Education policy and the rationale for technology development in schools: political drivers - Teaching with Technologies: The Essential Guide - page 21

Arguably, the national curriculum was a double-edged sword, which seemed to
favour computers by their inclusion, however, it had 'drawbacks as well as benefits:
it obliged some to do what they would not have done otherwise [include the sub-
ject], but at the same time dampened and constrained others from taking risks',
because the curriculum was now prescribed and statutory (Hammond et al. 2009:
99). With the implementation of the national curriculum, some practitioners saw
a 'closing down' of teachers' possibilities to experiment with computers, due to
the level of prescriptive content from central government. While practitioners had
described the early phase of policy as allowing exploration, innovation, flexibility
and playfulness, the shift to a standardized, compulsory curriculum diminished
these freedoms.
This shift was seen most clearly in the changing status of computer-based learn-
ing materials. For example, during the early phase of the 1980s support materials
had left teachers 'free on how, and if, to use ICT' (Hammond et al. 2009: 5); now the
guidance from government was perceived as obligatory and unavoidable. Some prac-
titioners saw this development as necessary to ensure technology delivery across all
schools and to guarantee entitlement to technology.
Overall, this period of prescriptive implementation signalled a major climate
change in education concerning the professional autonomy of teachers, which
was seen to be radically reduced. While it arguably enhanced the status of technol-
ogy in the curriculum, it did simultaneously 'narrow' the freedom of the teachers
to experiment in curriculum content. As one practitioner pertinently observed:
We're in such a locked down system . . . we've got loads of kit, but haven't
got the freedom to use it in a way that people might find exciting and
thoughtful . . . we've got the investment in education, because we've now
got a much more accountable education system. The system is imposing, not
intentionally, but inadvertently and constrains exploratory practice.
(Hammond et al. 2009: 101)
The government required schools to integrate the use of various technologies into
the curriculum via the Statutory Orders in the National Curriculum. Arguably these
statutory orders for technology were necessary, as it is not possible to keep experi-
menting endlessly, but rather to have to address how and where technology is to be
implemented in the curriculum. In this sense, top-down policies were essential in
addressing inconsistencies in use and ensured a basic entitlement for all for technol-
ogy. However, it took until 'Curriculum 2000' for the implementation of statutory
orders for 'ICT' in all subjects and for 'ICT' as a discrete subject to be awarded core subject
status , as a compulsory foundation subject, along with English, maths and science.
It is against this background struggle for discrete subject recognition, and cross-
curricular application in all subjects, that the coalition government's decision to
review the status of ICT in 2012 has alarmed so many educationalists. Some fear this
may herald a return to the inconsistencies of the past, where technology entitlement
and use across all subjects has been replaced by 'luck' - if one's teachers favour the
use of ICT (or not).