SocialTech

Education Technology Action Group consultation

Last Monday I was invited to Sanctuary House to contribute to two face to face meeting relating to the Data and Infrastructure strand identified by the Education Technology Action Group (ETAG)  as one of its three key workstreams. ETAG, as outlined on Group Chair Stephen Heppell’s website, is an independent group set up at the behest Michael Gove (Secretary of State for Education), Matthew Hancock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for further education, skills and lifelong learning) and David Willetts (Minister of State for Universities and Science). The purpose of the group is to make recommendations that will “aim to best support the agile evolution of the FE, HE and schools sectors in anticipation of disruptive technology for the benefit of learners, employers & the UK economy", identifying “any barriers to the growth of innovative learning technology that have been put in place (inadvertently or otherwise) by the Governments, as well as thinking about ways that these barriers can be broken down.”

In relation to central government, I’d identify current barriers as 1. the current gap between educational policy and the social, political and economic impact of technologies, and 2. within the schools sector, a seeming reluctance to engage with or countenance these changes as mainstream, and 3. an apparent reticence to recognise the curriculum wide relevance of the use of technology to support learners and be used by learners - the current focus being on students learning about technology, which confines discussions relating to staff development needs and practice to computing.  The common theme here is that at the level of policy relating to schools, the use of technology for education is being perceived as a separate, specialist area, rather than an effective and integral range of approaches and tools to support learners and learning communities.

This isn’t, of course, to say that there is any shortage of schools and school staff making effective and creative use of innovative approaches that are supported, or made possible, by the use of technologies. If you believe, as I do, that school staff are best placed to effectively develop practices that make best use of technologies, the job of those supporting their work should be to ensure they have the ability to do so. While many schools and school staff are confident and well equipped in terms of continuing development, the picture isn’t consistent. Recent DigiLit Leicester research (from 2013, and the soon to be released 2014 findings) indicate that while the majority of secondary school staff are highly confident in their use of technology, over 20% of staff working with learners are not confident about employing technologies to support key areas of practice. Staff confidence is critical to the ongoing use, development and adoption of technologies.

The public consultation on the three strands, Connected Institutions, Data and Infrastructure, and Understanding and Accrediting Learning, and an additional Wild Card cluster, is open until 23 June  - comments, proposals, suggestions or observations have been invited from anywhere in the world, by reply form, by email or Twitter (#etag), or for the Data and Infrastructure strand, via this Google doc.  The Action Group will spend the summer developing recommendations in relation to the consultation for short-term and long-term actions, which will be presented to ministers for consideration.

The call has expressed a preference for ‘short and terse’ responses, which the Action Group will review, and fashion into tempting recommendations. I’m focusing my bullet recommendations here on the use of technology within the schools sector, both ‘technology to support learning’ and ‘technology to support the running of the organisation’, since without accounting for infrastructure, connectivity and systems, we can’t really expect mainstream development of technologies to support learning and communities. My recommendations here are for areas that need to be addressed at national level, rather than left to luck, so should be supported through central government policy or activity, or partnership/endorsement.

Cluster 2 Data and Infrastructure - Led by Bob Harrison and Maren Deepwell.

(2a) Students with sight and control of their own complex learning “big” data. What prevents institutions from making best use of student data, both for teachers and by students themselves?

‘Big’ seems like an unnecessary descriptor/constraint in relation to ‘student’s own’ data. In terms of country wide data collection and management, we need to learn lessons from the recent outcry surrounding the NHS England Cara.data, and parallel protests against student data mining and access in the US - particularly in terms of ensuring clarity about data use or potential data use, and engaging with communities about the collection and use of their data at all stages.

The text from the website suggests that learners will be incentivised by access to data relating to their achievement in relation to others data: “They will understand their own data, be able to act on it directly, have a sense of "where I am" relative to others now, to preceding learners, to international competitors, to the younger learners behind them, and so on.” This seems to be predicated on a future where all learners are motivated by high level ranked progression and achievement data, which is a highly problematic assumption. It also seems to eschew the validity of an educational experience of children and young people not in a position to make use of this data to improve their outcomes, for example, some children and young people with learning disabilities.

Recommendations:

• Support Digital Citizenship education: Ensure UK citizens, particularly young people, have access to information relating to data collection, use, access, permissions and privacy. If we are interested in enabling people to make decisions and take responsibility for their own lives and communities, and if we acknowledge that digital tools and environments play a critical role in how our lives are lived, in how communities engagement takes place, in legal and political processes, then we need to support citizenship education which embeds digital citizenship issues. We have significant, pressing problems now around rights and laws relating to privacy, identity, reputation, surveillance, consent and ownership in digital environments. Also supports strand 3a and 3b.

• Digital literacy education relating to online presence for 14-16 year olds: Ongoing barriers to data portability between and across institutions, and relating to activities which take place outside of formal education, mean that equipping learners to collect and curate their own achievements. Rather than wasting money and time on central platforms, government should focus on ensuring all young people (particularly those aged over 14) have access to skills and advice about managing their online presence and identity, and making use of public and private digital spaces to manage information and data relating to their own achievements. Also supports Strand 1a, 1b, 1c and 3c.

• Increase opportunities for young people to engage with data: Enabling young people to make use of data is one way of supporting a broader digital citizenship agenda - and we are fortunate to have examples of great work in this area - for example, civic hacks events and approaches like Apps for Good, Code the City, Social Innovation Camp, Young Rewired State. How can we extend and make ‘data for good’ opportunities accessible to more young people? Also supports strand 3a and 3b.

• Support school staff development and innovation relating to assessment and feedback: The DigiLit Leicester research indicates there are high levels of secondary school staff confidence across a wide range of approaches to using technology for assessment and feedback, including self and peer evaluation for learners. Investment should be made in surfacing and sharing the range of existing effective approaches, and in the development of new approaches, and supporting school staff, leaders and governors in data collection and use methods and approaches. It’s important that we don’t limit work in this area by only focusing on quantitative data and summative assessment. Also supports strand 3a and 3b.

• Invest in validation outside of traditional routes: validation for a range of skills and achievements, as well as more nuanced validation within existing qualification, is a potentially high impact area for development. Open badges represent an important approach to this - however, just focusing on employers concerns and needs in relation to the usefulness of open accreditation models risks missing important benefits, particularly in relation to young people - badges don’t just demonstrate achievement, they also positively reinforce achievements and can support young people in articulating their abilities. Also supports strand 3a and 3b.

• Investment and development in Green ICT initiatives at school level: As well as the cost to the environment, energy costs account for a substantial portion of school budgets. Further work in this area should address how school communities access and understand building data, how data can be used to support the curriculum, and how schools can be supported in reducing energy costs. Also supports Strand 1b.

Notes from my groups discussion, which included Allison Littlejohn, Susan Easton, and Ewa Luger, and focused on the question How can learners make choices in relation to the use of their data? How can learners understand the implications of the use of their personal data? were captured by Allison and added to the Strand 2 consultation Google doc.

The 2b strand discussion of the Data and Infrastructure cluster focused on the safe and effective use of learner owned technologies inside and outside of the classroom, particularly in relation to Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) approaches. I won’t go into drivers and benefits of BYOD, the various approaches schools are taking, or the key implementation areas (community engagement, staff development, financing models, digital divide issues, acceptable use policies, network security, infrastructure, device management).

I’ll cut to my recommendations in this area:

• Support a national network of school Student Digital Leaders: School student digital champion programmes are an extremely important route. These initiatives represent a creative and effective approach to supporting learners who are enthusiastic about technologies in playing an active role in school ICT development and use, give responsibility to learners and are a non-confrontational method of embedding enhanced technology use across the whole school. They can play a critical role in BYOD implementation, and support the cultural change this approach represents. Student Digital Leader approaches should be supported nationally, either as stand alone student initiatives and/or as an integral function of student councils.

• Support staff Digital Literacy: Staff development is critically linked to the successful implementation and sustainability of any BYOD approach, to the productive adoption of learner owned technologies, and to the development of technology use to support learners in general. Extrapolating from the DigiLit Leicester research (which collected self evaluation data from 942 secondary and SEN school staff), around 20% of secondary school staff are not confident in making basic use of technologies to support key areas of their practice. The approach we have taken in Leicester - situating digital literacy in professional practice, providing some central support and and providing opportunities and encouragement for staff directed development, has been effective in increasing secondary school staff confidence. Also supports Strand 1a, 1b and 3c.

• Promote and support Open Education approaches and policy: the use, creation and sharing of Open Education Resources is a key way in which finite resources can be made the most of, knowledge and resources shared, educators connected. The European Commission is investing significantly in this area. Scotland and Wales are both supporting Open Education initiatives at country-wide level. In England, we have some great examples of regional initiatives supporting Open Education, including the North-West OER Network and the DigiLit Leicester project. Central government has been active in terms of Open Data and Open Government, but has yet to show the same level of appreciation or support for the benefits of Open Education. Also supports Strand 1a, 1c and 3c.

• Ring fence dedicated ICT funding within school buildings budgets: Funding and criteria for school building works needs to support rather than stymie school use of technologies, particularly in relation to passive infrastructure, WAN relocation costs, server design, power and data, wifi and ventilation design. This recommendation also supports Strand 1a and 1b.

• Provide e-safety and cyberbullying advice and guidance to schools: Increasingly schools are making use of social technologies, for learning and teaching, as well as for communications. Schools also have a duty of care towards their learners and staff in terms of cyberbulling and e-safety issues. Inspection requirements relating to e-safety are not currently matched by the provision of official, or officially endorsed, advice and support in these areas. Schools who are not confident in relation to understanding and managing issues are unlikely to make use of the positive opportunities afforded by social technologies.  As a minimum, central government should issue guidance on addressing cyberbullying (focusing on both learners and school employees), and on using social media for community engagement. Guidance delivered by Childnet International  on behalf of central government was issued in 2007 (guidance for schools relating to learners) and in 2009 (guidance for school employees), but has not been updated. This recommendation also supports Strand 1a, 1b and 3c.  

• Ensure the long term viability of e-safety and cyberbullying advice services:  The UK Safer Internet Center currently provides an important and critical service to schools and school staff with it’s Helpline service, which is part funded by the European Commission. This recommendation also supports Strand 1a, 1b and 3c.

Cluster 1: connected institutions - Led by James Penny with Dawn Hallybone

(1a) Learning will be significantly more global. How do we enable institutions to collaborate and learn from the best in the world – including their neighbours?

I’d suggest that within institutions, the issue is frequently about a lack of good collaboration and communications internally, let alone with neighbours. Focusing on schools – schools and individual staff members are increasingly aware of the wider agenda around ‘connected learning’ and the benefits of being connected educators. School have for a very long time made use of video conferencing and blogging to connect their classrooms, and the use of social media, and in particular social networking sites, to support educators engagement in professional networks and continuing professional development continues to increase. In terms of professional school communications, school now routinely make use of text messaging and email to communicate with parents. Use of social media and networking channels to provide information to parents and promote the work of the school (as opposed to individual staff members) is increasing.

• Invest in Technology Supported Professional Development skills and approaches, focusing on introductory level activities and resources: The Office of Educational Technology at the U.S. Department of Education runs the Connected Educators initiative to “help educators thrive in a connected world.” The DigiLit Leicester project has similar aspirations, and focuses on supporting staff not only to use technology in their practice, but to connect to and share their practice with other educators. Our research indicates a wealth of confidence and practice, but also a significant minority of staff that do not currently make use of the opportunities for self-directed professional development. Also supports Strand 3c.

 Wild Card Ideas 

 These are less wide card and more actons which will support all of the areas above: 

• Provide educational technology training for school inspectors and governing bodies: Support school inspectors and empower governors to understand how technology can support learning, teaching and community development (by which I mean, the use of technology which includes learning, teaching and communications, but also extends to engagement, consultation, learner voice and governance). Equip inspectors and governors to be able to identify effective and transformative uses of technologies, as opposed to uses of technology to substitute functions and activities.

• Coordinated support for use of technology across the curriculum for subject associations: support for subject specialist boards to ensure their members have access to information, research and activity relating to uses of technology.

• Prioritise inclusivity and access to technology education: actively address inclusivity and promote diversity in relation to technology related activities and careers, in relation to gender, race, socio-economic status, disability (and outside of the compulsory education sector, age).  There are some great organisations already working in this space - for example the UK Online Centres, and CAS Include. 

 

DigiLit Leicester: Projects and Activities Report

The DigiLit Leicester project is a two year collaboration between Leicester City Council, De Montfort University and 23 of the city’s secondary schools. The project focuses on supporting secondary school teaching and teaching support staff in developing their digital literacy knowledge, skills and practice, and their effective use of digital tools, environments and approaches in their work with learners.

Using recommendations generated from the 2013 Survey Results, a wide range of activities, projects and events have taken place across the city - designed to support and develop staff confidence in the use of technology to support learning. In keeping with the project team's commitment both to working in partnership with schools, and to supporting access to opportunity as widely as possible, we organised activities in two key ways:

DigiLit Leicester team managed activities

Centrally supported activities provided opportunities across all schools, allowing individual staff members to participate. Activities were either promoted openly to all BSF school staff members, or targeted at specific groups – either to staff role (for example, school leadership) or to survey area or area and level (for example, entry level staff in Technology supported Professional Development). The majority of activities took place within BSF Programme schools, allowing colleagues from across the city to visit other - often newly built - teaching spaces, and increasing accessibility for staff working at the host school.

This category includes our digital literacy focused TeachMeet, our e-Safety Pioneers Event and our Autism and Online Safety project - a collaboration between Childnet International and three of our SEN schools.

School led activities

These projects were supported through calls that were open to individuals and schools. Individual projects were designed to support members of staff in carrying out small scale projects which help them to take their practice forward in one or more of the DigiLit Framework strands. School level projects may have been led by an individual or team of staff, e.g. a department, and focused on developing practice across the school in one or more of the DigiLit Framework strands.

This category of activities includes projects such as Hamilton Community College's Siyabonga project, which involved learners collaborating via Skype on a live concert with children from South Africa and The City of Leicester College's Bring Your Own Device trial, the first of its kind in the city, using iPad minis with a Y8 tutor group.

To date, we have carried out six projects centrally and supported 21 school based projects. We've rounded up all of the DigiLit Leicester project activities, and provided links to further information and related resources. These can be downloaded here. The short version provides brief summaries of all of the projects - the longer version provides more detail.

Full report:       

DigiLit Leicester Project Activities Report - May 2014 (word) 

DigiLit Leicester Project Activities Report May 2014 (PDF)

Short report:

DigiLit Leicester Project Activities Short Report May 2014 (word)

DigiLit Leicester Project Activities Short Report May 2014 (PDF)

Next Steps

Feedback from schools has been very positive in relation to all of the approaches taken to support staff development this year. However, several issues have emerged that will be taken in to account for planning for the next year:

• Staff ambition relating to project opportunities is high and this has sometimes resulted in over commitment to project activity and outputs. The team have worked with some school staff to help reduce project scope in order to better focus on the quality of their outputs and the manageability of their project schedules.
• Schools often need or would welcome additional support in the production of outputs, particularly relating to framing projects in research terms and having capacity to provide very high quality outputs.
• Pressures on staff time remains one of the key reasons staff cannot engage with opportunities and activities. The flexible approach taken to by the project team, supporting a range of ways that staff can engage with project opportunities, has helped address this to some extent.
• Significant activities relating to the project focus have taken place across the schools. Communications relating to work not directly carried out or supported by the project team have, however, been limited. This is an area that needs improving.

The approach taken for the Autism and Online Safety project recognised issues relating to capacity and the schools’ need for external support for larger projects – particularly in relation to brokering external partnerships and connecting projects to external expertise and organisations. It allowed us to trial a hybridised approach to support for staff development. The DigiLit team took responsibility for preparing the project scope in consultation with the schools who proposed the project, and managing the appointment process through public tender. This approach has proven to be very effective, and we will be looking to implement and manage further projects in this way.

The 2014 DigiLit Leicester survey was open between 17 March and 16 May 2014. Once collected and analysed, these data will be used to review current recommendations and their related action priorities, in the context of this year’s successes and identified issues.

 

 

Cross-posted from LCC SchoolTech

Winning! The DigiLit Leicester Project

The core project team - Lucy Atkins, Josie Fraser and Richard Hall -are all delighted theDigiLit Leicester project has been selected as one of the five winners of the Reclaim Open Learning innovation contest, sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, the Digital Media and Learning Hub, and the MIT Media Lab.

Being selected alongside other projects of such high caliber is a real honour:

•  Digital Storytelling 106 (DS106) (US)
•  FemTechNet (US)
• Jaaga Study (India)
• Phonar-Ed (UK)

It's a great win, not just for the project, but for the city. Our project is a partnership between Leicester City Council, De Montfort University and the 23 Leicester Building Schools for the Future (BSF) mainstream and SEN secondary schools. It's an important project in terms of the city, since it's how the ICT strand of the BSF Programme is structuring, designing and delivering on staff development, to make sure learners in the city get the most benefit from the investment being made in technology.

The project is explicit about the important role open education plays within digital literacy  - particularly in terms of the ability to find, evaluate, create, build on and use open educational resources, and in connecting to, participating in and creating open learning networks. The framework and survey content is available under open licence for others to make use of, build on, or adjust for their own settings.    

The project aims to improve learner outcomes and opportunities in Leicester by identifying the ways in which school staff are able to use technology to enhance their teaching practice and communities, and support development where gaps are identified. We've done this by developing a framework of digital literacy, in partnership with schools, situated in secondary school practice. We've developed a survey, again in partnership, mapped to the framework, from which we've collected information at the level of individual staff members, schools, and city wide. This month we have been busy meeting with schools to feed back their survey results, decide priorities and plan next steps. We'll be releasing an external report on the initial findings at the beginning of October 2013. In the second year of the project, we'll be working with schools on a range of initiatives to further increase staff digital literacy skills and confidence across the city.

Cross-posted from LCC's SchoolTech blog.

DigiLit Leicester - Secondary School Digital Literacy Framework and Survey

The DigiLit Leicester project has been up and running for nine months now. We've been incredibly busy, working with  schools across Leicester to design and implement a digital literacy framework situated in secondary (11-18 year olds) school practice. We've linked this to a survey open to all schools in the city's Building Schools for the Future Programme - in order to capture where school staff are across the city in terms of their current practice. This will help us promote and share the innovative and effective work currently happening, and support staff of all levels of confidence to move forward.  

We'll be using the survey results to work with schools to plan their next steps and to target activity where it will have the greatest impact.

There are three key project stages:

• Investigate and define digital literacy, in the context of secondary school based practice
• Identify current school staff confidence levels, and what the strengths and gaps across city schools are, in relation to this definition
• Support staff in developing their digital literacy skills and knowledge - raising baseline skills and confidence levels across the city, and promoting existing effective and innovative practice

The project is designed to benefit schools both prior to and after the opening of their new school, and to be of relevance to staff working in secondary schools both old and new. It will help all school staff supporting learning and learners to develop their skills and confidence in using technology – from absolute beginner to advanced practitioner. It recognises that staff work in different environments and have different strengths and interests.

The project team are pleased to share our first project outputs here – the development of a digital literacy framework situated in secondary school practice, and the creation of a survey tool designed to identify staff confidence levels in relation to the framework. We are releasing this report under an Open Licence, which means that others are free to share, adapt and use our work non-commercially – for the benefit of other secondary schools or other sectors. Please do get in touch if you make use of our work – we would be delighted to hear from you!

Download the project report:

DigiLit Leicester - initial report June 2013 (Word)

DigiLit Leicester - initial report June 2013 (PDF)

 

 

Cross-posted from LCC's SchoolTech blog.

 

School Educational Technologist Post - Job Description and Matrix

I've been working with Leicester City Council's HR Department, in consultation with secondary schools, to create a new school post - Educational Technologist. The career grade post - with three grades defined - will be of particular interest to schools who make use of ICT Managed Service provision, although schools who provide their ICT Service in-house may be interested in how the new post sits within existing or planned provision.

The overall purpose of the post is described as:

To provide support to the school/college in identifying and implementing the use of technologies which enhance learner outcomes and experience, and that improve administrative functions.

The major objectives of the post are:

• To ensure the effective use of technology for educational, community and business purposes and to share good practice, ensuring continuous improvement in the use, management and support of technology for staff and learners.

• To ensure the efficient and effective administration and management of accounts, systems and processes as appropriate.

• To ensure staff queries and requests for help are responded to and resolved quickly and that issues are correctly addressed.

• To ensure the development and technical maintenance of the schools online presence, resources and activity.

• To ensure the effective management and support of ICT equipment and facilities, including routine maintenance of computers and peripheral equipment takes place as appropriate.

• To keep up to date with new developments in technology, especially those relating to education and the school’s/college curriculum.

• To promote the use of new and existing technology, the devices, software, services and platforms that support the schools work and curriculum.

• To ensure that adequate arrangements exist for the security of data, systems and hardware.

• To implement and promote Leicester City Council's and the school/college’s policies and procedures relating to all areas of employment and service delivery.

You can download the JD and Level Matrix here:

Download Leicester City Council - Educational Technologist JD & Level Matrix 2013

 

Cross-posted from LCC's SchoolTech blog.

Cetis 2013 Keynote - Digital Citizenship: Underpinning Open Education

 

 

 

Notes from my recent Cetis keynote:

I'm very happy to have been invited here to speak today, on this important anniversary - the 10th annual Cetis conference. JISC and Cetis  - the UK Centre For Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards, are organisations many countries in the world are rightly envious of. Cetis, with it's focus on establishing interoperability specifications, standards and application, and on the implementation, effective use and adoption of open learning technology specifications and standards is just as relevant, and even more vital a national resource today than it was 10 years ago.

It's also great to be speaking in and supporting Open Education Week, and to be part of a worldwide community who are committed to promoting and creating open education opportunities for all, through free and open education networks, learning materials, open data, open standards, and open source, to making the most of technology to increase access to education globally, and to supporting those who need and want to learn to be able, across a range of circumstances.

While the numbers of high quality open learning resources and opportunities online are increasing, we shouldn't take for granted that this will always be the case or underestimate the significant barriers that exist exist in terms of access. There are many, many issues around access. Infrastructure, connectivity, devices, skills, confidence.

Today I'm going to focus on digital literacy and in particular, digital citizenship, as critical agendas in terms of supporting access and protecting gains in open education, and enabling participation in society.

I'm also going to be talking to you from the future :) Cetis's remit focuses on the post 16, Further & Higher Education sectors, but I'm going to be specifically looking at school level education - young people under 17 year old who we want to support in continuing their engagement with education successfully.

Some of you will have children, and many of you will have been to school. Some people here today may have even been young people at one point- so hopefully there will be something of interest to you.

 

The image above comes from Seattle's 5 Point Café, who recently issued a ban on Google Glass, in anticipation of the products mooted market release at the end of 2013. 

Mark Hurst recently posted on the spectacle the development of Google Glass technology raises of an electronic Stasiland - an invasive surveillance state freed up of the need to employ spies on mass by the wonder of technology.  Always on, undetected recordings that are live streamed, stored and synced across services, and can be trawled by facial recognition programmes. Mark Zuckerberg, a big fan of variable definitions of both privacy and openness, is apparently enthusiastic about developing Facebook Glass apps.

However plausible you think Hurst's concerns are,  web-based, mobile and gaming technologies are already integrated into mainstream social life, and represent mainstream culture.  From being in utero to dying, and even after death - our lives in all their varieties, shades and complexities are already mediated, shared, constructed and lived out online. Rather than the internet representing a 'virtual' world, or virtual space outside of 'real life', in post-industrial countries lack of connectivity, devices and online presence is in many ways already a marker of social exclusion.

I also think we already have significant, pressing problems now around the issues Hurst raises - rights and laws relating to privacy, identity, reputation, surveillance, consent and ownership in digital environments. The integration of web-based, mobile, and gaming technologies into everyday life means that new social norms are emerging and being fought over now. Rather than being problems we can look forward to, we already have a weight of issues to deal with around information people put online about us, the information we are putting online about ourselves, the information that services collect about us and the ways in which that information is being used.

 

This is a picture of Matt Britten tempting delegates at the UK's 2010 National Digital Inclusion Conference with the kinds of savings that might be made by moving services online. Leaving aside historic Government adventures in technologies for economies of scale - one of the key issues with online only or predominantly online services is also a key issue for open education - that is, that the people who are most dependent on those services - in the case of Government services, and the people who could potentially most benefit from access - in the case of online education - are typically people facing the biggest barriers to access.  Infrastructure, connectivity and device ownership aside (and that is a pretty big aside), one of the biggest barriers to being able to engage with, take advantage of and be an active citizen in online environments is digital literacy, and lack of digital literacy education for all.

How do we ensure every learner has access to the  knowledge and skills necessary to make to most of technology in terms of educational, social and economic opportunities? While they are at school, and when they go on to employment, training or further education? This is a key issue I'm trying to address in practical terms in the work I'm currently doing in Leicester right now. One of the key ways is by ensuring all school staff - leadership, teachers, learner support and library staff - have the skills and confidence to support learners.

As part of Leicester City Council's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Programme ICT strand,  I'm working with schools across the city, and framework lead Lucy Atkins (our Digital Literacies Research Associate)  in partnership with De Montfort University, supported by Richard Hall (Head of DMU's Centre for Enhancing Learning through Technology (CELT)).

The two-year project will produce and review the results of a self-evaluation city-wide survey  of secondary school staff. Fundamentally, the project seeks to do three things:

• Drill down on what digital literacy looks like, and what the key knowledge, skills and practices are  in terms of secondary staff classroom and school based practice

• Identify what current the strengths and gaps are across city schools in relation to this

• Support staff in developing their digital literacy skills and confidence levels, in the context of their practice, wherever they currently might be

We are being explicit about the important role open education plays within the context of what digital literacy looks like in a school setting - particularly in terms of the ability to find, create, build on and use open educational resources, and in connecting to, participating in and creating open learning networks. And the framework itself is going to be available under open licence for others to make use of, build on, or adjust for their own settings.   

Since we know young people routinely make effective use of mobile and web based tools and technologies   - particularly Google, Wikipedia and Facebook - for learning, why do we need to worry about digital literacy? 

Ofcom's Children and Parents Media Use and Attitudes Report, released in October 2012 draws on a range of large scale quantitative and qualitative surveys carried out across the UK. Some of the headline findings include that nine in ten 5-15 year olds (91%) live in a household with access to the internet through a PC, laptop or netbook - with internet access at home in financially better off families being close to universal (98% for AB households, and 97% for C1 households), and with internet access for children in poorer households (DE) continuing to be lower than the levels across all other socio-economic groups at 81%.

Half of all 5-15 year olds surveyed had mobile phones, and 3 in 5 of all 12-15 year olds had smart phones.

46% of parents surveyed agreed with the statement "My child knows more about the Internet than I do", which increases to 67% for parents of 12-15 year olds.  

While some young people might have great access to mobile and web-based technologies, and high confidence levels when it comes to navigating sites and using services, the report highlights some of the gaps that exist in terms of critical engagement - rather than passive consumption - with digital environments, services and information. The slide above, for example, looks at 12-15 year olds understanding of results listed by search engines.

Less than half (45%) of the 12-15 year olds in the 2012 survey evidenced a basic critical approach to evaluation of online content, agreeing that “I think that some of the websites in the list will show truthful information and some will show untruthful information.” was the statement closest to their opinion. This represents a slight (4%) decrease since 2009.

A third (31%) of 12-15 year olds most closely agreed with the statement “I think that if they have been listed by the search engine the information on the website must be truthful.” 17% of 12-15 year olds agreed most with the statement “I don’t really think about whether or not they have truthful information, I just use the sites I like the look of.”

Being aware that some website content might be misinformed, misleading, or biased is pretty fundamental to developing skills to evaluate web content, to verify information, or to identify how information might be factual but still presented in support of particular points of view. The ability to judge the validity of information, or to at least not just uncritically accept it, is an important skill for everyone.

 

The Ofcom Adults media use and attitudes report (March 2012)  looks similarly at 16-65+ year olds who use search engines about their attitudes towards the accuracy or bias of the websites returned by search. More than half (57%) agreed most closely with the statement "I think that some of the websites in the list will be accurate or unbiased and some won’t be."  With just over a third (38%) saying that the uncritical statements ('it's online so it must be OK', or 'I just like the look of it') were closest to their opinion on search returns. 

 

So how are we addressing basic digital literacy issues for all learners?

In February 2013, Michael Gove, the UK Government's Secretary of State for Education, announced the public consultation on the reform of the national curriculum for school children in England, which closes in April.

In one of the few references to young people as active social agents, the draft Computing Programme of Study (PoS) purpose of study statement opens with "A high-quality computing education equips pupils to understand and change the world through computational thinking"

Digital literacy and e-safety make an appearance in the National Curriculum, with self expression and use of ICT for employment and civic participation explicitly linked to and framed within the context of a computing education. I've previously written about the limitations of this approach, although I am happy that some elements of digital literacy and e-safety are included somewhere as important components of school level education. 

 

The draft computing PoS for Key Stage 2 (7-11 year olds) includes learning about how search engines work, how to to use them effectively, how to evaluate information online. They are also going to be taught about intellectual property, and how to keep themselves safe in their use of technology. 

There's some further development of knowledge of the technical aspects of search engines at Key Stage 3 (11-14 year olds), and some continuation of digital literacy, in terms of "create, reuse, revise and repurpose digital information and content with attention to design, intellectual property and audience." Given that both that digital literacy and e-safety are linked to practice - to how young people engage with, learn and socialise within digital environments, and given that these practices are very different for young people at 7 than they are at 11, or 14, or 16, the expectation to ensure they are "responsible, competent, confident and creative users of information communications technology" seems insufficiently supported within the draft PoS. 

 

 

The future of citizenship education as an entitlement for English secondary school pupils looked uncertain during the period of review,  but it's inclusion was confirmed in the draft curriculum. The draft curriculum defines the purpose of study as helping "to provide pupils with knowledge, skills and understanding to prepare them to play a full and active part in society." I'll leave aside the fact that children and young people do already, and can't really avoid already playing a full and active role in society - as citizens, as family members, as members of school and local communities, sometimes as carers themselves, as consumers. The scope of draft aims are to ensure young people have an understanding of UK governance and how citizens engage in democracies, the role, production and implementation of law, understand the importance of and develop a commitment to volunteering, and personal financial management.

 

The table above is taken from David Kerr's guide for the Citizenship Foundation on the implications for citizenship of the draft curriculum. 

Politics, democracy, and government have been retained from the previous PoS, as have the justice system, law making and elections. The role of the Monarchy, personal finance and volunteering have been added. There is more emphasis on Britishness, less emphasis on rights and freedoms. Topics that have been removed include the media, actions to impact community or environmental change, local/national conflict resolution, public services/third sector, Human rights & freedoms and the struggle for these, employee/employer/consumer rights & responsibilities.

Teachers will address the final programme of study as they've always done - flexibly, framing their teaching and their exploration of topics around their learners. Even given this, I'm not sure why learning about key critical human rights issues - for example the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, isn't embedded.

What's also missing is the role of digital. If "Citizenship education is about enabling people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives and their communities," and if we acknowledge that digital tools and environments play a critical role in how lives are lived, in how communities engagement takes place, in legal and political process and protest - that the internet is a site of active political life, it's very difficult to see how issues relating to young peoples use of technologies can be left out.

Many of the issues addressed through citizenship education are inseparable from the use of technology and digital environments, and I’d like to see citizenship within the curriculum reflect the realities of learners lives. Although it depends on the teacher delivering the curriculum, typically citizenship schemes of work and lessons don’t address rights and responsibilities in digital environments, or political and  legal  issues online, or identity, conflict, and communities in online environments.

The draft computing PoS at Key stage 3  (11-14) proposes one of the things pupils should be taught to be able to do is to "create, reuse, revise and repurpose digital information and content with attention to design, intellectual property, and audience"

Young Rewired State (YRS), a network of software developers and designers aged 18 and under, is an organisation that models how this can be done, very effectively, in the context of solving real-world challenges.

YRS runs an annual Festival of Code,  that introduces Junior and Secondary school aged children and young people to open data sources and helps them develop real world applications for the use of open data, working in teams to design and produce prototype web services and apps that use open data over the course of a week. The young people involved are a mix of ages and experience - some had never coded before, most hadn't been through the kind of rapid scoping, design, development and pitch process.

The Festival of Code 2012 winning projects made use of open data about house prices, crime rates, employment and education statistics.

My favorite prototype project from those that won awards - and there were many brilliant projects that didn't make it to the finals - is Way to go which provides local accessibility information for people in wheelchairs and with limited mobility. The design team ensured users could also contribute to the project by rating the accessibility of locations and by this feedback being available to other users. The project was explicitly designed to increase options and access - "hopefully this will help people get around and find new places instead of going to the same places because they know it's accessible", as well as ensuring the people who are the experts on accessibility can share their knowledge to help continually develop the tool.

These projects combine a huge range of skills with coding- working with data, identifying, defining and addressing real world issues, identifying work goals and sharing these within coordinated teams. YRS demonstrates what well supported young people are capable of learning and achieving, and enjoy learning and achieving, in an extremely short period of time.

 

If digital literacy is "those capacities that equip an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society", what is digital citizenship? I see digital citizenship as a distinct but overlapping area in relation to digital literacy. Digital literacy is the ability to use, critically engage with and make use of digital tools and environments - it's not just about supporting learners to understand and engage with the world, but about enabling learners to challenge, shape and change their worlds. Digital Citizenship for me addresses  social,  political, economic and legal participation in relation to the use of technologies and online environments. It isn’t an ‘add on’ to the area of citizenship as a whole, but a recognition that technologies and digital environments are a part of the real world, and they mediate all aspects of UK life: from meeting partners, finding jobs, contacting the local council, protesting, organising, developing our social and professional networks - the list goes on. Some of the areas I'd specifically draw attention to as relevant include digital access, inclusion and exclusion; legal and illegal economics relating to data, digital services and goods; the use of technologies for mainstream and grassroots political organisation and representation; the use and abuse of technologies and data for governance and decision making; freedom of speech and censorship in relation to digital communications;  digital copyright laws, privacy and data protection; data ownership, management and security.

These are all issues that impact on young people's lives in the UK and their everyday use of technology that we aren’t addressing.

The world is facing  extremely difficult social, economic, and sustainability issues - and it's unlikely that these will be addressed through the power of computational thinking alone. In terms of citizenship, restricting our ambition to teaching people how to"behave well" in digital environments is a dangerous proposition, particularly if we aren't addressing the context of the societies we live in. The point of citizenship is not just to understand and do what you are expected to do by your community and by law, but about equipping young people to actively and critically engage in the local and national agendas and decision making that affect their, and their communities, lives. The Citizenship foundation defines citizenship education as "enabling people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives and their communities." and quotes  Bernard Crick on the critical role citizenship plays "Citizenship is more than a subject. If taught well and tailored to local needs, its skills and values will enhance democratic life for all of us, both rights and responsibilities, beginning in school and radiating out."

Openness and diversity aren't merely pleasant things to have access too, or easy principles to support or work with. A commitment to the principles of openness and to right of access to education is about ensuring that we make the most of the talent and contribution of all. A commitment to making information, discussion and participation available to as many people as possible, regardless of their personal or social circumstances

Democracies need active, informed and responsible citizens; citizens who are willing and able to take responsibility for themselves and their communities and contribute to the political process.

"Democracies depend upon citizens who, among other things, are:

• aware of their rights and responsibilities as citizens;
• informed about the social and political world;
• concerned about the welfare of others;
• articulate in their opinions and arguments;
• capable of having an influence on the world;
• active in their communities;
• responsible in how they act as citizens.

These capacities do not develop unaided." - What is citizenship education? - The Citizenship Foundation

Children and young people grow up and develop their identities in both physical and digital environments. While they might be confident users of mobile and gaming technologies, and online sites like Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia and Google, it doesn’t follow that they are socially and politically aware and engaged citizens in these spaces - just as simply being in the physical world doesn’t guarantee they have the tools and self confidence to understand their rights and responsibilities, and to take an active part in their communities and in governance.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Notes on the NYC Department of Education Social Media Guidelines

NYC Department of Education (DOE) issued their Social Media Guidelines this week. As someone working to develop digital literacy for school staff and learners at city wide level in the UK, I'm of course very interested in the approach they've chosen to taken.

It's disappointing, although not surprising, to see that the media coverage of the guidelines was predominantly limited to negative framing of the friending issue - one of the least controversial elements of the guidance. That school staff should not friend learners (in particular, connect to learners existing personal accounts) on social media sites, is advice you'll find in the 2009 Cyberbullying: Supporting School Staff that I led on for the UK's Department of Children Schools and Families, on behalf of Childnet International.

Some of questions I asked myself when reading through were:

1. Does this policy help keep learners and staff safe? By that I don't mean, does it prevent them from doing anything that carries risk, but does it support them in recognising risk and managing risk, and responding to harm?

2. Does the policy support NYC staff who are already using social media productively and responsibly with their learners, for their own professional development, and/or for school communication and activity?

There are some great things going on in the NYC public sector - in Government, schools, museums and libraries - in terms of the social and educational use of technologies. And there will be DOE employees already using social media effectively and responsibly with their learners and for their own professional development - how does the guidance support them? My comments on the guidance are limited to how it reads as a stand alone document - there is reference to implementation activity but no detail.

3. Does the policy encourage staff and schools who don't currently use of social technologies to develop the skills and confidence to make critical and effective use of techniques and resources?

I've responded directly to the policy and reproduced it (without permission) here. I'm happy to take the DOE text policy text down if they'd like me to (please just ask); my comments are obviously clearer if you can read them in direct relation to the text. DOE text is in bold throughout, my comments in regular.

A warning for people clicking through - it's a long document.

My summery thoughts (aka 'the short version'):

Although the guidelines open with a positive statement about the potential of educators and schools use of social media to support learners, the content of the policy doesn't really support or develop this opening stance.

The broad approach is to draw a line between two kinds of engagement with social media - 'personal' and 'professional'. These are not defined particularly clearly, and the binary doesn't reflect most peoples - including learners and education employees - actual engagement with and experience of social media.   

This effectively de-legitimises existing practice that doesn't conform to the distinction of 'work/not work', and provides an extremely limited model of how technology might be used.

This post: Personal - Professional - Organisational: three basic online identities is useful in terms of my questions and arguments, but basically - organisational use of social media (what I do on behalf of my employer an in direct relation to my role as an employee) is not the same as professional use of social media (professional development or engagement activities relating to me as a professional, but not as an official employee or in an official capacity).

The guidelines decouple 'personal' and 'professional' use, and defines all 'organisational' activity as 'professional' activity. I'd argue this approach isn't a productive one. The guidelines risk stymieing the development of staff skills and confidence in the use of technology to support learning an learning communities; it doesn't attend to common safeguarding situations; it could potentially derail current effective practice; and I'd also say it oversteps the employee-employer relationship with regard to existing and new effective and responsible use of social media.

Additionally, the centralisation of regulating network activity is always going to be, at best, a very limited approach. There's a basic misunderstanding of the nature of networked activity going on if you think that the most effective way of addressing behaviour and safeguarding issues is not by supporting and prioritising whole community engagement and development. 

While official guidance is usually written by people who have a nuanced view of the complexity of their area, it's issued and often expected to be implemented by people who may have limited experience of the topic being addressed. It's crucial then to ensure any guidance is clear enough to not just end up being used by gatekeepers to discourage potentially positive activity.

Comments on NYC Department of Education Social Media Guidelines

photo credit: by Ed Yourdon, shared under a Creative Commons licence

Young People's Learning Technology Priorities

Photo credit: Marcus Kwan, shared under a Creative Commence Licence

Leicester City Council’s Youth Engagement project was a year-long innovative programme of research which involved 400 young people (11-19 years old).

The Youth Engagement Project was designed to ensure that the voice, opinions and views of young people are included in the development of Leicester City Council’s Building Schools for the Future Programme.

The project focussed on identifying young people’s priorities as they relate to the school environment. Their top 10 priorities were:

1. More indoor social spaces
2. Better designed library spaces
3. Comfortable chairs
4. Well-designed interiors – especially use of colour
5. More vegetable `patches/allotments
6. Sustainable features – including use of biofuels and recycling programmes
7. Nicer toilets
8. Larger dining room spaces –flexible seating arrangements and more food choice
9. Flexible classroom spaces
10. Greater variety in teaching methods

Learners were also asked to think about their priorities as they related to technology.

Young people told us their top 10 learning technology priorities are:

1.  Faster computers

Young people’s number one learning technology priority is for consistently fast, reliable computers and network access. They told us slow computers make them feel frustrated, waste class time and hold up learning. Problems with computers running programmes or connecting to the internet slowly also make teachers less likely to want to use them with learners within lessons.

2.  More creative uses of technology for learning

Even the most interesting uses of technology became boring if teachers use them in the same way all the time. Students told us that their experience of technology used to support learning was too frequently the same – a teacher delivering a Power Point presentation to the class, or being taken through tasks as a whole class on a fixed computer.

3.  More student centred and student led use of technology

Young People talked to us about the ways in which they work together on social networking services, particularly for revision and homework. They want more opportunities to use technology to support their peers and potentially other learners – younger pupils as well as teachers, parents, carers and governors.
Students want to be supported in using online platforms and sites to develop their school councils and other student organised initiatives such as internet radio shows, online magazines and blog sites.

4.  More flexible use/internet access – in schools, the city centre, and in local communities

Students want to be able to use technology and connect to the school network and internet from anywhere in their school. They tell us they do not like only being able to use computers in ICT suites. They want to see greater use of mobile devices – laptops, netbooks, tablets and phones.

5.  Laptop borrowing schemes for home use

Young people told us that going online and working collaboratively with their friends via their mobiles and computers was really helpful, and they did not think it was fair that some young people didn’t have good access so could not develop the skills to use technology effectively. They understand that not every family can afford computers and internet access, and that when money was very tight these would not be seen as priorities.
They also say that computer and internet access at home is really important to them to research and complete homework, and to talk to other people about lessons and exams.

6.  More collaboration with young people in other schools and countries

Young people told us about their positive experience of talking to students online from other countries, and learning about other cultures and ways of thinking about the world.

7.  Access to local and national decision makers via social media and social networking sites

Young people told us they want more opportunities to have a say in how decisions are made in schools, across the city and at national level. They would like to be able to use social media sites to talk about the issues that concern them with decision makers.

8.  ‘Young people only’ space in the city centre with computers and internet access

Young people would like a space that they can meet friends and drop in to use a range of technologies, learn new skills and work on either their school work or their own interests. They would like access to support but space to do things in their own time and at their own pace.

9.  Teachers who can help them use social media and social networking services and sites more effectively

Nearly all of the young people we talked to have social networking profiles and use social networks or social media sites. Many of them have friends who have been bullied online, or have been bullied themselves. Young people recognise that technology can be used in negative ways and would like support in dealing with online bullying. They would like more information and support in managing their online privacy.

10.  A say in school filtering and blocking policies

Students tell us that they would like to see fewer restrictions on accessing sites in their schools. They feel that many sites that would be useful for learning are currently blocked. They also want to be able to access games and social media sites in break times.

The full report lists and expands on young people’s top 15 priorities for the school environment, and young people's top 10 learning technology priorities:

Download Learner Voice in Leicester City 2012 (Word)

Download Learner Voice in Leicester City 2012 (PDF)

TMSEN12: awesomeness, next steps & the debate results

TMSEN12 - a TeachMeet event focusing on practice and approaches that work to support learners with Special Educational Needs (SEN) took place on Saturday 28th February. It's fair to say it was an awesome day:

 

TeachMeet SEN 2012 (TMSEN12 for short) focused on practice that works for learners with Special Educational Needs - learning difficulties or disabilities which make it harder to learn or access education. According to 2010 Government figures, approximately 21% of all pupils in England are identified as having SEN.

Credit needs to go to my partner in crime, Jo Badge, and to Leon Cych and Mike McSharry for their stirling support. Most of all, huge thanks has to go to everyone who took part and particularly all the amazing speakers. Thanks also to everyone who joined us by live stream and in Twitter.

TeachMeet SEN 2012 followed the traditional TeachMeet format of practitioners talking about and demoing practice that works, in 7 minute micro presentations or 2 minute nano presentations.

Over 70 school leaders, teachers, trainee teachers, academics and Local Authority officers from Leicester and right across the UK spent their Saturday morning sharing effective practice, resources and generating new ideas.

Not just for SEN learners

Marc Faulder's tweet "So much at #tmsen12 today is valid for all learners" was a thought echoed by many of the participants, and reflected in the event debate, most explicitly in John Galloway's Accessible by default priority.  As many participants commented, the ideas and resources shared weren't just of benefit to learners with learning difficulties or disabilities - but could be of benefit to all learners. The message of the obvious benefit of putting lessons learnt from and effective approaches with our most disadvantaged learners squarely at the centre of planning and provision was loud and clear. By engaging with tools, resources and planning for SEN learners, we can more effectively support everyone.

Next Steps

I'm hopeful that the day was a valuable one for everyone who was able to take part. The value to, and validation of, participants is a really important aim of any event - it's critical that we support and celebrate our practice and provide opportunities for individual development, networking and sharing.

Modeling good practice is also a critical activity. This was brilliantly done by our speakers, and I very much hope that everyone introduced to the TeachMeet format as a process took away some inspiration for looking at how they approach their own activity scaffolding.

In my closing remarks I asked all participants to think about and let us know about their next steps. This event was inspired by the last TeachMeet Jo and I attended, although it took a little longer than we expected to organise:)

My follow up from the day will be to collect and curate the days outputs to ceate a micro site of the days presentations, talks and links. In the mean time, please do carry on sharing resources under the #tmsen12 tag, and let us know what your next steps are!

While you're waiting, you can check out:

Jo Badge Reflections on TeachMeet for Special Education Needs #TMSEN12

Simon Finch TMSEN12 pictures

& my TMSEN12 pictures

Technologies for Inclusion: The Critical Debate - results

TMSEN12 included a panel debate looking at technologies for inclusion. Sal Cooke, Bev Evans and John Galloway, presented and defended the issues and areas they identified as current national priorities. You can read their priority descriptions here. At distance participants and people at the debate we're invited to comment and vote on the outlined priorities, and here are the vote results:

Sal Cooke's Helping staff stay up to speed with the pace of technology practice and development won the vote by a clear lead. In second place was Bev Evans priority Funding for SEN technology in all schools. In third place was John Galloway's Accessible by default priority.

This was very much in line with the discussion on the day. There was a recognition that many mainstream services, tools and programmes were effectively being used to support SEN learners. There was also a recognition that many schools had been given or had invested in specialist or mainstream services, tools and programmes that could be used in fun, creative and effective ways, but weren't being. While no one disputed the need for parity of funding for SEN learners and schools, there was agreement that the critical issue was ensuring that staff could and were using technology, when appropriate, to enhance and make learning interesting, fun and engaging.

TMSEN12: The Critical Debate

It's almost time for TeachMeet SEN 2012! Last minute tickets available here.

Signups for TeachMeet SEN 2012 have gone really well. School, University and Local Authority staff have signed up from across the UK to come along, network, learn and present this Saturday in Leicester.

Our TeachMeet focuses on practice that works for learners with Special Educational Needs - learning difficulties or difficulties which make it harder to learn or access education. According to 2010 Governement figures, approximately 21% of all pupils in England where identified as having SEN.

TeachMeet SEN 2012 follows the traditional format of practitioners talking about and demoing practice that works, in 7 minute micro presentations or 2 minute nano presentations.

 

We will also be hosting a debate, with opportunities for both delegates and at distance participants to join in - looking at the broader strategic level issues and priorities. Our panelists are:

 

Sal Cooke, Director of JISC Techdis, one of the leading UK advisory services on technologies for inclusion. Sal has overall responsibility for the strategic focus and direction of JISC Techdis as guided by funders and stakeholders, ensuring it continues to be the pragmatic voice of inclusion and accessibility and promotes the innovative use of technologies, to support users within education, business and community sectors across the UK.

 

John Galloway, an ICT/SEN Advisor in Tower Hamlets, a consultant to a number of special schools going through BSF across London and Essex, and a freelance writer with several books and many articles to his name. He has been using computers with learners with a broad range of special needs since the mid-1980s and still gets excited by what technology can enable them to do. 

 

 

Bev Evans (@bevevans22/@TES_SEN) is the new Subject Leader of SEN Resources at TES – and spends time sourcing and creating resources and guidance to help support teachers, who have pupils with SEN, within the classroom. She also spends time visiting schools and events to find out what sort of resources practitioners are currently looking for to help support their work at school and beyond.

 

Our panellists have been asked to set out the current agenda for technologies for inclusion, and present and defend the issues and areas they have identified as current national priorities.

Our speakers have outlined their priorities - what do you think? Which of the panelist priorities resonate most strongly with you? Do you think there is a more pressing issue? Let us know and join in the debate by voting for the priorities you think are the most important, or contributing your own suggestions, either when you vote or in the comments below.

Sal Cooke:

1. Rethinking 'Assistive Technology

What is Assistive Technology in 2012? - or should we now call it something else?

As more and more of the mainstream technologies, including some free or very low cost solutions are displaying and integrating features that can aid our learners in a myriad of ways,  how do we need to think and re think what we “buy” download or access as assistive technologies?    

The Assistive Technology companies themselves are now operating in a very different world and equally so are schools, colleges and universities and of course so are learners and their families.  As a recent addition to the BATA Council I am very aware of the different pressures in this economic climate for both industry, and from my role as Director of JISC TechDis for the learning providers where the impact of technology (financial or pedagogical) can have such an impact on learners with specific needs.  

2. Keeping staff stay up to speed with the pace of technology practice and development

What about the people?  How will they gain the skills and knowledge about Assitive Technology in this ever changing world?

With the advent of apps, tablets, gesture based gaming and all manner of hand held devices - how do we expect staff to keep pace and obtain best value, the best information, and most of all the best for their learners?

The moves within the industry to more and more freemium offers and services could radically help schools and Local Authority budgets - but how do we know? Where are the sources of information? Do we need to be radical with mandatory training  - what about teaching and learning, and budgetary implications?

The recent post-16 Ofsted review recommended that the Department for Education and the Department of Business Innovation and Skills should jointly create a database of assistive technologies - is that a viable or desirable solution?

John Galloway

3. Accessible by default

With disability becoming more prevalent, why is accessibility optional?

We know that about twenty per cent of school children will have some sort of SEN, about half of them struggling with text. We also know that computer systems aren’t specially made for school children, they are made for average adults - it’s Microsoft Office, after all. But we also know that in Europe we have an ageing population which is leading to increasing numbers of people with disabilities, approximately 80m at the moment. And we know that adopting a principle of ‘inclusive design’ makes life easier for everyone.

So why do we have ‘Accessibility options’ on our computers, instead of ‘Accessibility by default?’ Many aspects of improving access - high contrast, variable colour schemes, enhancing the cursor - would work for most of us  (if we knew about them) These should be the defaults.

4. Anti-social networking  

Online communities promise so much for those with SEND, so why aren’t they more accessible?

Those with special needs and disabilities can sometimes find themselves isolated or excluded. Social networking could be a way of mitigating that isolation by both connecting them with others in a similar situation, and a leveller, including them in a world without the usual barriers. Yet there seem to be limited incidences of this happening, probably because:

• the interface is complex;
• the medium is predominantly text;
• families and carers don’t appreciate what it offers.

As it stands, social networking can exacerbate a digital divide, that it could so easily help to bridge.

Bev Evans:

5. Funding for SEN technology in all schools

How do we stop schools from being left behind in the technology stakes?

As technology becomes more and more important in schools around the country what can be done to help those pupils in badly funded areas progress or have the access to the equipment they need? Some areas within Wales are particularly lacking in funding or support in this important area ( I am sure this is true of other areas within the UK too) - is it really good enough that this is still happening in 2012?

6. Bring services to pupils

Why is support for pupils with SEN so patchy across the UK? Is it purely a funding issue or are other things contributing?

In my area of Wales I have always been aware that many parents of children with SEN, in particular those with children who have autism, move into the county to access the provision available. I’m also aware of this  happening between schools across Wales and, from the emails or messages I get through position at the TES, it is obviously something that happens elsewhere in the country too. Why do some school or LAs put less effort into properly supporting and addressing the needs of pupils with SEN? Is it always a funding issue or do other factors come into play?

You can vote here for the priorities you agree with, suggest additional priorities or leave your comments below.