Student teachers need to be confident, competent users of computers with
(Sallis, et al, 1990, p.7-8)*
some understanding of how IT can facilitate learning experiences and
develop thinking processes. Courses must continue to focus upon basic
(computer) training until (students) enter college with a better
background…(teacher educators must) also provide courses which focus
on more educational issues .
New Zealand schools have received a continuous supply of funding for ICT professional development for teachers for over three decades. Now, that continuity of funding appears to have dried up. Is this a recipe for digital disaster or a chance to rethink how we prepare students for the future?
Computers were first used in a number of New Zealand schools in the 1980s. In the absence of a coherent policy to guide implementation, a school’s response to the looming ‘digital age’ really depended on the enthusiasm or interest of a particular staff member and available funding.
The Sallis Report, formally known as the “Report of the Consultative Committee on Information Technology in the School Curriculum,” was commissioned in New Zealand in 1985. The primary reason behind this report was to evaluate the integration of IT into New Zealand’s educational system and to provide recommendations for its improvement. It was initiated by the New Zealand Ministry of Education, and played a significant role in shaping the integration of information technology into the school curriculum in New Zealand. to assess the role of information technology (IT) in the school curriculum.
After its release in 1989 (coincidentally the same year as the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms were implemented) one of the key recommendations of the Sallis Report was enacted, and starting in 1990, the first funded IT PD programme was begun, inspiring teachers with the support and ideas about how to integrate digital technologies into their classroom teaching and learning.
That funding continued through all of the 1990s. While other areas of the curriculum were given a ‘dose’ of funding for a single year, IT PD received continuous support and funding. Then came first ICT strategy for schools in 1999, (noting this is when the “C” made an appearance in the title) and with that, the decision to continue funding for ICT PD. What followed was the formation of the first 23 ICT PD clusters, which were added to each year for almost two decades after that until more than 80% of all schools had participated in this form of ICT PD.
The 1990s began with most computing being done on desktop machines with disk drives, then came school networks, then laptops followed by tablets and mobile devices. It was a decade of immense change. In the 2000s the WWW became more accessible with the advent of Ultrafast broadband, and so too did the emergence of cloud-based applications and technologies. Through this time we’ve seen the emergence of data projectors, interactive whiteboards, scanners, 3D printers and the like – all creating new opportunities to enhance learning activity in the classroom. As a result there was a need to ensure there were ongoing opportunities to ‘keep up’ with the developments in technology and the affordances these new developments provided for teaching and learning.
2007 saw one of the biggest ‘shifts’ in the use of technology in society and in education, with the release of the iPhone, making access to the internet available to anyone with a device in their pocket – hundreds of apps appeared on the market, including Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn etc, propelling users (including teachers and students) into a whole new world of social networking, ideas exchange – and exposure to mis-information. Understanding the dynamics of all of this provided yet more opportunity (and need) to focus on discovering how these things might impact teaching and learning, and understand what the needs for professional development might be to adequately prepare our workforce and our learners to operate effectively with (or without?) these things at their fingertips.
Into the 2020s and we have seen significant changes in the way professional learning and development are being provided – with an increasingly narrow focus on government priorities taking priority, addressing the all important things such as structured literacy, cultural literacy and numeracy for example (all extremely important, I agree!) The regionally allocated approach reflected a desire to shift further to local provision of the PLD.
Through all of this the funding to support ICT development in teachers continued – most recently under the umbrella of improving digital literacy. So since 1990 until this year (34 years!) there has been a continuous provision of funding to support teachers in their efforts to incorporate digital technologies into their teaching and learning and ensure that our young learners are equipped with the knowledge, skills and dispositions required to thrive in an increasingly digital world.
Until now!
In 2024 we’ve seen a marked change in attitude towards the use of digital technologies in education. On the one hand, digital equity and the digital divide have become hot topics, particularly in the wake of the COVID experience, stimulating action to ensure wider access to digital technologies to support learning. While on the other hand concerns about digital distraction, cyber-bullying, and AI and plagiarism are fuelling arguments for limiting access to and use of devices and technology in schools.
While there are plenty of examples of digital technologies being used in creative and constructive ways to support teaching and learning, it seems that , for the most part, we simply haven’t managed to move beyond the ‘substitution’ and ‘augmentation’ use of these technologies, failing to achieve any system-level transformation. 34 years of ongoing PLD appears to have failed to have adequately prepared our educators and the students they work with to cope with the challenges that operating in a digitally-enabled world present them with. In particular, the issues surrounding the use of mobile devices that a large majority of them own and bring to school. And so, together with many other countries in the world, we’ve found ourselves resorting to banning these devices as an admission of defeat, focusing again promoting learning activity that does not rely on them being a part of the picture.
And so we see this ambiguity emerging now in our policy and funding decision making. The recently released Connected Ako: Digital and Data for Learning, a 10-year strategy to guide the digital and data direction of New Zealand Government education agencies, clearly outlines a vision for a digitally-enabled future for education, with three clear goals:
- People are digital and data capable, contributing to personal, community and New Zealand’s growth.
- Learners and educators can thrive – live, learn and work – in the digital world.
- Learning, teaching, assessment and research make best use of data and digital.
So the recognition of the importance of being digitally literate as a fundamental capability for thriving into our future world is clearly recognised here – but how is it going to be supported?
Looking to the announcement of the PLD priorities that have been recently released, for the first time in 34 years, there is no mention of digital technologies, or of digital literacy. The run is over. The RAPLD Term 2 2024 Application Process document lists four priorities: Assessment, Aromatawai, NCEA level 1 and NCEA Co-requisite. This, in addition to the new funding to support structured teaching approaches.
Isn’t this at odds with the ambition of the 10-year strategy? Are we to assume that the 34 years of investment in ICT PD has left us in good hands so that it’s no longer required? Or are we so overwhelmed that we’re choosing instead to ignore or avoid digital technology in schools – regarding it as a ‘problem’ better addressed by parents and society, leaving schools to get on with what they’re supposed to be doing? Could this be the reason behind the findings of a recent ERO report which identified that 38% of new teachers felt unprepared to teach technology?
While many are struggling in terms of feeling prepared to teach with, about and through technology, this is only a part of the picture. As a system we have yet to fully realise the potential of technology to enable us to address many of the structural challenges we face – including teacher capacity issues, catering for diverse learners, provision of specialist support services, not to mention what happens when our schools are forced to close for periods of time due to extreme weather events or natural disasters for example. I’ve written extensively about this in my hybrid learning series, and calls for imagining how we could build a more resilient education system, based on the provision of a robust digital ecosystem.
With the world of AI knocking on our doorstep, the global threats of data security, online privacy, and advances in almost every sphere of business life now inextricably tied to the use of digital technologies, we need to find some other way to prepare our young people to thrive into their future. From my perspective, the words from the Sallis report quoted at the top of this post are almost prophetic, in that they could just as easily apply now as they did 34 years ago. It’s just our response to the challenge that’s changed.
What do you think?
- Have we saturated the workforce with ICT PD to the extent that this emphasis is not longer required because we are all now sufficiently digitally literate?
- Are we choosing to put digital on the ‘back burner’ while we sort out the more pressing and immediate needs of literacy and numeracy (perhaps sacrificing our future existence in the process?_
- Is this approach an admission of defeat, after 34 years, that we haven’t succeeded in finding a useful way of integrating digital technologies into our education system and processes?
- What new approaches are required to ensure our teachers are as well equipped as they can be to prepare our young people to thrive in a digitally-enabled world?
I’m curious to understand how educators and schools plan to respond – please use the comments below to let me know.
* Sallis, P., Ferguson, D., Frampton, A., Ham, V., Milne, A., McMahon, T., Parker, L. & N., Ramsay, V. (1990). Report of the Consultative Committee on Information Technology in the school curriculum. Wellington: MOE.
5 replies on “End of an Era? – 34 years of funding for ICT PD”
I think there is a difference between being digitally competent and being digitally literate. Being digital competent means we can use technology, being digitally literate means we use technology productively and thoughtfully. How will our young people ever become digitally literate when we take off them the very tool they most need to have control over? Wise use of technology is a whole-of-society issue not just something for schools to grapple with.
An interesting article Derek.
From my observations I would suggest these thoughts in response to your final four bullet points is :
-a digitally literate person may still be ineffective when teaching others how to leverage and maximize technology
-perhaps it has been in the back burner for nearly a decade? The advent of 1:1 may well have signaled the demise of creative and empowering use of technology by students ( M&R in SAMR)
-the current focus on structured literacy and the emerging focus of maths ‘programmes’ (Prime, Numicon etc) may well be evidence of an overwhelmed workforce been left to grapple in the dark to create their own best practice and never quite developing personal or collective teacher efficacy. Covid, in many cases, led to poorer use of technology and an increase in ‘busy work’ rather than quality learning. A perfect storm for teachers crying out for clarity and guaranteed ways to support student learning in an era where they are being blamed for dropping standards. The answer, teachers are being told, is not rich tasks, inquiry learning, student centered learning, technology, the arts, rather it is structured literacy, structured maths and… a return to topic based learning and certain knowledge that must be learnt?
– what does it mean to “thrive in digitally enabled world?” It appears that most learning with technology happens outside of school, and most students appear to be far more digitally literate than their teachers. In the world of AI maybe the sole focus should be schools, leaders and teachers finding ways to support young people to navigate the incredibly complex world of AI.
Great questions Derek
Thank you for this article Derek. There is a lot to unpack here… I have always maintained the approach that we need to prepare our kaiako for the rigours of both teaching *with* digital technologies and teaching *about* digital technologies. In my eyes there is a distinct difference. The ‘with’ is all about using technology as a vehicle to supporting pedagogical approaches such as using devices and applications. The ‘about’ is Digital Technologies as a subject where we use coding and programming languages as well as using electronic peripherals such as Makey Makey, micro:bits. Raspberry Pi and Arduino to teach the concept of computational thinking and designing and developing outcomes.
Our kaiako need to be supported in this area both through Initial Teacher Education and ongoing Professional Learning and Development. The area is fast moving and unlike many other learning areas, what we teach in the classroom is very quickly out of date. This is illustrated in the fast pace development of Generative AI. I often think about how we can establish and maintain this ongoing upkeep in a sustainable way within this fast pace of development.
How do we kickstart the conversation that will lead us to getting where we possibly need to be? In my humble opinion, there is no silver bullet. But the discussion is an important one that needs to happen in some capacity or other. I’m happy to hear any food for thought around this…
I’m currently asking myself lots of questions. Was ‘using computers’ the 1990s version of preparing workers for the modern equivalent of Factory work? Has non-strategically dabbling with EdTech kept educators away from the deeper discussions about what learning actually looks/feels like? Was this the teachers’ desired purpose of EdTech in maintaining the 20th Century hierarchical, drill & kills mindset they had an understanding of, which in-turn lead to it mostly being substitution for existing approaches? Did schools fail to have the ‘what is and drives leaning?’ discussions so that now tech is ubiquitous, the surface-level excitement in students has now disappeared? E.g, they can’t stand watching movies in English as now they’ve seen it already or are too used to controlling movie selection. As an ex-EdTech enthusiast (iPadWells was my online profile), I think ICT failed us as much as we failed ICT by not having those more fundamental learning debates before deciding on the use of ICT. The narrow set of “learning-Science” the government are defining their changes by will damage education and lose equity, pushing an indirect white supremacy that they are too ignorant to recognise. #Just Saying 🙂
Hi Derek
Thoughtful article. While I think we now use IT at school and in the classroom, I agree with your statement that as educators we have never really moved beyond the substitution or augmentation stage of implementing ICT in the learning process. My experience has been a resistance by many educators to actually move beyond these stages. I think we have pretty much the same teaching methodology but now use devices instead of pen and paper. In addition, the hybrid learning model, again based on discussions with various teachers, is seen as inferior by many when compared to the face-to-face classroom model. Consideration of how pedagogy needs to change in such environments is put in the too hard basket. Very frustrating for someone who taught online for several years. I ask how are educators incentivised to change? I do not think we are. I feel too many of us are satisfied with the status quo with no reason to change. So, what would ensure teachers fully embrace the potential of ICT in teaching and learning? What carrot or stick could be used? Throughout my work in the ICT space, and still now as a classroom teacher, I believe the whole ICT PD initiative was often seen as another thing teachers had to do. An add-on. There were individual enthusiasts, or groups of enthusiasts and the odd school that got traction across staff, but I don’t think I have seen school wide change across the education sector other than the substitution effect, even with the advent of BYOD. We now use Word or Google docs instead of pen and paper, Google search instead of a library. At the moment I am looking at the new NCEA Level 1 implementation, UDL, Common practice model and literacy and numeracy strategies across the curriculum, along with managing external assessment online using common assessment activities. This load is already pretty challenging before one considers the effective use of ICT in teaching and learning. I think in the past this has too often been the case – too many initiatives, not enough time.
Sorry to be negative, but as someone who was so enthusiastic about ICT and learning, after 20 years I am disappointed with the progress we have made and the negative attitudes of too many teachers.