We need more education providers – NOW!

Posted on January 23, 2013 by Eylan

We need more education providers – NOW!

There are too few school providers working with free schools, and almost none that are in any way innovative and progressive. This must change.

We need a counterbalance to religious groups and for-profit organisations who are circling closer and closer around our evolving education landscape. Change is needed, but without diversity – we are at risk of going back in time and losing the potential for genuine local positive change in outcomes for our young people.

 

 

I am involved in a free school application for a new mainstream secondary school in Oxford – ONSchool. We have a clear vision for a great local school, building on Personalised Learning Relationships, Wellbeing, Community and Digital Technology. We are committed to Project Based Learning and a democratic ethos. The school is needed, as there is a growing need for school places, with over 200 needed by 2014 – growing to over 900 by 2018. We have submitted our detailed application to the Department for Education and are waiting to hear if we are invited to interview. It has been a tough journey so far, and we are still working while we wait.

 

Although we know that there are schools all over the world doing what we want to do already, we recognise the scale of the task before us: IF the Department for Education were to approve our plans. So, we have chosen to follow the school provider model, as our group – passionate and full of experience and expertise to offer the opening of a school though we are – recognise that we need the support of an expert organisation to support the opening of a school that delivers on our vision and ethos from Day 1.

The steering group see ourselves as, in part, a governing body in waiting – and want to get on with opening this much needed school with as little fuss and fanfare as possible. We are in it for the kids – not for our egos (unlike some, we have no books to sell or media profile to grow!)

People like Toby Blume have written, in compelling terms, about how hard the process of opening a free school is for ‘normal’ people. And, even if we had sufficient expertise in our team to open and run a school, we felt that there was significant strength to be gained in this model. We believe that the idea of holding a provider to account and working in partnership to deliver our ethos and vision is a powerful driver for ongoing development (iteration) in the way that ONSchool would serve the community.

I know there are people who have fears about ‘for profit’ organisation using this as a back door into state education. We share many of these concerns. Yet, at the moment, most of these fears are unfounded. No school provider working with a free school can turn a profit on these contracts, yet! But this might change after the next election. We hope to secure a provider while we have the ‘upper hand’ in the negotiations – and to find an expert group to work with us that share our vision and are not just in it ‘for the money’.

Which brings me to my complaint. Where is the choice?

We have spoken to Pearson and Kunskapsskolan, who come closest to matching our vision for education – but we’d like more choice! Pearson have helped us, on  a pro-bono basis – and they have been brilliant. We’d love them to put themselves forward, if we were approved, to be part of the procurement process. That said, we’d like to talk to others – and to have more choice for our community and our vision – but we cannot find them!

We are not the only group with this problem. I have spoken to lots of free school groups desperate to work for a more progressive, transparent, democratic and innovative education – but cannot find the help to do this!

Why haven’t education charities, and organisations that support innovation in education got involved? I don’t want to embarrass too many of them – but SURELY groups like Whole Education / Innovation Unit / Cooperative College , and their ilk, should be stepping up? What about universities, the foundations (such as Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science) and others who ‘believe’ in educational change? Why aren’t more of them stepping up?

Is it about the money? Was (the wonderful and late lamented) Mike Baker right, that the financial returns just are not good enough? This should only bother those organisations whose purpose is to make money!

It is true that there is NO PROFIT to be made in free schools – but rather than bemoan the fact that for-profits are trying to fill this gap – we should be asking why the non-commercial organisations are not stepping in!

In the ‘academisation’ ‘market’, church groups are taking miniscule service charges for being involved in the running of schools – supporting school independence and local vision and providing essential services.

Clearly, they are doing this because they want a foothold for god, and faith, in schools, and the lives of our young people.

Why aren’t those organisations that ‘believe’ in progressive values and a modern education committing themselves as much as the religious communities?

Is it about the free schools policy and the reputational issues of getting involved? Mr Gove, and his party, are no longer the only supporters of free schools and the Labour party looks set to continue the policy. There is cross party support for introducing innovation into the school system.

Surely organisations that encourage schools to take risks and harness their independence (like the Innovation Unit) should be ‘walking the walk’!

I think that this hesitancy, this fear, this unwillingness to put resource and commitment behind a chance for substantial positive change risks destroying a genuine and essential energy that could significantly improve our education system.

We want more choice for potential school providers.

So – what exactly do we, in the ONSchool team,  want?

We want an ethical organisation that understands our commitment to community, transparency and to cooperative governance principles.

We want an expert organisation that can bring a track record in applying personalised education and maintaining innovation.

We want an active organisation that uses digital media to exceptional effect – who are already part of communities of practice on Twitter building on switched on events like Teachmeets.

We want an aware organisation that  understands our commitment to wellbeing- as a taught programme to improve the outcomes for our young people and their futures – not just as a way to deal with kids when things ‘go wrong’.

We want an organisation that will take the time to commit to our local vision for ONSchool – not at the expense of local existing provision but in partnership with Oxfordshire’s educators.

We want a committed organisation that is in this for the education of children – and they should get a fair financial return for their input. We are not biased against commercial organisations – and will chose an organisation based on their capability to support our vision and ethos. That said, given the complexity of the political landscape – would like to be able to talk to those who put our shared vision above financial returns.

So – where are you? Do you work in an organisation that works for educational innovation? Why haven’t your organisation put yourselves forward as a school provider for free schools? I’d love to hear and understand – so please share and comment.


Posted in freeschools, Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Objection to divisive Faith School proposal

Posted on November 29, 2012 by Eylan

This is a public letter in response to the proposal to extend St Gregory the Great Catholic School to Primary provision .

I object to this proposal as a local parent – as you can see. I also wanted to share it as I think there is an sad irony in the underlying ethics of the way the Catholic Church is operating in schools in England – after they voiced their objections to Free Schools, because they are not allowed to  exclude non-Catholics! This proposal in Oxford is a cynical way to open a new school without the 50% cap on faith selection. Even worse, Oxford County Council is supporting it!

Please register your objection today – by emailing Mr Hussey at headteacher.4145@stgregory.oxon.sch.uk

Also – support our proposal for ONSchool here
————–

Dear Mr Hussey, I am writing to register my objection to the consultation to extend your school to include primary provision. I am writing as a local parent and resident.
The only connection to ONSchool, the proposal for a new secondary school in the city, is that the nature and impact of this proposal proves that there is a deep problem in the provision of education in the city. Obviously, the comprehensive system is broken in Oxford City, as it is in so many places. We have framed our proposal for a new secondary school, not to fix the problem of the wider system – but certainly not to make it worse. We have worked hard to talk to the wider school system, and consulted widely to offer a model for better social cohesion.

Yet, whatever happens with ONSchool, my concern is as a parent and resident in your local community.

I believe that: you have not consulted properly;  that your proposal will make the quality of educational provision in the city much worse; that it will be unfair in terms of access, and is poorly thought through.
Because the educational outcomes in the city is already unfair. For those with the most resources, there is the elite independent sector in Oxford, where 15.6% of children in the city go. Those who can (the upper middle class), stretch to make schools able to ‘select by mortgage’ – by restricting  their catchments. These schools are, at least partly,  better because of the intake they get and yet – they are only just scraping national averages. And for those at the bottom? The schools that serve the most diverse communities suffer most. Of course, this ‘balkanisation’ is happening elsewhere across the country.
There is a growing Fourth Tier of Catholic education in Oxford.

Of course, I recognise the hard work that you and other Catholic educators do, for your communities and respect that this is your remit. I have heard many good things about you from the catholic schools in the county – and you are much respected within that community for the work you do in improving and defending a Catholic education.

However, it is this insular attitude that threatens the next 30 years of education, in our part of Oxford. It is this failure to look beyond your own Catholic community – and the impact your proposal will have, that worries me most.I am also shocked by the level of support you have received from Oxfordshire County Council – who should be protecting all the families and residents who live here in the quality and range of provision of education. Before getting to this stage, you should have worked much harder (as should the County!) to talk to those outside the Catholic community. Last minute newspaper articleswere too little too lateAs a local resident (who lives at the back gates to the school) I was deeply disappointed by the nature and management of the ‘consultation’. There was almost no publicity – except within the school itself. There was no attempt to communicate with the local community who are likely to be most impacted; and even governors of local schools did not know about it. Unsurprisingly, there was a terrible turn out for the event you hosted – for a process that has been done and dusted in a few short weeks. You have not run any new meetings – approached local groups – or leafleted local residents. 
You intend to take Catholic children from across the city – and expand to a two tier (what they are calling a ‘All through’) school. This means that this will not be a local school for local kids. You said in the public meeting that this would be a school for the growing number of Catholic families, where ever they live in the city.You intend to open a new primary school right next to an existing primary, Larkrise Primary, and have not consulted with that school at all!Of course, I know that there is huge growth in the need for all pupil places across the city. However, just because you can easily map the catholic families because they identify themselves as such, this community will benefit and Catholic kids will be admitted into a new school. Whereas other schools, because they take kids of all background,  will have to cram more kids in and not get anywhere the scale of investment and support you will get for Catholic children.

At the meeting, you proudly stated that St Gregorys benefitted from having 50% non-Catholic children – and that diversity was a strength. Yet you then said that, as the proposed primary kids move up the system, St Gregorys will become a Catholic only school. The very diversity you benefit from will be taken out of your school – through introducing selection by religion. It also mean that, in an age of austerity – the Diocese is doing what it can to protect their families (which I understand) at the expense of kids of different, or no faith, with the support of the County Council (which I do not).

 

 

Because Catholics can be ‘found’ through their churches (and tend to identify their religion in forms and register at Church) clearly Catholic parents across in the city are requesting a Catholic education. This small number of people (with perhaps more ‘clout’ that the other minorities in the city) will be unfairly protected through these tough times – and the educational outcomes for others will suffer and will damage community cohesion.

I love the diversity and cultural wealth that religion brings our society, and came to your meeting, rather than celebrating the joy of Divali. However, I am not alone in thinking that schools should make religion and faith an inclusive aspect of their work- rather than use it to become more exclusive. This proposal is unfair to many, not just those of us who do not support faith schools – or at least do not feel that they should have to pretend to go to church to get into their local school. If it were better know about, more would object to this on these grounds alone.

I am also surprised that, even though you agreed that there was scope for more provision and a need to answer the need for more pathways post 16 – that your proposal is for a primary school. (Clearly without my ONSchool hat) Given that there is a growing need for secondary places – why not increase the intake of the secondary age children?

As I raised in the meeting, I am also disappointed by the lack of vision in your plans in pedagogical terms. You seem to be proposing an ‘all through’ school with no connection between them except in that the families in the Diocese benefit. You admitted that all the international educational research shows that ‘all through’ only has a positive impact when all ages are able to learn in a shared space – and that colleague from a primary and secondary background can work together.  A clear example of this is in the tricky area of ‘Transition’ from KS2 to KS3. Yet, you stated that these will be two separate schools. So it is wrong to call your proposal ‘All through’. I believe this misses a chance (despite all my other objection) to improve the educational outcomes of the pupils at this proposed setting. I feel you are missing the chance to be as innovative as you claim the school can be, and evidence led in your plans.

I am glad that you are looking to save the Cricket Road site – yet, unlike all the free school groups who have looked at it – you do not seem to have a viable and costed plan for how to refurbish it and to provide value for money to the poll-taxpayer in the city. I feel that the community needs to know more about this, and that you need to show how the flood risk to local homes will be mitigated (maybe even improved) by your proposal.

In summary, I object to this proposal because:

  • St Gregorys  has failed to run an informed and well managed consultation
  • The proposal would take public money for the benefit one religious community in the city
  • There seems no provision to prevent a negative impact other communities and existing schools
  • The detail for the education at the school is not based on best practice or research evidence
  • It is not properly costed and impact studies have not been done.

Secondary schools in Oxford City are failing to deliver on the potential of our young people. Those with the most advantages continue to succeed, and those who are disadvantaged are increasingly likely to fail. Your proposal will make this worse, as it adds the divisive fact of religion in to the mix. Those in power are falling back to old solutions to problems in the city, which seems to be to actively ghettoise communities, especially by cultural and social background, rather than propose progressive and positive solutions. This is a failure of vision and evidence of a lack of values – especially for social justice.


I urge you and the school governors to reconsider and to begin this process over again- finding an answer with all the communities you serve, rather than imposing a solution that suits just one.

Yours sincerely
Eylan Ezekiel
Posted in projects | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RethinkingICT

Posted on July 3, 2012 by Eylan

My presentation and script for the #Rethinking ICT event on the 25th of June.

Thanks to Chris Leach for organising and inviting me to talk, and for making this debate essential to all of us who care about EdTech.

”

ICT is dead
Long live ICT

There are those who still believe ICT is a great subject, full of opportunities to teach children important things like how to code or make effective use of packages needed in the adult world, and provide them with basis for building knowledge in this important aspect of our hi tech economy.

Bullshit

You are great teachers. If we were hit by a solar storm and the electro magnetic pulse  wiped out our tech, you’d all pick up books, grab blocks and tools,
maybe even chalk and be able to gather young people round a valuable learning experience.

The empty ICT Suite – See Ken Robinsons talk

We have been in the shade  of the white heat of our ICT revolution.

Get over yourselves ICT teachers!

Of course ICT is ‘important’
So is geography, art, intergenerational learning…

In fact, every subject has a claim to the timetable and resources.

All can release that alchemy between teacher and learner where high quality and a broad education can happen.

Also, given Moores Law, almost everything you teach will be out of date within a few years.

You know the kit is a distraction.
You know even the best VLE can host nothing more than a load of static docs
You know that the companies who decide what school can access rarely put education first or user interests, as the priority they should.
You know that initiatives come and go,…

So why do we all get hung on these things

So, in RethinkingICT my challenge to you is to ask, beyond the day-to-day implementation of your planning (however creative and exciting)

What is at the essence of what works in Edtech.
Why is ICT worthwhile?

I think that ICT teachers have had  a unique role in schools.
Because the kit breaks
Updates run when you are not expecting it and change everything – normally back to defaults!
Kids bring new uses, hack code

You have had to be adaptive, effective (quick) learners, agile in delivery and look for innovative solutions.

It is these behaviours and approaches that the best ICT models to children and teaches children to be ready for the technology that will
evolve through their lives.

The best ICT teachers model this to their classes.

Whatever you put into a new ICT curriculum, make sure that you allow this to happen.

Today I want to announce the birth of a new project – code name <hack>school

To harness the power of all you smart and effective practitioners into a hub for edtech. crowd sourced services, making best practice accessible to all.

More to come on <hack>school soon – but if you’ d like to talk to me about ONSchool or <hack>school – come to chat to me in the break.

Thank you

“

Posted in Events, presentations and workshops | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

HackSchool

Posted on June 24, 2012 by Eylan

I want to tell you about a new project I believe you will want to support: <hack>school.

In the past few years I have created two exciting projects. I  set up and led BrainPOP in the UK, and am currently instigating an innovative Free School proposal in Oxford – www.onschool.org.uk. I have been very lucky to work with some amazing people. I  would like your input at the early stages of what, I hope, will be the next stage in my journey.

I need a job, and an income. I have been looking at the opportunities and thinking about what I want to do.  I mean, REALLY want to do.
Where to apply my professional expertise, express my passion, and be paid for it?

The answer was very simple:

I want to share the knowledge, expertise and passion of the great teachers in my PLN in the transformative use of technology in education to a wider audience. This has led me to want to open <hack>school (domains/urls secured).

<hack>school will be a Hub for Excellence in Educational Technology.

Seeing as no one has done it in England yet, I thought I’d propose it and put myself forward to be involved. If you are reading this, the background to ‘Why?’ <hack>school is needed should be obvious, as you are very likely already working in EdTech. But, suffice to say, cuts in LA advisory teams and school budgets, and enormous opportunities in the potential of technology to transform the outcomes of young people mean that now is the perfect time for a hub to support teachers to share best practice.

Dandelion family

I have only sketched the basis of the idea below. I have not included all the details (eg. costs and projected income), as these will need to be shared, in confidence, with potential funders. <hack>school will br run on a lean and ‘agile’ approach – bootstrapping like any start-up should. <hack>school does not make any claims to ‘innovation’ or hugely valuable IP. It hopes to build on the lessons learned and ground cleared by others.

The concept of a ‘Hub’ for this aspect of education is not new or unique. The Scottish Executive developed The Consolarium, which led and inspired teachers in Scotland and inspired many much further afield, to make use of video games to support teaching and learning. There have long been calls in England (and elsewhere) to emulate this wonderful project. Given that the Consolarium is due to be closed, now is the time to create a hub for the whole of Britain: for Games Based Learning, and much more.

Nor is it likely that I have been the only one to see this opportunity. <hack>school would welcome other providers developing similar ‘Hubs’, to create a national network of centres of excellence, which could work together and increase the impact on teaching and learning.

Like all start-ups, this would be tough – and to get off the ground, we’d need friends, funders, and lots of help sharing the idea. That said, if it does not survive your initial comments and gather support, then it should die now – with grace.

I believe it is an idea whose time has come. I don’t think I am alone.

——————-

<hack>school will be an independent hub for a network of evangelists for EdTech, both virtual and physical, based in Oxford, UK.

<hack>school will offer an authentic, open-source, credible, crowd-sourced service delivered in collaboration with teachers, subject associations, industry and policy.

<hack>school would be an ’Maven’ service – a group of trusted experts in edtech, who seek to pass knowledge on to others.

The <hack>school Offering

A physical home for EdTech:

  • a friendly in-house guides to provide an intro into new pedagogies and practice
  • a hi-tech venue for CPD courses
  • a place to get hands on with edtech with colleagues and classes
  • a place to come and play with emergent technology, including ‘Games Based Learning’, geotagging, and video tools
  • a swapshop to share best practice and learning with other teachers
  • a test-bed for new projects.

A virtual space for EdTech:

  • a introduction in to the use of technology to promote learning
  • aggregation of great crowdsourced resources, from TeachMeets, Under10mins, etc
  • Video, Audio, and rich media archives of CPD.

A network of regional <hack>schoolers:

  • will bring local  experts to you, who know your area, resources and your communities
  • will keep costs low and personalisation of support high
  • will harness and model the power of Personal Learning Networks.

Operations, Governance and Partnership

  • <hack>school will be run as a cooperative – by members, for members.
  • The network of <hack>schoolers will operate on an associate model, returning a percentage to <hack>schoolHQ for administrative support and introductions.

Business Model

<hack>school will offer access to a wealth of courses and resources, accessible for a subscription/membership rate starting as low as £5. Products will be as close to ‘cost-price’ as possible, and made available at at a considerable discount to members on ‘premium plans’ and contributors.

<hack>school will issue ‘Open Badges’ to accredit involvement in the range of activities that teachers (and children!) engage in while working on <hack>school project. This will be one of the ‘premium’ services available to subscribers

<hack>school will offer CPD, including in partnership with existing providers, working in collaboration with existing organisations in this space, and not in competition. Offering NaaceMarks, and other similar awards, <hack>school will introduce teachers to the wealth of services and training available from a range of providers. <hack>school will negotiate a ‘introductory fee’ from other providers and charge market rates for the small number of courses it would offer.

<hack>school will offer a ‘workshop’ service for developers, publishers and other commercial organisations to ‘test’ projects. Both ‘one-off’ or an annual fees would be available to allow a range of suppliers fair access.

British leadership in EdTech is internationally recognised. <hack>school will offer targetted consultancy, resources and introductory services for  international customers and ministries.

Success Criteria

<hack>school will be ready to open in 3 months.
<hack>school will secure funding and commitments to enable 3 years of operation.
<hack>school will have 500 members 6months after launch, and 2000 in the first year.
<hack>school will be self sustaining in the third year.

——————–

So, do you think you’d want to support <hack>school?  Do you think it would get the funding it would need? Do you have funding to offer? Would you be involved? Do you think partners would line up? Would you like to be a partner? Do you think we need a hub like this?

 

Posted in projects | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Smells like Teen Amnesty

Posted on June 17, 2012 by Eylan

I propose that all 17 year olds be given an amnesty over all profiles, data, updates, images and personal information held on social networks before they reach adulthood. If it is not obvious why, here is a little confession.

When I was 15 I did things that I am ashamed of. The friends that were with me know about it. But that’s all.

Cover of Kurt Cobain's Journal

No one need ever know about the time we ran over the roofs of whole street of cars in Kilburn, after spending the evening drinking in the pubs there. If I was daft enough to post this fact on a blog as a adult, that would be my choice. If I was daft enough to state facts and implicate friends in the criminal activity of that evening, then I would be legally liable and disloyal.

Kurt Cobain did not want people to read his journals – “If you Read, You’ll Judge”. He was absolutely right and, once he lost control of his privacy, his fear of being judged pushed him into some dark places – from which he never came back.

But, as someone over 25 (40, in fact), who is not famous, I have almost complete control over my past. I can edit and recreate my life to fit the audience or situation I am in. I can choose what people know about me. Bad haircuts, bands that I obsessed over, my politics, my religious views, when I lost my virginity and who to…. All this information belongs to me. No employer, no friend, no neighbour or marketing department can find this stuff out unless I want them too.

Consider the 15 year olds of today. Facebook and Google, amongst others, have a complete record of most of the waking life of the average teen, and intends to retain that ‘data’ for eternity. VLEs, schools networks and similar networks

I attended Playing it Safe , #KidzOnline, an event on children’s online safety in London, organised by the IT industry trade organisation, Intellect. There was a great discussion, and some interesting perspectives and debate – mostly around ‘block it’ vs ‘inform, educate and talk about it’. But the young people there – under 18 and very smart – reminded us regularly that this was their information, conversations and relationships that we were talking about. They wanted to be safe, but they wanted these experiences to be part of their identity, not managed by adults into a walled garden of selected people, products and ideas. They needed to be able to create their own realities and make mistakes (and maybe even be in some danger!) – just as we did.

Given that very few children are mature and knowledgable to have managed this data carefully, many will have indiscretions and poor decisions mapped against their names and easily discoverable, by something as simple as a Google Search.

Even if they try to hide/delete information from public view – as Facebook Timeline has shown many of us – nuggets will pop up to the surface thought buried and deleted. The point is, we humans mostly forget. But the servers don’t. This takes power away from young people and puts it in the hands of those able to exploit this information.

This situation is wrong and needs a simple solution.

I have one. A Teen Amensty.

I propose that all the social networks are legally required to give 17 year olds exactly 12 months to edit all updates and data on their systems. Not to add or falsify data, but to remove and redact anything that might be embarrassing.

Children should be able to download this data for private storage, so that these memories are not lost completely. After all, there is great joy to be had in rediscovering your teenage self through diaries, photos, and ‘creations’ .

All we need is for all systems that host and (currently) own data created by kids give it back, for one year. Once that child becomes an adult – they press ‘Publish’ and the responsibility for taking control over their online selves, becomes theirs – as adults.

I think this is a neat solution and would like to raise the profile of this simple idea to pressure the social networks into making this possible.

What do you think? Please tell me if you think this is workable? Would you support it?

Posted in projects | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Young and Old – Traditionalists trash tech in teaching

Posted on June 10, 2012 by Eylan

Toby Young can be a prick. He also is smart, challenging, and worth paying attention to. 

But he is wrong about banning mobiles in school – and his views are hurting more than the debate about BYOD.

I have read his articles since the 90s, as I was a big fan of the writing of Julie Burchill and could not avoid bumping into his views and vitriol. Anyone who has followed him over the years knows that he has carved out a special niche in our journalism, for tearing into the lazy left.  I have always loved the iconoclasts and the disruptive voices, and have come to seek his articles out – though I rarely agree with him. However low his actual hit rate is (in terms of being ‘fair’ or ‘right’)  people like Toby Young are (to my mind) essential and necessarily painful. We need people to prick our comfortable consensus. This was especially true in the broadly left wing discourse of the 90s and early 00’s.

However, Toby Young is no longer the thorn in the side of the establishment, ripping into flabby thinking. He is increasingly in the role of an attack dog for Tory party; off the leash – spreading ill-informed fear and beating a path for the most reactionary part of the establishment.

I rarely interact with Toby on Twitter, except to retweet  his tweets encouraging other ‘Free Schools’  – and sharing information about this policy. I am leading a free school proposal group in Oxford – ONSchool – with the specialism of Innovation, and a focus in excellence in use of technology to support learning.

Which brings me to the purpose of this post. 

Yesterday, Toby Young posted a comment to twitter saying that banning mobile phones in school was ‘an excellent’ idea. Unsurprisingly, I disagreed.

I tried to explain why and show why his comment was ‘out of date’.

This prompted a further tweet from Toby asking if I would allow DSs into schools, which led me to point to the wealth of great practice on Games Based Learning, starting with Derek Robertson and Dawn Hallybone.

The debate blossomed into an increasingly ridiculous and entrenched argument about the value of technology in schools, largely with the hectoring and closed minded Andrew Old, the details of which are in the public stream.

Thanks to my much smarter and more informed PLN, I had support from many edtech teachers supporting my view and tackling the claims of Andrew Old. Andrew made so many mistakes in his responses, including relying on research that was over 10 years old to back up his claim that technology was a distraction from learning.

Toby made a lot of a false dichotomy  between technology that is for ‘learning’ and devices that are ‘distractions’ .  This is what worries me. When Toby Young’s scattergun contrariness hits a target, it does not matter if he aimed at it or not. The damage is done. Even Michael Gove, in his speech at BETT 2012, recognised the disruptive and engaging potential of digital tools to support learning – and how hard it is to legislate for these boundaries.

 

As I have said in recent posts, I fear that ICT (the term) has damaged more than the cause of edtech, and is allowing the reactionary voices to pull us back to a model of education that never worked, even in its heyday – except for the the most privileged.

Sloppy thinking about the relationship between Innovation, Technology and Educational Excellence has meant that clever and hopeful people like Toby Young – who cared enough about education to set up a school – can support a views of edtech that risks damaging kids outcomes.

Toby Young failed to listen to the informed and expert voices (including @DrDennis @DawnRobertson @bellaale @penny_ten @learningspy @GrahamBM and many others)  to inform his thinking.

These are not woolly liberals, or entrenched and lazy public sector unionistas. These are the  voices from the leading edge of best practice. The teachers who have demonstrated that edtech is NOT a token of progressive teaching  – but a vital aspect of school life – just as technology is in ‘real life’.

To ban technology in schools (whether ‘intended for learning’ or not) is to harm the learning that could take place in schools. To think that it is possible to ban it (effectively) is ridiculous – and indicative of why the traditional view of education is so inappropriate to the reality of our modern lives.

It is not that I disagree with Toby that bothers me – as this is quite common.

It is that Toby has become flabby and so comfortable that his points are not being sharpened by the whetstone of informed debate.

He is becoming lazy and falling on to tracks of party line and nostalgia – because he is supported by the weight of the establishment – and is not  fighting against it.

Toby’s work on Free Schools is to be commended – in that he has fought for a space for parents to make decisions about the schools that their kids can learn in. But, his ill-informed comments on GBL and BYOD, and in favour of ‘traditionalism’  feeds policies from the coalition, must be challenged (more competently) by those who must interpret them into the complex lives of our kids . Those of us who believe and have evidence that edtech (in the broadest sense) belongs in schools need to demonstrate a more coherent challenge. If we want to allow DSs or smart phones in school – we should be free to do so.

These decisions belong to professionals who work with children, who are empowered to be make judgements that lead to the best possible outcomes for the young people they work with. Toby’s comments feed a media frenzy of moral panic that ill befits a man with a legacy of intellectual independence and clarity.

I invite Toby Young to take Dawn up on her offer of a visit to her school, to come to LWF in January, to take part in a Teachmeet – and rediscover his edge.

I, for one, would like to see Toby Young back on form, and bring his phone into a few classrooms where he can tweet, photograph and investigate with the teachers and kids making 3rd Millenium education a reality now.

He needs help to learn why so many of us are so passionate about the place of technology as a transformative force for educational excellence. I want Toby Young to see what we see. So let’s help him.

 

 

Posted in Innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Being Creative in a Digital World – Follow up

Posted on June 6, 2012 by Eylan

This is a follow up to the “Being Creative in a Digital World” session I ran for Channel 4 staff last week. We used Web-Ex, following Mark Berthelemy’s experience of using this after bad weather stopped him taking this course in person last year!

The session was very well attended, by staff from across the departments at Horseferry Road. Rather wonderfully, after a discussion about how much nicer it would be if they were all together rather than at separate desks/meeting rooms, the attendees organised themselves into two rooms very close to each other. As a presenter, I certainly found it easier as the conversation and contributions flowed far more, and were much more vocal than other web-sessions I have been involved in.

Unfortunately, it seems that either attendees had not received or had only just got the links to the ‘pre-reading’‘ – and they were under pressure to finish early for a 5 hour ‘all-staff management presentation that afternoon!  Because of this, we had to begin with a deeper exploration of what ‘creativity’ might be – and I was pleased to note the diversity of views and perspectives about how creativity might impact the work that we are asked to do, especially in the ‘creative industries’.

How, exactly, can you introduce ‘creativity’ into the writing of the corporate Annual Review, which takes 9 months to produce involving every aspect of the organisation – for example?

Concerns about barriers emerged from the conversation, and the mixing of ‘creativity’ and just doing your job really well was a theme that we returned to over, and over. Creativity is not the same as effective work practices and the blocks to being creative are as much internal (from within yourself) as they are external (from managers).

I presented a set of tools and stages to adding creativity to daily working life. The discussion moved towards the idea that creativity is in all of us, that new ideas can come from a range of sources, and the tough bit was how to herd and capture ideas.

I noticed that many of the participants did not realise how many possible sources there were for new ideas, and how digital tools could organise these to make them useful in work. I was surprised how few seemed to use Google Alerts, or similar automated searches – either on the web or on social channels- to follow areas of interest. We looked at how tools, like Evernote, could make recording ideas – whatever the source,

For example, by ‘shouting out’ to my PLN on Twitter, I was able to get some great responses to one question from an attendee (Jennifer) , about how to make more of twitter at events, and how to combine these to inform debate and discussion:

There was some useful feedback at the end of the session that I could have given more detail around specific tools to boost creativity. I had avoided this, for fear of being too specific and getting caught up in the ‘how to use’, but the feedback was clear.  I will in future provide 5 tools, as examples, to promote discussion and practical experimentation during the session.

Participants asked for more details on online tools, and the list, hosted by Jane Hart on her amazing site – as a great place to learn about new tools and find one that suits:  http://c4lpt.co.uk/directory-of-learning-performance-tools/  or summed up visually here.

I really enjoyed the discussion and sharing that took place in this session and look forward to the next one!

If you’d like me to bring this session to you and your team please contact jenny.bourlet@capita.co.uk.

Otherwise, get in contact with me to speak or provide training on education, technology, publishing and innovation.

 

 

Posted in presentations and workshops | Leave a comment

Innovation in Education is *not* ICT

Posted on May 30, 2012 by Eylan

I am asked about Innovation in Education quite a lot – partly because I have been involved in a lot of it!

I have just been interviewed by Lisa Phillips, who is conducting a Master’s Dissertation at the University of Oxford Learning and Technology programme. Lisa is looking at how innovation has become tied up with the use of technology in education and has already made some exciting findings from responses. I know she is looking for more input, which you can add to here.

Lisa Phillips - Graduate Student at University of Oxford

The main theme that emerged in my view on this, as the conversation developed, was that ‘Innovation’ seems poorly defined and that this lack of clarity put the benefits of innovation at risk. As I expressed in my post From the Geeks to the Meeks, the relationship between innovation and technology has shifted the balance to a new group of people. This means that there is a huge variation in the perspective of what Innovation in Education is – and is not!

Innovation is, for me, Substantial Positive Change. It is not about gradual improvement. It is not about iteration alone – the iPhone 4  is not a substantial change from the iPhone 3.  New ideas for schemes of work are (mostly) based on a familiar model of curriculum implementation.

Of course, schools are often tied by national policy, afraid of Ofsted and under pressure by national tests. These factors all mitigate against Innovation. It is understandable that most change is gradual and in small steps, carefully mapped to evidence from others that any development is ‘worth doing’.

Good teaching should be reflective, adaptive and built around the needs of the changing children. If digital technology is part of this picture, then great! This good practice might look similar to innovation, in that it might follow and be influenced by trends in technology and wider society.

I believe the following questions need to be asked of any project/practice claiming to be innovative: “Is this change substantial? Is it substantially better than what was being done before? Is it even really much of a change?”

The most common mistake, is to conflate Innovation in Education with using ICT in school. A crossover is inevitable. Given that ICT is the transformational driver in our society, change is often mediated by digital technology. In fact, if your work is not using digital media, then it is possible you are missing a trick! ICT moves fast and ICT teachers/co-ordinators are often forced to respond regularly to these developments.

ICT is, at best, a set of ‘approved practices’ to combine technical and pedagogic opportunities for learning. This is not innovation. ICT cannot be innovative.

Innovation in Education is about Behaviour Change. This can come from a variety of sources, but is always felt at a systemic level. In schools it must be for the benefit of the learners, and should have a clear pedagogical outcome that is substantially better than what went before.

This is not to say that Innovation cannot come from ICT work, and I hope that digital technology can still be saved from being ‘normalised’ and made too safe.

Politicians have grabbed hold of the term ‘Innovation’ and are using it to support policy. In this context it is more important for those of us who believe that digital media and technology can be a transformative force in education.

We must offer a clear picture of what innovation is, and point to examples that encourage policy makers (whether Heads of Department, SLT, or Secretary of State) to invest and support change that is substantially better.

I believe we have an education system that is not fit for purpose. We need Innovation in Education, and soon! We must work harder, together, to push for this transformation.

What do you think Innovation in Education is? What is the relationship to technology? Either share your comments here 0r get in touch with Lisa.

 

Posted in Innovation | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

From the Geeks, to the Meeks

Posted on May 29, 2012 by Eylan

Who will determine the place and state of ICT and Innovation in the education system? 

This post, and the few to follow over the next few days, will explore the trends and mood around technology in schools. I want to start with the main agents of these shifts, and it is not who you’d think it is. The reality is that ICT has already moved from the Geeks to the Meeks, but it seems not everyone has noticed.

CC Licenced by Andy Arthur

I think the term Geek needs no explanation. But, what do I mean by ‘the Meeks’? I mean the people at school who are not likely to put their head up above the parapet very often, rarely speak out, and are nervous of change. These teachers are competent, hard-working practitioners, who probably see themselves as technophobes – who struggle to make the technology in their classrooms work for them (rather than against them!).

I have been teaching in quite a few primary schools over the past few months (admittedly only in Oxfordshire) – and talked with teachers about their use of technology, and noticed that quietly, there is some exceptional use of digital media in schools. The interactive whiteboards (mostly Smartboards) are not only on, but being used to structure and manage the wealth of activities (both whole class and group work) across the day. I have seen visualisers, netbooks, animation software, easi-speaks,  blogging, and appropriate use of websearching happening; assessed, and iterated across school life.

But, what I have seen is not practice being led by geeks in the school. The lone techie teacher (most often a man – probably teaching Yr5 or Yr6) has not disappeared, neither or they without impact – but the driver for use of ICT is no longer the lone Geek – but the Meek. There has been a quiet revolution.

  • Have I seen any coding? No
  • Have I seen any Games Based Learning? No
  • Have I seen any Geocaching? No
  • Have I seen any ‘Wow’? No

Does this matter? There is good use of ICT – and it is appropriate and making a difference to the quality of teaching and learning. The ICT is a tool being used well and good practice is embedded. It is possible I have been unlucky in not ‘catching’ it happening – but just because I am not seeing the sort of practice I see at TeachMeets, does this matter?

I think it does.  But I think it matters, not because of ICT as a part of the curriculum, but the place it has as an agent for change in education. I think it is great that ICT is no longer the preserve of male geeky teachers (typically!)  – and am very pleased to see the quality of provision using digital tools and devices. I also recognise that both primary and secondary education suffer from a gender issue – where ‘characteristics’ of one gender tend to dominate in certain subject areas and year groups.

I also think it matters because the government agencies, companies, experts and subject associations have not noticed that the geeks are not driving this change. For example, brilliant organisations, like Naace, have done sterling work in spreading good practice. But their membership and messaging is weighted towards the geeks (or at least those who identify themselves as ICT teachers/ co-ordinators). By my reckoning, Naace should have at least twice, and as much as 10 times the membership – as there are many more people engaged in the appropriate use of ICT for teaching and learning.

But, I would hope that Naace and other groups pull clear of the mainstream, and keep themselves ahead of the curve – and return to the role as agents for change. Innovation  comes out of a range of circumstances – and I believe we need it more than ever, as our education system is going through the most radical shift since the 1950s.

Over the next few posts, I will explore why I think the relationship between ICT and Innovation is broken, and why we need to do something about it – quickly!

I believe that Innovation in Education is NOT the same as good ICT in schools.

Do you agree? I’d love to know what you think.

 

 

Posted in Innovation | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

A Poor Show for Academies

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Eylan

I have become increasingly disturbed about the Academies Show, which I attended recently. I went for three reasons:

  1. ONSchool, the free school proposal I am leading, would be an academy and I wanted to understand the broader context for the implementation of this policy.
  2. I wanted to learn more about the range of suppliers of services in this emerging space.
  3. I was using the event to meet a few people who were interested in employing my services – and were going to be there too!

From the moment I arrive, I found myself getting more and more concerned with some serious fault lines running through the event.

Firstly, it was very badly organised! There were thousands of people, not enough room in the seminars and talks, a poorly planned schedule,  two toilets, not enough food, and – most worrying, no clear understanding of the themes and questions that attendees would want to know about.

There were a few speakers talking about issues of interest, but far too often these were overwhelmed by talks ‘selling’ the policy – or civil servants point a path through procedural systems (most of which could be found easily online). The vast majority of attendees were not there to find out what the EFA does (for eg), but to understand how the academy policy could improve the outcomes for their school community. As the DfE were a major sponsor of the event it was, perhaps, inevitable that the policy, (and the agencies involved in the delivery of this huge change in our education system) would be be ‘sold’ to us.

The cynics would say that there is no choice for schools. They would say that this event was just a way to explain to the Turkeys that Christmas was coming, and how to prepare to become a key part of the ‘feast’ – and to go willingly to the knife. There is no doubt that there were lots of ‘suppliers’ ready for that feast. The sight of Virgin and CocaCola made everyone uneasy. But, I am sure this argument will be well made by Fiona Miller and others.

I expected the DfE voices, the school leaders, school improvement ‘experts’ and industry speakers to be able to articulate a clear argument for becoming an Academy. After all, this was a great opportunity to do it, right? The audience were a self-selecting bunch open to the idea and there to find out.

But, there was either an enormous opportunity missed or we saw (as it were) the Emperor without his clothes. I know that it was not just me that felt this – but no one was able to make a clear statement of the benefit of becoming an Academy.

Rather there was a complete conflation between the ideas of a Good School and a Good Academy.

This policy gives academy schools new freedoms and the DfE talks a great deal about Innovation. There are many fantastic examples of amazing innovation in schools in England, and the Innovation Unit is a great source for evidence based practice!

There were plenty of school leaders there looking for ideas, help and guidance: for something different than what they are already doing. Not just better – because that is a well run route for school improvement.

Where are the examples of use of ‘power of freedoms’  for innovation and developing the education system. All we seemed to hear of examples of schools rushing to the traditional and deeply academic middle ground. Again, the cynics would say that this is what Mr Gove wants. But I am not so sure.

I think this was a failure of vision of the people at the DfE who are implementing this policy – not the policy itself. As Labour tried to show with academies, when money is well targetted, guidance and support made available, schools can find new ways to  lead great change for the benefit of their kids and community.

So, thanks to this event, I am less optimistic than I was – which is not want the organisers would have wanted!

I still believe that free schools – where they open where there is a need and not at the expense of other schools – can and should take these freedoms and Innovate!

This is not about innovation for its own sake – but based on the desperate need to improve our education system – not just for our economic success – but for the fabric and fairness of our society.

 

 

Posted in Events, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment