ICT or Computing: a debate

Michael Gove’s speech on ICT in his own words

From my enewsletter 15th January 2012

A précis of  the speech Michael Gove delivered at BETT on 11^th Jan 2012 with added hyperlinks:

All around us, the world has changed in previously unimaginable and impossible ways. Where once clerks scribbled on card indexes, now office workers roam the world from their desktop. Genomes have been decoded and biological engineering and synthetic biology are transforming medicine. The boundary between biology and IT is already blurring into whole new fields, like bio-informatics.

But education has barely changed. A Victorian schoolteacher could enter a 21st century classroom and feel completely at home. Whiteboards may have eliminated chalk dust but a teacher still stands in front of the class, talking, testing and questioning.

But that model won’t be the same in twenty years’ time. It may well be extinct in ten.

First, technology has the potential to disseminate learning much more widely than ever before. Subjects, classes and concepts that were previously limited to a privileged few are now freely available to any child or adult with an internet connection, all over the world [such as] 02 learn, iTunes U, Khan Academy.

Brilliant lessons can be delivered through a mixture of online and teacher-led instruction. In areas of specialist teacher shortage, specialist teaching could be provided for groups of schools online, [for example] The Further Maths Support Programme.

I’m not just talking about opportunities for pupils to learn. The Royal Shakespeare Company is working with the University of Warwick on an online professional development learning platform to study for a Post Graduate qualification in the Teaching of Shakespeare. The Knowledge is Power Programme, is using digital technology to share lessons from its most proficient teachers.

Second, just as technology raises profound questions about how we learn, it also prompts us to think about how we teach.

Games and interactive software can help pupils acquire complicated skills and rigorous knowledge in an engaging and enjoyable way. Adaptive software has the ability to recognise and respond to different abilities, personalising teaching for every pupil. With the expert help of a teacher, students can progress at different rates through lessons calibrated to stretch them just the right amount. Games developed by Marcus Du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, are introducing children to advanced, complicated maths problems.

Third, technology brings unprecedented opportunities for assessment. Each pupil’s strengths and weaknesses can be closely monitored. Teachers can adjust lesson plans to target areas where pupils are weakest, and identify gaps in knowledge quickly and reliably.

New technology is a disruptive force. It innovates, and invents; it flattens hierarchies, and encourages creativity and fresh thinking. That’s why, rather than focusing on hardware or procurement, we are investing in training teachers so that they can feel confident using technological tools and resources for their own and their pupils’ benefit, both within and beyond the classroom, and can adapt to new technologies as they emerge.

We will be looking at initial teacher training courses carefully so that teachers get the skills and experience they need to use technology confidently.

We must also encourage teachers to learn from other schools. We are already working with the Open University on Vital, a programme encouraging teachers to share ICT expertise between schools. The Department for Education is going to provide dedicated funding to Teaching Schools to support this work.

The disruptive, innovative, creative force of new technology also pushes us to think about the curriculum. The best degrees in computer science are based on logic and set theory and prepare students for immensely rewarding careers and world-changing innovations. But the current ICT curriculum is too off-putting, too demotivating, too dull. It doesn’t stretch pupils enough or allow enough opportunities for innovation and experimentation.

The Department for Education is opening a consultation on withdrawing the existing National Curriculum Programme of Study for ICT from September this year. ICT will remain compulsory at all key stages. The existing Programme of Study will remain on the web for reference. But no English school will be forced to follow it any more. From this September, all schools will be free to use the amazing resources that already exist on the web.

We want to see universities and businesses create new high quality Computer Science GCSEs, and develop curricula encouraging schools to make use of the brilliant Computer Science content available on the web.

We’re encouraging rigorous Computer Science courses. Computer Science is a rigorous, fascinating and intellectually challenging subject. If new Computer Science GCSEs are developed that meet high standards of intellectual depth and practical value, we will certainly consider including Computer Science as an option in the English Baccalaureate.

Advances in technology should also make us think about the broader school curriculum in a new way. In an open-source world, why should we accept that a curriculum is a single, static document? We need to consider how we can take a wiki, collaborative approach to developing new curriculum materials; using technological platforms to their full advantage in creating something far more sophisticated than anything previously available.

We want a modern education system which exploits the best that technology can offer to schools, teachers and pupils, where schools use technology in imaginative and effective ways to build the knowledge, understanding and skills that young people need for the future and where we can adapt to and welcome every new technological advance that comes along to change everything, all over again, in ways we never expected.

A lot of the points made here are very valid although many have been made before (I heard Estelle Morris use the Victorian teacher metaphor in 2003). 

There are three arguments. First, ICT can be used to enhance learning across the school curriculum. This is true although it must be applied with caution. Some of the examples quoted such as Khan Academy are ways of presenting knowledge. Learning is more than watching videos even if those videas were rather better than the general standard today. But it is certainly true that ICT can supplement and in some cases replace the 'knowledge presentation' function of a teacher. Of much greater interest are the new developments in ICT which enable pupils to experiment and explore ideas, and discuss between themselves, and create artefacts based on their understanding.

Second, ICT can be used to develop learner analytics which offer the potential for a much better assessment than at present; this in turn could feed into more personalised learning. There is astill a lot of work to be done before this becomes reality but the future could be very exciting.

Third, we do need to teach Computing to appropriate pupils. But not to everyone. The situation is a little like Science (or Maths, or English). Everyone needs a basic grounding in these subjects to enable them to become useful, happy and successful citizens in the world of the future. Only a few need the advanced training to become Scientists, writers, mathematicians or computer programmers.

There is also a worry about whether we will have teachers with the skills necessary to teach Computing. In 2010 across the whole of England and Wales just 3 trainee teachers were Computer Science graduates. The current downgrading of teacher status through an imposed pay freeze and worsened pensions will not aid recruitment.

Nevertheless, the curriculum has to change. Ofsted surveyed the teaching of ICT in UK schools over the three years of 2008-2011.They found that:

• Primary schools were better than secondary schools.
• Teachers struggled when the demands of the subject became difficult.
• "Few ... schools assessed systematically the impact of ICT on pupils’ achievements although many headteachers were convinced that their investment in ICT was making a key contribution to improving outcomes."
• Nearly half of secondaries failed to deliver the full ICT core to all students at KS4.

They recommended that:

·                     The DfE reviews equivalences in performance measures for schools between vocational coursework-assessed qualifications and more traditional GCSEs and GCEs. 

·                     All schools should: 

o                                            Improve AfL in ICT

o                                            Ensure the ICT entitlement is delivered

o                                            Make ICT teaching engaging and relevant

o                                            Provide CPD to improve teachers' confidence and expertise and enable them to teach ICT effectively

o                                            Make e-safety a priority

·                     Secondary schools in particular should:

o                                            Provide a range of KS4 ICT courses mapped to pupils' needs

o                                            Encourage girls to study ICT at KS4

o                                            Ensure ICT across the curriculum

What made ICT teaching outstanding in Primaries: 

·                     Well-judged pace "sustained throughout the lesson"; good pupil engagement; brisk transitions

·                     Teachers with excellent subject knowledge

·                     Consistent attention to pupils’ understanding; use of key words

·                     Thorough and detailed   planning, "with particular attention to meeting the different requirements of individual pupils"; "learning activities were expertly differentiated"

·                     A good variety of activities and a range of equipment and resources available 

·                     Clear and explicit learning objectives negotiated with pupils

·                     Safe working  with all resources

·                     Excellent use of IWBs

·                     Opportunities "to experience ‘real world’ ICT use outside school"

·                     Pupils encouraged to be independent

·                     "Questions were used skilfully to challenge and extend learning" and " to deepen understanding, rather than just to check knowledge"

·                     "Formative assessment, through a variety of means, was an integral part of each lesson and [well-structured] self- and peer-assessment were actively promoted"; "feedback, frequent marking and praise linked into planning the next lesson"; pupils "were clear about their own current level and what they needed to do to improve"

·                     Explicit links with other subjects especially literacy and numeracy.

If we are going to replace ICT with Computing then what should we teach? The Computing at School Working Group have produced a report called Computing: a Curriculum for Schools. They make the point that “Computing and ICT are complementary, but they are not the same …. Computing is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” Nevertheless, they believe that “in a world suffused by computation, every school-leaver should have an understanding of computing.”

The key concepts of Computing are:

Ø      Languages, machines, and computation

Ø      Data and representation

Ø      Communication and coordination

Ø      Abstraction and design

Ø      The wider context of computers.

The key processes are modelling, decomposing and generalising; and programming (including writing programs and testing and debugging them). They argue that students should know about algorithms; programs; data; computers; and communication and the internet. The report levels the curriculum describing targets for both KS2 and KS4.

This is a useful report from an influential group who have been approved by both Microsoft and Google.

New appraisal regulations

New appraisal regulations

From my enewsletter 15th January 2012

The DfE have announced new regulations for managing teacher performance which will come into force on 1 September 2012.

Ø      Governing bodies and local authorities will have to have a written appraisal policy for their teachers; the DfE have published a model policy

Ø      Governing bodies will have to appoint an external adviser to advise them with appraising the head teacher

Ø      Objectives will have to be set for each teacher which contribute to improving the education of pupils

Ø      Schools will have to have an annual appraisal process for teachers

Ø      Teachers will have to be given a written appraisal report which sets out:

o       an assessment of their performance against the relevant standards, against their objectives and against their role in the school. 

o       an assessment of their training and development needs

o       where relevant, a recommendation on pay progression.

.

The three hour limit on classroom observation will be abolished. After September 2012, governing bodies and local authorities will be free to make their own decisions about the amount of observation that is appropriate for their teachers.

The teacher capability process has also been changed. The informal stage has been scrapped. The suggested length of the monitoring and review period following a first warning has been reduced in length from 20 weeks to between 4-10 weeks although it must be reasonable in the circumstances of each case, and must provide sufficient time for improvement to take place. 

A review last year of New York Charter schools quoted by Michael Gove in a recent speech suggested that frequently observing lessons and feeding back to teachers raised standards. "The typical teacher at a high achieving elementary school receives feedback [from observed lessons]16.41 times per semester, compared to 11.31 times at other charter schools. The typical teacher at a high achieving middle school receives feedback 13.42 times per semester, 6.35 more instances of feedback than teachers at other charter schools." However, the improvement found was statistically significant only at the 0.1 level which most social scientists regard as insufficient to constitute evidence.

Ofsted announces ‘no notice’ inspections.

Ofsted announces ‘no notice’ inspections.

 From my enewsletter 15th January 2012

Ofsted’s new Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has announced plans to introduce no-notice inspections for all regular school inspections from September 2012.

The details of how the changes will work will form part of a wider consultation on the future of inspection that will be announced in coming weeks.

Russell Hobby, general secretary of the NAHT, said: “It is disturbing to see Ofsted change its position in a matter of. If a school could conceal evidence of widespread failure in just two days then the whole concept of inspection is flawed. Shortening the notice for inspection will reduce the school's ability to engage with the inspection. Secondly, it is often necessary for school leaders to be out of school. It is not appropriate that leaders should not be present at an event with such vital consequences for the school.

ASCL General Secretary Brian Lightman said: “inspection is a key part of the school improvement process. We welcome moves to improve the effectiveness of inspection, but I have real doubts that no-notice inspection will accomplish this. We have already voiced serious concerns that the Parentview website provides no way of ensuring that the views expressed are accurate or representative.”

Getting Behind the Veil of Effective Schools

Will Dobbie and Roland Fryer studied New York's Charter Schools.


They quote a number of authors (Rouse 1998, Ladd 2002, Krueger and Zhu 2004, Cullen, Jacob, Levitt 2005, 2006, Hastings, Kane, and Staiger 2006, Wolf et al. 2010, Belfield and Levin 2002, Hsieh and Urquiola 2006, Card, Dooley, and Payne 2010, Winters forthcoming) to suggest that:

• "Competition alone is unlikely to significantly increase the efficiency of the public school system." (p1)
• In school strategies that "are not correlated with school effectiveness" (p1) include:
• Class size
• Per pupil expenditure
• Teacher qualification
• Rigorous and complex lesson plans (this measure includes differentiated lesson plans and lesson plans aimed at a higher level os Bloom's taxonomy)

"In stark contrast, we show that an index of five policies suggested by over forty years of qualitative research – frequent teacher feedback, the use of data to guide instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time, and high expectations – explains approximately 50 percent of the variation in school effectiveness." (p2)


I have several methodological concerns:

• The measure of effectiveness is based on Maths and 'ELA' (English Language Arts) tests. This is because these are standardised across the state so it is reasonable to use these measures. However, the measures may not be valid if you want to consider the education of the whole child including, for example, PE, Art, Music etc.
• Most of the measures they use are turned into binary measures with seemingly arbitrary watersheds. Thus they claim that giving frequent feedback to teachers based on lesson observations works; by frequent they mean 10 or more times per semester. Similarly, 'high dosage tutoring' means tutoring 4 or more times per week in groups that have "typically" 6 or fewer students. One wonders whether they chose the watersheds that gave them the results.
• They use three significance levels: 10%, 5% and 1%. In classic statistical based research only the 5% and 1% levels are regarded as significant. Conventional researchers would say that the 'frequent feedback to teachers' strategy is therefore not proven as an effective technique.
• Having found that some of their strategies are not significantly effective they then package all five measures into an index so it becomes statistically significant as a whole. One would have thought it better to discard the individual strategies that are not effective and to concentrate one's index on those measures that are individually significant. But then why have a package? Why not just say schools should do this, this and this? One suspects that they use the index to protect their non-significant sacred cows.

But let me put aside my suspicions. What do they say works?

• Using lesson observations to give frequent feedback to teachers. Frequent feedback means 10 or more times per semester; this is statistically significant only at the 0.1 level.
• "The typical teacher at a high achieving elementary school receives feedback [from observed lessons]16.41 times per semester, compared to 11.31 times at other charter schools. The typical teacher at a high achieving middle school receives feedback 13.42 times per semester, 6.35 more instances of feedback than teachers at other charter schools." (p8)
• Extra time also works. 
• "High achieving elementary schools provide about 26.68 percent more instructional hours per year than a typical NYC schools, while high achieving middle schools provide about 28.07 percent more" (p9)
• "Teachers at high achieving schools also work longer hours than teachers at other charter schools; an additional 7.75 hours per week at the elementary level and 10.29 hours per week at the middle school level. Despite this higher workload, the maximum salary of teachers at high achieving schools is the same or somewhat lower than other charter schools." (p8)
• Testing and tracking also works.
• "We attempt to understand how schools use data through the frequency of interim assessments,whether teachers meet with a school leader to discuss student data, how often teachers receive reports on student results, and how often data from interim assessments are used to adjust tutoring groups, assign remediation, modify instruction, or create individualized student goals." (p8)
• "High achieving schools use data more intensely than other charter schools in our sample. High achieving elementary schools test students 3.92 times per semester, compared to 2.42 times at other charter schools. Higher achieving middle schools test students 4.00 times, compared to 2.04 times at other charter middle schools in our sample. Higher achieving schools are also more likely to track students using data and utilize more differentiation strategies compared to low achieving schools." (p8)
• Reporting to parents works.
• "Parent outreach variables capture how often schools communicate with parents due to academic performance, due to behavioral issues, or to simply provide feedback. Summary statistics in Table 2 suggest that high achieving elementary and middle schools provide more feedback of all types to parents. Higher achieving schools provide academic feedback 3.00 more times per semester than other schools, behavioral feedback 9.20 more times per semester, and general feedback to parents 7.27 more times per semester." (p8)
• High dosage tutoring (groups of 6 or fewer students meeting 4 or more times per week) works. 
• "Thirty-three percent of high achieving elementary schools offer high-dosage tutoring  compared to ten percent of low achieving schools." (p9)

In effect they conclude that the controversial 'No excuses' schools work.
"'No Excuses' schools emphasize frequent testing, dramatically increased instructional time, parental pledges of involvement, aggressive human capital strategies, a 'broken windows' theory of discipline, and a relentless focus on math and reading achievement" (p2)






Reference


Dobbie W and Fryer R 2011 Getting Behind the Veil of Effective Schools: Evidence from New York Ciry available at http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/effective_schools.pdf accessed 6th January 2012

BTEC and Year 9

Some BTEC qualifications that were started by year 9 learners in September 2011 will not count towards the DfE performance league tables. This is because BTEC are developing replacement qualifications which will be available for first teaching from september 2012.

The affected qualifications are in the following sectors:

• Applied Science,
• Art and Design,
• Business,
• Engineering, 
• Health & Social Care, 
• Information & Creative (sic) Technology,
• Performing Arts,
• Sport

Should you wish to transfer your year 9 learners to the new specifications (when available) you will not have to pay a second registration fee.

Further information is available from www.btec.co.uk/Year9

Ofqual withdraws exam paper.

Following the Daily Telegraph expose of exam board seminars Ofqual have accepted that a WJEC GCSE ICT exam paper due to be sat in January has been compromised because of comments made by an examiner in a seminar. Ofsted have therefore required WJEC to withdraw the paper and postpone the exam.

Ofqual are reviewing the evidence for other papers but no others are imminent.

Ofqual are also considering the role of seminars. On the one hand exam boards are expected to "make  sure that schools and colleges are given advice and guidance on the teaching  and assessment of qualifications"; on the other hand the system is clearly open to abuse. Ofqual do attend seminars for monitoring purposes "on a spot check basis, and find  them well run, in our presence, but that is not surprising." Ofqual have "considered stopping  seminars immediately, but this leaves the seminar market open to unregulated  providers."

Ofqual are also conducting further reviews into the comparability of exam boards. Research already published suggests that the gap between the WJEC and other exam boards has narrowed over recent years.

Ofqual's full report is available here.

Ofsted and schools

The new Ofsted inspection regime provides that schools judged Outstanding will not be inspected again unless they are identified through a risk assessment process. And yet Ofsted itself notes that "a previous track record of success is no guarantee that schools will continue to flourish." (p45) Of the schools selected "following a risk assessment or because the nature of the school had changed" in 2010-2011, 40% lost their Outstanding status (3 declined all the way to Inadequate!). "The majority had experienced a decline in standards over time and a marked change in terms of senior leadership, staff turnover or the profile of their pupils."


Pupil behaviour was Good or Outstanding in three-quarters of secondary schools.


The current trend of high performing schools federating with weaker ones seems to be working. All of the ten such federations Ofsted inspected in 2010-2011had improved teaching and learning, achievement and behaviour in the weak schools whilst maintaining good outcomes in the strong schools.


In schools previously stuck at Satisfactory but now making good progress the SMT had engineered "a transformation in their approach to professional development and their drive for consistency, especially in teaching. These schools had created an environment where key leaders focused relentlessly on improving the consistency and quality of teaching and ensured that staff learnt continually from the influence of the best practice in and beyond the school. There was a clear understanding among staff that the senior leaders saw teaching, and its impact on learning, as the major business of the school." (p46)


"Deprivation continues to be a significant factor influencing the quality of schools. ..... A school serving the most deprived pupils in the country is four times more likely to be inadequate than a school serving the least deprived. At the other end of the spectrum 17% of the schools serving the least deprived pupils were outstanding compared with 7% of schools serving the most deprived communities." (p 47) It is possible to buck the trend. 7% of schools serving the most deprived were Outstanding. The key to progress seems to be a "sustained and committed ambition on the part of school leaders and governors, with high levels of expectation for pupils irrespective of low prior attainment and a determination to deliver good teaching for all." You also need  "very high levels of consistency in teaching and learning, and have excellent professional development in place for their staff." (p 47)


It isn't all about attainment! Ofsted combines progress measures with attainment to evaluate pupil achievement. The progress measure is often more significant:  "A judgement that pupils’ progress is good will often lead to a similar judgement about achievement, even where standards of attainment are below average or low." This achievement judgement usually "correlates with the judgement made about the overall effectiveness of the school." (p 48)


But floor standards are rising. There will be two: 

• a minimum expectation in terms of 5A*-C including English and Maths (FASCIEM) which will rise to 40% in 2011-12 and to 50% by 2015 
• an expectation that the proportion of pupils making progress in English and Maths between KS2 and KS4 is at least the national average

It is not clear whether schools will fail the floor standard if either of these expectations is not met or if both are not met. (p 51)
Last year of the schools selected for inspection (which tend to be weaker than average) 38% were performing below the 2015 floor standard.


The quality of teaching varies. Ofsted identifies  "a tendency for schools to focus strongly on positioning the best teaching at the end of each key stage" (or just before exams in secondary schools). Some may feel this is an unsurprising if possibly unintended consequence of having key stages.


References from the November 2011 Ofsted Annual report by HMCI Miriam Rosen.