This week has been a time for farewells, as senior classes go off to their exams.
Farewell to the Upper Sixth, whose protests that A-level ICT had hamstrung their UCAS admissions fell on the deaf ears of school management. Farewell to those who have applied to, and been rejected from, certain courses because of the wrong A-level choices. For the record, I have them honest guidance and was scolded for it, because I "Undermined the school".
Farewell to the Lower Sixth, who have been asking since before this time last year for A-level Computing instead of ICT. Thank you for being part of the programming club, set up to let your personal statement undo the damage ICT does on your UCAS form.
Farewell to the Fifth Form, who would have given me two A-level Computing classes if the subject had been offered. Instead, six have opted for ICT. Thank you for your honesty and thank you for contacting the Head. Thank you for having your parents write to the Governors. Farewell to those who are going to the other side of town to do A-level Computing next year and thank you for asking me to support your application. Thank you for telling the Third Form that ICT is largely pointless, but it's an easy pass and thank you for telling them they'll have a great teacher. My promise of taking you all out for dinner if you all get an A remains, and I fully expect to be out of pocket.
Farewell to those who, in the absence of Computer Science, have chosen Physics, Chemistry, Music, French and Geography. Maybe you will remember your promise to apply to a Computing degree course. However, you may be dazzled by those other subjects over the next two years. Maybe you will remember my input into your lives.
Farewell, though they do not know it yet, to the Fourth Form. Thank you for doing the research on GCSE Computer Science yourselves and asking - nay, pleading - management to let me switch the course. Thank you for offering to buy the books yourself, if need-be. Thank you for bluntly pointing out that "PowerPoint is boring, pointless and cannot get us a job. Programming is fun, interesting and WILL get us a job."
Farewell to the Third Form, who promised me three classes doing GCSE Computer Science and instead were offered "ICT, because it meets the needs of our students." Thank you for coming to programming club and thank you for the petition, though to this day I have no idea if it ever got to the Head's desk.
Farewell to the Second Form, who asked for "Something more interesting than PowerPoint" and got it. You love Scratch, I love Scratch. Not everyone does and I am sorry that I had to force some mind-numbing dross on you as well. Why am I raising your enthusiasm for a subject that I know they will not allow me to deliver?
Farewell to the First Form. I am truly sorry we had to wade through PowerPoint and Word and other mind-numbing, spirit-crushing stupidity that I did not choose and that is as useful an educational experience as sharpening pencils, yet again. Thank you for gate-crashing programming club and thank you for asking for "interesting stuff."
Farewell to those in school management who killed my subject and utterly refuse to see that ICT is educationally null and void. Farewell to those who over-rule the careers department in their obsession to purge the world of anything they do nit understand.
Farewell to CCEA, who butchered Computing and left this empty shell of ICT in its place. Farewell to those in CCEA who say teachers do not have a problem with ICT and tell us, as individuals, that we are the only person with a problem. Farewell to those who contrived puerile and pointless Key Stage 3 ICT. Farewell to those in CCEA whose short-term thinking did unthinkable damage to the NI economy. The IT sector in NI is growing - but has hundreds of vacant jobs. Just think where we would be if CCEA gave even the vaguest hint of encouragement to those who want to teach the skills this sector is founded on.
Farewell to C2k who seem to be finally getting it right. Yes, the old version has problems but maybe you would have listened to the "We need programming tools" argument sooner if CCEA had raised more of a fuss?
And farewell to this blog. It started as a one-year recollection of my attempt to get GCSE and A-level Computer Science back on the curriculum. I was convinced management would go for it but, as happens each year, they give me a hearing and then meet behind closed doors to decide that the thinking skills of Computer Science are not as useful as the bland awfulness of ICT.
So, I have reached the end of the road here. Positively, there are tons of jobs in teaching Computing in GB as well as possibilities to go into the industry here. I have stopped taking no for an answer and shall be voting with my feet.
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Saturday, 5 May 2012
The new C2k - my thoughts
The main problem with the old C2k was that it was half-baked when released to schools. Applications were limited, restrictions were over-the-top and a lot of people (myself included) very quickly decided we did not like it. Nomatter what they did, those of us who felt C2k had sent ICT and Computer Science provision in schools backwards by a decades were never going to be happy.
Why the problems? Too many parties involved in providing services (with buck-passing when anything went wrong); and, lack of consultation.
Times have changed though and Northgate have taken over. They do a lot of this sort of thing and my first reaction at the recent C2k Roadshow was that these people want to get it right. They are clearly fed up with complaints about the current system, which they inherited. They are fed up being responsible for something that is antiquated. They really want this to work.
They have promised us a proper joined-up system. One log-in for the MIS and all the services that go with it. They have promised us a properly thought-through VLE. They have promised us something that can be accessed from any modern platform.
Anyone I met, from C2k, seemed enthusiastic about bringing change and driving away the old RM System. For fans of A-level ICT, they will be using a phased implementation. i.e. in pieces, one at a time. They are also aware of the potential for it to go horribly wrong and have planned for this. A year from now, Windows Server will be replaced by Novell. Desktop apps will run inside a browser environment. Local managers will have a much easier time.
This represents a massive step-forward for the use of ICT in schools. Whether at home, or in school, and regardless of device, students get an identical experience. However, I am concerned that Computer Science is regarded as a small part of the problem and that there is no word on which software development tools will be supported. Yes, CS represents a small part of the entire curriculum - but, it is a vital part. There is no point rolling out a shiny new system with all sorts of fancy features if we cannot teach students how the thing actually functions. If we simply say, "here it is, use it, don't ask questions", we risk killing their inquisitiveness. In fairness to the Northgate people, they do acknowledge that something needs done in the software development area - so long as students are not going to create something that damages the network. Balancing the needs of network managers and a full education may be tricky though.
I posted a few questions I hoped to get answers to. Here are the answers, as far as I could tell:
Will schools be able to install whatever software they like?
Yes. A simplified process was promised and the current gripe of: schools request to C2k; C2k reply six months later, will be sorted out.
When schools install their own software, will a locally made MSI be easily deployed to all workstations?Applications will be installed per-user. No need to install <whatever> on every machine, just in case <whoever> is using it. Assign it to the user. User starts app. If it's not already on the machine, it 'streams' to it. I think this was non-techy speak for 'thin client', but most of the audience would not have understood thin clients!
Will students have access to the command-prompt?They acknowledge that CS/ICT students benefit from this, but that this poses a network security issue. I want students to access the command prompt - but the one-in-a-thousand chance that someone reformats the server hard drive or drops porn onto the VP's desktop is likely to happen somewhere across the entire setup. I got the impression that teachers needing this would be contacted, to discuss their needs and see what could be done. Not a "no", more a "we see your point and will think about how to do it properly".
Will we have a range of software development tools to choose from?
As before, security is an issue. However, they are open to this and will see what schools want and how to make it feasible.
Will we have a modern web-browser?
Yes. You need one to access all services! A range of browsers were discussed.
Will we have modern web-development software?
No answer*
Will Photoshop finally be updated?
No answer*
Will I be able to use non-Windows machines, with full network access?
Any machine with any fairly-common operating system will work. A definite thumbs-up was given to Windows XP+, Android, Mac OS X, iOS, Linux. Anything running a web-browser will have full access from home - including games consoles. However, some licensed software may only be available on-campus due to licensing constraints (to be worked on, though). The only issue may be Blackberries accessing wifi.
Will open standards (ODF) be supported?
Google Docs was application suite most talked about, with MS Office 365 for mail. So yes, open formats will be supported.
What machines will we be getting?
Nothing just yet, though desktops are scheduled for an update to Windows 7 wall-to-wall wifi will be in schools.
Will I be able to use non-Windows machines, with full network access?
Any machine with any fairly-common operating system will work. A definite thumbs-up was given to Windows XP+, Android, Mac OS X, iOS, Linux. Anything running a web-browser will have full access from home - including games consoles. However, some licensed software may only be available on-campus due to licensing constraints (to be worked on, though). The only issue may be Blackberries accessing wifi.
Will I have access to software development tools?
Any browser will work, as it will be a mostly browser-based solution. No info on what will be running in Sept. 2012, but the fact that Chrome, Firefox and Safari were all discussed is beneficial. Internet Explorer was also discussed, but I don't know anyone who makes a point of choosing it.
Will network filtering continue to be pedantic?
Improvements scheduled here, thanks to web-monitoring clients on the desktop. Offensive terms trigger a logging client that emails school management. It also traps images, based on flesh tones and curves! So, schools can relax access to a number of sites (blogs, social networks, YouTube, etc), safe in the knowledge that anyone looking for "porn" (or, p0rn, pr0n, prn, of other variations of spelling) will have the contents of their screen captured and emailed to the VP. Websense will continue to have a 'red' list, but at least schools will have less need to take a default position of blocking anything on the 'grey' list.
*A few issues, regarding software choice were not demonstrated. This may be because parts of the system are still a work-in-progress. So, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. For now!
Why the problems? Too many parties involved in providing services (with buck-passing when anything went wrong); and, lack of consultation.
Times have changed though and Northgate have taken over. They do a lot of this sort of thing and my first reaction at the recent C2k Roadshow was that these people want to get it right. They are clearly fed up with complaints about the current system, which they inherited. They are fed up being responsible for something that is antiquated. They really want this to work.
They have promised us a proper joined-up system. One log-in for the MIS and all the services that go with it. They have promised us a properly thought-through VLE. They have promised us something that can be accessed from any modern platform.
Anyone I met, from C2k, seemed enthusiastic about bringing change and driving away the old RM System. For fans of A-level ICT, they will be using a phased implementation. i.e. in pieces, one at a time. They are also aware of the potential for it to go horribly wrong and have planned for this. A year from now, Windows Server will be replaced by Novell. Desktop apps will run inside a browser environment. Local managers will have a much easier time.
This represents a massive step-forward for the use of ICT in schools. Whether at home, or in school, and regardless of device, students get an identical experience. However, I am concerned that Computer Science is regarded as a small part of the problem and that there is no word on which software development tools will be supported. Yes, CS represents a small part of the entire curriculum - but, it is a vital part. There is no point rolling out a shiny new system with all sorts of fancy features if we cannot teach students how the thing actually functions. If we simply say, "here it is, use it, don't ask questions", we risk killing their inquisitiveness. In fairness to the Northgate people, they do acknowledge that something needs done in the software development area - so long as students are not going to create something that damages the network. Balancing the needs of network managers and a full education may be tricky though.
I posted a few questions I hoped to get answers to. Here are the answers, as far as I could tell:
Will schools be able to install whatever software they like?
Yes. A simplified process was promised and the current gripe of: schools request to C2k; C2k reply six months later, will be sorted out.
When schools install their own software, will a locally made MSI be easily deployed to all workstations?Applications will be installed per-user. No need to install <whatever> on every machine, just in case <whoever> is using it. Assign it to the user. User starts app. If it's not already on the machine, it 'streams' to it. I think this was non-techy speak for 'thin client', but most of the audience would not have understood thin clients!
Will students have access to the command-prompt?They acknowledge that CS/ICT students benefit from this, but that this poses a network security issue. I want students to access the command prompt - but the one-in-a-thousand chance that someone reformats the server hard drive or drops porn onto the VP's desktop is likely to happen somewhere across the entire setup. I got the impression that teachers needing this would be contacted, to discuss their needs and see what could be done. Not a "no", more a "we see your point and will think about how to do it properly".
Will we have a range of software development tools to choose from?
As before, security is an issue. However, they are open to this and will see what schools want and how to make it feasible.
Will we have a modern web-browser?
Yes. You need one to access all services! A range of browsers were discussed.
Will we have modern web-development software?
No answer*
Will Photoshop finally be updated?
No answer*
Will I be able to use non-Windows machines, with full network access?
Any machine with any fairly-common operating system will work. A definite thumbs-up was given to Windows XP+, Android, Mac OS X, iOS, Linux. Anything running a web-browser will have full access from home - including games consoles. However, some licensed software may only be available on-campus due to licensing constraints (to be worked on, though). The only issue may be Blackberries accessing wifi.
Will open standards (ODF) be supported?
Google Docs was application suite most talked about, with MS Office 365 for mail. So yes, open formats will be supported.
What machines will we be getting?
Nothing just yet, though desktops are scheduled for an update to Windows 7 wall-to-wall wifi will be in schools.
Will I be able to use non-Windows machines, with full network access?
Any machine with any fairly-common operating system will work. A definite thumbs-up was given to Windows XP+, Android, Mac OS X, iOS, Linux. Anything running a web-browser will have full access from home - including games consoles. However, some licensed software may only be available on-campus due to licensing constraints (to be worked on, though). The only issue may be Blackberries accessing wifi.
Will I have access to software development tools?
Any browser will work, as it will be a mostly browser-based solution. No info on what will be running in Sept. 2012, but the fact that Chrome, Firefox and Safari were all discussed is beneficial. Internet Explorer was also discussed, but I don't know anyone who makes a point of choosing it.
Will network filtering continue to be pedantic?
Improvements scheduled here, thanks to web-monitoring clients on the desktop. Offensive terms trigger a logging client that emails school management. It also traps images, based on flesh tones and curves! So, schools can relax access to a number of sites (blogs, social networks, YouTube, etc), safe in the knowledge that anyone looking for "porn" (or, p0rn, pr0n, prn, of other variations of spelling) will have the contents of their screen captured and emailed to the VP. Websense will continue to have a 'red' list, but at least schools will have less need to take a default position of blocking anything on the 'grey' list.
*A few issues, regarding software choice were not demonstrated. This may be because parts of the system are still a work-in-progress. So, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. For now!
Monday, 30 April 2012
What I want from C2k
Sometime on Wednesday, my questions will be answered.
Here are those questions. I want a big YES to all of them.
Will schools be able to install whatever software they like?
I ask this, because in the initial C2k system, it was C2k who dictated software choice. Bad move. It made me, and others, hate the system from the outset. It hampered education.
When schools install their own software, will a locally made MSI be easily deployed to all workstations?
I ask, because at present anything going into C:\program files\localapps needs to be manually installed per-machine.
Will students have access to the command-prompt?
I ask, because GCSE and A-level ICT and Computer Science both expect students to know about it. It's a little difficult to teach if someone has decided the children are not allowed to play with it.
Will I have access to software development tools?
I ask, because the old C2k effectively killed the teaching of programming. We have Scratch now - but we need more than this for GCSE/A-level Computer Science.
Will we have a range of software development tools to choose from?
I ask, because if we are given Visual Studio and told to get on with it, I'll be hopping mad for being denied choice. If Java and Ruby are rolled out, anyone who likes Visual Studio will be furious. With the range of free, open-source, tools available, plus Microsoft's generous licensing terms to schools, there really is no excuse to not have: Visual Studio, Blue J, Greenfoot, IDLE (Python), Delphi (or the free incarnation, Lazarus), MySQL, GCC, Ruby.
Will we have a modern web-browser?
Let's face it, IE7 is so.... 2006. 6 years old in IT terms is ancient.
Will we have modern web-development software?
Because FrontPage is so.... 2003?!!!
Will Photoshop finally be updated?
...because the current version is ancient. However, it should stay for a while to give people a chance to migrate lesson plans. If it's too dear, Paint.NET or the GIMP could be put on for free.
Will I be able to use non-Windows machines, with full network access?
Because some teachers will want to show off Mac/Linux/Android and still have access to their data. I might want some machines to dual-boot.
Will open standards (ODF) be supported?
i.e. will LibreOffice, or anything else that fully implements ISO-approved standards for storing data, be available?
What machines will we be getting?
...and will I have a choice of operating system?
Will network filtering continue to be pedantic?
I ask, because I spotted an article recently that compared web-filtering in UK schools to China.
What would you like? Answers below!
Here are those questions. I want a big YES to all of them.
Will schools be able to install whatever software they like?
I ask this, because in the initial C2k system, it was C2k who dictated software choice. Bad move. It made me, and others, hate the system from the outset. It hampered education.
When schools install their own software, will a locally made MSI be easily deployed to all workstations?
I ask, because at present anything going into C:\program files\localapps needs to be manually installed per-machine.
Will students have access to the command-prompt?
I ask, because GCSE and A-level ICT and Computer Science both expect students to know about it. It's a little difficult to teach if someone has decided the children are not allowed to play with it.
Will I have access to software development tools?
I ask, because the old C2k effectively killed the teaching of programming. We have Scratch now - but we need more than this for GCSE/A-level Computer Science.
Will we have a range of software development tools to choose from?
I ask, because if we are given Visual Studio and told to get on with it, I'll be hopping mad for being denied choice. If Java and Ruby are rolled out, anyone who likes Visual Studio will be furious. With the range of free, open-source, tools available, plus Microsoft's generous licensing terms to schools, there really is no excuse to not have: Visual Studio, Blue J, Greenfoot, IDLE (Python), Delphi (or the free incarnation, Lazarus), MySQL, GCC, Ruby.
Will we have a modern web-browser?
Let's face it, IE7 is so.... 2006. 6 years old in IT terms is ancient.
Will we have modern web-development software?
Because FrontPage is so.... 2003?!!!
Will Photoshop finally be updated?
...because the current version is ancient. However, it should stay for a while to give people a chance to migrate lesson plans. If it's too dear, Paint.NET or the GIMP could be put on for free.
Will I be able to use non-Windows machines, with full network access?
Because some teachers will want to show off Mac/Linux/Android and still have access to their data. I might want some machines to dual-boot.
Will open standards (ODF) be supported?
i.e. will LibreOffice, or anything else that fully implements ISO-approved standards for storing data, be available?
What machines will we be getting?
...and will I have a choice of operating system?
Will network filtering continue to be pedantic?
I ask, because I spotted an article recently that compared web-filtering in UK schools to China.
What would you like? Answers below!
Wednesday, 11 April 2012
A way forward: scrap ICT.
My last post described CCEA Key Stage 3 assessment as a “Disaster In the Making”. The idea of using ICT is not a problem, however the confusing definitions of ICT, as well as the bureaucracy of assessment mean this could become a nightmare for all concerned. By continuing to include PowerPoint, Photo Shop and Programming as all part of “ICT”, students could be driven away from the whole lot thanks to Key Stage 3.
The current use of the term “ICT” is as problematic as grouping History, English, Biology and Maths as “writing”. Yes, they include writing. However, their content is wide and varied and they cannot be grouped together under one heading.
One problem with “ICT” as defined in school curricula is that for a long time, “ICT” has meant “Microsoft Office, with a little bit of information about how computers work. For those of us who want to move away from the MS Office worldview, the label of “ICT” is a hindrance. This label is a hindrance because asking non-specialists to use ICT in their lessons often leads to students making yet more PowerPoint presentations.
In fairness to CCEA, they now say that "ICT" can include programming. However, there is no point in saying “ICT” can include programming if the people delivering cross-curricular ICT have no idea how to program. It is time to divorce programming from end-user ICT.
So, I shall be positive. Here are some suggestions on how to make life better. Please comment and either agree, or tell me I am crazy.
1: Firstly, let's scrap the need for schools to report levels back to DENI, using vague definitions that nobody understands. In fact, let's scrap the need to report back to DENI altogether. Why is there a need to report back in the middle of Year 10?
2: The label “ICT” has to go, because it can mean so many things to different people. In its place, there should be something like this:
How to use a Computer will make sure everyone can, well... use a Computer (as if today's kids cannot do this anyway - it's a bit like teaching our Grannies about sucking eggs). Creative-arty things will help students express themselves, but lets get rids of the horrible reflective elements that nobody aged 12 (or their teachers) understands or cares much about anyway. How to program a computer will start with basic elements of Computer Science and all the wonderful thinking skills it contains. This one is really important, because how-to-use changes with time, but the underlying principles or how software is developed do not.
Maybe better names for these areas can be worked out too.
Schools should state where each area within: How to use a computer; Creative arty-things; how to program; are delivered in KS1 to KS3, with the option of qualifications in these at KS4 and KS5. No reporting back. All that is achieved by reporting back is a lot of teachers get annoyed because they would prefer to be teaching or preparing wonderful lessons, instead of deciphering paperwork that nobody is likely to read or act upon.
3: Scrap GCSE ICT. It tries to do too many things in little depth and in the end fails to deliver much of anything. Replace it with options along these lines:
4: Give ICT, or whatever it is replaced with, back to the subject experts. I can cook, but I would not insult an HE teacher by saying "All teachers are able to use a frying pan, therefore you are not needed." I can manage survival-level Spanish on holiday, but I would not insult teachers of Spanish by saying "I have enough Spanish to get by, therefore you are not needed." Indeed, I would not insult an RE teacher by saying "I went to Sunday School, therefore I can teach your subject." So why are we expected to believe the myth that people whose only knowledge of a computer is how to use Word and send an e-mail, are fully capable of teaching it? Sure, some people transfer into ICT and/or Computing and do really well. However, by asking non-experts to teach the subject, how well can it be taught?
Let's scrap the need to concentrate on end-user ICT that anyone can teach and that ties students to 10-year old technology. Instead, let's bring in decent, transferable, skills and knowledge that are properly taught by people who know the subject and are passionate about it, and who can pass their enthusiasm onwards.
The current use of the term “ICT” is as problematic as grouping History, English, Biology and Maths as “writing”. Yes, they include writing. However, their content is wide and varied and they cannot be grouped together under one heading.
One problem with “ICT” as defined in school curricula is that for a long time, “ICT” has meant “Microsoft Office, with a little bit of information about how computers work. For those of us who want to move away from the MS Office worldview, the label of “ICT” is a hindrance. This label is a hindrance because asking non-specialists to use ICT in their lessons often leads to students making yet more PowerPoint presentations.
In fairness to CCEA, they now say that "ICT" can include programming. However, there is no point in saying “ICT” can include programming if the people delivering cross-curricular ICT have no idea how to program. It is time to divorce programming from end-user ICT.
So, I shall be positive. Here are some suggestions on how to make life better. Please comment and either agree, or tell me I am crazy.
1: Firstly, let's scrap the need for schools to report levels back to DENI, using vague definitions that nobody understands. In fact, let's scrap the need to report back to DENI altogether. Why is there a need to report back in the middle of Year 10?
2: The label “ICT” has to go, because it can mean so many things to different people. In its place, there should be something like this:
- How to use a computer. This includes presenting information on paper (word-processing, DTP); presenting information on-screen (PowerPoint, Prezi, etc); getting information to and from other people (e-mail, wikis, finding information on the Internet); staying safe on-line; organising your files.
- Creative arty-things with a computer. This includes image manipulation (Photoshop, etc); movie capture and editing, etc.
- How to program a computer. This could start at KS1 with a Logo turtle running round the floor, progress to Scratch at KS2 for animations and games, then on to KS3 with Greenfoot or Android AppInventor, before leading to GCSE and A-level.
How to use a Computer will make sure everyone can, well... use a Computer (as if today's kids cannot do this anyway - it's a bit like teaching our Grannies about sucking eggs). Creative-arty things will help students express themselves, but lets get rids of the horrible reflective elements that nobody aged 12 (or their teachers) understands or cares much about anyway. How to program a computer will start with basic elements of Computer Science and all the wonderful thinking skills it contains. This one is really important, because how-to-use changes with time, but the underlying principles or how software is developed do not.
Maybe better names for these areas can be worked out too.
Schools should state where each area within: How to use a computer; Creative arty-things; how to program; are delivered in KS1 to KS3, with the option of qualifications in these at KS4 and KS5. No reporting back. All that is achieved by reporting back is a lot of teachers get annoyed because they would prefer to be teaching or preparing wonderful lessons, instead of deciphering paperwork that nobody is likely to read or act upon.
3: Scrap GCSE ICT. It tries to do too many things in little depth and in the end fails to deliver much of anything. Replace it with options along these lines:
- A qualification(s) in how to use a computer. RSA word-processing, for example.
- Qualification(s) in digital arty-things. This could be:
- Photoshop as an optional module within GCSE Art, or a separate qualification that was broader and expected students to use two out of Photoshop, Paint.NET, the GIMP and Paintshop Pro, for a wide range of things. Students could do this 'GCSE Digital Art' alongside traditional paint-and-clay GCSE Art.
- Movie making as a GCSE-level qualification, or an optional part of one. Students doing GCSE Drama, with more of an interest in production and direction may be the people who are interested in this. I've said a lot about software development being where most of the jobs are - however Northern Ireland is developing a growing TV/movie sector too. Let's keep it going.
- Qualifications in Computer Science. In particular, GCSE Computer Science. This teaches a decent amount of programming as well as how a computer works. Importantly, it teaches the thinking skills that are vital to our economy.
4: Give ICT, or whatever it is replaced with, back to the subject experts. I can cook, but I would not insult an HE teacher by saying "All teachers are able to use a frying pan, therefore you are not needed." I can manage survival-level Spanish on holiday, but I would not insult teachers of Spanish by saying "I have enough Spanish to get by, therefore you are not needed." Indeed, I would not insult an RE teacher by saying "I went to Sunday School, therefore I can teach your subject." So why are we expected to believe the myth that people whose only knowledge of a computer is how to use Word and send an e-mail, are fully capable of teaching it? Sure, some people transfer into ICT and/or Computing and do really well. However, by asking non-experts to teach the subject, how well can it be taught?
Let's scrap the need to concentrate on end-user ICT that anyone can teach and that ties students to 10-year old technology. Instead, let's bring in decent, transferable, skills and knowledge that are properly taught by people who know the subject and are passionate about it, and who can pass their enthusiasm onwards.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
CCEA Key Stage 3 ICT: A Disaster in the Making?
Update: after posting this, I suggested ways to improve the provision of the many skills that are currently lumped together as "ICT" - you should read that post, here, also.
When something leaves you grumbling and festering for days, you know there's a problem.
I think teaching ICT skills, as well as the principles of Computer Science is vital. Both are needed at Key Stage 2 and 3, so that students can make an informed decision on whether to take either of these subjects on at GCSE. Both are needed so that students can use the technology they are surrounded with, and better understand how it works.
Sparking kids' imagination is vital for the growth areas of the UK economy – digital creativity in arts and games and also programming. The latter currently makes up a quarter of all vacant jobs in Northern Ireland, though you wouldn't think that from looking at the Revised Curriculum. The Revised Curriculum has ICT as a cross-curricular skill at Key Stage 3, and no mention at all of Computer Science.
So why am I annoyed?
Many ICT teachers, myself included, were summoned to a series of meetings held by CCEA in the past couple of weeks. Their purpose – to explain the assessment requirements for the new Key Stage 3 ICT cross-curricular assessment. All subjects have to include ICT at Key Stage 3, so the idea of assessment sounds simple. It sounds like a case of ticking the boxes for things you are already doing. It is simple, until you look at how CCEA are approaching it.
Their documentation is vague and obscure. Read it for yourself, here. It seems simple, until you try to make sense of some of the "Level" descriptions. For example, what does the Level 7 'Exchange' description actually mean? "Exploit contemporary communication methods to exchange, share and collaborate on their developed ideas and information with peers, experts and end users, contributing to a collaborative global environment." How did they get away with this?
The meeting was going smoothly (for CCEA) for the first fifteen or twenty minutes. I say it was smoothly "for CCEA", because every teacher I looked at was clearly disinterested. The whispers of "Why are we doing this" were clear. Eventually someone from across the room broke the silent ranks and asked "Why are we doing this?"
CCEA's response: it will be law, from 2014. That's why we are doing it. ICT is a cross-curricular theme in the Revised Curriculum and reporting on students' progress is mandatory.
How do we assess it? Well, us ICT teachers are supposed to go back to our schools and tell them that between all the subjects taught in Key Stage 3 (with the notable exception of the ICT class), we have to put together tasks that cover Levels 4 and 5. Then we send the tasks to CCEA for approval. As one colleague on the pilot scheme pointed out, it does not end there. CCEA fiddle with the tasks and send them back; the school makes corrections; more fiddling from CCEA; back-and-forth; the school's Head of Department eventually signs it as OK. He signs it even though he does not understand the description of the task any more, because he is simply past caring. He gets on with teaching his subject the way he always did.
CCEA's response was that all subject areas are delivering ICT already, and that they should already know what they are doing. They already have ICT tasks in place, so there is little or no extra work.
This did not satisfy the crowd. The law is that DENI want us to report on Key Stage 3 ICT attainment, for reasons best known to DENI. But this garbled mess that CCEA have churned out is not the law. It is CCEA's interpretation of the law, clearly undertaken with little reference to teachers. Who will mark it? Who will moderate it? Someone asked “What if schools decide they do not have time, and opt-out?” CCEA nicely told us it became a disciplinary matter between the school and DENI, for failing to deliver the statutory curriculum.
One observant person pointed out, if DENI are not building more time into the timetable – say, reducing the number of teaching days – then teachers will have no time to prepare for this or to mark it. After all, we're already busy people and with redundancies, we'll be even more busy. Our priority is teaching, not jumping through hoops imposed from on-high. Conclusion – DENI don't that badly want this done, or they'd make time and money available. CCEA pointed out DENI did want it done, as it's law. Gee, thanks for not dealing with the issue, CCEA.
Then someone took CCEA further off-script and asked why the ICT teachers could not set and mark tasks. If the ICT teachers could do this, then all sorts of interesting things (Scratch, robotics, websites, for example) could be taught. Instead, it will be non-ICT specialists assessing the things they are usually comfortable with (Word, PowerPoint, making graphs in Excel). In fairness to the non-ICT specialists, I would have no idea how to teach or assess their subjects. Will a typical Geography teacher who is already busy ask the students to create a website, or play it safe with a PowerPoint presentation?
We were even told we had to mark students' ability to send an e-mail. This is almost as pointless as formally assessing a teenager's ability to eat chips – they have been doing it for years, lets move on! At some point someone from CCEA spent a couple of minutes talking about the value of clipart. OK, it can be pretty – but hardly a 'life-skill'!
Another colleague pointed out that the scheme was conceived before mobile phone apps or cloud storage were common, to name but a few. Hence, this scheme is wedded to dated technology. He asked, why are we not teaching the underlying and unchanging computing principles instead?
The arguing and pointing out that this scheme is very, very bad continued. The CCEA people looked at the clock and decided the meeting was over. They had spent an hour ignoring real issues, washing their hands and blaming DENI. In my opinion, this is a time-consuming scheme, with no educational value at all. Teachers will end up ticking boxes without caring. This scheme may even become damaging in the long-run. It will be damaging because students will come to hate pointless ICT lessons. and drive them further away from GCSE ICT and Computing. Maybe that's what The People On High want?
The development of ICT and Computing are being held back by a refusal to allow ICT teachers to play the part they should (though CCEA would say it's DENI's decision). By saying “All teachers are teachers of ICT”, CCEA are once again showing their love of a worldview that is dominated by basic office skills, and ignoring the need to teach computer science skills and concepts. Instead of teaching new and interesting ideas, CCEA risk a multiplication of the “ICT is boring and pointless” view that their GCSE and A-level Coursework develop. It has taken a decade for CCEA to start to listen to teachers' complaints about the uselessness of GCSE and A-level coursework. So, based on experience we may be stuck with this Key Stage 3 scheme until 2024. Or, two entire Year 8 to Year 14 intakes whose education could be damaged by people who think the ability to insert clipart and send an e-mail needs to be assessed.
Both ICT and Computing can be exciting and interesting subjects for teachers and learners alike. When we design the criteria so that anyone with a passing knowledge of Microsoft Office can assess it, we are holding students back. CCEA may point out that the criteria are not wedded to MS Office, and they would be right. However, the scheme is designed for the 90% of teachers whose ICT knowledge is MS Office. OK, maybe Office plus some movie-maker.
By asking non-ICT specialists to deliver and assess ICT, we run the risk of perpetuating the view that “ICT = yet more PowerPoint = a waste of time”.
Has anyone at CCEA asked what the real needs of the economy are?
CCEA need to take this back to the drawing board. They say I have a legal obligation to deliver this. However, is this outweighed by my moral obligation to deliver interesting and useful material to my students, that will prepare them for life?
Naturally, if anyone from CCEA would like to comment and correct me, they should feel free to do so!
When something leaves you grumbling and festering for days, you know there's a problem.
I think teaching ICT skills, as well as the principles of Computer Science is vital. Both are needed at Key Stage 2 and 3, so that students can make an informed decision on whether to take either of these subjects on at GCSE. Both are needed so that students can use the technology they are surrounded with, and better understand how it works.
Sparking kids' imagination is vital for the growth areas of the UK economy – digital creativity in arts and games and also programming. The latter currently makes up a quarter of all vacant jobs in Northern Ireland, though you wouldn't think that from looking at the Revised Curriculum. The Revised Curriculum has ICT as a cross-curricular skill at Key Stage 3, and no mention at all of Computer Science.
So why am I annoyed?
Many ICT teachers, myself included, were summoned to a series of meetings held by CCEA in the past couple of weeks. Their purpose – to explain the assessment requirements for the new Key Stage 3 ICT cross-curricular assessment. All subjects have to include ICT at Key Stage 3, so the idea of assessment sounds simple. It sounds like a case of ticking the boxes for things you are already doing. It is simple, until you look at how CCEA are approaching it.
Their documentation is vague and obscure. Read it for yourself, here. It seems simple, until you try to make sense of some of the "Level" descriptions. For example, what does the Level 7 'Exchange' description actually mean? "Exploit contemporary communication methods to exchange, share and collaborate on their developed ideas and information with peers, experts and end users, contributing to a collaborative global environment." How did they get away with this?
The meeting was going smoothly (for CCEA) for the first fifteen or twenty minutes. I say it was smoothly "for CCEA", because every teacher I looked at was clearly disinterested. The whispers of "Why are we doing this" were clear. Eventually someone from across the room broke the silent ranks and asked "Why are we doing this?"
CCEA's response: it will be law, from 2014. That's why we are doing it. ICT is a cross-curricular theme in the Revised Curriculum and reporting on students' progress is mandatory.
How do we assess it? Well, us ICT teachers are supposed to go back to our schools and tell them that between all the subjects taught in Key Stage 3 (with the notable exception of the ICT class), we have to put together tasks that cover Levels 4 and 5. Then we send the tasks to CCEA for approval. As one colleague on the pilot scheme pointed out, it does not end there. CCEA fiddle with the tasks and send them back; the school makes corrections; more fiddling from CCEA; back-and-forth; the school's Head of Department eventually signs it as OK. He signs it even though he does not understand the description of the task any more, because he is simply past caring. He gets on with teaching his subject the way he always did.
CCEA's response was that all subject areas are delivering ICT already, and that they should already know what they are doing. They already have ICT tasks in place, so there is little or no extra work.
This did not satisfy the crowd. The law is that DENI want us to report on Key Stage 3 ICT attainment, for reasons best known to DENI. But this garbled mess that CCEA have churned out is not the law. It is CCEA's interpretation of the law, clearly undertaken with little reference to teachers. Who will mark it? Who will moderate it? Someone asked “What if schools decide they do not have time, and opt-out?” CCEA nicely told us it became a disciplinary matter between the school and DENI, for failing to deliver the statutory curriculum.
One observant person pointed out, if DENI are not building more time into the timetable – say, reducing the number of teaching days – then teachers will have no time to prepare for this or to mark it. After all, we're already busy people and with redundancies, we'll be even more busy. Our priority is teaching, not jumping through hoops imposed from on-high. Conclusion – DENI don't that badly want this done, or they'd make time and money available. CCEA pointed out DENI did want it done, as it's law. Gee, thanks for not dealing with the issue, CCEA.
Then someone took CCEA further off-script and asked why the ICT teachers could not set and mark tasks. If the ICT teachers could do this, then all sorts of interesting things (Scratch, robotics, websites, for example) could be taught. Instead, it will be non-ICT specialists assessing the things they are usually comfortable with (Word, PowerPoint, making graphs in Excel). In fairness to the non-ICT specialists, I would have no idea how to teach or assess their subjects. Will a typical Geography teacher who is already busy ask the students to create a website, or play it safe with a PowerPoint presentation?
We were even told we had to mark students' ability to send an e-mail. This is almost as pointless as formally assessing a teenager's ability to eat chips – they have been doing it for years, lets move on! At some point someone from CCEA spent a couple of minutes talking about the value of clipart. OK, it can be pretty – but hardly a 'life-skill'!
Another colleague pointed out that the scheme was conceived before mobile phone apps or cloud storage were common, to name but a few. Hence, this scheme is wedded to dated technology. He asked, why are we not teaching the underlying and unchanging computing principles instead?
The arguing and pointing out that this scheme is very, very bad continued. The CCEA people looked at the clock and decided the meeting was over. They had spent an hour ignoring real issues, washing their hands and blaming DENI. In my opinion, this is a time-consuming scheme, with no educational value at all. Teachers will end up ticking boxes without caring. This scheme may even become damaging in the long-run. It will be damaging because students will come to hate pointless ICT lessons. and drive them further away from GCSE ICT and Computing. Maybe that's what The People On High want?
The development of ICT and Computing are being held back by a refusal to allow ICT teachers to play the part they should (though CCEA would say it's DENI's decision). By saying “All teachers are teachers of ICT”, CCEA are once again showing their love of a worldview that is dominated by basic office skills, and ignoring the need to teach computer science skills and concepts. Instead of teaching new and interesting ideas, CCEA risk a multiplication of the “ICT is boring and pointless” view that their GCSE and A-level Coursework develop. It has taken a decade for CCEA to start to listen to teachers' complaints about the uselessness of GCSE and A-level coursework. So, based on experience we may be stuck with this Key Stage 3 scheme until 2024. Or, two entire Year 8 to Year 14 intakes whose education could be damaged by people who think the ability to insert clipart and send an e-mail needs to be assessed.
Both ICT and Computing can be exciting and interesting subjects for teachers and learners alike. When we design the criteria so that anyone with a passing knowledge of Microsoft Office can assess it, we are holding students back. CCEA may point out that the criteria are not wedded to MS Office, and they would be right. However, the scheme is designed for the 90% of teachers whose ICT knowledge is MS Office. OK, maybe Office plus some movie-maker.
By asking non-ICT specialists to deliver and assess ICT, we run the risk of perpetuating the view that “ICT = yet more PowerPoint = a waste of time”.
Has anyone at CCEA asked what the real needs of the economy are?
CCEA need to take this back to the drawing board. They say I have a legal obligation to deliver this. However, is this outweighed by my moral obligation to deliver interesting and useful material to my students, that will prepare them for life?
Naturally, if anyone from CCEA would like to comment and correct me, they should feel free to do so!
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Time for students to make their choices...
The students have been asked to choose their subjects. After consultation with staff, reflection on the likely changes in education, etc., students have been given;
- At A-level: ICT
- At GCSE: ICT
Management's final decision is based on what they see as the needs of the majority of our students. Our students are best served by ICT. Computing is, apparently, a niche subject. I have forgotten that students need skills in PowerPoint, Word and Excel to open up many career opportunities.
Our last departmental minutes included an ad-hoc survey, which revealed that given the choice of ICT or Computing:
- At A-level, 10-12 of the current GCSE class would choose Computing, with 1 choosing ICT. Around 6 from outside the GCSE class would choose Computing.
- At GCSE, 30-35 would choose Computing.
The same survey also revealed that, given the choice of only ICT:
- 8-10 will choose A-level. But see the last line of this post...
- 15-18 will choose GCSE.
Word from on-high: your survey supports our view that ICT remains viable.
My ICT people have told me they will "write 'Computing' on the form anyway and to hell with the consequences." I should probably have reprimanded them for saying "to hell", but I agree with them!
I have had a chat with teachers in our 'rivals' across town.
- School A: is offering A-level Computing and ICT, and considering GCSE Computing in the long-term.
- School B: is offering ICT only, but students who want to do Computing will be timetabled to do it in School A (numbers permitting).
- School C: is offering GCSE and A-level Computing.
- School D: is offering A-level Computing. Management are thinking about GCSE Computing.
- School E: is offering ICT only and does not have staffing to offer both.
Word from on-high: we will wait and see how it works out in those schools.
Word from several of my GCSE people: we are applying to school C.
Monday, 6 February 2012
There is more hope for fools than for people who think they are wise. (Prov: 26:12)
I had an 'interesting' conversation with a Senior Teacher today, a member of our Senior Management Team. It reminded me that there is more hope for fools, than for those who think they are wise.
My last conversation with Senior Teacher went something like this:
Senior Teacher: “I don't know why you insist we should be teaching Computing. How many more programs will ever be written? Besides, technology changes so quickly, the software development methods and tools used today will be obsolete in a few years' time.”
Me: “The Pascal and C I started on, in the 1980s, are still relevant. The C++ and SQL I earned a living with once, are still relevant. The newish languages of today, Java and so on, have a long time left. Most mobile phones run on some derivative of the UNIX operating system, which I was using a long time ago on big things that filled the room. Surely you have noticed how many mobile phone apps are available?”
Senior Teacher: “I have a basic phone, I am not interested in these stupid games people play - anyway, there cannot be that many. As for Java, I was talking to an expert recently who told me it was on the way out and nobody wanted Java programmers. I've never heard of UNIX, so it's clearly not that important”
Me: “The nijobfinder.co.uk website lists over 800 programming jobs on any one day. Around a quarter of those are in Java.”
Senior Teacher: “I do not accept there are 800 vacant programming jobs in Northern Ireland. Your have your facts wrong.”
Today, it was different. Almost. Thanks to a few standalone laptops I put Greenfoot onto, students are talking. Time to put it onto all the lab machines, I think.
Senior Teacher: “What's this Greenfoot thing some of my class were going on about?”
I explained. It's an environment designed for quickly building interactive multimedia, such as games and simulations, in Java.
Senior Teacher: “And what do they do? Do they type in codes?”
I explained about Michael Kölling's Joy of Code videos. We were using his excellent materials, sometimes going off-piste. It started as a club (but, I didn't tell him, it's looking like a viable option for CCEA GCSE ICT Unit 2 Task 2 - well within the grasp of students).
Senior Teacher: “So, a man on video reads out codes and they type in codes. It sounds a bit like an Excel tutorial.”
I explained it was a long, long, long way from Excel. It was about creating software, not using someone else's software.
Senior Teacher: “I see a great similarity here. In Excel, you type in codes without having to fully understand them and this Greenfoot thing sounds the same. After all, isn't programming just about typing in codes, like Excel. The thing I don't understand is, you banged on about GCSE and A-level Computing because, according to you, ICT is full of PowerPoint and Excel and things your students find boring. Yet, you are telling me they are getting excited about some guy on a video talking about programming, which is just like Excel.”
I tried to explain again, Greenfoot is not Excel. Computing is not ICT.
Senior Teacher: “I know what the problem is. Students are excited by this guy on the video and not by you. I don't think the problem is the content, it's the delivery.”
I stopped casting my pearls before a swine at this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)