III Forum Microsoft Educacion, Madrid, May 17th

Thanks to all those who came to my workshop and keynote speech at the III Forum Microsoft Educacion, Madrid (#IIIForumEdu). This was a really well organised and well attended event – and thanks to my Microsoft colleagues, especially Juan Ramon Alegret Crespi; Maria Zamorano Alberruche; Irene Ocaña del Rey; Lola Chacon Gutierrez; and Fernando Bocigas Palma.

Here’s a link to the OneNote file complete with on-the-fly annotations:

Schooling at the Speed of Thought keynote

What can we learn from South Korea?

Of all the places I’ve visited, I’ve not seen technology so deeply embedded into daily life anywhere as much as in South Korea. Boasting technology giants such as Samsung and LG, South Korea places a conspicuous high value on technology in practically all aspects of life.

Korea’s remarkable technology driven growth has also been accompanied by improvements in social equity. How? Investment in human capital – as evidenced by their PISA results in recent years.

South Korea is well known for their results in the OECD PISA survey

Korea rides high in PISA (pic c/o Wikipedia)

Unlike Finland, whose high ranking in PISA can be attributed to excellent public schooling, Korea’s investment in human capital is significantly influenced by private investment. Parents with school-age children spend close to 25 percent of their income on education and all parents spend a large portion of their income on supplementary educational materials. Private education cost 3.95% of GDP in 2006. According to colleagues in South Korea, students acquire about 30 percent of their formal learning through their schooling, and the rest through supplementary measures.  

So what motivates parents to spend such large amounts of money on private tutoring outside the state schooling system? The main driver is that education is viewed as being crucial for success. At three or four years old, Korean children begin the long and strenuous race to higher education where Science and Engineering dominate.

Examination time is a very serious times of the year and the whole pattern of society changes. Businesses often start at 10AM to accommodate parents who have helped their children study late into the night and on the evenings before exams. The entire schooling system is geared to college entrance, so the curriculum of most schools is structured around the content of the entrance examination.

The Korean government spends generously on education (4.5% GDP in 1986); children spend a lot of days in school (220 days in Korea vs 180 days in the US); and school children work very long hours too. While these factors help with test scores, Korea is remarkably inefficient at a PISA criterion known as “study effectiveness”. South Korea ranks only 24th out of 30 developed nations in this measure. Top in study effectiveness is Finland, where time in school and hours spent studying is significantly less than Korea.

While many if not most other countries look on Korean performance on international tests like PISA with envy, in Korea itself there appears to be an intense pressure to do better, and in this highly technocratic country, its little surprise that technology is seen to be an important component.  

Technology Developments

Korea has been ‘computerizing’ schools for the last 15 years or so, and was the first country in the world to provide high-speed internet access to every primary, junior, and high school. ICT is also an increasing focus in the Korean Government’s education strategy, and in recognition of their progress, Korea won 1st prize from UNESCO for ICT in Education in 2007. So you’d be forgiven for thinking that this lead to Korea coming top in PISA Digital Literacy tests in June 2011 – however computer use is often restricted to teachers presenting information to students.

The real reason Korean students do so well in Digital Literacy is the intense use of technology after school – in Internet cafes, “cram schools” and the home where children can use the world’s fastest home Internet connections – on average 100 Mbps now, and with plans to increase this to 1 Gbps.

Several government initiatives have been set up to bridge the gap between the different levels of effectiveness of learning at home and at school. The overall goal of Government ICT initiatives is to ensure that by 2014 Korean school children will be competent with 21st century skills and are talented at innovating with future digital technology.

Much of the government’s initiative in ICT is channelled through KERIS – a Government Research Institute that acts as the country’s national ICT/education agency. KERIS’ Future Schools programme has conducted 39 research projects and 14 development projects focussed on new learning methods based on new technology. 

Infrastructure Development

The current priority from a budget standpoint is the acquisition of hardware and modernising class facilities. By 2010 there was a ratio of 5 students per PC – the intent of this investment was to support the development of creativity and problem-solving.

IT Expenditure Priorities

A second budget priority is to increase the number of classrooms that have been transformed to achieve “ubiquitous-learning” (u-learning).

Digital Textbook Project

KERIS has been piloting ‘digital textbooks’ in various forms in preparation for the move by 2015 to using digital textbooks in all schools in all subjects at all levels. The idea is that digital textbooks will be accessed/viewed on many different types of devices, from tablets to desktops to laptops to phones.

Cyber Home Learning System

In an attempt to reduce the cost of private education KERIS also developed content for the Cyber Home Learning System. Launched in 2004, CHLS is an online learning service supporting student’s self-directed learning. Click here to find out more – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF8XdvA4ajk

Cyber Home Learning System

The next generation of the CHLS will include community, e-portfolio and analytical functions.

Next Generation of CHLS

EDUNET

KERIS set up and operates EDUNET, an educational information service which distributes a diverse range of high quality educational content. Content ranges from sound, photo, image, animation, module and video and is all specified by curriculum. As of October, 2010, the number of EDUNET users reached 6.17 million out of a school student population of 7.7m. To see a sample of the content, view a short video here. 

Education Broadcasting Services on the Internet (EBSi)

A service that has seen a sharp rise in growth recently is EBSi. This is where key education broadcasting service assets are made available for download. In 2010, daily usage of video-clips of lectures was 574,461, a 78% increase from the same period of the previous year.  

Teacher Training

Advances have been made too in teacher training. Not only are increasing numbers of teachers licenced to teach ICT, distance education training based on e-Learning has become the core method of teachers training. Distance learning is available to students too via “Air and Correspondence High School”.

NEIS (National Education Information Service)

The Korean Government is keen to develop the use of data systems in education. In a drive to reduce teacher workload, an administration system called NEIS (National Education Information Service) was developed. By streamlining procedures, many administrative processes can now be done in one-step. The system connects all stakeholders of the student, to allow them to get “to Know Our Children Better”. NEIS integrates student records across a range of fields including assessments, examination and health data.

The first task in creating NEIS was to develop the physical infrastructure. The aging facilities of the overall education management centre and 16 Metropolitan and municipal education offices were replaced. 3,800 servers with databases were installed in schools and integrated into a datacentre comprising 100 servers in upstream education offices.

To help teachers adapt, training is provided, and structured guides are available on the teacher area of Edunet.

 

(MPOE – Metropolitan and Provincial Offices of Education)

(MEST – Ministry of Education, Science and Technology)

After infrastructure, the next key ingredient was Business Process Reengineering and Information Strategy Planning (BPR/ISP) for constructing the business management system for the MPOEs. A transmission system for electronic funds transfer (EFT) system was created at the Korea Financial Telecommunications and Clearings Institute.

The School Information Disclosure System allows anyone including students and parents to easily receive information about schools. The system is designed to increases parents and the local community’s interest and participation in the schooling system. In addition, the government and the Offices of Education are expected to boost policy achievements by establishing even more efficient policies through situational reality analysis of school units using the School Information Disclosure System.

Where next?

Whilst Korea is developing one of the best IT infrastructures in the world, there are three key areas that need focus:

  • According to “Adapting Education to the Information Age”, Software Infrastructure in Korea is behind to developed countries and a change is required to develop capacity in this area.
  • A second area for development is lifelong learning. 28% of adults participated in the lifelong learning in 2009, which is lower than major advanced countries – eg EU average participation rate is 37.9%.
  • Perhaps the most important area of focus is 21st century skills. Korea has few programs in this area, and with Communication and Collaboration now part of the PISA 2012 framework, this area is in need of development.

To learn more:

Excellent blog article by Michael Trucano with links to in-depth resources: http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/e-learning-in-korea-in-2011-and-beyond

2012 – The Year of Constructive Disruption?

This article is a personal perspective of the key Education Technology trends that we can expect to see in 2012. Whilst not expecting anything as apocalyptic as the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar theory, my belief is that the world of education technology will see new and powerful disruptive forces in 2012. Whilst there are certainly very challenging times ahead for public sector institutions and the industry that serves them, innovation is accelerating too and new technologies and approaches will offer creative solutions for those who are prepared drive, or at least accept, change.

Mark Anderseen writing in the Wall Street Journal in August 2011 proposes that “Healthcare and education are next up for fundamental software-based transformation”. Education, Anderseen contends, has historically been highly resistant to entrepreneurial change, and is now primed for ‘tipping’ by new software-centric entrepreneurs”. This article explores the forces of technological change that are priming education for ‘tipping’, and what form that ‘tipping’ could take.

Forces of Disruption

As we start 2012 we enter uncharted economic, social and political territories. Frontier Strategy Group, a Washington based provider of market intelligence, predicts that advanced economies will “muddle through the next 18 months with low growth but avoid a major recession”. Gartner, on the other hand, predicts that by 2014, “major national defaults in Europe will lead to the collapse of more than a third of European banks” – which will have significant consequence worldwide.

Gartner also predict that the control of technology is “shifting out of the hands of IT organisations… Cloud, social, mobile and information management technologies are all evolving at a pace”.

Developing markets are exerting an increasingly powerful influence too. According to Frontier, in the next 4 years, Latin America will consume more PCs than in the previous 30 years combined (276 million units). So much for the so called “post PC era”. At the same time we’re seeing the Asia/Pacific region emerge as one of world’s largest markets for devices, with an expected total market sales of more than 6.3 million tablets in 2011.

End-user expectations are rapidly changing too – “end users expect to get access to personal, work, applications and data from any device, anytime and anywhere”. Users and institutions are also demanding ever better power conservation too. The concept of “Big Data” is starting to “alter the relationship of technology to information consumption, as data coming from multiple federated sources in structured and unstructured forms must now be analysed using new methodologies”.

So what does all this mean for education technology? The first thing to consider is the fact that ICT expenditure in education in 2012 is coming off a comparatively weak platform. For at least 20 years now, IT has systematically been introduced into schooling but whilst the value of IT in education is clear, what is also clear is that education has the lowest levels of IT spending amongst any type of major enterprise – IT Spending by Industry Vertical Market, Worldwide. So are we likely to see a boost in the purchase and adoption of IT in schooling worldwide in 2012? The answer to this will depend a lot on spending on education ICT by governments.

Government Spending

According to Gartner, the current decision-making environment is dominated by demands to cut costs while improving operational efficiency and effectiveness. “Government organizations will continue to adopt technology innovation, but mostly in areas where technology is inexpensive” or “support more radical approaches to cost containment”. “By 2013, government financial sustainability will join cost containment as the top driver and constraint for government IT spending”. This isn’t a short-term trend either – “the continuing pressure to cut government budgets is likely to influence spending priorities for the next decade or more”.

Those of us wishing for a tipping point where schooling gets transformed at scale may be in for a wait. For many governments in 2012, “the key challenge will no longer be to transform, but to fulfil their statutory obligations”.

IT investments that enable transformational change “will be limited, especially by the politics of establishing budget priorities and the difficulties of institutional change”. However, these challenges and opportunities won’t be evenly spread, so let’s now look at how these forces are playing out in different parts of the world.

BRICs

Brazil – Microsoft’s Emilio Munaro says “there are more than 198,000 schools in Brazil and 98% of them now have computer labs”. “Tablet usage is growing fast, in many cases accelerated by popular touch enabled apps, but also long battery life which suits environments where electricity outlets are in short supply. However, broadband connection will remain as the challenge for Brazil in the next 3-4 years”.

Russia’s 2012-2014 budgets emphasise long-term development goals and the further introduction of ICT in schools. Expect to hear more about a significant new School of the Future project in the Moscow Region initiated by the Skolkovo Foundation.

The importance of using ICT for improving education in India has been emphasized in the policy framework for over a decade, and 2011 saw a number of large-scale device-lead initiatives. India is home to both one of the biggest IT workforces in the world, but also has incredible diversity in wealth and geography and this has lead to a wide range of solutions for both formal and informal learning. There’s every expectation that use of ICT in education will continue to grow and more innovations will emerge from India in 2012.

Meanwhile in China, mass school computerisation efforts are under way in rural Western China. “It is clear that Chinese support for the purchase of ICT infrastructure for schools will most likely increase greatly in the coming years” according to Michael Trucano from the World Bank.

Europe

The recent down-grading of credit ratings of some major European economies will mean that government borrowing in those countries will be more expensive, giving less room to manoeuvre on public spending. Whilst innovation and investment in ICT in schooling remains strong in many European countries, public sector austerity measures will inevitably cause disruption. However, one mitigating factor is that unemployment and the cost of school dropout is at the top of the agenda for many European countries, so investment in Education ICT may also be seen as a way to boost economic growth.

According to Mark East, General Manager for Microsoft’s Education Group “One thing is for sure; human capital is a nation’s greatest asset and Education will remain a priority investment area for most Governments”.

Asia

South Korea – already top of PISA and digital literacy skills tables – is surging ahead with a $2.4bn Education technology plan, now in its third phase of deployment. Many middle school and high school students now download and complete e-learning classes via their portable multimedia players as a matter of routine.

In Singapore, the government is driving technology lead innovation, and recently announced plans to digitise testing and examination systems.

USA

There’s a sense of big appetite for change in the USA, driven by a collapse in adequate levels of funding for schooling and the rapid growth in virtual schooling and online learning resources. The Department of Education is executing against a strong National Education Technology Plan and the USA is a hotbed of innovation in the education consumer space.

Teacher Shortages

The world urgently needs to recruit more than 8 million extra teachers, according to UN estimates. A worldwide shortage of primary school teachers threatens to undermine global efforts to ensure universal access to primary education by 2015.

According to the Guardian newspaper, at least 2m new teaching positions will need to be created by 2015, and an additional 6.2 million teachers will need to be recruited to maintain the current workforce.

This means that the 55m practicing teachers worldwide have increasing demands on their time as countries compete to raise education standards and develop the skills required for economic growth, at a time when the profession is short of the optimal workforce by 15%. As pointed out by Professor Sugata Mitra recently, “quality teachers simply don’t exist where they’re needed most”. “Talented teachers tend to be drawn away from relatively poor areas due to offers of better jobs or higher incomes. For these reasons, “we need new methods of learning”.

Whilst it’s clear that ICT can help governments achieve their education aims, the increased demand for teachers with ICT skills is clearly outpacing supply.

Consumerisation

Rapidly increasing availability of access to online learning sources, coupled with social networking is opening up a spectrum of low cost learning opportunities for students both inside and outside the classroom. MIT Open Courseware, Kahn Academy, University of the People, BBC Bitesize, Mymaths, Tutorhunt etc. all offer a supplement to teacher-lead “instruction”. Sugata Mitra’s “Hole in the Wall” project goes even further, offering learning where there simply are no teachers.

According to sources quoted by Larry Cuban of Stanford University, the worldwide market for self-paced eLearning products and services reached $32.1 billion in 2010 (about 50% of what formal education currently spends on ICT). The five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is 9.2% and revenues will grow to $49.9 billion by 2015.

Clayton Christiansen, in his book “Disrupting Class” predicted that virtual schooling will force massive changes to formal schooling systems. By 2008, online enrolments for virtual schooling in the US had risen from 45,000 in 2000 to over 1 million, and there are no signs that this is slowing down.

A key component in consumerisation is social networking, and we’re seeing a lot of innovation in this space. For example, Microsoft’ recently announced So.cl which integrates search into the social learning experience.

Shifting Power

More Learning Please

Rising youth unemployment in Europe and the Middle East, globalisation and growth in developing countries are all fuelling the need for more knowledge, skills and competencies.

“People leaving our schooling systems, more now than ever, will need to be able to respond positively to the opportunities and challenges of the rapidly changing world in which we live and work. In particular, they need to be prepared to engage with environmental, economic, social and cultural change, including dealing with the effects of global warming and the continued globalisation of the economy and society, with new work and leisure patterns and with the rapid expansion of communication technologies.” (UK Qualifications and Curriculum Authority).

In the same way that there is limited funding available from the public purse, there is also limited time in the school day into which to squeeze the curriculum. Again, the implications are clear – more effective learning has to be implemented.

Mind the Engagement Gap

Commercial websites are increasingly become social sites, leaving a shortage of people to deal with social engagement on the scale required. The same pattern is happening in schooling where the teaching workforce does not have the capacity to deal with the explosion in the demands for skills and competencies, and the increasingly availability of online learning. As students’ technology capacity grows relative to that of teachers, an engagement gap between students and teacher is set to widen.

The answer to the engagement gap in commerce is the increasing use of “bots” and many sites now have fully or semi-automated live chat. In 2010, the average user of Facebook has 120 to 150 friends. Some of these “friends” are not real people, and many users find this to be quite natural. Gartner predicts that by 2015, 10% of your online “friends” will be nonhuman. It’s a reasonable bet that some of these online friends will be virtual tutors.

What will the answer to the engagement gap in schooling look like? Professor Sugata Mitra explores the theory that, given unrestricted and unsupervised access to the Internet, groups of children can learn almost anything on their own. Few – myself included – would advocate this as a universal approach to schooling, but it’s clear that technology enhanced independent and social learning offers answers to both the lack of teachers and the need for more effective learning.

Irresistible Forces Meet the Immovable Object

So the forces of consumerisation, increased learning requirements, and the demand for relevant ways to engage are beginning to weigh heavily on institutionalized learning.

According to Gartner, “the homogeneous learning and technology environment of the last century is fading fast. Moreover, the ivory tower mentality of education agencies is disappearing to reflect changing needs and values”.

These irresistible forces, however, will continue to meet an immovable object – schools. Whilst the nature of schooling will surely change, children will still be going to places called schools run by teachers well into the foreseeable future. Schools have responsibilities beyond academic learning. Parents and voters want schools to socialize students into community values, prepare them for civic responsibilities, and get them ready for college and career. Technology enhanced independent learning alone cannot meet those demands.

Big challenges for 2012

So the 2012 landscape will be dominated the necessity to provide more learning at less cost, against a backdrop of human capacity shortages and students faced with greater consumer choices.

Schooling IT leaders must balance the demands of supporting today’s environment, addressing the demands of the education stakeholder community, and preparing for a technology-driven transformation of the education ecosystem.

So what, then, are the big education technology challenges for 2012?  Its my belief that there are three big problems to crack, and that in 2012 market forces will drive progress in each of these areas.

1. ROI

2. Personalising Learning

3. National Education Networks

ROI

I start with ROI because in times of squeezed budgets it’s essential that both institutions and suppliers are able to identify which budget lines have the greatest and least impact on the learning “bottom line”, and identify where investments will have the most positive effect. At the very least, I’d expect it to at least become more acceptable to talk about ROI for investments in education technology. As discussed in detail in this blog – Lets Talk About Money – the idea of at least attributing “cost per unit learned” to investments should have become standard practice by now.

Personalised learning

For at least 10 years, the goal of personalized learning has been talked about, pursued as a strategy, dropped when found too hard to execute, and then talked about again. So, could 2012 be the year when personalizing learning at scale begins to take off?

I’m optimistic that we’ll see some progress in this space this year, because Personalising Learning can address so many of the problems that schooling currently faces. When we also add the learnings that we now have from games-based-learning, neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence (see Artificial Intelligence in Schooling Sytems) we seem to have all the technical building blocks in place. Personalised Learning also fits the trend towards consumerisation really well.

Think of Personalised Learning from a student’s perspective as “My Learning My Way”. To get to My Learning My Way, there are several key elements:

My technology my way

As discussed in detail in the BYOD/C article, the emergence of low cost technological supplements and alternatives to institutional “instruction” is growing at an increasing pace. Yes, the state will always have a role in providing a “base level” of appropriate technologies for learners, but the reality is that students across the world are “doing it for themselves”, learning on their own devices using software and learning services of their own choice.

The biggest challenges in this area are to ensure equality of access to opportunties, and stopping the adoption of “lowest common denominator” technologies, learning applications, services and devices.

My pathway my way

Learning can be said to be ‘personalised’ when students have a unique set of pathways through their learning. Clearly, at early stages younger learners need a lot of adult support with learning decisions, but as learners progress through their schooling they need to become more independent – and that independence can be supported with technology. Personalised Learning is a characteristic of the Transformed Phase of schooling and discussed in the “Transformed Phase” of this blog.

For personal learning pathways to work well, three key problems need to be addressed:

Firstly, assessments – both high and low stake – need to be ported into the electronic domain. Increasingly we’re seeing this happen. In Norway, for example, national tests at level 5, 7 and 9 ++ and exams in upper secondary and now administrated electronically.

Secondly, data from assessment and ongoing learning tasks needs to be used to make effective decisions about what learning tasks need to be undertaken, and when. The resulting learning pathways need to be challenging but achievable and “in tune” with how individual students learn.

Thirdly, the difficult problem of Dynamic Timetabling needs to be solved. This is where the time students spend in formal schooling is determined not by a pre-determined matrix of subjects and timeslots allocated according to age and classes, but by a system that matches their precise learning requirments against the resources needed to meet these. The problem can, to a point, be addressed through CRM, but it will take an evolution in schooling management techniques as well as technology developments to solve this problem.

My content my way

The model of purchasing standard textbooks for all students must surely come under more intense questioning in 2012. Companies such as Triba Learning from Finland are offering fascinating glimpses of new models where data and algorithms are used to generate value. Triba uses data to segment students into increasingly granular groups that exhibit similar learning dispositions. Powerful algorithms are used to analyse how they best learn and select appropriate content. School districts save money through using this system to purchase only the content that best fits the learner’s requirements – as opposed to having to buy large sets of books which may only ever be partially used.

Content itself needs to change radically too. “Our high school kids are fantastic teachers,” said Professor Harry Kroto, talking at NEST 2011 about the GEOSET project, in which students record lectures that can be freely accessed online. Creating content leads to more learning than merely consuming content, so “atomising” content into building blocks that can be reassembled into customised materials by students and teachers is a clear way forward.

Whilst content and learning sofware has evolved to accommodate visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles, the next frontier is the use of neuroscience to make learning more engaging. We are learning more about the science of learning, and how to drive the motivation to learn. Emerging game-like learning software makes use of the individual’s natural reward system which helps them to learn which action has the most valuable outcome. Software can be designed to emulate a teacher who constantly adapts to current learner understanding. Thus software can enable far more effective learning than is often possible through one-to-one teaching.

My data my way

The standard way of looking at student related data is that it should be “owned” by the institution. But to get to truly personalised learning there needs to be a paradigm shift – one that is prepared to accept that the ownership of the data resides with the student, and their parent or gaurdians.

A similar idea sits behind Microsoft’s “Health Vault”. This CRM based solution enables individuals to store their own health records in the Cloud and then grant access to these records to trusted people – doctors/relatives etc. Health Vault has evolved into a platfrom with an online marketplace for applications and even USB devices that can be used to monitor and manage health issues. This idea isn’t new in education though – e-portfolios have long been based on similar principles.

For school students, it would be essential to integrate personally held data with the data held in formal schooling institutions. According to Stephen Coller from the Gates Foundation, its not possible to build large scale data driven solutions without going through formal schooling data systems and subsystems. For example, to integrate with class rosters, enrollment systems have to be accessed. According to Coller, there needs to be:

  • A unifying middle layer that eliminates the need for solution providers to integrate with each school’s systems

or

  • a trust framework and ‘digital locker’ that gives users control over their own data and records

and

  • A badging or certificate framework that spans formal and informal learning

When thinking about large scale data systems, the question is whether exisiting data is sufficiently rich or accessible enouhg to justify the huge efforts required to get more than a basic dataset shared between the stundent and the institution, or whether it would be easier to rearchitect the entire system from scratch based on the new paradigm.

Either way, a core problem which needs to be solved in this area is “Micro Federation” – ie the concept that a student with their own “digital locker” can grant and control access to that data to trusted 3rd parties. The benefit to the institution is access to data to help decision making at micro and macro levels. The benefit to the student is having their learning supported in ways that may have been difficult to achieve otherwise. To achieve Micro Federation, there are some key areas that need to be addressed including:

• Privacy

• Security

  • Authorization
  • IDs and authentication
  • Encryption

• Transaction models

• Interaction models

• Interconnection technology

• Interfaces

National Education Networks

Greater personalization requires improved interoperability between data, content, assessments and applications. But to scale personalised learning, we need to be able to solve big problems in the areas of data management; decision automation; individualised learning pathways; and content. To do all this requires National Education Networks (NEN). The purpose of an NEN is to:

  • Improve data flows for the benefit of students, within and between end-users and schooling institutions, regionally and nationally.
  • Provide a stable platform for learning and innovation based on interoperable systems
  • Reduce the technical burden on schools, allowing them to focus on the use of technology in teaching and learning rather than its management

Few countries have built NENs, but the UK is one country that has. In 2004, the BECTA – the British governments ICT agency – produced detailed plans for a national level network infrastructure for schools. This became the National Education Network – http://www.nen.gov.uk/

So what are the key problems that need to be solved in building a National Education Network? Firstly, a National Education Network should have three architectural layers:

  • Services
  • Interfaces
  • Infrastructure

Services

The services layer should define the outcomes required from the NEN. Key questions that need to be addressed are:

  • What services do we want the NEN to deliver?
  • To whom and when?
  • At what costs and return on investment?

This leads to functional decisions about three key elements – interfaces that expose the functions of one system to other systems; what operations are performed within a service function; what messages are inputted and outputted from service operations.

A well-designed NEN should provide a services platform on four levels:

  • Connectivity services linking all elements of the model together, safely and securely connecting end-user stakeholders to the internet and wider educational community
  • A marketplace for institutions and individual students to purchase and consume learning services including content; personalised learning management systems; and management information system
  • Data services including data warehousing, management information systems (MIS) and a range of data mining tools
  • An R&D “sandbox” using anonamised data about learning to enable software entrepreneurs to build ever more effective personalised learning solutions

Interfaces

An interface is a shared boundary across which information is passed. In an ideal NEN students own the data, and share selective parts of it with schooling systems, Local Education Authorities/Municipality/State, the Ministry of Education, parents/guardians and ultimately prospective Higher/Further Education institutions or even employers. Different stakeholders would need different information – the Ministry of Education, for example, would need much less information than the school.

For data to move effectively across the system, trust relationships need to exist between these boundaries. In a NEN, interfaces can be specified to manage the flow of data; monitor status; manage assets; and even control devices.

Defining interfaces trust relationships, and data exchange methods across a large population may be complex, but it offers huge potential in terms of increased effectiveness and cost savings.

Infrastructure

The Physical Network component of an NEN has multiple layers and requires at least the following to be designed:

  • Infrastructure
    • Access models – radio and television, digital devices, computing
    • Topology, IP addressing, naming
    • Plumbing, traffic routing
    • Storage
    • Network control
    • Security
  • Establishing Physical Security
    • Creating a secure physical boundary for critical communications equipment
    • Protecting the Network Elements
      • Securing routers, switches, appliances, VoIP gateways and network devices define network boundaries and act as interfaces to all networks
      • Designing the IP Network…
        • … based on sound IP network design principles
  • Directories and Control
    • User directories
    • Asset catalogues
    • Identity management
    • User management

A comprehensive design blueprint for a National Education Network is the BECTA specification for the UK’s NEN.

NENs for Personalised Learning

The ultimate goal for a NEN is to enable personalised learning at scale and cost-effectively. For that to happen several “moving parts” need to synchronise. At the start of the cycle, data about learning is used to present students with appropriate learning opportunities through tailored content. Students progress through these tasks through individual pathways. As they do, they generate data and different aspects of that data are used by different stakeholders for different reasons. The data is managed and communicated via the National Grid for Learning, and the marketplace platform within the NEN acquires appropriate content for the learner’s on-going learning process, starting the cycle over again.

Standards

Take a NEN with interfaces across the 5 boundaries described above. If each boundary handles 10 different types of data, then roughly speaking there are 105 (100,000) “sub-interfaces” that have to successfully connect to make the system function properly. The complexity increases dramatically when you add complexities such as data formats and exchange methods.

To reduce complexity in NENs, standards are a key consideration. I say a “consideration” rather than “the answer” because there are two different perspectives to take into account.

From a vendor point of view, standards can get in the way and increase costs. Typically, solution developers will build large scale Schooling Enterprise Architectures up to LEA or even state level, but rarely at national level. At these levels vendors generally find it easier to not have to conform to standards as this gives them freedom to design information systems to their own specifications and re-use IP and technologies from other similar projects.

From a NEN commissioning body (e.g. Ministry of Education) perspective, standards that are open and not driven by vendors are a key way to reduce their overall costs and complexity. For example, a NEN will require the integration of separate datacentres at municipality/LEA/State levels. Without standards, proprietary interfaces must be reworked for each new system added. It is simply easier if everyone does it the same way; so each datacentre should require just one standard interface which:

  • Standardizes the dialogs, messages, and data elements
  • Standardizes user interfaces to the system
  • Allows a single external interface with different agencies, enabling cooperation and coordination between them

Standards need to deliver value at both macro and micro levels. Standards that are developed at the national level may include information that local systems will not use. On the other hand, standards may need to be supplemented with additional information to meet local needs.

A noteworthy national level IT infrastructure for public services is the National Transportation Communications (NTCIP) system in the US and there is much that is transferable from NTCIP to the design of NENs. NTCIP is a set of standards for interoperability between computers and electronic traffic control equipment that covers the US and is now being adapted for implementation in other countries. A key to the success of this is system is how standards are integrated into the model. For example, for a system to be a part of the NTCIP “Management Information Base”, a set of mandatory objects are required, but to enable local adaptation, specified optional objects are permitted. To minimise cost, risk and complexity, the NTCIP Management Information Base is public, not proprietary.

Education has a long way to go to catch up with how NTCIP uses standards.

Key challenges in building NENs

There are many major challenges to building NENs including:

  • Selecting and building an appropriate framework of international standards and prescriptive methodologies, and ensuring public ownership of the overall model
  • Data aggregation and interoperability
  • Reconceptualising NENs to put the student at the centre

National Education Networks are certainly complex, but with the methods and standards now available, and the overall gains that they can bring there is every reason to expect to see an increasing number of national level education network projects in and beyond 2012.

Technology Trends in 2012

IT organizations must balance security against access, and meet the growing expectations of individuals who are more technology-savvy than ever before. As consumerisation grows and budgets get cut, IT leaders in education are becoming increasingly open to leveraging personally owned devices and external Web 2.0 services as well as to delivering information and services beyond their physical campuses.

This is shaping what IT and digital services will increase in significance in 2012, as summarised in the table below:

Enterprise computing Consumer computing
Wireless aaS Social-Learning Platform for Education
Federated Identity Management Windows-Based Tablet PCs
SIS International Data Interoperability Standards E-Textbook
Hosted Virtual Desktops Social Media in Education
Cloud Email for Staff and Faculty E-Portfolios
Unified Communications and Collaboration Mashups
CRM Lecture Capture and Retrieval Tools
BYOC strategies Media Tablets

At the NEST conference in Hong Kong, Facebook Co-founder Chris Hughes pronounced that “the textbook is dead”. “In the next five to seven years, the textbook is no longer going to be the basic building block of education.”

The challenge for education institutions in 2012 is to treat the pending changes as an opportunity and navigate into the future, making sound decisions that focus on learner achievement, and develop strategies and adapt organizational structures that embrace a world of choice.

The challenge to the education technology industry in 2012 is to ramp-up proofs of concepts that demonstrate how technology can viably personalise learning on a large scale.

A Chinese proverb says, “May you live in interesting times”. In the world of education technology, 2012 should prove to be a very interesting year indeed.

Happy New Year!

BYOD / BYOC?

The question of “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) is dividing opinion across the world of Ed Tech – and increasing scrutiny over how schooling budgets are spent is fuelling the debate. In essence, BYOD is about letting students bring their own devices – from mobile phones to full blown laptop PCs – into school as part of formal learning. Regardless of whether this approach is right or wrong, increasing numbers of schools – particularly in the United States – are adopting this approach.

In the US, BYOD is often seen as a strategy for schools to do more with less. EdWeek reported that one US State paid $56k in repairs for the computers they lease for $175k annually, so it’s easy to see how BYOD can seem an obvious approach for some. However, shifting the ownership of devices has many complex implications for how schooling systems operate. BYOD has complex and hidden costs which need to be considered carefully.

This article sets out the arguments for and against BYOD, highlights key considerations and proposes some potential ways forward.

What is BYOD?

In adopting BYOD, schooling is following a broader trend in the world of business. Monica Basso, Research VP at Gartner, predicts that by 2014 “90% of organizations will support corporate applications on personal devices.” At companies like Kraft Foods, rather than providing some employees with a standard laptop configuration, money is offered to let staff go out and get what they want.

Delloite observes that “most [business] users strongly believe they should be allowed to install any mobile application, visit any mobile website, and store any personal data they want on their personal device regardless of who paid for it”.

According to Forbes, reported on Yahoo, the adoption of technologies in the enterprise is increasingly being driven by consumer preference, not corporate initiative. “Many organizations are considering allowing personally-owned mobile devices to access business applications in order to drive employee satisfaction and productivity, while reducing their mobile expenses”.

In schooling, BYOD has different goal – it’s about enabling students and teachers to bring their own devices into school to support formal learning and productivity.

Why Should BYOD Be Considered?

From just a utility perspective, BYOD makes perfect sense. Why have a computer gather dust in the student’s bedroom while they are in school, and why have a school computer gathering dust in the 85% of time that students are not in school? Consolidating two resources into one has great potential for cost savings. Where the number of computers in a school is low, BYOD can be a quick way to boost access levels.

BYOD saves the school having to buy all the children a device, allowing school funds to be focused on providing access to the less well-off pupils.

Cary Harrod writing on the AALF blog –

“We launched our BYOL program this past January with our 7th graders. It was an overwhelming success in several key ways:

Out of 559 7th graders, we had 353 students bring in their own laptop, netbook or tablet pc. Add that to the 160 district owned devices and it’s easy to see that one of our major goals was met…to increase access to technology for ALL 7th graders… we successfully increased access to students who were unable/unwilling to purchase their own device access to technology without the barrier of having to check out a cart of laptops”.

Carry’s school didn’t’ service the computers either. “It was made clear to the parents that they owned the device… it was no different to when I take my device to Starbucks; Starbucks does not assume responsibility for my device…I do”.

Carry’s school is teaching their students “how to select the best computer and the most appropriate tools for their individual needs” and “through intensive professional development “we were able to move our teachers towards a student-centered way”

Why not BYOD?

Not everyone supports the BYOD concept. In fact, many people do not. Jim Wynn, former Headteacher and now senior Director at Promethean doesn’t believe BYOD is a viable concept for the classroom yet.

Imagine the possibility of 25 students walking into a classroom with what could amount to 25 different devices – with a teacher who is afraid of computers! Imagine the kinds of things that teachers could potentially hear in a BYOD environment:

“Miss, how can I get my phone to see the Wi-Fi”

“Sir, my battery has run out”

“Sir, a big boy put my computer in the bin”

Even the most advanced adult technology users frequently suffer from common technical issues such as getting Bluetooth devices to connect, so letting students loose across a range of technologies during classes is a recipie for potential chaos.

There are other factors to consider too:

  • The most commonly owned mobile device is mobile phones. Not everyone has got a phone that is powerful enough to enable high quality research, homework, coursework, revision, etc
  • Variation in the different types of student-owned devices, from Blackberries to i-Pads to Laptops, may make it hard for teachers to run lessons where they may want all the students to undertake the same tasks
  • Health & safety liability and requirement for all devices to be tested for suitability for use in a schooling environment

Gary Stager writing in AALF news asks “BYOD – Worst Idea of the 21st Century?” and says that BOYD:

  • Enshrines inequity
  • Narrows the learning process to information access and chat
  • Increases teacher anxiety
  • Diminishes the otherwise enormous potential of educational computing to the weakest “device” in the room
  • Contributes to the growing narrative that education is not worthy of investment

“Of course teachers should welcome any object, device, book or idea a student brings to class that contributes to the learning process. However, BYOD is bad policy that constrains student creativity, limits learning opportunities and will lead to less support for public education in the future”.

Towards BYOC

Gary Stager, asks “when was the last time you walked into a computer store and said, “I’d like to buy a device please?” Nobody does that. You buy a computer….. BYOD simplistically creates false equivalencies between any object that happens to use electricity… Repeat after me! Cell phones are not computers! They may both contain microprocessors and batteries, but as of today, their functionality is quite different”.

“Kids need a personal computer capable of doing anything you imagine they should be able to do, plus leave plenty of room for growth and childlike ingenuity”.

Whilst Cloud computing and HTML 5 will make the type of computer that you are using less important in the longer run, let’s be clear – effective learning with and through technology requires that students have computers. Ultimately, we want students to produce content – not just consume it – and develop their own learning experiences.

Ideally, every student should have their own computer for use both in and out of school. There will be many places where this just isn’t practical for all students, so in these cases there should be an appropriate progression towards increasingly available and increasingly powerful computing, so by the time a student leaves school, they are fully IT literate and ready to enter the university or the jobs market with a computer that they know how to use, and with a portfolio of high quality materials, applications and resources – online and on their hard-drive.

“Hybrid BYOC”

Clearly, BYOD or even BYOC as a blanket approach in any schooling system is going to be problematic.

Bruce Dixon again – “We are most likely going to see a gradual shift of the responsibility for the provision of a personal portable computer for our students from schools to families, as costs come down further, and computers are commoditized even more. But it will take time for the most effective funding, implementation and management models to be developed, and I expect they will, for the most part, be blended models”.

According to the e-learning Foundation, “In some areas all the pupils might have a suitable device they can bring in, so there’s no stigma attached to those who don’t have their own”.

There’s a crucial point here – BYOC may work in some areas – particularly where consumer technology usage amongst students is high and consistent. In other areas BYOC may not work at all because of a lack of appropriate devices in the hands of students.

There is no need to think of BYOC as a “blanket” approach at single school level either. E.g. at West Hatch School, London, just those students between 16 and 18 years old who have elected to stay at school for an extra two years can bring their own computers to school and access school resources.

Practical Considerations

Whether BYOC is the right approach or not, there is an increasing number of schooling systems under extreme budget pressures so there’s a practical reality that has to be addressed right now.

For those schools wishing to consider BYOC, an understanding of complex issues such as trust and liability is essential.

Trust

Which users do I trust with which data and applications and under what circumstances? Every organization should have its data classified in terms of who has access to it. However, BYOC adds another layer of complexity to the trust models because BYOC computers are not locked down as tightly as school owned computers, so can easily fall in and out of compliance.

Acceptable Use Policies will vary, and user expectations will differ. On school owned devices, users may accept not being able to use social networking apps, but that type of policy is unacceptable for personal devices.

West Hatch gets around this problem for student-owned devices, to an extent at least, by using a role based portal. Alan Richards – “the only reason this [BYOC] works is the fact that all resource are available through SharePoint, so as well as shared documents they can access their email, home drives, media etc”.

Liability

Whilst schools should have risk assessments covering actions such as unsecured use of organizational data to accessing inappropriate applications or websites, BYOC introduces new complexities:

  • Different protections may be required on different devices, depending on type of device and the OS that they run on.
  • A teacher or student who brings in their own device may have the expectation that they can use it however they wish. Is inappropriate use still a liability for the school, even if it doesn’t affect its data?
  • How is liability affected when computers are partly funded by the school?
  • There is a risk – albeit a small risk perhaps – of the school accessing and damaging personal data (for example, if IT inadvertently wipes a user’s personal data or applications)

On teacher-owned computers, at least, both the trust and liability issues can be addressed in part by if end-point data encryption implemented.

Regardless of how robust and secure the IT system, every school wanting to implement BYOC should seek their own legal advice on how to frame and assess liability between BYOC and more traditional access programs.

Equity And Finance

A key risk of BYOC is increasing the digital divide, so a BYOC program would need to be combined with effective initiatives to acquire or upgrade ICT, for those students that need this, including subsidized models.

Bruce Dixon, Founder of AALF, has given advice on 1:1 access programmes for nearly 15 years – “one of the benefits from an effective 1:1 program would be to provide 24/7 access, and there is a reasonable expectation that parents should make some contribution for the 80% of the time their son or daughter could now use a laptop for personal use outside school. However, I’m not sure why we can now suddenly expect parents to pick up 100% of the cost.”

According to the “e-learning Foundation” – a trust supporting the 1:1 access initiatives in the UK -“schools will need to provide all students who cannot bring their own device into school with something suitable, otherwise the school will create a digital divide, favouring wealthier pupils”.

Beware Of Potential Unintended Consequences

Transferring the burden of purchase to the students’ parents can be a “double-edged sword”. For example, organisations in consortia have purchasing power that can potentially drive costs down when ordering large volumes of IT goods and services. Passing on the cost of PC ownership to the student reduces the volume of IT purchased by the institution and therefore reduces negotiating power. When purchasing occurs on a large enough scale, a widespread BYOC policy could potentially drive up the net cost of providing computers to those who the schooling system will still need to provide a computer to.

There could be other unintended consequences too. As Microsoft’s Edgar Ferrer Gil points out, if a school depends heavily on Flash based learning content, then a whole subset of devices will not be able to utilize those resources, so a BYOC policy in isolation could reduce the value of investments in devices, IT resources and content.

There’s a cost too in supporting different technologies. For example, in the world of business the widespread adoption of RIM Blackberry’s required an expensive Blackberry server.

Consistency

If several students have different types of software, then it will mean that teachers need to adjust to that. For instance, a teacher won’t simply be able to set up a lesson where the students collaborate using a single application or service. Imagine the scenario when an LMS won’t accept certain file formats leaving students to figure out how to turn in their assignments if its not in the correct file format.

If a BYOD or BYOC implementation allows any device to be brought in, then the organization can expect to see old, second-hand and possibly even stolen devices – which pose legal, and security risks from viruses or malware.

Edgar Ferrer Gil again – “Schools need to think carefully what BYOC means to them. There are things that are going to run fantastically well on the right kind of device – eg standards-based cloud services, internet connectivity, file sharing and in some cases virtualized desktops. But today, I think that the ROI of a fully-open BYOC policy will be extremely poor”.

IT System Architecture

BYOC can quickly lead to 1:1 access ratios, and this has significant implications for infrastructure and IT services –

Physical Environment

Cleary, having appropriate furniture, benching, electrical sockets for charging and extensive wireless access points, is a key first step. It’s also important to provide secure lockers for storage of computers when not in use.

Network

As device choice becomes fluid, confirming identity of user and device, usually through the use of certificates, becomes more important.

Proxy servers are required to present login requests to users when using their own computers in the same way as you would filter usage for students using a school-owned computer.

At West Hatch, all routes for external traffic from the school’s data switches point to a Smoothwall box which deals with proxying. Computers that are on the school domain point to the same box but to a specific port. Computers that students bring into the school don’t point to a port and are captured by Smoothwall, which presents the user with an SSL login page asking for their domain credentials. This gives the same kind of user experience as you would get when using an Internet connection in a hotel or public space. At West Hatch, this approach works across any device or OS.

Optimised Core Infrastructure

Managing the extra workloads that a BYOC program would place on a school’s IT infrastructure requires that the infrastructure is optimized – ie made more robust and secure. Infrastructure Optimisation is a program that should be applied to the school IT infrastructure if BYOC is being implemented.

Key elements covered in Core Infrastructure optimization include:

  • Client Services
    • Management
    • Security
  • Identity & Security Management
  • IT Process & Compliance

Another key technical consideration is support. Whilst, as already discussed, some schools are passing-off technical support to parents, the danger with this approach is inequity – some students will have to wait longer than others for their computers to be up and running. On the other hand, it’s completely unreasonable to expect schools to be able to support just about any device on the market.

The only realistic way around this is to have a BYOC policy that narrows the range of computers accepted in the school environment to reflect capacity of local support services – both inside and beyond the school. In other words, if neither the school nor local computer repair shop can support a particular Operating System or computer, it’s best not to include these in the BYOC policy.

Remote Desktop Services (RDS, formerly Terminal Services)

Working with mixed computers in a classroom can be made a lot easier if schools were able to “push” desktops to those computers. In other words, regardless of computer type or its Operating System, the student would get a desktop provided by the school. Such a desktop could contain a full range of applications and resources needed to cover the curriculum. As the desktops would be delivered from a Server, the only requirement on the device would be a browser and possibly a small client application.

The first and easiest way to do this is through Presentation Virtualization, which was covered in detail in the “From Virtualization to Private Cloud” article. A relatively straightforward way to deliver Presentation Virtualization is Windows Remote Desktop Services (RDS).

RDS applications run in Virtual Sessions, each projecting a Windows user interface to a remote client computer. For non-Windows computers, a Citrix client application can be installed and this will allow the same user experience as with a Windows device. (There are also 3rd party RDP clients available for slates and phones). In a Remote Desktop Session, the device processes only screen refreshes sent from the server, and mouse clicks and keyboard strokes are being sent back to server. Whilst users will get a Windows interface, it won’t be a Windows 7 interface. Administrators should be careful not to assign administration rights to RDS users.

Virtual Desktop Interface

VDI offers a more sophisticated approach to remote desktops. From the client device perspective much is the same as with RDS, but there is added sophistication on the server which gives additional scope for flexibility.

With VDI, sessions are delivered through Virtual Machines run within a Hypervisor such as Hyper-V. Each virtual machine can contain a different Operating System and a different set of applications. This allows school to offer each student has their own specific desktop, subject/topic specific desktops. As each virtual machine (VM) runs in its own environment trust relationships are easier to manage. Each VM is a file enabling easy backup and portability. The entire desktop “estate” can be run through a management product such as System Center.

West Hatch School is evaluating VDI, looking at it eventually as a web-based resource for access beyond the school gates.

Classroom orchestration

Ideally, a teacher would not only be able to push out a common virtualized desktop, but orchestrate a class too. This means having control over the computers whilst they are in the classroom. For BYOC schemes that stipulate bringing in Windows devices, Multipoint server can be used to combine old and new school-owned computers with student owned computers in a single, orchestrated network.

Conclusion

The net is that BYOC is really not the silver bullet to widespread access that it appears on the surface. The argument that IT can’t be funded is a not a budget question – it’s a prioritization question! BYOC won’t come free – it will require investment, and as always, the most important question to ask with any IT investment is “what outcome do you want?”

Bruce Dixon, writing in the AALF blog, observes – “Seems the last thing anyone wants to ask is, ‘What will they want to do with it?’”

Full BYOC, partial or no BYOC at all, it makes no sense to decide on an approach without first being crystal clear about what results or impacts are wanted.

Once the intended learning and operational outcomes are clear, Schooling Enterprise Architecture offers a formal process for developing impactful learning solutions. Whether BYOC is an appropriate approach or not depends entirely whether it fits with higher level organizational goals, circumstances and capacity. BYOC, ultimately, should be part of the process of simplifying ICT, and if adopted at all, it should be very carefully thought through.

Thanks to:

Sven Reinhardt, Edgar Ferrer Gil, Dan MacFetridge, Erik Goldenberg, Bruce Dixon, Jim Wynn, and Alan Richards for contributions to this article; and to Brad Tipp/Howard Gold for graphics.

Putting the “i” into Singapore Schooling

With top rankings in PISA and TIMMS, Singapore is the envy of many schooling systems around the world. Whilst ICT is just one of a range of factors that affect learning outcomes, it is a key tool for meeting at least two of the four key desired outcomes of the Singapore schooling system – for all students to become self-directed and collaborative learners.

Singapore was one of the first countries in the world to have a national strategy for ICT in Schools. A succession of well-planned, funded and executed programmes focussing initially on infrastructure and training, and more recently focussing on self-directed learning – has driven effective use of ICT. For details of Singapore’s main ICT projects, see http://wp.me/P16Iyp-46

A great showcase for the effectiveness of this investment is Crescent Girls’ School, a member of the “Future School” programme, and recently awarded the status of Mentor School by Microsoft. Crescent also hosted the CRADLE conference on 1st – 3rd August.

On the surface, Crescent could be any other Secondary School, but a quick glance at the trophy cabinet next to the reception makes it clear that this school is totally committed to high performance. Crescent’s aim is to be at the forefront of harnessing technology to enhance learning outcomes. ICT is used extensively in both delivery and assessment and the school’s 1300 students each have their own Tablet PC. The goal of using ICT is to give students a degree of choice over what they learn and how they learn.

The students engage in a wide range of activities including 2D, 3D animation and robotics; multimedia production; photo-shooting and editing; and development and use of e-books. Particularly impressive is the use of Tablet PCs’ “inking” features for a range of activities including highly impressive manga artwork.

Crescent is moving towards project based learning with a series of “Integrated Secondary Curricula” programmes.

Virtual Reality is used at the school too. For example, in Geography, students experience immersive content showing erosion in a river – a concept that is much easier to grasp when viewing 3d animated rocks being swept along by the current from the perspective of the river bed.

Particularly impressive at Crescent is the way that teachers engage in the content creation process. For example, a complete suite of applications and content have been developed for the Tablet PC that not only exploits the pen and inking technologies but also address a range of different learning styles.

Taking this process further, teachers specified collaborative games to take advantage of the MultiTouch features in Windows 7 and HueLabs’ “Heumi” multitouch (Surface) devices. This means that students can now engage in a wide range of collaborative learning experiences, such as learning to write Chinese. As impressive as the technology itself is the way in which the room in which the Heumi devices are deployed. Here, in the “iCove”, strong colour coding of the devices and the seating, enable teachers to group learners according to their learning objectives.

More recently the school has introduced a biometric system that not only automatically records the students as present but takes their temperatures as they come into the school in the morning, enabling their health to be monitored.

The infrastructure that sits behind Crescent’s ICT provision is highly impressive. The infrastructure foundation is a Campus-wide wireless network with 100 Mbps Broadband. Tablet PCs are stored in steel lockers, and batteries are charged at charging stations.

Approximately 30 on-premises servers perform a range of essential back-end functions from authentication to content management. The Server infrastructure – based on a Microsoft platform – supports a rich tapestry of capabilities including:

  • i-Connect Learning Space – a role based portal for organising student’s learning and activities
  • Pearson’s Write to Learn – a system that helps “automate” the marking of essays
  • HeuX – Huelabs Classroom Management System – with lesson management, digital book library, real-time Communication and Collaboration include notes-sharing and social media; screen monitoring and broadcasting; Presence awareness; attendance; Video Conferencing
  • i-Media – content management system.
  • Interactive books

These solutions are supported by Windows Server; SQL Server; Microsoft SharePoint Portal Server; System Center; Live Communications Manager; Hyper-V and Live@Edu. Much of the learning that takes place at Crescent happens after school hours, and the Virtual Private Network enables students to have 24×7 access. It’s not uncommon to see the portal being used by students at home at 2.00AM.

Singapore schools benefit from very high quality teachers (only 10% of applicants get admitted into teacher training). This is reflected in the staff at Crescent. Principal, Mrs Eugenia Lim, supported by Chief Technology Architect for Learning, Mr Lee Boon Keng, have a highly structured and team orientated approach, underpinned by a strong focus on continuous professional development.

Every hour, the chimes of Big Ben ring across the school signifying a change of lesson. As with Cornwallis School in Kent in the UK, I was totally inspired by what I saw at Crescent but couldn’t help wondering whether a shift from time-based to a performance-based model would better fit such a technology rich approach to learning. Nonetheless, Crescent’s use of ICT is without doubt world leading.

Whilst Crescent Girls’ School is clearly a leader amongst leaders, it’s far from unique in Singapore in the way in which it innovates with technology. Singapore schools benefit from long term, consistent policy and investment in ICT in schooling. With their structured approaches, strong management and deep understanding of how ICT can make learning more effective, Singapore schools look set to continue to show the world how it’s done.

Fortunately for us all, Crescent Girls’ School are “giving back” by encouraging people to visit the school – both physically and virtually.

Thanks to Eugenia Lim, Lee Boon Keng and all the staff and students at Crescent Girl’s School.

CRADLE Conference, Singapore

On August 1st I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to deliver the Keynote at the CRADLE conference in Singapore.

The presentation contained a mix of material contained in “Schooling at the Speed of Thought” and some of the articles in this blog, especially the Transformation Phase article. Here’s the key points:

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Singapore was one of the first countries in the world to have a national strategy to roll out ICT to all schools. Key challenges addressed in this initiative are to:

  • Prepare students to meet the challenges of the 21st Century
  • Bring about improved learning and increased engagement through the use of ICT
  • Enable more self-directed learning

In summary, the challenge is to make schooling in Singapore even more effective through the use of ICT.

To address this, we need to ask three key questions:

1. How can software accelerate the learning process?

Computers in learning are increasingly being used as tools for creativity rather than as machines to deliver the curriculum. So, with a proliferation of new hardware and software developments, what new creative options are there for learning? How can software help to personalise the learning experience and open up completely new learning opportunities?

2. How can software be used to make better decisions?

How can schooling information and data be leveraged to get maximum impact from precious resources; what do we mean by “intelligent intervention” and why it is so important; how can we empower all stakeholders with information; and how do we drive alignment and performance towards strategic goals?

3. How can Cloud Computing be exploited to cheaply deliver massive-scale, high-quality learning solutions?

We don’t normally expect a school to generate its own electricity – but we have expected our education institutions to be experts at running their own “IT Power Stations”. How can Cloud Computing change this?

With the advent of Cloud Computing, also comes the realistic prospect of providing anytime anywhere learning for all. So how can massive, cheap, and highly available computing services be combined with a range of access technologies and high quality learning content to open up learning opportunities to all citizens of Singapore – and especially those who are in the greatest need of it?

Conclusion

With highly developed infrastructure, talent and innovation, Singapore is in a great position to exploit technology even further. The concluding part of this presentation asked what world-leading innovations and software solutions can be leveraged in Singapore and how we can architect “anytime anywhere learning for all?

For a copy of the presentation please go to: http://bit.ly/pRZUMJ

Thanks to my colleages in Singapore – Horng Shya Chua; Jason Trump; Gerald Tan; Puay San Ng; Eugenia Lim, Lee Boon Keng and the staff and students at Crescent Girls’ School. Thanks also to all those who attended the CRADLE event.

The Transformed Phase

This is the fourth and final article on the phases of transformation that schooling systems go through. The first was “Taking the First Steps”, and this phase is characterized by access. The second, Taking the Next Steps – The ‘Enhanced’ Phase, is where technology is used to enhance existing processes. The third -“The Strategic Phase” – is characterized by using technology to meet strategic goals and help determine what those goals should be.

Feedback that readers have kindly sent me had prompted me to adjust the overall maturity framework so each of the main characteristics of each phase now look like this:

Four Stages of Schooling System Maturity

Whilst the three preceding phases were about applying technology to schools as they currently are, the Transformed Phase is about fundamentally changing the nature of schooling itself.

Using ICT to transform schooling allows us to ask questions such as “where is school”, “how do we deliver personalised and engaging learning experiences”, and “how can we develop highly effective and efficient schooling systems”?

Whilst transformation will mean many different things to many different people, there are three main ingredients to a transformed schooling system.

The first is providing anytime, anywhere learning for all citizens. The second is providing highly personalised experiences to all learners. The third is about building a culture of high performance throughout the entire schooling system.

Anytime Anywhere Learning For All

The first principle in transforming schooling is to redefine its “customer” base. At present, schooling reaches learners between the ages of 5 to 18, within narrowly defined geographic boundaries, and for around 18% of the year only. Now, there is a significant opportunity to deliver learning services to entire populations at relatively low costs. This is because the cost of digital content and software only marginally increases with the number of users, and because the cost of delivering e-learning services at massive scale through Cloud computing is increasingly cheap and getting cheaper.

To date we have thought about learning in the physical sense of going to a place called a school. Going forward, schools will facilitate learning less as a physical experience and more as one that can take place across different locations. Increasingly, we can expect the process of schooling to become less dependent on learners regularly attending a single campus over a long period of time.

Schooling will spread out of the physical confines of the school campus, and into ‘found space’ such as offices; high street locations; apartments; and even the homes of children.

The youngest learners need somewhere near their own home where they can physically go to access learning facilities; to learn with other groups of learners and access richer materials than those which they have in their own home. Older learners need learning spaces to interact with their tutors, counsellors and learning managers, but also need to learn in environments that are appropriate to their learning tasks. For example, a specialist science learning module – say optics, for example – may well be based in a traditional (campus) school laboratory, but equally there could be a company in the local community specialising in optics that would be willing for students to learn at their facilities.

In this model, there is still room for the traditional “Campus School”, but as a social, intellectual and resource hub – a place for those specialist learning facilities which might not be available in the local community such as laboratories, workshops, libraries, art studios and gymnasia. The Campus School is also a place from which to organise and manage learning and produce learning content.

The Campus School of the future will be a community resource; it will be open for 52 weeks a year, 7 days a week from 7.30 am (with breakfast clubs, computer clubs, gym facilities etc.), and will stay open until 10.00 pm (with after school clubs, homework clubs, sports facilities, cyber cafes etc). Its pupils will be aged 1 to 100. The four walls of a classroom/school will be replaced with online classrooms/schools/homes, ensuring access to technology and information for all.

Many university towns reflect this approach, where university learning facilities are embedded in the local community. Schooling is catching up. In “First Steps” we’ve already seen the ‘Kiosk’ model in India, where learning is simply put out onto the street to be consumed by self-organising groups of children. On the other side of the world, in New Zealand, Discovery Learning has schooling facilities deeply embedded in the community with locations in shopping malls and central business districts. Here, “school” isn’t a building and children are given “trust licences” to learn where they need to in the local community.

In this model, there is a vast spectrum of types of learning spaces, from traditional classrooms to cyber cafes, each type able to facilitate different levels of collaboration and self-directed learning.

Learning Spaces (C/O lookred)

New types of learning spaces will facilitate a much wider spectrum of learning methods too:

Technology Enabled Learning Styles. C/O lookred

Where Is School?

“Anytime Anywhere Learning for All” means exactly that. Every citizen, anywhere, able to access organised learning.  Not everyone will need to, or be able to, attend school in order to receive schooling services, which poses the question “where is school?” In the transformed schooling model, schooling is embedded deeply into the local community in the following way.

Anytime Anywhere Learning for All

1. Community Learning Spaces

Community Learning Spaces are places in which formal, organised schooling takes place for school age learners, that are not within the walls of the traditional Campus School. These spaces are, in effect, “franchises” of the Campus School, and firmly embedded into the Campus School’s systems. Learners in Community Learning Spaces have managed internet access, and plug their personal learning devices straight into e-Learning Service. Even the youngest children can learn with ICT – e.g. games based learning, immersive environments, interactive whiteboards and programmable toys. Learning to write with a Tablet PC helps young children to acquire basic skills long before they can type or use a mouse.

Learners are registered as members of the Connected Learning Community and the process of data collection begins. Managed learning pathways and dynamic timetables ensure that students work on the tasks that are most appropriate for their stage of learning. A spectrum of creativity, productivity and learning tools ensure that the optimal blend of computer and teacher mediated learning takes place. The ICT infrastructure comprises wireless network, workstations, display, scanners. Infrastructure and Core Sofware Services mean that computers joining the wireless network are managed via a Virtual Private Network. Users and devices are authenticated, and policies – especially security and filtering policies – are imposed.

Teachers, assistants and other responsible adults – connected to peers and experts through the technology – directly support the learning process. Learners progress through the curriculum as quickly as their learning performance permits, and move to different learning spaces when appropriate. Staff and learners alike access the Connected Learning Community portal to get information, content and tools. Learners can see their assignments, feedback, learning materials and web links from a single site, and populate an e-portfolio with their work. Community Learning Spaces are extensions of
the Campus School, and both staff and learners will spend some time at there.

2. Campus School

The Campus School acts as a central point for organising, managing and creating Anytime Anywhere Learning in the community. The Campus School in effect “franchises” learning operations in Community Learning Spaces, so ICT is used to drive alignment; manage performance; and ensure high quality, paperless administrative processes. Live communications ensure that expertise within and beyond the Campus School can be “piped” into the Community Learning Spaces (CLS) on demand.

The IT Infrastructure of the CLSs are supplied as a service from the Campus School.

Learners – of all ages – visit the Campus School to use specialist facilities and IT equipment that are unavailable in the Community Learning Spaces. Whilst learners bring their personal learning devices into the campus, the site has a proliferation of multi-touch interactive displays and these enable learners to access a vast array of information and content from anywhere on the site.

In the Schooling Enterprise Architecture model, Campus Schools are branch sites from the Local Education Authority hubs and as such receive the full range of Schooling Enterprise Services for Student Relationship Management, intelligent intervention, performance management, planning, operations and administration.

A master database of resources – people, spaces, equipment and content – enables the Campus School to dynamically timetable learners so their precise learning needs can be met immediately. Predictive analysis of learning pathways enables the system to book or purchase resources well in advance.

Underpinning the IT infrastructure at the school and its “franchises” is a set of Core Software Services including Security, Identity, Comms & Collab, System Management and Directory services. Services are either delivered through on-premises servers or relayed from data centres, private and public clouds “upstream” at LEA and/or MoE levels.

3. Local Education Authority

As a Hub in the Schooling Enterprise Architecture, the Local Education Authority’s main role is to deliver Schooling Enterprise Services to Campus Schools. Their managerial functions, facilitated by ICT, are to drive accountability, alignment and performance.

Another key role is to run large scale access programmes. Using aggregated buying power and regional connections the LEA is in an ideal position to acquire devices, infrastructure components and support for the best price-to-quality ratio. As a Hub for the MoE, LEAs should be able to ‘enforce’ MoE mandates on standards, quality and Service Level Agreements.

The LEA can also be an aggregation point for data held on children by different authorities – health, social care, the police and education – to be aggregated to give a secure ‘big picture’ on children,
particularly those who may be at risk.

4. Workplace

Anytime anywhere learning for all means delivering learning experiences to all, including those in work. Online vocational courses are available through the Connected Learning Community portal. Workplaces offer valuable learning opportunities to learners of all ages, especially where specialised equipment is beyond the financial reach of the Campus School. The workplace can also be used to house Community Learning Spaces. Being part of the Connected Learning Community Portal; local businesses can have direct dialogue with – and receive relevant learning services from – their local Campus School, FE College and University to better meet the learning needs of their organisations.

5. University

Universities offer a rich extension to the Campus School learning community by offering online access to lectures, experts and learning resources. Within the Anytime anywhere learning model, Higher Education is made available to students who are ready to take learning modules offered by the University – virtually or otherwise.

6. Off-Site Learning Environments

With community-wide Wi-Fi coverage, homes, cyber cafés, hospitals, and recreation areas can all be turned into learning environments.

Personalised Learning

Transformed schooling organises the learning around the individual, not the other way around.

Learning, by definition, is personal—no one else can learn for you. People learn different things at different speeds and in different ways. When students walk into a learning space, they bring very different sets of attributes, abilities, knowledge, skills, understandings and attitudes with them.

Over recent years, the concept of personalising learning has gained considerable ground.

From a technical perspective, personalising learning is about:

  • Delivering an extended range of opportunities to learn – individually and collaboratively
  • Delivering content that addresses precise learning needs
  • Managing learning pathways

Extending Opportunities to Learn

The wider and deeper the choice of content, the more personalised the learning experience can be. When providing learning to an entire community, the type of learning experience consumed will range from informal learning to structured and accredited courses.

Extended Learning Opportunities for All

With a wide and deep supply of learning content, learners can have a wide choice of learning experiences, modalities, pathways and assessments. For example, being able to pick from a menu of languages to learn is a more personalised experience than just having one to choose from. To be able to choose what level to study a language at – from beginner to advanced – again adds to the degree of personalisation.

Personalised learning is not about learning in isolation, however.  It is quite the opposite in, fact.  Learning is a social activity and personalising the learning experience is to do with providing opportunities to collaborate as well as to learn independently. A learning task that has been personalised for somebody could involve them working in a team, and part of the assessment could be how well they have managed to collaborate with other people. Therefore, another technical requirement here is to provide Communication and Collaboration tools – the more sophisticated these tools, the
greater the possible degree of personalisation.

Addressing Precise Learning Needs

Learners learn in completely different ways, and at different rates depending on prior knowledge and their learning styles. Therefore personalised learning systems need to deliver content so that different learning styles are addressed and different learning speeds are catered for. For example, in learning about the skeleton of dinosaurs, one learner might learn best by listening to a recording, another through looking at pictures, another by using a Tablet PC to kinaesthetically piece together the bones with a stylus.

From a technical point this means that content needs to be packaged so that learners can access it through multiple learning modes. Increasingly there will be automated agents that scour the internet and deliver content that precisely matches learning needs.

The relative length of time that it takes a learner to acquire the expected learning in each module shouldn’t matter as the e-learning services will adjust the personal learning pathway that the learner takes accordingly.

Managing Personal Learning Pathways

The extent to which a learning task has been personalised is a function of the extent to which that individual’s prior knowledge, skills, preferred learning styles, and attitudes have been taken into account when assigning the task.

In this model, learners are constantly assessed as they move through the learning programme, and the pathways that they take continuously evolve as they work their way through. This relies on feedback loops and systems which can dynamically adapt to the twists and turns of the learning process, and set challenging learning goals and tasks. This is essentially about using “business logic” which in turn uses data to decide what students need to learn next and manage the learning process.

Setting the learning task automatically is something that intelligent tutoring systems and learning management systems such as “Success Maker” have been doing for many years. However, if completing the learning task needs more than just a computer, managing the process dynamically becomes complicated.

This is where dynamic timetabling comes in. Dynamic timetabling starts with the premise that learning should be organised on a ‘performance’ as opposed to a ‘time’ basis (see Schooling at the Speed of Thought for more details). The core idea is that dynamic timetabling matches the optimal learning experience for a learner to the resources needed to deliver it. For example, if the learner has  mastered the concept of soil erosion in Geography, the next task may be to apply that learning in a practical experiment. This involves working with others who are at the same learning stage, using equipment, a physical space and teacher/assistant supervision. Ideally, the dynamic timetabling system will have predicted when these resources will be needed, organised them ahead of schedule and matched the learner to what they need to complete the next task.

Dynamic Timetabling

Today, this can be at least partially accomplished through resource scheduling within CRM.

Once the learning task is completed, a record of achievement builds in the learner’s e-portfolio.

Culture of Performance

In the Transformed Phase the entire schooling system is working at optimum efficiency and effectiveness – what Joey Fitts and Bruno Aziza (Driving Business Performance, 2008) call a “Culture of Performance”. To get to this stage schooling systems will have gone through the following stages:

  • First Steps: Increasing visibility
  • Enhanced: Moving beyond gut feel, and planning for success
  • Strategic: Executing on strategy

A culture of performance is goal orientated; results are measured and members of the Connected Learning Community are competitive in a constructive way. A culture of performance is
about transparency, predictability, and the ability to adapt to changing conditions. With capabilities to monitor, analyse, and plan, performance orientated organisations can create a culture where information is a prized asset, aligned execution is the norm, and accountability is embedded.

From a learner’s perspective, this is about friction-free administration regarding courses, options and assessments. It’s about micro payments, and cashless vending, and not having to repeatedly enter the same basic data for silo’d administrative processes. It’s also about the seamless escalations of issues – such as requests for special support.

From a teacher’s perspective this is about doing the lowest possible levels of administrative tasks, confident in the knowledge that the system is dealing with the administrative mechanics of running the schooling operations. For those administrative tasks that teacher have to do, reporting, administration, productivity and communication & collaboration tools ensure that the tasks are efficiently executed and add real value to the organisation.

Administrators and managers get the benefit of using processes that have been integrated. For example, when new staff join the organisation, background checks, basic data collection, terms and conditions, salary and on-boarding systems all work together as a single function, crossing organisational boundaries automatically. When strategy is set at the highest organisational level, this cascades down automatically into the objective setting process, ensuring organisational alignment. Performance management tools linked to in-depth data about learner performance ensure that teaching staff are rewarded fairly. Business intelligence is available to provide deep insights into operations to ensure that resources are being used to maximum effect.

Bringing it All Together

The key difference between a transformed schooling system and any of the other phases is the degree to which the entire system is architected around the student.

Learner at the Centre

The Transformed schooling system will integrate a spectrum of services and processes, many which would have been in silos before the transformation process, around the student. The result of this is that the student experiences a range of highly individualised services, delivered by a high performance, highly connected, lean, efficient and cost effective schooling system.

Getting to Transformed schooling is a long journey. In most countries there will be significant inertia from legacy systems. Paradoxically, one of the drivers for transformation is diminishing budgets. In the United States, for example, there is a strong surge towards anytime anywhere, personalised learning for all – delivered from outside the formal schooling system, driven by collapsing schooling budgets and widespread dissatisfaction with the current system.

Ultimately, the point of investing in transforming a schooling system is to get an order-of-magnitude improvement in return on education budget investment, and this cannot be done in isolation. The whole enterprise of transforming schooling needs to be organised within the framework of a Schooling Enterprise Architecture, as described in detail in Schooling at the Speed of Thought.

Schooling Enterprise Architecture

Focusing on the “IT Platform Architecture”, the Transformed phase has 5 interconnected layers:

Tranformed phase - five layer Schooling Enterprise Technology Architecture

And finally, across each layer are the following key technology levers:

Schooling Enterprise Technical Concept Architecture - Transformation Phase

This is the last in this series of articles on the phases through which schooling systems evolve, but watch this space for related articles. All comments, feedback, questions and suggestions for articles will be very welcomed.

Thanks to Matthew Woodruff and Chris Poole from lookred for contributions to this article.

Transforming Schooling in Old Buildings – “New Wine in Old Bottles”

A question that I get asked constantly is “how do we implement change in ordinary ‘factory schooling’ buildings”? Last week I was fortunate enough to be able to visit the Cornwallis Academy in Kent in the UK where they are part way through transforming out of the factory schooling model into something much more effective.

Whilst, clearly, there are significant differences between schooling systems in the UK and in other parts of the world, there are many lessons from Cornwallis that are applicable in most countries.

Cornwallis Academy is a large mixed secondary school with 1600 students and is part of a consortium of schools called Future Schools Trust, headed by Chris Gerry.

Results in Cornwallis have improved 16% since 2008 – but the ambitions of Chris, David Simons (Cornwallis’ Principal) and the staff go way beyond getting good academic qualifications. The aim of Cornwallis Academy is for their students to grow up to be happy, fulfilled citizens who can support themselves and contribute to society.

The main drivers for change at Cornwallis were:

  • Developing a work model for students and staff that is representative of the world outside the school
  • Building a team model to share good teaching practice rather than the traditional model of the ‘lonely ‘artisan’ teacher’ 
  • Developing a wider skill set such as social and 21st century skills that are relevant in modern world

These were all built around a relationship driven culture where pupils are part of the learning experience – not just recipients with the teachers in total command of the learning.

‘Attainment’ (i.e. learning performance) and ‘Wellbeing’ are the two main agendas that are used to ensure that students are successful.

  • The ‘Attainment’ agenda aims for 100% pass rate in examinations
  • The ‘Wellbeing’ agenda focuses on emotional intelligence and risk reduction, and recognises that social development helps drive academic success 

An economic model underpins management decisions across the Future Schools Trust consortium. In other words, managing costs and maximising effectiveness of spend are the key management drivers. Through the lense of economics, management at Cornwallis pull three main levers simultaneously:

People

A key aim is to develop more creative teachers through a more modern work environment that breaks the link with traditional approaches and attitudes.

Teachers are required to work in small groups and have choices about how they manage their work.

The school’s management can provide detailed guidance to teachers within this environment if they need to.

They are designing systems that feedback information on performance to both pupils and teachers, and compare performance with averages. Exposing the data in an open way provides “nudges” to performance. There is a focus on improving lesson quality and continuously collecting data on how well pupils are learning.

The school runs a 6 weekly reporting schedule that includes reporting on the development of “soft skills”.  Teaching teams are continuously collecting and reporting lesson data.

Space

Much work has been done to remodel learning spaces within existing buildings and within constrained budgets. Much of this has involved knocking down walls to create bigger spaces and painting – low-budget activities. The aims were to:

  • Impact mood positively
  • Foster group work
  • Provide more space than conventional classrooms
  • Allow some choice of work space
  • Embed technology

The Future Schools Trust has pioneered a new kind of learning space called the “Learning Plaza” – a large space created from knocking down walls between traditional classrooms, or using an existing large space such as an assembly hall.

 

This space was once four separate classrooms. Knocking down walls forces a transformation at relatively low cost.

According to Gerald Haigh,  a UK Education Journalist, “if we believe that transformation involves providing children with a wide range of learning opportunities, among which sitting still and listening to the teacher is one of the least important, then the concept of the ‘Learning Plaza’ immediately looks like an entirely logical solution.

There, children can consult more than one teacher. Teachers can consult each other. Children can work in groups—of any size from two to ninety—or independently, and with their technology to hand.

The figures show that the children who use the Learning Plazas are less likely to be absent from school, and much less likely to be excluded for misbehaviour”.

The Learning Plaza concept – large open spaces, and lots of technology, give staff and students room for creativity and collaboration

A key Change Management principle is “Test Bed Areas”, and through trialling Learning Plazas concept they found that it is 20% cheaper to build schools based on the plaza concept – for a start, there is less brick and mortar going into a new-build school using this approach.

Technology

At Cornwallis, they are not afraid to take the best ideas from the world of business, so they make great use of “Business Intelligence” – BI. This allows them to operate a model driven by measurement.  

Working closely with Microsoft partner lookred, they pioneered the use of CRM (SRM) and predictive analytics to manage student relationships.     

22 different risk areas are identified, and each student has an individual risk profile relating to likely success both at school and beyond. This enables teaching staff to make data-driven interventions, and manage risk. The system is ‘intelligent’ – over time it ‘learns’ which approaches have been most successful. The interventions are informed by the consortium’s work with Yale University on ‘life space’ which looks at how children make life choices and how they might influence these.

Underpinning this, Management Information Systems provide real-time information on how the school is performing.

Technology is used extensively in teaching and learning, with most of the curriculum online now and the intent to have it all online by the start of the 2011-2012 school year. Students and staff have ubiquitous access to devices, and Cornwallis was one of the first schools in the UK to make extensive use of Tablet PCs. The school also runs a “Connected Learning Community” through a Learning Gateway (SharePoint) portal, which provides all stakeholders a unified platform for communication and collaboration.

Students and staff make extensive use of technology, including a Learning Gateway portal

This smart use of technology leads to potential savings across a range of public sector services including welfare, health and law enforcement.

Looking to the Future

 

“Breaking the mould” – where there once were classrooms, there’s now a well used informal learning space, complete with coffee shop

Cornwallis will be moving into a new building in September 2011, with all the advantages of having first trialled new approaches successfully.

In recognition of the lessons that can be learned from the Cornwallis experience, this summer they will host 180 leaders from China who will be there to learn how to bring about transformational change at scale.

Key Lessons from Cornwallis

  1. Economics underpins everything. Financial autonomy is essential.
  2. Leadership training is crucial. You can have all the physical assets you like, but without clear goals and solid management nothing will happen.
  3. Create momentum, and advance on all three fronts – people, space and technology – aggressively and in parallel.
  4. Invest in Test Bed Areas – don’t implement wide scale reform without first trialling it. Start with transforming the model for a single year group.
  5. Focus on the end-user experience. It’s all about building engaging learning experiences around the student, not forcing students to fit the factory model.  

Conclusions

The result of the new approaches at Cornwallis is that learning has speeded up, to the point that the “key stages” – the time taken to progress from one segment of the UK National Curriculum to the next – can be accelerated. The staff at Cornwallis believe that their students could complete Key Stage 3 in 2 years instead of 3; external examinations (GCSE) in 1 year instead of 2; and even university courses in Year 13.  

Whilst I’m totally inspired by what I saw at Cornwallis, I think there is one crucial  piece missing from the jigsaw puzzle – a full shift from a time-based to a performance-based model. This approach is brilliantly articulated by Richard DeLorenzo from the Reinventing Schools Coalition in his book “Delivering on the Promise, and underpins the approach taken by Kunskapsskolan schools. To do this at scale will require “dynamic timetabling”, something that a number of organisations are keen to develop.

Saying that, Cornwallis offer a solid, practical and well thought through model for anyone wishing to make transformational change within hard resource and environmental constraints. What’s more, they generously share their “secret sauce” for the benefit of the wider community.

A Principal for whom I once worked told me that the best way to eat an elephant is “one chunk at a time”. Cornwallis has shown that it’s better to eat 3 chunks  – people, spaces and technology – simultaneously.

Thanks to Chris Gerry; David Simons; Claire Thompson; the staff and students at Cornwallis; Chris Poole and Matthew Woodruff of lookred; Andrew Wild of Manchester City Council; and to my Russian and CEE colleagues, Igor Balandin; Anton Shulzhenko; Alexander Pavlov and Teo Milev, who prompted the visit.

SeeChange Plans

Strategic plans to improve schools are crucial, however the vast amount of data can make this process time consuming and ineffective. In the US, Mariner’s SeeChange™ Plans allows teachers and managers to turn data into insights to drive school improvement.

Teachers and administrators can easily access the relevant data, ask the relevant questions and measure outcomes. SeeChange™ Plans asists schools in Strategic planning and School Improvement Planning, establishing a data driven environment. The tool is “designed specifically for teachers and mangers to align district strategic goals with individual school improvement plans and provide a clear path to improving district effectiveness and accountability.”

SeeChange is built on Microsoft SQL and uses familiar tools such as SharePoint and Excel.

Mariner is currently organizing a webinar on March 17, 2011 @ 1pm eastern time – Click here to register.  Mariner’s SeeChange Community module, enables all of the school district stakeholders to communicate and collaborate to improve student achievement. Through a website, integrated into the district’s website,  superintendents can communicate their own district’s goals. 

View the video for more details.

Visit Mariner’s website, www.mariner-usa.com/SeeChange to learn about the entire SeeChange Performance Management System including archives of previous webinars on SeeChange Instruction, the principal and teacher portal and SeeChange Data Foundation, the technology behind the tool suite.

Thanks to Sally Phillips

Bad ICT practice – key things to avoid

Michael Trucano from the World Bank highlights some bad Education ICT practice:

  • Dump hardware in schools, hope for magic to happen
  • Design for OECD learning environments, implement elsewhere
  • Think about educational content only after you have rolled out your hardware
  • Assume you can just import content from somewhere else
  • Don’t monitor, don’t evaluate
  • Make a big bet on an unproven technology (especially one based on a closed/proprietary standard) or single vendor, don’t plan for how to avoid ‘lock-in
  • Don’t think about (or acknowledge) total cost of ownership/operation issues or calculations
  • Assume away equity issues
  • Don’t train your teachers (nor your school headmasters, for that matter)

http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/worst-practice