What struck me about these papers was the very practical approach. The emphasis is on practical steps (1:1 provision of computers for schools, fast broadband or satelite access for all schools, a budget and strategy for delivering teacher training) with clear government responsibility for delivery. There is partnership with the private sector but the leadership for the programme is with national and state governments.
This contrasted with the much less clear BECTA paper which set out a number of priorities but with less clear proposals for implementation or indeed who is leading the process.
One example is the problem of single data standards to allow interoperability. The BECTA paper recognises the problem but appears to be reliant on encouragement of the private sector to reach a solution (which may not be in their commercial interests).
The DER project includes the development of a single standard which it seems will be required of any software to be implemented in schools - no compliance equals no sale.
Another contrast is the clear statements of budgets and timescales. I could not find any mention in the BECTA paper of funding requirements nor any suggestion of how the necessary funds would be provided.
A particular issue here would seem to be teacher training. BECTA recognise the need for training but see this as a requirement of the 'professional role' of teachers (which to a cynical mind suggests that this will not be separately funded). The Australian project has a governmental direction that half of the teacher training budget for CPD is to be allocated to schools based ICT training.
The top down approach leaves little scope for the development of PLE's but perhaps that is understandable in a programme that is aimed at schools.
Week 21/22 My alternative paper
I have been reading the Australian Governements Digital Education Revolution strategy papers for schools.
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Documents/DERStrategicPlan.pdf
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Documents/AICTEC_DER%20ROADMAP%20Advice.pdf
What struck me about these papers was the very practical approach. The emphasis is on practical steps (1:1 provision of computers for schools, fast broadband or satelite access for all schools, a budget and strategy for delivering teacher training) with clear government responsibility for delivery. There is partnership with the private sector but the leadership for the programme is with national and state governments.
This contrasted with the much less clear BECTA paper which set out a number of priorities but with less clear proposals for implementation or indeed who is leading the process.
One example is the problem of single data standards to allow interoperability. The BECTA paper recognises the problem but appears to be reliant on encouragement of the private sector to reach a solution (which may not be in their commercial interests).
The DER project includes the development of a single standard which it seems will be required of any software to be implemented in schools - no compliance equals no sale.
Another contrast is the clear statements of budgets and timescales. I could not find any mention in the BECTA paper of funding requirements nor any suggestion of how the necessary funds would be provided.
A particular issue here would seem to be teacher training. BECTA recognise the need for training but see this as a requirement of the 'professional role' of teachers (which to a cynical mind suggests that this will not be separately funded). The Australian project has a governmental direction that half of the teacher training budget for CPD is to be allocated to schools based ICT training.
The top down approach leaves little scope for the development of PLE's but perhaps that is understandable in a programme that is aimed at schools.