Response to the Government consultation document Connecting the Learning Society, November 1997.

(Response dated 1 December 1997)

Superhighways & Multimedia Unit
Level 3C
DfEE
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9NA

Dear Eve Trueman,

I have been asked by the Coalition for Public Information (CoPI) to respond to the Government consultation document, Connecting the Learning Society. CoPI is a broad-based membership organisation whose aim is to ensure that the rapidly developing information and communications infrastructure will empower commerce, community and individuals, so that they might participate fully in social, economic and democratic activity. To this end, CoPI is pleased to welcome the principles contained within the consultation document, and would wish to present the following comments for consideration.

The CoPI Manifesto puts forward three proposals within the sphere of education which we believe will contribute to the overall aims of the organisation as detailed above. These proposals are:

• That Government amend the National Curriculum to provide for the teaching of information retrieval and evaluation and an understanding of intellectual property.
• That Government incorporate information retrieval and evaluation modules into teacher training courses, and
• That Government enable schools to meet the telecommunications costs of regular use of the Internet.

CoPI welcomes the proposals within the consultation document to enhance the training of teachers in the use of Information Technology. We also welcome the proposal for the establishment of a National Grid for Learning with links to Public Libraries and other public bodies. We believe that this is a good and necessary first step.

We would, however, wish to express concern on several aspects of the proposal as presented. These concerns are as follows:

Definition:

We note that the phrase Information and Communications Technology (ICT), although used throughout the document, is nowhere defined. This is also the case for ICT skills. It is unclear from this document whether this key phrase is intended to refer to the mechanical skills of, for example, keyboarding and software manipulation, or to the cognitive skills of information retrieval and evaluation. The single reference in the document to these latter skills is found in paragraph 20, under consideration of the research findings of the EDSI projects. There is also a reference to 'network literacy' in paragraph 21, although, once again, this remains undefined.

We would urge the inclusion of clear definitions of such key phrases in order to allow for a better understanding of the proposals and their implications.

Targets:

We acknowledge the need to establish clear and precise targets for development. However, we are concerned that the proposals present a series of separate, general end-targets for each of the key elements in the development of the National Grid for Learning, without providing clear and precise interim targets against which to measure progress.

We are also concerned that the targets set are more indications of intent than clearly defined targets. For example, in paragraph 65: 'by 2002 serving teachers should generally feel confident', 'by 2002 all schools, colleges, universities and libraries and as many community centres as possible should be connected to the Grid', 'by 2002 most school leavers should have a good understanding of ICT', 'by 2002 the UK should be a centre of excellence', and 'by 2002 general administrative communications to schools and further education bodies…..should largely cease to be paper-based' (my italics). When compared to the targets set for literacy and numeracy levels, and for the level of governmental communication to be undertaken electronically by the year 2000, these targets are less than precise.

We also express concern over the lack of research evidence presented in support of these targets. The only source or research referred to specifically in the document is the report by Sir Dennis Stevenson. There appears to be no reference to any other, similar research, such as the NCET's 'Libraries of the Future' project, which was itself not referred to by Stevenson. We would welcome publication of the research basis for the decision to set 2002 as a practical and achievable target date for the implementation of these proposals.

Technology:

The proposals raise several questions concerning the appropriateness of some of the technological approaches suggested. For example, we are concerned about the suggestion that there should be one technical baseline and would suggest that two or three would be more appropriate to allow for different entry levels. We also question the long-term practicality of the proposal to use one interface, particularly with regard to the proposed virtual Teacher Centre. Given the number of different service providers, the broad range of different user groups (pre-school to adult learner) and the different sub-groups within these, the provision of a single front-end is likely to prove problematical, if only with regard to the range of separate options that will need to be made available.

Future Proofing:

Other concerns expressed concern the 'future-proofing' of the component parts of the Grid. The proposals recognise the existing differences in technological investment between schools and colleges in the UK and indicate that seed-corn funding will be available for initial hardware and software purchases. However, it is clear from the proposals that subsequent funding will be the responsibility of the participating schools. The proposals assume (page 22) that 'the annual level of school spend on ICT …will continue to expand substantially'.

This begs several questions. The first of these is, What will be the source of this funding?; the second is Will this funding be used in the manner predicted by these proposals ? If future funding is not made available, and schools do not use this funding in the way envisaged in these proposals, as a significant minority of schools are at present not using funding delegated for the support of school library services for subscriptions to those services, what contingency arrangements have been made to ensure the continuation of the Grid after the first five years ?

Furthermore, we are concerned that the establishment of consortia to provide 'packages' of provision might lead to schools being 'locked in' to inappropriate systems on cost grounds, despite the expressed and anticipated safeguards. Similarly we are concerned about the lack of detailed safeguards covering subscription, specialist and value-added services for which fees will be charged. Under the proposals as presented, the only regulatory mechanism would appear to be market forces with an anticipation that competition will bring costs down. We would like to see adequate safeguards introduced to ensure a national minimum standard of service provision.

Quality Control:

Under the proposals, the individual consortia will be free to organise the network as they see fit, in compliance with detailed government specifications. This begs the questions: Who will be involved in drawing up these specifications ? Who will monitor the operation of the consortia to ensure that these specifications are being met ? and, What sanctions are to be applied to ensure compliance ? These important elements do not appear in the proposals as presented.

Training:

We welcome the proposals for the training of teachers and public librarians in ICT skills. However, we are concerned that the proposals are not as inclusive as they perhaps should be. For example, although training is being made available for 500,000 teachers and 10,000 public librarians, the proposals do not extend to professional librarians working in schools or school library service staff, all of whom also require training. Although we understand that this is being addressed, we would like to reinforce the need for these staff to be included in the proposed training programme. As trained information specialists, they will be have a key role to play in the successful implementation of this policy.

If the Grid is to be used effectively, it is CoPI's belief that it is essential that all users be trained in the skills required for the effective finding, selection, evaluation and use of information - Information Skills. We therefore strongly recommend the following:

• That Information Skills be incorporated into initial teacher training programmes alongside IT training as a matter of urgency,
• That the national Curriculum be amended to include the systematic teaching of information skills and that they be added to the current list of core skills for GNVQ assessment, and
• That provision be made for the training of adult learners in the finding and retrieving of information from electronic information sources.

Timescale:

Our main concern with regard to the proposals in this document is that of the timescale involved. It is our belief that too much is being attempted too quickly and that the proposals as laid out are perhaps over-ambitious.

We recognise the need for the establishment of such a Grid and welcome the principles expressed in the proposal. However, we would like to express strong reservations about the depth, accuracy and quality of the research underlying the proposals, the practicality of the proposals within the suggested time-frame, and the sustainability of the programme past the initial seed-corn funding stage without a more detailed support programme to ensure its long-term viability.

We would like to suggest the possibility of extending the implementation programme to two years rather than the one envisaged. This would allow for an extensive pilot scheme to be established and assessed fully before being implemented nationally. Based upon the information contained in the consultation document, we have grave doubts as to the practicality and sustainability of the programme within the proposed timescale and would urge caution.

For all of the above reasons, we would recommend that these aspects of the proposals be given further thought. Further, we would also urge that information professionals in education, with their unique insight and on-site role, be consulted and involved in all levels of development planning.

CoPI welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the discussion of the successful exploitation of IT within education. We would be glad to be consulted further should you wish to discuss any of the issues raised within this document in greater detail.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Small

Education Advisor to the Executive Board of the Coalition for Public Information