Education policy and the rationale for technology development in schools: political drivers - Teaching with Technologies: The Essential Guide - page 29

exacerbated by the differing patterns of support in local authorities' (Ofsted 2001: 4).
Consequently, different levels of funding led to disparities between schools and 'vari-
ation in provision means that teachers and pupils in different schools/local authori-
ties are working under very different conditions' (DfES 2001: 9), which in turn 'raises
issues of fairness and social justice' (DfES 2002b: 3).
Examples of funding discrepancies revealed a landscape of inconsistent and frag-
mented implementation. In addition, there were issues of understanding technology
sustainability , where maintenance, technical support and upgrading required fiscal
expertise: 'problems have arisen due to inadequate prior experience or training for
local authority personnel and head teachers in procurement, financial and contrac-
tual arrangements' (DfES 2002: 3). Added to which, 'planning for long-term replace-
ment of hardware or the recurring costs of consumables . . . it is not clear whether
responsibility for long-term sustainability rests with local authorities, central Govern-
ment or indeed, individual schools' (DfES 2001: 6).
The disparity of funding clearly impacts on schools' ability to increase the quality
and quantity of their technology. Hence, although NGfL funding had raised levels of
technology resourcing in all types of school, it was the case that 'in many schools, the
quality, age and accessibility of ICT resources pose continuing problems. There also
remain significant differences among schools' (Ofsted 2001: 18).
Overall, it is important to recognize that the UK's first coordinated national tech-
nology strategy was, up until that time, the most ambitious and expensive changes
ever to be implemented in the history of British schooling. Clearly leadership in
schools and the local authority were identified as crucial to managing such a complex
government initiative. 'Local Authority guidance for school development planning
in ICT was, in the best cases, thorough . . . This led to a productive professional
dialogue with schools and, where appropriate, to more careful consideration by
the schools of how developments in resources, training and curriculum related to
each other' (Ofsted 2001: 14).
The harnessing technology strategy (2005-2010)
The Labour government continued to prioritize technology in education in its
second and third term of office with the furtherance of new policy initiatives.
In 2002 the government's seminal NGfL and NOF initiatives were relaunched
as the 'ICT in Schools' programme (ICTiS), with continued earmarked funding
for schools to purchase ICT hardware (DfES 2002-5). Other significant projects
included: Strategic Leadership in ICT (SLICT 2004, see Comber and Hingley 2004) -
a programme of in-service training for senior school staff; Curriculum Online -
a learning materials scheme with approved software and funding (e-learning
credits, NCSR 2006), and the Test Bed Project, evaluating use in ICT rich schools
(Becta 2006).
In 2003 a DfES report openly announced that policy direction had taken a subtle
turn; while the period 1997-2002 had concentrated on 'ICT infrastructure, connec-
tivity and professional development', the following period (2003-6), would be con-
cerned with 'ICT pedagogy and whole school improvement' (DfES 2003: 7).