- Image via Wikipedia
I’m writing this in the aftermath of the announcement that Becta is to close. The details of the close and its timescale are not yet known but interested parties are already pondering the future.
A thought that occurred to me, and I suspect others may be thinking something similar, is that;
In the 21st century, do we really need a Government agency, or quango, whose principal role is to oversee the implementation and use of technology in schools and colleges?
After all, computers have been used in schools since the 1980s, surely after 30 years we know how to use them for learning and teaching? Surely, therefore, there is little need of a centrally funded agency to monitor and oversee their use?
And yet,
when I go into schools, I still see classrooms with only one computer or no computer at all. There are still instances where that one computer is covered over, presumably because it is a ‘distraction’ for the kids. That single computer in the classroom is often at the front of the room, attached to an Interactive Whiteboard or projector and clearly for teacher use. In other schools, I see computer suites; rooms full of computers which can be timetabled by teachers for use in their lessons if they need to.
Some people will observe these extremes of provision and feel that there is a need for body that has a national overview to ensure an equality of provison in all our schools, if only to ensure that every learner has the same opportunities or facilities to learn. Does that body, though, have to be a separately funded agency? Could this work not be done by the government Department?
The irony is that Becta have made steps to try to equalise the provision of ICT in schools. Its principle tool in this has been the Self Review Framework (SRF). This is an excellent tool which has been highly regarded by those schools and individuals who have completed it. The trouble has always been that the take up or adoption of the SRF has never been as great as hoped and the award of an ICT Mark has not been sufficient incentive for many schools.
I recall when I first went to work on a project with Becta, my department manager introduced me to the organisation by saying that ‘Becta is this close to government’ and as she said it, she moved her thumb and forefinger close together. I didn’t doubt what I was being told but the thought flashed through my mind…”but how close are you to schools?” You see, I had recently left teaching as a long time ICT co-ordinator and shortly before leaving, the school received a circular from Becta which gave a detailed specification for computers suitable for use in schools. At that time, that specification was well below what we were using and seemed to have no future life built in and, at that time, it made me wonder whether the agency really knew what we were doing in schools. My own doubts about Becta being close enough to schools seemed to be reinforced later on in my work when I found myself ringing schools and saying I’m calling on behalf of Becta … only to be greeted by the question..”who?”
All of this may be a little unfair. I’m sure that when Becta was set up, and its predecessor NCET, its role was to work closely with schools and Local Authorities to promote the use of educational technology. However, in recent years, its brief seemed to change and it became more an organisation for implementing national government policies. The Home Access programme and its predecesor, Computers for Pupils, were probably the best examples of this. With this change in role, it would appear that Becta’s outlook and priorities changed; it became more focused on procurement and obtaining value for money. In saying this, I imply no criticism; if that was the role given it by government then it was right to change its focus. However, it just seems so sad that in its statement regarding closure, Becta simply mentioned that it saved money for schools and made no mention of its impact on educational technology.
Thinking back to what I said earlier about schools with only one computer in a classroom and other schools with ICT suites, you may think that one type of school is more ahead of the game than the other. In reality, though, both types of approach are outdated. Computer suites are not the way forward, which means that kids only learn on computers when they are timetabled to do so, and neither are classrooms were the one computer is the preserve of the teacher. So it seems we still need some body to steer our education use of technology into the 21st century.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Curtains for Becta (mclear.co.uk)
- School IT quango to be expelled (go.theregister.com)
Possibly Related Posts:
- Subscription Services for Schools, Why?
- Mr Gove’s Challenge to Us All
- The Power of a Brand name
- 5 Twitter Tools Your Followers Wish You Wouldn’t Use
- If Twitter is so Good Why do so many Teachers Leave it?
Post Revisions:
- 24 May, 2010 @ 13:17 [Current Revision] by doug
- 24 May, 2010 @ 13:16 by doug
Tags: Becta, Educational technology, Information and communication technologies in education, Technology
Insightful post, thanks Doug. Becta also functions as a buffer between sales retailing and school services and vitally from my perspective, funds City Learning Centres nationally. Where will this announcement leave us? We await to be told…
Thanks for the comment.
There’s a lot of uncertainty around at this moment and it may be that CLCs have been overlooked. Hopefully we shouldn’t have to wait long for the details.
Be it good news or bad news, I’m sure either is preferable to uncertainty.
You make some very relevant points that I completely agree with – on one hand we need to be showing – by example – that ICT is an integral part of ALL education initiatives, and as such it should be and integral part of whatever body has responsibility for education. But it’s taken much longer to integrate ICT fully in classrooms than might have been expected (because education pedagogies are so complex, us humans take much longer to change our ways of doing things than the ICT does, it takes time for resources to be rolled out/replaced – and lots more reasons, besides). And there are schools at such disparate levels of technological provision, staff at such disparate levels of technological confidence/competence that there needs to be some way of supporting all to have the best possible resources and skills to enhance learning effectively.
And Becta has provided the vision for those of us who are looking at how to improve what we have and what we do. The signpost. The research to help us find out if this stuff really is worth it. The tools to help us help ourselves (self review framework, etc). The place we go to share/find examples of good practice. The resources and tools are useful and relevant because they have moved on and developed over time (ok, so in some ways they have become the implementers of government policy) but we need to make sure we don’t throw out the baby (all that is useful and helpful) with the bathwater (levels of beaurocracy/inefficiency). I hope to see something that will integrate all the best bits of Becta in the new department that leads education – and lets hope it leads our education FORWARD using the tools that will equip our pupils for the future, not the past.
Thanks for the comment, Jan. I like and very much agree with your view that ICT should be an integral part of all education initiatives. Like you, I too hope that whoever takes over from Becta, takes on its best parts and leads education FORWARD.
Hi Doug
Great post. You have encapsulated one side of the argument. But there is another oft forgotten side to it.
By taking Becta as a unit to Coventry (et al) what happened down in the DfE/DfES/DCSF. Because it seemed to me that the department itself became pretty technically illeterate, at a time of great need for technical literacy.
The ed-geeks all ended up in Becta and Gt Smith St became a geek-free zone. ICT/technology – call it what you like – needs to be embedded in our educational system. It needs to become as embedded as the 3Rs, and not as a subject in its own right, but as a functional skill acquired as children develop, as fundamental to development as reading and writing.
Thanks, Feargal for taking the time to read my post and comment upon it.
I’m not in a position to comment on the technical skills of the Department of Education staff but I can assure you the people working at Becta weren’t all ‘ed-geeks’ ( most of them seemed to be project managers to me!)
Many of us agree that ICT should be embedded throughout the curriculum but equally there’s an argument that we should teach ICT as a subject, the big question is whether the current ICT curriculum really does this effectively … and I think most people would say not!
For me, the inference I take from your post is that if the Department takes on Becta’s role, or part of it, do they have the technical nowse or experience to do so? which is a good question.
Do we need an Education ICT Agency? The other big expenditure item we have in schools is staffing. Is there a national staffing agency for schools? Er, no. Such an agency would seem absurd. Maybe there was a time when BECTA was essential, but now the provision of ICT equipment and services is much more embedded in schools. BECTA, you were great, but maybe your best days were past?
Thanks for the comment, David.
needless to say, I cannot really agree with you. No national staffing agency? maybe not by name but isn’t this a role fulfilled by TDA and GTC?
As to ICT procurement being embedded in schools …. I fear you’re way off the mark. Procurement is a minefield and it’s all too easy for schools and LAs to fall foul of Treasury and EU rules.
A very honest reflection, Doug. All ICT advisory groups & LAs only seem to focus on parts of the pattern – ironically, schools may have the clearest focus and in partnership, might have enough muscle to move things.