I really appreciate the efforts that were made to record and archive this so absent members can still benefit.

Thanks Guys

(Shamblesguru Voom in Second Life)

Thanks for your comments. My explanation of the online resources for that presentation are not part of the video.

Here are some links to those materials:

Online Handouts – davidwarlick.com

Presentation Outline – davidwarlick.com

Presentation Bibliography – davidwarlick.com

Thanks again, and great luck to you!

– dave –

Many thanks

If you have listened to the vodcast (or the original analogue version) you might like to follow up by reading Thomas L.Friedman’s ‘The world is flat’, or watch him delivering a lecture at MIT

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/266/

Happy downloading

Ray

There was a suggestion that at Key Stage 2 there was lack of curriculum coverage which prevented pupils reaching level 5 at the end of year 6. Some commented that you could only award an overall level if every strand had been completed. Only above level 4 reflects capability. Need a set of levels that reflect growth.

Where does podcasting fit into level awards?

Southampton using digital video. Skills in English, maths and science to help give levels. They look at how it helps learning.

Is KS1 and KS2 taught ICT?
What is entitlement? Levels lead to entitlement. Lots of colleagues look at progression.

There were some really big issues that need resolving:

• Level descriptors for KS1 & 2 no longer fit for purpose
• There is not enough guidance on what to do before Level 4 given that new level descriptors just released look at level 4 and above
• Pegagogy of assessment – where we are, what challenges - where to go next
• The Government needs to say that ICT is important
• Ofsted changes have been detrimental
• Schools are confused
• Teacher capability is still an issue

Attendance: 8 people representing a range of roles including CLC managers, support/consultancy suppliers, NQAS, Becta consultants, ICT Mark assessors, lead assessors and local authority advisors.

Discussion started with a local authority describing a successful approach to SRF adoption with secondary schools. The use of the SRF was linked to schools preparation for Building Schools for the Future with 3 conferences being held for secondary schools across a large authority with a phased approach to BSF. The authority has a number of ICT Mark assessors who are providing continuing support for schools progressing through the SRF.

Another authority has been having difficulties in supporting the engagement of schools with the self-review framework. This was partly attributed to having the capacity to support the initiative and also due to the pressures of authority wide reorganisation that was seen as a priority. It was suggested that for events to be successful in gaining the attendance and attention of schools then clear links had to be made between the benefits of self-review and the wider priorities and iniativesw that schools are involved with. For example Building Schools for the Future and the use of Learning Platforms.

Julie Frankland talked of her experiences in delivering self-review framework training in London for the London Learning through ICT (L2ICT) project. This had been advertised as being about school improvement rather than focussing on the ICT aspects of the self-review framework. The feedback from the self-review events across London, which over 300 schools have now attended, has been very positive.

It was noted that in some areas and authorities it has been possible to reach a critical mass of school involvement with the self-review framework.

The group discussed other experiences of supporting school improvement through ICT which have followed a similar approach to the self-review. The common features being engagement of the senior leadership team within a school and using tools such as the self-review framework to identify strengths and areas of development that can then be acted upon according to the schools. It was agreed that the self-review framework is also a useful tool for delivering consultancy as well as unsupported self-review by a school. Examples were discussed of how the framework has been adapted to provide diagnostic tools.

One of the come outcomes that had come out of consultancy with schools was the need for leadership teams to establish and recognise key roles and responsibilities for the use of technology, data, information and elearning across schools as well as the learning and teaching of ICT as a subject. These roles have in the past been associated with ICT subject coordinators, technicians or network managers but are increasingly recognised as being distinctive roles within the wider professional and management teams.

Sandwell local authority, as an ICT Excellence award winner, were used as an example of where the self-review framework has been used as part of a clear strategy and coordinated approach to whole school improvement across the authority.

There was concern expressed by most of the group that many schools still have undeveloped ICT visions or that the role of technology is not reflected or embedded into schools wider aims and aspirations. Many schools find it difficult to articulate their vision. The Self-review framework has helped schools not only develop their vision but also collect evidence for use as part of the Ofsted SEF process and recognise the role that technology is playing in achieving wider outcomes. In this respect it helps schools overcome the problem of perceiving and expressing the vision for ICT as a technology implementation rather than transforming management and learning within schools.

It was noted that Ofsted inspectors are increasingly taking account of the ICT Mark in considering whether ICT is established and embedded across a school. This follows powerful evidence that demonstrates the correlation between schools regarded as good or outstanding by Ofsted and those holding the ICT Mark (Becta research shows that schools with the ICT Mark are three to four times more likely to be regarded as good or outstanding).

The general experience of people in the group was that the self-review framework was most successful as a school improvement tool where engagement happens across a school to tap into the breadth of knowledge and experience of learners and staff in how technology can be used effectively.

Schools also value a “health check” to help target the development of ICT and guide the self-review process. Such support, advice and consultancy helps schools to get added value from using the framework and helps schools adopt a balanced approach to developing the sue of technology alongside other initiatives. Successful approaches included working with schools on a limited but targeted set of elements or strands and supporting them in understanding the vocabulary used to describe the different levels within the framework. Use of tools and templates derived from the self-review framework has been effective in achieving this and has helped schools in making an accurate and realistic assessment of where they are rather than over assessing themselves. ICT Mark assessors within the group agreed that the majority of schools assessed for the ICT Mark were more likely to understate themselves within some aspects of the framework than overrate themselves.

However, it was also recognised that where head teachers are looking for recognition there is a temptation to place themselves at the level where they can identify that they are meeting many of the indicators or working towards reaching the level. The ICT Mark assessors within the group described how the assessment process for accreditation worked and referred those not familiar with the process to the “The way to the ICT Mark” DVD which shows an assessment taking place and exemplifies how the assessment is made by the assessor of the practice that is in place rather than what has been recorded by the school as part of the self-review process. It is therefore important the schools are accurate in their self-review as if they are elevating there level then the assessment process will identify this through discussions with leaders, staff and learners.

KS3:

- Thematic approaches

- Loss of the test

- QIA – functional skills

- Changes to the Programme of study.

The appearance of thematic approaches to the curriculum leaves the implementation of ICT in question

Changes to the Programme of Study are not great but they do offer opportunities for more exciting work in KS3

Key Stage 4

- Much confusion!!

- The rise of vocational qualifications is noticeable at KS4

- The rate of development of lines of learning is variable and there are large organisational issues

In summary

- Many changes: much pilot work going on

- A time of transition

Tim Scratcherd

3 Representatives of commercial companies
2 Advisers
1 teacher

Focus On: Boys learning difficulties

- Strong role models
- Practical activities
- Visual resources
- Comic strips
- Cameras
- Different ways of recording
- Time issues
- School systems
- Using pupil/peer instructions
- Valuing pupils input

Areas discussed:

- Clear identification of purpose at LA and local level

- School priorities in consultation with parents

- Clarity of information

- Who owns the Kit filtering, adding/removing programmes?

- E-safety

- Some positive impact of parental access already in place.

Heidi Kent