NEW OPPORTUNITIES FUND ICT TRAINING |
|
The purpose of this circular is to update and inform
divisions and associations about the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) training
initiative to help develop teacher expertise in the use of Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) in subject teaching. |
| Attached to this circular is a
briefing document on the NOF ICT Training initiative. This information replaces
that contained in NUT Circular No. 33/00(E/EO) and applies in both England and
Wale |
|
Yours sincerely,
|
DOUG McAVOY
General Secretary |
STEVE SINNOTT
Deputy General Secretary
|
|
JOHN BANGS
Assistant Secretary
Education and Equal
Opportunities |
|
|
RESPONSE FROM THE NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS TO THE
DfES CONSULTATION ‘COMPUTERS FOR TEACHERS (ENGLAND)’ |
Introduction |
|
1. The National Union of Teachers
welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation.
2. The fact that the DfES has managed
to obtain additional and more substantial funds from the Treasury for an
extension of the Computers for Teachers Scheme is a welcome step towards
equipping all teachers with personal access to a computer. The NUT believes,
however, that the Government must ensure that every teacher has free access to
a laptop or a PC in order to support his or her professional duties.
3. As the consultation document itself
acknowledges, “personal access to a computer has been shown to raise
competence and confidence in teachers’ use of ICT.” |
Personal Ownership by the Teacher
4. As the level of teacher interest in
phases one and two of the Computers for Teachers Scheme indicated, it is clear
that, ideally, every teacher should benefit from personal ownership of a
computer. With a limited public purse, however, this model does necessitate
some difficult choices as the DfES consultation paper acknowledges.
5. In the interest of fairness, the
NUT would favour option b), which allows all teachers to register interest in
the scheme via a ballot and then to be selected at random if the demand for a
subsidised computer was greater than the funding allowed. |
|
6. The implementation of phase one of
the Computers for Teachers Scheme presented serious administrative difficulties
and highlighted the perceived unfairness of a first come, first served option
as outlined under option a). |
|
7. The NUT would be opposed to the
proposed options c) and d). As the DfES consultation acknowledges, teachers are
not being ‘given’ a computer but a subsidy, i.e., they are making a
substantial contribution towards the cost of the computer from their own
pockets. The consultation document fails to recognise, however, the even
greater contribution from teachers in terms of the use of their own computers
to benefit pupils and schools. By applying for a scheme such as this, teachers
are committingThe NUT would be opposed to the proposed options c) and d). As
the DfES consultation acknowledges, teachers are not being ‘given’ a
computer but a subsidy, i.e., they are making a substantial contribution
towards |
| 8. For the reasons above and the
disadvantages listed in the DfES consultation, the NUT would be opposed to
option c) where the school is responsible for nominating which teacher (or
teachers) should receive the subsidy. In addition, there is a danger that such
an option would not only be potentially divisive but would also lead to
questions of ownership. Schools would presumably nominate teachers on the basis
of how their role in the school reflected the school’s priorities and
interests. |
| 9. Option d) would indeed
disenfranchise those teachers excluded from the scheme by imposed criteria, as
the experience of phase two of the Computers for Teachers Scheme clearly
showed. The majority of teachers were furious that only Key Stage 3 Maths
teachers were eligible to apply for a refund. The NUT would argue that
targeting specific groups on the basis of national priorities is of less
longer-term benefit to the school or the pupils than universal application.
National priorities do not necessarily rOption d) would indeed disenfranchise
those teachers excluded from the scheme by imposed criteria, as the experience
of phase two of the Computers for Teachers Scheme clearly showed. The majority
of teachers were furious that |
Ownership by the School
10. As stated above, the NUT believes
that every teacher should have free access to a laptop or a PC in order to
support his or her professional duties as well as his or her professional and
career development. DEMOS, in its report ‘Classroom Assistance : Why
Teachers Must Transform Teaching’ supports this view: “There is also a clear need to limit the burden of paperwork more
effectively. This cannot be achieved simply through investment in information
technology. However, the issue is not the volume of information, but the
effectiveness with which it is managed. In order to improve their effectiveness
in this area, teachers need access to more information and professional
knowledge, rather than less. For this reason, every teacher should have a
portable computer.” |
|
11. In addition to cost effectiveness
and reduced bureaucracy, the benefit of allocating centrally purchased portable
computers to schools is that this could allow access to all teachers, albeit on
a limited rota basis. Unless the DfES can guarantee additional funding to
ensure universal access to future phases of the subsidy scheme, then, on
balance, this may be fairer than the previous proposals. |
|
12. The NUT is opposed, however, to
the DfEE proposals for school ownership, which appear to limit schools by
inflexible allocations of computers to ‘named’ teachers or posts.
Schools should be able to draw up fair rota systems which is flexible enough to
meet both its priorities and the needs of individual teachers. |
|
13. If this option is decided upon,
then the portable computers should be allocated to schools according to school
size. |
|
14. While the NUT has always argued that the provision
of free or subsidised portable computers for teachers should be part of a
training package, it has been concerned about the previously imposed condition
of teachers having signed up to training funded by the New Opportunities Fund.
This condition implies that NOF ICT training is, ‘the be all and end
all’ of ICT training. Yet there is a growing bank of anecdotal evidence
that the quality of NOF ICT training is patchy and that teachers do not
valuWhile the NUT has always argued that the provision of free or subsidised
portable compute |
|
15. Access to free, high quality
training and professional development has long been an issue for centrally
employed and agency teachers. As with other national training initiatives, it
has been extremely difficult for teachers not employed by individual schools to
access New Opportunities Fund ICT training courses. The DfEE has stated that
centrally employed teachers may be able to access the NOF ICT training by
linking up with a training programme that has been organised by an individual
school. Such mechAccess to free, high quality training and professional
development has long been an issue for centrally employed and agency teachers.
As with other national training initiatives, it has been extremely difficult
for teachers not employed by individual schools to access New Opportunities
Fund ICT training courses. |
|
16. It is vital that the DfES allows
provision for agency and other centrally employed teachers to benefit from this
scheme whatever option is eventually decided upon. |
Conclusion
17. If the Government is serious about
increasing teacher access “to information and teaching materials
available on the internet” and to develop “more innovative
teaching practice”, then it must ensure serious investment so that all
teachers are equipped with the tools they need. |
