[Advisory] After #Naace2010

[Ian Lynch]

> Clearly Ofsted is still counting that which can be counted and nit-picking
> over whether data-logging is being 'delivered' or not.

I think that the real issue about data logging is that it is an
indicator of whether science teachers are using up to date methods in
science teaching. I don't think the requirement for experience of
data-logging or even control tech are bad things in a NC, but they
should be contextualised in science and DT.

In the meantime the
> world's children are disengaging from education en masse.

Hm, some in developing countries will walk miles every day to get any
sort of education so I think this is more an issue for increasingly
disengaged Western children.

 (If they need
> datalogging they can pick it up in an hour - and probably most do when they
> buy some technical Lego or a similar toy).

You could say that about just about any bit of IT if you assume all
children get this entitlement. I bet there is at least a significant
minority that never get to touch technical lego. It's about an
entitlement curriculum. And technical lego is more about control
technology than data logging and measurement.

> The pressure to break the mould and throw out the Victorian curriculum with
> its deliver-and-test regime is building towards bursting point. Too many
> bright people are saying it: Ken Robinson, Don Tapscott, David Puttnam;
> their numbers are growing and their voices getting louder almost daily.

I don't see how you equate a Victorian curriculum to data-logging. An
out-dated fixation on tests with children sitting at desks in rows, I
agree is out-dated, but that is a completely different issue.

> So what's the solution?
> Needless to say I haven't a clue.

Ok, here is one possibility. We start with recognising and rewarding
children's achievements as the main premise for motivation, we scrap
key stages because they are incompatible with personalised learning
and focus on attainment of individuals irrespective of their age. We
provide incentives for teachers and children to migrate from desktop
applications to Web 2.0 as a means of presenting their work,
communicating with one another and learning how to learn from sources
of information freely available on the web. We encourage international
projects where learners work together to produce their own learning
resources. We can use the quality of those produced as indicators of
attainment rather tan test results.  We provide support for Open
Source and free applications that support this. (There are more than
enough to choose from). A small fraction of the 500 million plus that
was squandered on curriculum on-line is used to provide full and
coherent support of the National Curriculum on-line covering all
subjects 5-16. This is linked to a manageable teacher led assessment
for learning strategy that provides children with certificates and
badges to recognise their achievements in every subject at every level
scrapping the current NC and using the broader levels of the new QCF.
This is further supported with national regional competitions for
children to encourage and reward outstanding efforts and achievements
with prizes and celebrations. The emphasis is switched to personalised
learning backed by the on-line resources and a national priority to
support teacher training to enable the new methods that would be
required with an initial focus on the internet as a learning platform.
Formal controlled testing in English and Maths only but that can be at
any time the learner is deemed to be ready by their teachers, done by
level, not by age. Other subjects are graded by evidence from
e-portfolios, teacher witness statements and direct criteria matching
as part of the assessment for learning process.

But let's not just talk about it, why not make a start doing it? That
is why I set up a new Awarding Organisation. It's a mammoth task, but
working some way towards it is at least better than getting nowhere at
all.

> My instinct is to unlock the web and let teachers use Web 2.0 with their
> classes but that ignores Internet safety issues.
> The more I think about it the more I know that it depends on age. But the
> starting point should be open access and then lock down only as much as
> necessary.

If we don't allow children to work in realistic environments that they
use outside we are abdicating responsibility for proper learning about
being safe.  Ok, it might help protect against getting sued but is
that more important than real learning?

> A suggestion:
> On the net, then, I think we should direct young children to safe sites for
> specific activities and have filters in place so they can't go ANYWHERE
> else.

COL 500 million would have gone a long way to ensure many, many safe
sites containing content at a reasonable level across the entire NC. A
missed opportunity no-one seems to bother about but given the coming
financial crisis it's unlikely to get repeated.

I don't see much evidence of any real vision in the political parties
coming up to the election, so all I can do personally is soldier on
and use my knowledge of the system to try and initiate some changes
within what it allows. Ironically I see more potential for change in
some of the developing countries I visit. he UK is far too
over-engineered and complicated. What is required is rationalisation
not more complexity. Unpicking the bureaucracy is difficult as there
are very many vested interests in keeping it.