Bromley ICT Forum Blog

ICT in Schools 2004-7

Reprinted from NAACE Newsletter

HMI David Anstead presented Ofsted’s findings about ICT during a conference seminar. These “long reports”, based on a sample of schools, supplement the Section 5 inspections, which no longer directly report on subjects. He was unable to say anything about the content of the next 3-yearly report, due out in autumn this year, but David’s presentation was drawn from the same evidence base that will be used for that report. Caution must also be exercised regards the accuracy of your editor’s notes! Given that the report will be based on survey visits made between 2004 and 2007, it is effectively monitoring the impact of policy implemented to 2003.

As you would expect, subject inspections look at standards (comparing resultsto national performance) and achievement (making judgments about “value added”); pupil’s use of ICT; assessment; and monitoring progress. Inspectors also look at issues such as whether pupils have variety and choice in their use of ICT; the degree to which the school’s vision is innovative and inclusive; and the extent to which evaluation is systematic and routinelycarried out.

David outlined a model for implementation of ICT in learning that begins with leadership and management. Where leadership and management are “good” (ie.better than average) you would expect to see improving provision with
standards rising faster than national average; but where they are only “satisfactory” you would be likely to find a maintenance pattern

News for Primary Schools 

Leadership and management for ICT is “good” in 60% of primary schools.

Results are “satisfactory” overall, but “good” in the Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1.  Across the Key Stages, achievement is “good” in 35% of primaries. This suggests that clearer vision and its effective implementation is likely to lead to a rise in standards, especially at KS2, in the next few years.

Where leadership and management are found to be “good”, schools generally

• displayed a clear vision;
• commitment from the senior leadership team;
• allocation of time for ICT coordinator to monitor outcomes;
• and rigorous self evaluation.

These led to

• significant investment in appropriate ICT resources;
• good planning for discrete and cross-curricular ICT;
• use of wide range of applications;
• and assessment that informs planning.

However, where it is at best “satisfactory”,

• vision for and use of ICT is dependent on interests and capability of individual staff;
•  progress in ICT as a subject is adequate but application to other subjects is limited;
• and guidance for pupils on how to improve is lacking.

News for Secondary Schools

The picture in secondary schools is much more patchy, with only 50% judged to have “good” leadership and management of ICT. Provision for pupils at Key Stage 4 who were not following a specific qualification in ICT (which is a statutory requirement) was often inadequate. Overall, achievement is still only “satisfactory”, but “inadequate” in 15% of the sample.

David went on to paint a composite picture of a typical secondary school where leadership and management were deemed “inadequate”. To simplify judgments, he assumed that all pupils would study for an ICT qualification at Key Stage 4. (ie. The school was not in 20% who do not offer the statutory Programme of Study). He said that inspectors would find students rehearsing previously learned ICT skills, with the result that they were merely consolidating what the already knew. All the expectations of the National Curriculum would be taught through discrete ICT, so, for example, there would
be no evidence of data logging in science or geography.

 Other subjects would have limited access to ICT facilities, with minimal monitoring of the use of ICT and progress of pupils in ICT in these other subjects. Where the school had a Sixth Form, hardly any girls would be taking ICT qualifications.

Only in the better secondaries would pupils’ skills gained out of school be taken into account in the planning of learning and the judgments about their progress. Schools judged to be “inadequate” had an ad hoc pattern of investment in ICT, little thought for replacement of resources and limited evaluation of the impact of the ICT curriculum.

David asked how you could move ICT from “satisfactory” to “good”.

He suggested that schools needed:
to develop clarity and consistency about how ICT is used to improve learning in all subjects;
to monitor and assess appropriate ICT skills used in other subjects;
to build on pupils’ skills gained outside school;
to improve assessment;
to be more inclusive, with provision for pupils who do not have access to ICT
outside school;
to carry out systematic auditing of teachers’ ICT skills, ensuring that these were applied and kept up to date;
and to evaluate the impact of the significant investments made in ICT, using these judgments to inform planning and budgets.

Finally, David outlined some particular questions that he felt needed to be addressed:

• Are too many secondary schools just validating what pupils can already do, rather than stretching them?
• Why are primaries not tracking ICT like English and maths? (He acknowledged “obvious” answers to this, such as pressures on time, but felt ICT was not given sufficient prominence.)
• Do we need to do more to “take ICT to the learning”, rather than taking pupils to ICT suite to “write up” work previously completed?
• Does ICT get appropriate status as a core subject? Should it be considered “second” after English?
• How should schools become more systematic about finding out about home access to ICT and the skills pupils develop outside school?

What do you think? Share your comments on the blog site (Click the Comments link)