|
|
The Electronic Revolution and OHCS
Philosophy
ICT
should not be offered as a discrete subject. ICT suites should be available for
all subjects to enhance their delivery. This has always been my philosophy of
ICT in school.
However,
over the years I have been persuaded to teach GCSE, GNVQ and AVCE ICT. My
energy has been used up in creating curriculum materials for ICT as a separate
subject rather than ICT as an aid to help learning.
I
have never been fully happy with this mismatch between my philosophy and my
teaching.
Due
to the nature of ICT I am self-taught. I am tired of mending printers, mice and
monitors, (quicker than getting the technician) and not teaching my pupils. I
am tired of crawling to the back of a PC to reattach wires. I have developed a
“couldn’t give a stuff” attitude when reams and reams of paper are wasted
because of the way the printers are set up. A teacher should not have to do
this. I am tired of pupils coming into my lessons from other subjects and
asking (expecting?) my help.
As
a manager I have “control” over 4 computer suites. How am I supposed to manage
when there are 10 ICT classes timetabled together (Mon 1) and 8
ICT classes timetabled together (Tues 4) etc and 6 classes together
at several other times?
I
have now run out of professional steam.
History
The
belief that ICT can improve teaching and learning has been well documented.
The
main issue - how to best use ICT in the classroom - has never been addressed in
a calm and planned manner.
ICT
rooms were created and were filled with skills based lessons that were called
ICT. ICT became a separate subject. No one in management established a
philosophical debate as to how to best use this new teaching aid. The fact that
Ofsted keep changing their inspection criteria has not helped. The government
set targets to have lots of PCs in schools, and the school has responded
accordingly. However, ICT has always been hardware led leaving the nature of
taught ICT to be worries about later.
Computers for teachers
Various
schemes encouraged teachers to get their own PCs. The government correctly
boasted about the amount funding in ICT but a lot of this was spent
administering the match funded purchase of PCs. Teachers were reluctant to pay
£500 towards a PC they were to use for school work. Then came
NOF Training
An analysis of costs will reveal a poor return in terms of training teachers to use ICT. The NOF training was poor and very much text based. The money spent on NOF training providers would have been better spent by giving every teacher a laptop with the expectation that they produce work usable in the classroom. Teachers’ own professionalism would have produced a large change in teaching styles without the need for the government to check.
The CLCs were built as an attempt to compensate for
a lack of investment in infrastructure over many years. This led to a change of
hardware and file server set up in September 2002.
The ISP changed and another learning curve was put
in front of us. This just happens with no consultation or evaluation taking
place. Let’s do it because it is the new technology. We changed ISP because of
the CLC. Our website disappeared 18 months ago and has not been replaced. The
management know of the situation but it cannot be that important can it?
Millions of pounds came to Rochdale CLCs. OHCS got a
free projector and 30 PCs.
The government has given schools money to buy software (e-learning credits). OHCS has about £20,000 but the finance manager has not released this. I feel stupid as an ICT co-ordinator that I cannot offer advice and support to colleagues.
To produce an ICT curriculum that is up to date and manageable is not easy. The government want more vocational courses, so over the years I have generated countless topics from the world of work. The pupils can find these inaccessible because of their lack of experience. Why teach them about the magnetic ink on a cheque (on the GCSE /GNVQ syllabus) when they do not have a bank account? The national strategy goes the other way. To teach pupils how to analyse a document, they use Barbie magazine.
As everyone becomes more computer literate their expectations of ICT in school rise. Colour printing, OCR scanners, CD writers,
Since around 2001 OHCS has not been delivering ICT to match these expectations.
Changing Teaching Styles
Staff
training in ICT is a big issue. Some staff are interested and learn because of
this. Even so some do not want to use ICT in the classroom. Some do not want to
use ICT full stop.
A
teacher can instruct but the words have limited impact because they need
demonstrations. Each room should have a projector that the teacher can attach
their laptop to. This has massive cost and support implications that I cannot
see happening in the near future.
Independent
Learning
Pupils are seated with their backs on the teacher. They find it hard to listen in a computer room due to all the distractions. When logged on the teacher spends too much time trouble shooting technical problems. The pupils prefer to personalise their desktop (taking ownership) rather than get on with the set task. It easy to occupy the pupils with low level tasks: the pupils have enthusiasm for using computers but thinking is not for them.
The Internet is a resource pupils love to use for entertainment: as a research tool it has limited inherent motivation. A teacher still needs to be there to keep pupils on task.
Pupils need to be able to research and retrieve using a computer. This is an intellectual skill and should be taught by all teachers. Pupils in year 7 need to learn simple formatting techniques then it should be all research and retrieve activities. By year 10 they will be ready for more skill-based lessons to improve presentation of their work. The curriculum needs a drastic overhaul for this to happen.
This
has emerged 5 years after it was needed. It will take a long time for it to
have any effect. It is content heavy
and this content was straight from traditional subject areas e.g. maths
(modelling), Media (sounds and video), English (text for readability) etc.
There are few teachers able or willing to deliver this content with any
enthusiasm or conviction.
Changing
Assessment Styles
ICT should be used within assessment and TOPS has been introduced during this academic year. However, this development is the one that has irritated me most.
The scheme has been cobbled together in an ad hoc way with little training or guidance for staff. It has caused a lot of anxiety. Staff looking for help and re assurance has wasted a lot of energy. How stupid does an ICT manager feel when he cannot help solve an ICT problem for a colleague because he has not been told anything?
The
school is on very thin ice when it comes to the technical support of ICT. I am
tired of saying this but nothing changes.
There
must be a move towards one support staff being responsible for one ICT suite
and being there all the time. This is often seen as an expense too far.
Maintenance
is usually a reaction to a problem (re-active /firefighting). Should there not
be a technician there all the time to give a clear direction of good practice
and respond immediately to maintenance (pro-active).
I am fed up with the phrase “this is one for
Tony” which means waiting for the network manager to be free from teaching and
available for problem solving. E.g. we purchase 10 new computers for G3 and a
month later we are still trying to install them. This is just not good enough
for an organisation such as OHCS.
There is an urgent need to appoint a non-teaching network manager. This must lead to more pro-active management and less fire fighting.
OHCS needs an ICT manager who can make decisions about the network infrastructure, have control of a budget,install new equipment and plan maintenance.
The network we have now is not entirely suitable for a school of this size. The network is only 15 months old yet it often takes 15 minutes for students to log on (the user profiles are clogged up and cannot be accessed by network support). The network is gradually grinding to a halt. Desktops can be altered too easily: this leads to pupils being unable to locate software in the usual place. Printing from computers is extremely wasteful. My guess is that just 20% of printed output from the school network is really needed, maybe squandering £1300 per year. I have tried to respond to this situation but my time spent controlling printing was more expensive than any saving.
Learning
/Cost Benefit
Technology keeps changing. Software demands faster processors. Upgrades are not feasible or cost effective.
The purchase of network infrastructure is a major commitment. OHCS has spent a lot of money over the years trying to respond to the demands of Government / Society / Teaching research etc.
However, schools cannot keep up with the advances in software and home computing. The school will always be catching up with what is possible when finances allow.
I
have developed a mindset that computers are preventing learning in school. OHCS
are certainly not getting value for money from their investment in ICT.
John
Armstrong
March
2004