Education policy and the rationale for technology development in schools: political drivers - Teaching with Technologies: The Essential Guide - page 36

expertise and leadership within and between agencies was absent or underdeveloped.
The strategy required implementing cross-organizational relations, commercial con-
tracts and knowledge management between macro, meso and micro 'eco-systems' - an
unprecedentedly complex multi-policy initiative that in reality was deeply fragmented.
As a result, at the time of the national roll-out there was not enough technology
expertise in the profession; what knowledge existed was held perhaps by only a few
(DfES 2001; Leask 2002; Ofsted 2001). The response to the question, 'how is it pos-
sible to get new knowledge into a profession?' is, to network, distribute and extend
existing knowledge. The key lesson learnt is the need to build communication net-
works in order to manage both the cross-organizational aspect of the strategy, and to
share and develop technology expertise (Leask 2011). Such encouragement for net
working can facilitate knowledge management of technology across multiple agen-
cies and between schools. As critically observed:
There has been little or no systematic networking of leading teachers and
schools to ensure a sound basis for supporting the development of effec-
tive subject pedagogy using ICT. As a consequence, teachers with particular
interests and expertise too often operate in isolation and lack the stimulus of
professional dialogue.
(Ofsted 2001: 21)
Overall, the embedding of technology into schools as organizations, and teach-
ers as individual practitioners, has progressed unevenly, which is due largely to a
disjointed and splintered roll-out that, with hindsight, might have been to some
degree inevitable, given the magnitude and complexity of such an ambitious, multi-
stakeholder national strategy. Perhaps the main lesson learnt is the need to system-
atically develop communities of practice, between teachers, school leaders and other
key stakeholders (commercial companies, trainers, regional and national government
agencies), to ensure a sound basis of communication and knowledge building for
supporting effective practice using technology (Younie 2007). Leask (2011) proposes
a minimum knowledge management system for national education systems which
wish to harness innovation and knowledge across the system in order to improve
teacher quality and learning outcomes and ensure systemic change.
Arguably in the period after the initial national roll-out, in the second and third
term of Labour office (2002-2010), Becta were assigned a more strategic role in facili-
tating this process of embedding technology in schools.
Given the challenge that such systemic change required and the role Becta has
played (for example, providing impartial advice, lists of approved products and
managed services, and a research evidence base for technology pedagogic practice),
it is with regret that the authors note this agency was shut down as soon as the
Coalition government took office in 2010. With a little over ten years since the
inception of the far-reaching vision of the national technology strategy, and although
inconsistencies inevitably exist between schools, the distance travelled has been
considerable - from the 'obsolete, third world' provision that McKinsey and Steven-
son found in 1997. With the closure of Becta, the issues of knowledge management
pertaining to technology in schools remain more pertinent than ever. In the UK it is