Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
in the education profession; schools and local authorities simply did not have the
necessary level of technology proficiency among existing senior leaders: a point
identified by both Ofsted (2001) and Becta (2001-2) evaluations. Not confined to
schools, this was found across the multiple agencies involved: 'The pathfinder local
authorities, having had no experience of implementing similar large-scale technol-
ogy initiatives, did not have personnel in leadership roles at the outset with the prior
experience needed to lead the NGfL initiative' (DfES 2001: 5).
Similarly the technology industry had little prior experience of working with
schools, and did not always fully understand the needs of the education sector. This
led to a fragmented approach, for example:
. . . using the commercial market to give schools a choice of training pro-
vider; and, in allowing schools to use a variety of funding sources to improve
ICT facilities. Too much flexibility, coupled with considerable competition
. . . has contributed to a fragmentation of effort, with training organizations,
local authorities and schools independently seeking solutions to the same
problems. This is in stark contrast with the more uniform approach of the
NNS [National Numeracy Strategy] and NLS [National Literacy Strategy].
(Ofsted 2001: 4)
The crucial issue regarding the implementation of technology was the need for
coordinated leadership. In an already complex field this deficiency could be seen as
highly detrimental to schools that lacked technology expertise (internally, among
school leaders) and guidance (externally) from local authorities.
. . . there are few national support networks to share and develop teachers'
professional competence in ICT. In consequence, there are too few opportu-
nities to pool expertise to take forward the national initiatives. There is also a
danger that the shortage of well informed, commercially neutral and educa-
tionally sound advice could be costly at a time of fast-changing technologies.
(Ofsted 2001: 5)
The result was 'too little quality assurance of the implementation of schools' ICT
development plans to ensure that initiatives are achieving their purpose' (Ofsted
2001: 5). This was further exacerbated by different levels of funding between
schools too. For example, schools that achieved 'Technology College status' had
almost twice the amount of funding available for technology as non-specialist
schools (Younie 2007).
Disparities of funding for technology
The roll-out of the NGfL Programme has been the largest and most costly single ini-
tiative ever to be undertaken by Local Authorities in the UK (DfES 2001: 19).
Despite significant government funding for technology, it was not uniformly
allocated and discrepancies 'varied widely among schools [and] this situation was
Search WWH ::
Custom Search