
component of the initiative was to be key to that transformation. If ‘Education, Education, Education’
was New Labour’s mantra then BSF was to be its tangible manifestation. The promised funding
(£55bn) was unprecedented, the projected timescales short by any standard let alone for a project of
this size and the expectations of its impact huge.
Such was the political pressure for early success stories, BSF was to be rolled out in ‘Waves’, with
‘Wave 1’ including ‘Quick Win’ schools that could be rebuilt or refurbished within 2 years. My own professional position placed me in the path of this ‘Wave 1’ and the expectations of a ‘Quick Win’.From 2005-2009 planning took place locally and nationally for further waves of BSF. However, even
in its earliest days the programme became increasingly behind schedule as development continued, all
be it with increased financial constraints and questions being asked about affordability.
1 The following definition is taken from the guidance in the QCA Schemes of Work for ICT: "Information and communications technologies (ICT) are the computing and communications facilities and features that variously
Of the eight schools in our Wave 1 BSF programme (referred to here as ‘The Partnership’), the average spend on ICT was £1.4m per institution. The expectations of Wave 1 of BSF investment were
daunting, they required schools to procure an outsourced ICT component of the investment (in this
Partnership a capital sum of £12m and a revenue stream for the provider of £1m per year over the 5 years of the contract), to a Managed Service Provider (MSP). I was appointed to join the working
party tasked with drawing up the Partnership’s ICT specification and selecting the provider (P1.2). Following the awarding of the contract I continued to work with the Partnership (P4.3) thanks to a
two day per week secondment, to develop their relationship with the MSP, and in particular the use of
the Learning Platform (or VLE).
All of the schools in the programme are now at the end of their 5 year MSP contract and this work
gathered data over that time. Since starting this work the political climate has changed significantly.
One of the first acts of the incoming coalition government of 2010 was to cancel the BSF programme
as part of their reduction in public spending. This was before many Wave 2 projects had got beyond
the planning stage.
1.2
Professional Reflection
My career started in 1975 in a totally technology free environment. A friend with whom I graduated studied
computer science in a world of mainframes, punched cards and tapes. The OHP (Over Head Projector) was a
classroom innovation. One school video recorder, with ‘Betamax’ tapes arrived in 1976. We booked it to
watch recordings of a BBC educational broadcast (assuming the recording had worked).
The single ‘Commodore Pet’ was taken out of its box in 1978; 64k of memory, a tape drive and a price tag of £800, on it we ran models of Mendelian Genetics, the results announced by a ‘beep’. The emerging
‘microcomputer’ of the 1980s created the Sinclair range and the politically sensitive decision, considering the number of other private companies bidding for the contract, that allowed the BBC to market its own ‘micro’, with a series of programs (of both the TV and computer variety) to support teaching and learning. Projecting
calculate dietary requirements for over 15 years. By 1990 our first true ‘network’ was installed; an ‘RM Nimbus’ suite of 24 computers running the first Microsoft Windows applications. I embraced every step of the technology evolution and have never doubted the potential of ICT to transform all aspects of our lives. As an
‘early adopter’ both professionally and privately, from email and mobile phones to iPad, it would be at my desk that the first use of the latest technology was experienced by colleagues and friends alike.
My own experience with ICT in teaching has therefore had a long gestation, from the very first data-logging
PCs in science to embryonic classroom networks and the introduction of school Management Information
Systems (MIS), my faith in the fact the computer technology can play a key role in all aspects of education
remains undiminished. However, until BSF, the story has always been one of limited funding and in my
opinion, poor vision within the education sector, unable to keep pace with technological advancement.
Schools were always playing catch up or having to accept that the majority of what the business world could
access, schools could not, largely through lack of capacity and investment. This, along with an embedded
pedagogy that presented an inertia many reforms have (and still do) struggle to overcome will be explored in
this work.
Having progressed to school leadership it was my involvement with the Specialist Schools Trust (SST)
movement that first introduced me to working with major central government initiatives. The Specialist
Schools programme had a slow gestation but by 2003 any school that considered itself worthy of mention had
to achieve a specialist status of some description. Obviously the £25,000 capital grant and £125 revenue per
pupil per annum awarded directly to Specialist Schools was an incentive to seek the award. The Head and I
wrote our application, we negotiated sponsorship and were successful in 2004. Evidence that all that work and
investment has had an impact remains inconclusive (Taylor & Bradley, 2007). However, for us the money was
to be welcomed, particularly in addressing the history of underfunding the previous 10 years had offered; I
planned to channel as much of it as possible into ICT infrastructure. At the same time we became a ‘Gateway’ for the new Diploma in Creative Media2 and I became responsible for the introduction of this qualification
that was to be brokered by us across the city. The structure of this award was intended to break down existing
curriculum and assessment structures allowing pupils the flexibility and independence to learn for themselves
and demonstrate their progress in a number of ways. This curriculum innovation was supported by extra SST (Specialist Schools Trust) capital.
David Milliband stood at my left shoulder waiting to make his entrance as a junior education minister and
guest speaker at the SST conference in Hammersmith, 2005. We (myself and the Head Teacher) were there to
be accepted into the SST family as our application to become a Specialist Performing and Visual Arts College
had been accepted. The main content of his speech focused on the fact that he had to rush off to the House of
Commons to launch the BSF programme. What the rest of the audience did not know was that 9 of our LA
schools were about to be in ‘Wave 1’ of BSF and my Community School was the first school in the project. With a budget of £11.5m and £1.4m of that destined for ICT the SST funding became insignificant.
Nominated by my school to sit on the BSF planning group, I am now the only surviving member of the first
meeting in December 2006(P1.2, P3.1) still working within the LA. As such I lived and breathed our BSF
projects from an LA strategy level, through school leadership right down to (my own) classroom level. From
day one, I represented schools at ‘Way Forward’ meetings (P1.3) that monitored and guided the development of the ICT service. As the programme came to an end in 2014 I sourced alternative solutions and organized
market testing seminars to help schools in their decision making. As Local Authority management structures
are being dismantled, encouraging schools to become totally independent and seek their own support and
advisory structures (my own school acquired academy status in November 2012) and as the LA begins to
develop a strategy for a ‘Digital City’ the technology team at the City Council have turned to me for the input from the education sector.
This work then is a reflection on my 8 years of involvement in BSF from the first planning meetings (P1.2) to
1.3
Embryonic Study
When I embarked on a survey (two years before this work was proposed) in order to assess the impact of the
ICT component of our BSF investment I did not know it at the time that I was sowing the seeds of this work. I
conducted the survey (P2) in 2007, just after our official BSF opening (see 3.4.1) and prior to the
implementation of the managed service contract. The design included three main elements:
1. Observations by Senior Leadership Team (SLT) members: This involved a visit to each department by a member of SLT, for 2 periods, one at each Key Stage. In each hour as many lessons as possible were visited and records made of ICT use on an agreed check list. 74 lessons were visited (P2.3). SLT members were also encouraged to visit the Independent Learning Centre (a large space, equipped with 70 computers that supported independent study) and note their observations.
2. Pupil Survey: A questionnaire issued and completed during a tutorial session. 757 pupil questionnaires were returned. (P2.2)
3. Staff Survey: Also a questionnaire issued and completed during an INSET session. 52 teacher and 22 support staff questionnaires were returned. (P2.1)
The results were largely positive in respect of the impact of the ICT component although there was no attempt
to identify or quantify the concept of transformation at that point. A full report, with suggested actions was
produced and shared (P2.4). Teachers had coped with change and could see many advantages to the use of
ICT, they had all been given a laptop with a comprehensive software installation; they had a desktop and
interactive tablet in their own (and every other) teaching space. Two full time technicians and a teacher
designated as’ eLearning Manger’ were available for support. A member of the Senior Leadership Team (myself) was to continue to develop the ICT strategy and oversee the operational management. A new
Management Information System (MIS) allowed for electronic registration access via the internet from any
remote location, including home and all staff had a new ‘webmail’ account.
Consequently, the benefits noted initially were largely around procedures, processes and availability. Few
found the ICT as yet having an impact on teaching pedagogy but most thought it made them ‘more
productive’ in that ICT systems allowed for greater efficiencies in the use of their time. Collaboration with
colleagues was much easier and quicker; the use of email and shared computer storage all brought with them
However, it was obvious there was a confidence divide within the teacher population. Many teachers were not
reticent in expressing their feelings of being de-skilled, while pupils who were hugely positive about their new
ICT rich environment, were able to explain their own observations of a range in teachers’ ability to deal with
the new technologies. This resulted in the design of a CPD programme, with sessions run by ‘school champions’ based on staff need (P4.1). The initial programme ran for 2 years and evolved into a
comprehensive CPD scheme. Although this work evolved from the earlier study, that was not its original
intention and consequently its design was not totally suitable as a pilot study. However, as well as producing
its own valid outcomes it did stimulate the thinking that lead me to this work and crucially it underlined for
me the limits of quantitative methods, as highlighted by Onwuegbuzie and Daniel (2003) and the need for
more high quality qualitative data that relies upon ‘reflexive analysis of values and interests and how they affect different groups in society’ (Flyvbjerg, 2005, p.39).
Much of what was contained in my report of 2007 mirrored the findings of the ICT Test Bed Project (Somekh
et al., 2007) which is discussed in 2.1 below, but more importantly I felt motivated to develop my own
research and this work is the result. Ten years of my professional life was devoted to BSF. My unique
experience from within the project placed me, I hoped, in a position to reflect on the process and offer a
critical reflection, an approach that has both support and value, according to Larrivee.
‘Critical reflection is not only a way of approaching teaching it is a way of life. The more teachers
explore, the more they discover. The more they question, the more they access new rea lms of possibility. The path to developing as a critically reflective teacher cannot be prescr ibed with an
intervention formula. The route cannot be pre planned, it must be lived’ (2000, p.306).
1.4
Rationale and Aims
As we moved to the end of the first year in an open BSF organisation I was drawn back to the stated aim that
teaching and learning would be ‘transformed’ and the significant role ICT was predicted to play in that process. I wondered if Partnerships for Schools (PfS) had planned evidence gathering and research
programmes to identify successes so as to inform future ‘waves’. As if my thoughts were being read, I received a call (in 2007) from a PricewaterhouseCoopers’ researcher asking me to take part in a study they were conducting on behalf of the Government, into schools’ experiences of BSF. The results were to be
published in the first of three ‘annual’ reports (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2007). What struck me was they collected evidence at a largely strategic level; teachers and pupils experiences were hardly sought (see 3.2).
This pattern was repeated in their next two reports (2008; 2010), I was the only person interviewed in all three surveys, the last one by telephone. I felt there was a major omission in their methodology if this was the
definitive instrument being used to assess the impact of BSF. Consequently, I decided to find out for myself
by working with three schools from our ‘Wave 1’ partnership and ask the question;
‘To what extent and in what ways has the investment in ICT during BSF transformed teaching and learning and what was the perspective of this from the three main stakeholder groups; those leading,
those teaching and those learning’?
Therefore I embarked on this study to support my own reflections and acquire sufficient data to compare the
hopes and aspiration of Head Teachers, made explicit in the vision statement (P1.1) that all schools were
required to submit to PfS, with the lived experience of pupils and teachers and add this to my own personal
experience. At the planning stage it was expected that my contribution would be to help future developments
(i.e. Wave 2 and 3 in my own Local Authority) learn from the experience of ‘Wave 1’ and improve their chance of true transformation. The cancellation of the BSF programme undermined that possibility, so much
so that not continuing with this work was an option I considered. However, without the bureaucracy and
external controls of BSF, schools wishing to use ICT to transform teaching and learning are now forced to
become increasingly autonomous in their approach. The findings of this work will therefore I believe, be
valuable to individual institutions as central (and indeed) local government withdraw their support to schools
and expects them to be autonomous organisations.
In 2011 Mahoney et al reflected that ‘the programme (BSF) is sufficiently advanced for serious research to be
both possible and essential’ (2011, p.356) and Burke reaches the conclusion that her research;
‘suggests that current efforts to visualize schools as transformational and transformed learning
environments might profit from the notion of prosopography in the sense that it may help our
understanding of contemporary networks that are engaged in constructing a common vision of school for the twenty-first century’. (Burke, 2010, p.78)
It is my intention that this work, a combination of research and reflections on my own experiences, will add to
opportunity having been removed, I have since channelled my energies into supporting schools who, without
the support of an LA or government agencies, begin to develop their next phase of education technologies. On
a wider scale I feel my reflections on the implementation of a central government policy, through my roles at regional strategy level, school senior leadership and classroom teacher, can add to the evidence base that will
guide future strategies.
1.5
What is Transformation in an Education Context?
To change the form of; to change into another shape or form; to metamorphose.
To change in character or condition; to alter in function or nature.
To undergo a change of form or nature; to change. (OED, 2014)
Generic dictionary definitions refer to ‘radical change’ but are only specific in mathematical and genetics context (along with those of Victorian theatre stage design). The business world seems clearer in its
understanding and provides a framework that could with hindsight, have helped BSF, particularly as schools
are increasingly being asked to embrace commercial ideology. Transformation here is defined as a
fundamental change to the way business operates, be it a change in appearance from the customer perspective,
a change in the shape of what the business should do or a change in the form of the way in which the business
works by embracing new organizational structures, skills process and technology. Draper et al summarise the
problematic nature of applying the concept of transformation to an educational context as they reflect on the
expected impact of the introduction of VLEs and illustrate the dilemma when the term is used in a simplistic
way:
"Transformation" is a rhetorical, not an objective, term used by those wishing to dr aw attention to the large size and rapid pace of some change. We have examples where there seems to be vivid
transformative change, but on closer inspection, not: whether a fashion change in hair colour (same old heads underneath) or a required policy of teaching with VLEs yet in fact only lectur es slides are mounted in it. However similarly we have seen cases of real change (mobile phones, e-journals on the web) where the users (unlike the providers) seldom say their life has changed: they just use wha t is there. Transformation is a perception, and stakeholders seldom share it. (2006, p.1)
Despite having repeatedly stated transformation in its aims, Partnerships for Schools (PfS) did not try and
than inception (Partnerships for Schools, 2008). There is little practical detail, although as Figure 1 illustrates
they do accept a difference from, but connection between, the building and education strands of BSF and in
doing so they appear to anticipate two different aspects to transformation.
There are two interesting observations to be made here. Firstly the educational strand is clearly linked to
‘Raised attainment’ and secondly a quite explicit reference to change, and more importantly ‘changing pedagogy and organisation’. Both of these issues will become themes throughout this work.
In his introduction to a ‘Future Lab’ report on BSF, Lord David Putnam points out:
‘The language of transformation pervades all the main policy documents that introduced the (BSF) programmes. Whether transforming services to support the delivery of the Every Child Ma tters agenda and the Children’s Plan, or to embed a new approach to learning and its organisation through personalisation, the underpinning policies call for significant systemic change’. (Putnam, 2008, p.3).
In doing so he emphasises the rhetoric of transformation pervasive in BSF literature and expresses his opinion
that changes need to be deeper and more systemic than BSF had considered. In the same report, Rudd expands
on this need for systemic change and gives a more detailed expectation than can be found in the whole of the
output from PfS, focusing particularly on his view of how a move to learning communities might be
transformational;
‘We can only really say transformation will have been achieved if we see marked changes in approaches to learning, teaching practices, relationships and school organisation; when we see a
fundamental shift away from what might be described as schools as ‘learned institutions’ to the development of ‘learning communities’ where what is learnt, by whom, when, who with and how becomes more fluid, emergent and evolves based on need and opportunity’.(Rudd, 2008, p.5)
In his work ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ Freire takes this further when he see education either controlling or liberating, depending upon whether the state or the individual are at the centre.
‘Education either functions as an instrument that is used to facilitate the integration of the younger
generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes "the practice of freedom," the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality
and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world’. (2000, p.34)
It could also be accepted that if schools are ‘a complex ecosystem’ (Rudd, 2008) the true definition of transformation in this context would be developed and defined as the BSF programme matured. As Potter
wrote, ‘The world…..is constructed in one way or another as people talk it, write it and argue it’ (1996, p.98). Having opted to explore the explicit aim of BSF to transform with ICT as a major change agent I found
myself beginning this work with the concept of transformation:
not being clearly defined, at least in an educational context
when defined, that definition being very context specific
never explored in detail or as an outcome
not differentiated from the rhetoric of change
Consequently, with no consensus about what exactly was expected, the next chapter opens with a more
2
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The literature supporting and influencing this work falls into five broad categories:
2.1 Transformation, ICT and Teaching and Learning
2.2 Government Policy
2.3 The Marketisation and Commercialisation of Education
2.4 Theories of learning
2.5 Teachers Professional Development
Although there is some overlap (particularly with the area of policy making), it is these concepts that have
influenced the design of this study. As is to be expected, the bulk of this section relates to ICT and how this might lead to transformation of teaching and learning. As BSF was a Central Government policy it is
important to explore its evolution in the context of the political backdrop. Another major influence within
BSF was the involvement of the private sector and so it is necessary to explore this factor. It is, I believe
important to include current thinking on how learning takes place if it is to be transformed and in what way.
My earlier work and the new evidence gathered here indicated the primary importance of how much the
teaching workforce had the capacity to embrace change. Consequently the evidence of how effective the CPD
(Continuing Professional Development) relating to the use of ICT has been and how BSF responded to this is
significant.
2.1
Transformation, ICT and Teaching and Learning
The new electronic information communication technologies emerging at the end of the 20th Century were
about to change our lives dramatically, possibly more so than anyone could have imagined (Edwards, 2012,
p.2). By the end of the first decade of the new century, cheap and powerful processing power and its
associated electronic devices had become part of everyday life. Ofcom (2011) report we became ‘A Nation
Addicted to Smartphones’ and a whole host of other digital technology (p340). Similar conclusions are to be found by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); they note that internet use grew to be the norm
rather than the exception in daily life (Figure 2). By 2011 25% of the population of the UK accessed
broadband solely from a device other than a desktop or laptop computer (2011).
Figure 2: ITU Report on Telecommunication
Common activities (including learning) and objects acquired ‘e’ or ‘i’ as a prefix, common functions (even reality) could be ‘virtual’, business was all ‘.com’ and people and places became ‘@’ if they wanted to be anywhere. Moore’s Law3 (Intel, 2011), is readily used by the popular press (Strickland, 2015) to illustrate how
much more computer technology can offer in ‘bangs for bucks’ terms resulting in computers, infrastructure, and devices making technology more an everyday feature of the lives of individuals in every aspect of what
they do. Amazon, iTunes, On-line Banking, Smart Phones, Google, Skype, eBooks, Twitter, Facebook and
‘The Cloud’ are just a few innovations that could easily stand up to being described as transformational in their own way. Put them all together and ICT can be credited with changing many facets of society beyond
recognition. This draws Bijker to comment that ‘Social order in modern society can only be explained by
reference to technology’ (2010, p.72). Consequently, radical change to all human activity, much of it transformational, has been inevitable (Woolgar, 2002) and will continue to be so as we all learn to live in the
‘infosphere’; as long as the batteries last (Floridi, 2007).
3 Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware whereby the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit, and with it associated processing power, doubles approximately every two years.
0 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 12172 3 5 78 10 1214 15182211 172431 3642 4654 5659620204060801001201997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Internet users per 100 inhabitants. Source ITU
Developed WorldWorld in GeneralDeveloping World
Some of this transformation can be viewed as positive, particularly where it can break down international
inequalities, the so called ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 and its dramatic (if short lived) effect on international politics were largely orchestrated ‘on-line’, and not without innocent casualties. No better illustration can be found than that of the social unrest of August 2011. Closer to home, what started as a peaceful protest at the shooting
by police of Mark Duggan, escalated into looting and lawlessness on an unprecedented scale in many of
England’s major cities that lasted for three days. The fact that the police found their normal method of controlling these situations ineffective was put down to the prevalence for gang leaders to use freely available
encrypted social networking systems to communicate and organize themselves unlike any previous situation,
exposing the lack of law enforcement agencies capacity to deal with the power of new technologies. Sosadly, not all of the impact of ICT is welcomed when put to criminal use (Cooper, 2010, p.1). Similarly, the rise of
‘globally networked capitalism’ (Selwyn, 2013, p.29; Fuchs, 2012)is not always welcomed as illustrated by, for example, the seeming ability for large international organization to avoid taxation (BBC, 2012).
Ganes observes ‘It would seem to me that internet-related technologies have directly altered the patterning of
everyday life’ (2005, p.475)and reflecting on this Selwyn suggests ‘the development of digital technology represents a distinctly new and improved set of social arrangements in relation to proceeding pre-digital
times’ in what he calls ‘digital mediation’ (2010, p.7). He adds education as being one of the most ‘significant
sites of reconfiguration’ and observes that ‘for many people the primary concerns of education as resonating especially closely with those of digital technology (p.8) thus highlighting the potential of the impact
technology could have on the structure and organization of education.
Rhetoric or Reality
As a key function of modern society, education has obviously not been able to avoid being caught up in this
technological revolution. As Edwards reflects ‘Today there are few aspects of teaching and learning that are
free from the influence of technology in some form or other’ (2012, p.1).
It is unsurprising therefore that writing about the potential of technology to impact on education policy and
practice was identified as soon as the computer technology was available (Singer & Phelps, 1982). From the
late 80s onwards devices and prices became sufficiently accessible for schools to begin to invest. As their use
of the now much talked about transformation of teaching and learning. However, move forward 20 years to
2006 and there is confusion as to exactly what transformation brought about by ICT in a teaching and learning
context would look like, with the rhetoric being more embedded in the literature than was the reality within the classroom. At the time BSF was being established, observations from two authors only serve to underline
the over use of transformation rhetoric;
‘The word ‘transformation’ is frequently used in connection with modern educational change, particularly when such change involves new technologies and education for the ‘information society'. However, closer examination reveals that transformation as a descriptor of change is used in ways which are at best multifarious, are often unclear and inconsistent, and are sometimes unwar ranted’.(Fisher, 2006, p.293)
and
‘Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies; however, it has been on that brink for some decades now’. (Laurillard, 2008)
Despite this uncertainty, transformation features heavily in all the Government output associated with BSF
(Partnerships for Schools, 2008). Two quangos, British Educational Communications and Technology Agency
(BECTA) and Partnerships for Schools (PfS), are (or were as they were both dissolved in 2011) the main
conduits for policy delivery and monitoring of the ICT element of BSF. Over time I believe, the use of the
term ‘transformation’ has simply become part of policy rhetoric that only serves to underline the ambiguity of its meaning. This view is supported by Hargreaves when he write;
‘Transformation has recently become the language of educational policymakers in England and other places. They seem very comfortable with the term though I am not sure they know what they are talking about. When virtually every development is allegedly transformative, it is vital to ask what the term really means. For transformation has to mean more than just continuing improvement if it is to be more than a rhetorical device for selling the latest educational initiative. Transfor mation implies a profound or fundamental change, a metamorphosis that involves some radical innovation, not just incremental innovation. The difference is important’. (2003)
No matter how often some reports (Becta, 2006; Conde, 2009; Crook et al., 2010) extolled the virtue of ICT as
the magic bullet that could revolutionize years of traditional pedagogy they have difficulty, in gathering
reliable data, in fact Buckingham suggest it is easier to see negative outcomes;
‘Such predictions about the transformative potential of technology have a very long history, not just
in education; and in retrospect, it is easy to see how they have largely failed to come true’. (Buckingham, 2005, p.1)
In looking for evidence of the anticipated impact of computers in education, the title and conclusions of Larry
records the impact of ICT only ‘producing relatively small improvement’ while other strategic changes, such as peer tutoring and reciprocal teaching he suggests have ‘greater than average impact’ (2003, p.5).
Unsurprisingly then the gap between hopes and reality of ICT impact have been described as ‘optimistic
-rhetoric’ (Reynolds et al., 2003) with a sense of lack of impact despite investment (Somekh, 2004). Time and time again authors warn policy makers of the dangers inherent in the simplistic assumption that spending on
equipment will equate to change (McCormick & Scrimshaw, 2001).
So, a significant amount of the research evidence around the use of ICT reports conflict between reality and
rhetoric, Gleaves refers to this as a ‘stark contrast’ (2001). When Williams noted, ‘The value of ICT in
teaching and learning has been a subject of contention for some time’ (2000, p.307), he encapsulated the contradictions in the published evidence to that point. His own research asked questions of ICT use that would
sound naive today. Indeed the quality and reliability of research into ICT and education had come constantly
into question (Cox & Marshall, 2007). The United Kingdom Research Assessment Exercise of 2001 (RAE,
2001) had, as reported by Underwood in a review of 2004, highlighted ‘some concerns about the quality of
research into the educational use of information communication technology’ (Underwood, 2004, p.135). Barriers to the successful use of ICT are often identified and are explored in a significant proportion of the
literature, although much of it focuses at teacher level rather than the systemic (Bingimlas, 2009). Indeed a
BECTA review of the research into these perceived barriers (Jones, 2004) only comes out with perceived
blocks at two levels; teacher and school. It fails to acknowledge anything structural to do with, for example,
the curriculum or assessment methodology. This I think illustrates a problem with the reliance of policy
makers on large scale generalised studies that miss the detail that can be provided by individual research
project that gather context specific evidence, evidence that may have some answers, lost in the aggregation or
Links with Attainment Outcomes
A thread does begin to develop in matching ICT rich schools with improving attainment outcomes. The
collecting and analysis of such data (such as GCSE point score) is well established and readily available from
schools’ RaiseOnline (Reporting and Analysis for Improvement through School Self-Evaluation) document. Having invested £34m between 2002 and 2006 on the ICT Test Bed Project, the final report (Somekh et al.,
2007) reports many positive findings. Significantly, the first ‘key finding’, ‘as technology was embedded,
schools’ national test outcomes improved beyond expectations’ links success to established examination measures; interestingly they note this is truer of the primary than secondary sector. Their final observation on
teaching and learning: ‘Some changes to teaching and learning strategies were inhibited by tensions between the priorities of different government policies and agencies with regard to ICT’ (2007, p.5) is particularly significant and will be discussed further in section 2.2 below.
The BECTA review of 2005 included signs of doubt about impact on attainment;
‘There is a growing body of evidence relating to the positive impact of ICT on learner attainment and other outcomes, but we need to develop further our understanding of effective ICT pedagogies and
how they can be supported’, and alludes to what might be the real issue,
‘There is evidence that high-quality educational (ICT) content enables the realisation of learner attainment gains, but only if accompanied by pedagogically informed practice. (Hunt et al., 2005, p.4)
However, trying to closely tie the use of technology to improved measurable outcomes is rarely attempted, at
least when supported by real data. The BECTA review cites 49 references, almost all of which come from
themselves; work, as Convery brings to our attention, they or other government agencies have commissioned,
‘For example, the UK government has invested heavily in ICT and has established a partner to
promote the use of technology in education. BECTA tend to commission research that is conducted by those who enjoy a fundamental familiarity with the ICT world, and whose prior technology research
thus supporting my observations that the quality of the research used to report on the impact of ICT is far from
robust, reliable or even valid.
Where is the evidence?
If BSF was to use ICT as a primary tool in its quest for transformation, one key question would be how much
notice was to be taken of the research evidence, apoint discussed by Sutherland who also makes reference to
other key issue addressed in this work; the lack of evidence based policy making (see 2.3) and the nature of
learning (see 2.4).
‘Research has not systematically been drawn upon by policy makers when developing curricula and guidelines for teachers on how to use ICT in the classroom. There is a tendency to think that ICT is so
‘new’ that its use will be accompanied by ‘new’ pedagogies that will somehow transform teaching
and learning. This utopian vision often leads policy makers and practitioners to ignore general theoretical perspectives about teaching and learning, which in our view are central to all learning,
with or without ICT’.(Sutherland, Armstrong, et al., 2004, p.413)
Wider reading shows that the views in the literature are split as to whether ICT is or is not the
transformational tool it had been expected to be, despite the seemingly obvious assumption that it must
(Reynolds et al., 2003). Warnings were also sounded about the risks in assuming that ICT would make a difference simply because it was new, there and in use in some shape or form (Okan, 2003; National Audit
Office, 2009). A considerable amount of the evidence for the (successful) use of ICT in teaching and learning
comes from relatively small scale finite projects such as PELRS (2004; 2006), often carried out by
enthusiastic innovators (Cogill, 2003). Transformation is a theme that is explored as an outcome but
limitations on its success are clear, referring to a need for more fundamental changes than simple investment
can offer.
‘Nevertheless, PELRS work has also shown that transformative learning requires a more
fundamental transformation of the structures of schooling than is possible by means of innovative work by teachers and pupils only’ (Pearson & Somekh, 2006, p.537).
The ‘structure of schooling’ is a key issue in this work and will feature heavily in both its observations and findings.
Sutherland et al (2004) looked to investigate the dissemination of good practice in the use of ICT as a teaching
of some of the resulting publications (Sutherland, 2004), is hardly mentioned in the text, and then only with
the caveat of ‘somehow’, or as part of ‘complex’ systems at best (2004, p.413) with ICT as an enabler;
‘Humans are expert at creating tools to transform practices and knowledge. ICTs are part of this creative production. Knowing how to use these tools to transform learning in schools is not so straightforward’ (p.424).
Even when successes are recorded, clashes with government imposed ‘National Strategies’ and the lack of
real evidence of the contribution ICT was making were also part of the findings. In particular the all-important
‘context’ was found to be the key (Triggs, 2004).
Two publications from the eastern hemisphere illustrate the search for understanding of the growing potential
of ICT was not confined to the UK. A comprehensive review, undertaken in Australia, of the international
evidence (Newhouse, 2002) warns of the need to understand the complex (and unproven) link between
improved learning and ICT, while in Hong Kong, although seeing positive signs to justify recent investment
and reform, Lee still asks questions similar to his western counterparts (2010).
So, the lack of independent, peer assessed research is, in my view, stark. When the look for quantifiable
outcomes of the impact ICT has on teaching and learning was given serious thought, respected researchers
found flaws in the reliability of the data (Harrison et al., 2004), indeed the very nature of research design and
the conflict between types of data was also brought into question (Gardner & Galanouli, 2004). The
‘optimistic-rhetoric’ is again cited by Nichol as it finds its way to becoming fact through ‘flawed research’ (Nichol & Watson, 2003).
.One inherent problem in the literature is, I believe, that the small studies report on what is often detailed
classroom practice that can get to the heart of teaching and learning, an insight lost in the large summative
papers; yet it is the latter that seems to gain most attention, particularly at strategy level.
Issues of Pedagogy and Structure
Even before the new millennium began, Seymour Papert, a respected American commentator on new
technology in education argued that transformation (he uses the term diversity) will only be possible if ‘we break away from the idea that the computer is there to serve an already antiquated curriculum’ (1999, p.1) indicating that the clash between the agendas of accountability and transformation was being well documented
on both sides of the Atlantic at an early stage. While new technologies were developing at a pace that were
transforming many aspects of life, the reluctance to set schools free from compliance to performance
indicators with increasing state control, was if anything causing pedagogy to retrench (Williams, 2005).School leaders will be reluctant to make a change in pedagogy on a large scale if quantifiable outcomes are
perceived to be threatened. Coupled to that is the embedded school organisation and pedagogy of almost
Victorian design (Gillen et al., 2007).
So no matter how much central government heralded their reforms as transformational (Office of Public
Service Reform, 2002), the irony is that the associated target and accountability systems may have reduced
the potential for success (Wallace, 2008). This is not a new observation as even before the technology
explosion of the 21st Century the potential impact of ICT in schools was seen as needing to be part of a bigger
educational picture. As early as 1995, it was pointed out that ICT was no ‘silverbullet’ but needed to be part
of a ‘coherent school wide agenda’ (Means et al., 1995, p.69). Government commissioned research noted when and how ICT was (and was not) motivational (Passey et al., 2004) and argued the need for proper
integration into learning processes. For new technologies to make a difference they need to be employed where student, teacher, school, leadership and pedagogy all work together to facilitate change (McCormick &
Scrimshaw, 2001; García-Valcarcel, 2010), and be designed to support learning; such convergent scenarios
are hard to find, particularly in the secondary sector.
Although I have painted quite a sceptical picture so far, there are many examples of positive effects of ICT to
be found in research literature. In their review of pedagogy related to ICT, Webb and Cox (2004) report the
most success in ICT enabling a (positive) change in teachers’ practice was when they allow learning to be pupil centred, where the learners’ independence is facilitated. Bottino makes even grander claims when he says ‘ICT tools can influence and transform learning by fundamentally changing the way in which a content
can be taught and learnt’(2004, p.566) and is supported by Sutherland in his observation that ICT can provide
Comparable Projects
In looking for an example of a central government initiative comparable with BSF, the story of the
introduction of Interactive White Boards (IWBs) into British classrooms does, I believe, serve the purpose.
The literature published as a result shows how it mirrors all of the tensions explored in this work. Late in 2002
Charles Clarke, the newly appointed Secretary of State for Education (he moved to be Home Secretary in
November 2004) stated ‘Every school of the future will have an interactive whiteboard in every classroom, technology has already revolutionised learning’ (Arnott, 2004). Perhaps he failed to notice that much of the evidence for this claim was not peer-reviewed and ‘often sponsored by the manufacturer of the equipment’ (Higgins et al., 2007, p.218). This initiated a national pilot to install IWBs into 200 classrooms in 80 primary
schools in 6 local authorities in England; their use was to be targeted at the National Literacy and Numeracy
Strategy. If the stated aim of the National Strategies was to raise attainment in English and mathematics, then
by default the success (or failure) of the IWB initiative would be judged by its impact on KS2 test results. The
potential for evaluative studies was huge and the literature output reflected this. A Europe wide summary on
the impact of ICT in schools was carried out in 2006, with a ‘predominance of UK research ’ (Balanskat et al., 2006, p.55) that observed; ‘In terms of evidence of ICT impact UK studies provide the richest picture’(2006, p.18); studies into IWB use dominate. Among the work reviewed is a summary of the impact of the
IWB initiative in which Higgins notes that ‘short and medium term indicators were positive’ (in Thomas & Schmid, 2010, p.97) although he finds only scant evidence of improvement in attainment, none of which is
maintained over time. Remarkably, in the European review this is translated as ‘overall the evidence base (actual and perceived) shows ICT has a positive impact on attainment levels and subject related performance’ (2006, p.56). Perhaps the key word is ‘perceived’ as much of the evidence reports positivity from both
teachers and learners about their engagement with the new technology (Thomas & Schmid, 2010b, p.97;
Gillen et al., 2007) . That is not to say ICT could not have an impact on those basic outcomes, following the
publication of the ImpaCT2 study (Somekh et al., 2002) Harrison et al did produce empirical evidence of a
positive correlation between ICT use and attainment;
‘It has to be acknowledged that the overall level of usage of ICT was lower than some analysts may
positively associating higher levels of ICT and school achievement at each KS, and in English, Maths,
Science, Modern Foreign Languages and Design Technology’. (2004, p.336)
Indeed, Hartley points out that the literature almost exclusively reports success stories with the use of ICT
(2007, p.56), but does find a collection of less positive papers in The British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36 issue 4 from July 2005.
As mentioned above, most of the evidence comes from small scale projects and at the micro level. When
research looked at individual classrooms, it became obvious that the technology was not the key issue.
Goodison compared two classes (and therefore teachers) with identical technology, in the same school and
was able to describe how IWB use both supported and hindered learning (2003) depending largely upon the
teacher by whose hands it was deployed, thus indicating context is all. In the Futurelab report on IWB use
Rudd (2007, p.11) comes to similar conclusions and cites a report on the London Challenge IWB initiative
(Moss et al., 2007) that suggest ‘the teaching profession should engage in a broader discussion as to the way
in which IWBs can be used to extend and transform existing practice’. Helpfully, in the same document Rudd does offer a definition of transformation:
‘…which is where the technology is used to ‘add value’ to the whole learning process. Teachers use and create a range of other resources that enhance the learning process through a more enquiry-based approach, with learners becoming centrally involved in its use and where they a ctively
construct knowledge through interaction.’ (2007, p.5)
This contrast with observations (I offer three here) on the use IWBs that turn them into nothing more than
what I have referred to as ‘Pay Attention Technology’.
‘In fact some would claim that pupils’ active involvement with the board during whole-class teaching reduces the pace of the lesson and can cause boredom’. (Smith et al., 2005, p.95)
‘Learners are expected to sit still and to be captivated by lessons that involve very little of their proficient language’. (Brand, 2010, p.114)
‘…they can also reinforce traditional approaches to learning and teaching’. (Edwards, 2012, p.93) Interactive White Boards were one of, if not the technology around which classrooms (or learning spaces)
were designed and constructed. Given that the schools involved in BSF already had IWBs installed in most
classrooms in their old building this supports my observation that BSF was simply ‘updating the present’ and asks the question of how much thought was given to the ‘F’ in BSF.
Was the Technology Provided by BSF Right?
The root of the above observation lies in the fact that Interactive White Boards along with other ‘educational
technologies’ (e.g. PowerePoint) (Selwyn, 2013, p.6) have their developmental origins far from the classroom;
they have been imported and are no more than ‘pretend’, ‘fabricated’and ‘inauthentic’ manifestations of applications and devices first seen in the world of business and commerce (Bigum & Rowan, 2008, p.249). As
such these technologies ignore the positive and empathetic relationships between teacher and pupil where
good channels of communication (Schmid, 2006, p.60) are crucial for effective learning and ignore simple
issues important in learning such as face to face contact (Cooper, 2010) and the principles of constructivism
(see 2.4 below). Bijker’s observation that perhaps we spend too long ‘exploring how technology is made and
used rather than what it essentially is’ (2010, p.74) is very relevant here and leads to the development of the
concept of the ‘Social Construction of Technology’ in which technology and it use ‘develops through an
organic or evolutionary process rather than the result of a linear mindset’ (Edwards, 2012, p.10), so rather than schools be provided with existing technologies installed to set plans (for example, IWB’s were installed at the front of all classrooms, 1.2m from the floor) they should be given time to shape and customise their own
environments, although when looking for successful outcomes of this evolution in an educational context
Sutherland et al warn of the inherent complexities.
‘Humans are expert at creating tools to transform practices and knowledge. ICTs are part of creative production. Knowing how to use these tools to transform learning in schools is not so
straightforward’. (2004, p.424)
One author was to point out that the use of ICT in schools had failed to ‘achieve lift off’ largely due, it was felt, because of the reluctance to embrace change (Watson, 2006) and also accept the complexity of what
educational technology really is, for as Selwyn noted;
‘It is not a single, homogenous entity. Instead, ‘educational technology’ is deceptively neat shorthand for a diverse array of socio-technical devices, activities and practices. (2013, p.6)
Change
The literature on ‘ barriers’ referred to above cite ‘resistance to change’ in their list (Mayya, 2007, p.11) (Becta, 2003), and often lay this inertia at the feet of teachers. However, throughout his work on educational
change Fullan takes a much more systemic view when refering to ‘drivers’, both positive and negative. This is his list of ‘wrong drivers’:
1. Accountability: using test results, and teacher appraisal, to reward or punish teachers a nd schools vs capacity building;
2. Individual teacher and leadership quality: promoting individual vs group solutions;
3. Technology: investing in and assuming that the digital world will carry the day vs instruction; and 4. Fragmented strategies vs integrated or systemic strategies.
(Fullan, 2011, p.1)
BSF could well be a study in bringing all these ‘wrong drivers’ together thus limiting the potential of change and if that was the case then obviously any chance of change (or transformation) would get off to a difficult
start. Fullan’s inclusion of assumption about technology (item 3 in his list above) are worrying and his observation of ‘fragmented strategies’ in particular could describe the political landscape as the first BSF contracts (including the one involved in this study) were being designed. Indeed, Williams adds his support to this thinking as he points out;
‘A narrow managerial focus on compliance to performance indicators and the formularization of
pedagogy are resulting in a redefining of the professional status of teachers and teacher education, and this is happening at a time when the anticipated needs for the citizen of an Information Society
will be flexibility, creativity and originality’. (2005, p.319) and
‘There appear many contradictions within the DfES between the desire for a new openness and
flexibility and a reluctance to let go of existing constraints on the curriculum and practices of school’.
(2005, p.335)
At the start of new millennium, Clouse and Nelson (2000) cite decades of the quest for school improvement
being wasted on tinkering with an instructional delivery model that has ignored improved understanding of
how learning takes place. They encourage those intent on education reform in American public schools (their
potential of ICT to change the organization and methodology of teaching, in linking ‘new technology’ with
‘new pedagogy’ (Sutherland, Armstrong, et al., 2004) and observations that technology can be used to learn
‘with’ not ‘from’ (Jonassen et al., 1998; Howland et al., 2013) point to transformative potential.
This review begins to identify conflicts in the published literature and the aspirations of BSF. Little or no
detailed reference was made during the planning and roll out of BSF as to exactly how the planned new
environments and the technology within them were to impact upon teaching and learning let alone transform
it; there seemed to become an accepted wisdom that transformation would occur because schools would be
physically different, modern and technology rich, and of course huge amounts of money would had been spent
(National Audit Office, 2009).The next section attempts to explore one of those tensions; that arising from different areas of government policy making.
2.2
Government Policy and Review
Education in the UK has become highly politicized; from my own perspective this trend began in 1971 when
Ted Heath’s education secretary, one Margaret Thatcher, used the ‘Education (Milk Act) 1971‘ to abolish free school milk. As a fresher involved in the protests I, like most others were unaware of what was to come.
Until Thatcher progressed to becoming Prime Minister in 1979 the post of Education Secretary had not bee n perceived as a cabinet post of significance or a platform for higher office. Her tenure in 10 Downing Street changed that landscape forever. Not only was the profile of education policy elevated, her administrations heavily politicized the statutory requirements that were to be imposed on schools.; the National Curriculum, Local Management of Schools and Ofsted are just three examples (Gillard, 2011). Following Thatcher, a succession of premierships from Major to Blair, Brown and Cameron (entering his second tenure from May 2015) have seen 16 different and high profile Secretaries of State for Education, each trying to make their own mark in some shape or form. Through legislation impacting on everything from training days, funding,
curriculum, examinations, accountability and the designation of individual schools in relation to their Local Education Authority the trend has been to continue using education policy (and therefore schools) as a vehicle to embed political ideology (Pearson, 2011; Henderson, 2013; Merrick & Rentoul, 2014).
Education, Education, Education
In a perceived need to rebuild or refurbish all of the 3500 secondary schools in England by 2023, the Labour
government launched BSF in 2004 with a potential budget of £55bn (Mahony & Hextall, 2013, p.845). The
departing Conservative government of 1997 had invested little in schools (Hills et al., 2009, p.2) and there
was no legacy of an IT (without the C at this point) strategy for education (Wild & King, 1999). The
Stevenson report of 1997 was held up to prove ‘the state of ICT in our schools is primitive and not improving’ (Stevenson, 1997, p.4) and insisted this situation be rectified as a matter of national priority. On election, New
Labour set about embracing the rapidly emerging concepts of the ‘information superhighway’ and the internet
in a large proportion of their thinking and policy making. The use of technology was a thread running through
public sector reform in areas ranging from health, legal, welfare and government (both local and national)
services. Education was at the forefront of a ‘social justice agenda’ (Mahony & Hextall, 2013, p.857), the approaching new millennium provided a milestone to hang policy making around; in fact it was in the
formulation of Labour Party policy prior to the 1997 election that they put the ‘Communication’ in
‘Information Communication Technology’; ICT was born.
Consequently the era of New Labour, with its mantra of ‘Education, Education, Education’ heralded in 10 years with schools and all those in them placed at the forefront of government policy, under the scrutiny of
any group or individual who felt the need to offer an opinion. The spending of £5 billion on the country’sschools ICT infrastructure alone underlines the importance that was placed on ‘educational technology’,
although it is worth pointing out, as Selwyn does, that this is ‘not a single homogenous entity’ but ‘deceptively neat shorthand for a diverse array of socio-technical devices, activities and practices’ (2013, p.6).
The scope for innovation was potentially huge. As the 21st Century opened, business was preoccupied with
launching into cyberspace and embracing the ‘dotcom’ boom so it is easy I think, to understand the pressures that lead to an explosive evolution in education technology. National Grid for Learning (NGFL), New
Opportunities Fund Training (NoF), e-Learning and other strategies became part of the educational landscape.
The scale of the government agenda was ambitious and expensive (Laurillard, 2008).
Despite many of these strategies being saddled with targets to justify the taxpayer and lottery players’