These movements reflect a move away from expert driven development processes based largely on commercial interests towards more open processes based on practitioner and leaner input.

Yet their remains one big barrier to open education which is largely untouched – curricula. Curricula tend to remain the prerogative of experts – be they university working groups, assessment and accrediting bodies or governments.

In a time of rapid social economic and technological change, curricula can quickly go out of date. And expert driven curricula processes are usually extremely slow to respond to such change.

We have the technologies to collectively develop curricula. Wikis are powerful platforms for sharing ideas and co-production. We have the ideas based on the practice of teaching and training. We have the communities. Of course we have to look at the processes of developing open curricula. But above all the experts have to be prepared to give up power. And that is the hard bit. Until then, curricula will remain the last frontier in open education.

Furthermore, about 75% said they were unlikely to scan a QR code in the future.”

One of the reasons advanced for the findings was that the process of accessing QR codes is too clunky and time consuming. So far I agree. Firing up the app and getting it to scan can be a pain.

But I would disagree with another of their conclusions. Archival suggest that QR codes need to provide “content that engenders a more meaningful connection to the brand or product.”

On the contrary I suspect it is just because QR codes are becoming associated with brands and products that we are reluctant to use them. In this respect context is critical. I will not use a QR code just to access some random brand or product web site. On the other hand if the code does something useful (and I know it is going to do something useful) like tell me the time of the next rain or bus or allow me to check in for my flight then I will and do use QR codes. And even if QR codes are thought to be an interim technology towards augmented reality and near field communication the same issues arise.

These findings reflect a growing tension between the development of social networks and services designed for us (the 99 per cent) and those for the one per cent or less of companies wanting to use social networks and advanced technologies for selling brands and products. The problem is that social network and service providers are more concerned with the one per cent than the 99. This has led to Facebook’s constant attempts to erode privacy in order to provide more data for advertisers. Even Twitter, which has perhaps been the most brand free of the networks has launched a re-design which seems primarily intended to facilitate brand advertising.

Such tensions will not go away. Web 2.0 was launched on the back of free service paid for by real (or hoped for) advertising revenue. Yet such revenues are finite. Ultimately we need to develop new and more robust business models which better reflect the nature and purpose of the services provided.

This does not mean there is no future for QR codes and other augmented mobile applications. There are a number of very convincing experiments of their use in education. But where they do work, in a social sense, the context and purpose is clear. And that is for learning, for interaction for creativity, not for pushing brands and products we do not want.

The competition was aimed at 8-14 year olds and asked them to write a story using any combination of digital media

“The theme for your story should be on a political event that has happened – or is currently happening – in Wales.
We are not just interested in the facts but on your opinions and impressions. For example, how do you feel about the event you are describing? Who do you agree with and why? What have been the consequences of the event you have chosen?”
Suddenly life got a lot better! The black and white world of education that I seem to have lived in for the last few weeks was in brilliant technicolour. The stories were variously funny, poignant, angry, persuasive and insightful. All of them were well researched, referenced, technically at a level that would put many class teachers to shame and above all, they entertained me and taught me a whole lot I didn’t know. Surely the definition of a good learning experience!

(And by the time I had settled down with a glass of wine and a cigarette, the learning environment seemed pretty good as well).

The thing that cheered me up the most was that these kids had opinions – well argued, well expressed and authentic. I was pretty rubbish at history (Was? ‘Am’ actually! More maths and physics, me…) but short of those exam questions which always started “Compare and contrast….” or “What arguments would you use to support …something ” I don’t ever remember being allowed to have a ‘real’ opinion on anything historical, still less encouraged to express them if I did. Especially not in primary school – I think I was doing post-grad before I earned that privilege.

Which brings me on to my main point! There is a great public panic at the moment about Wales’s performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) because they are two beans behind somewhere or other, half a Brownie point below an average or a nanopoint lower than last time. Puhlease!!

I am not being dismissive from a point of total ignorance here – some years ago I worked on the PISA statistics and the methodology for several months; I even remember doing a keynote presentation at European Conference for Education Research on PISA . Nor am I suggesting that standards do not matter. What I am saying is that the ‘Ain’t it awful’ media frenzy generated by the Smartie counting exercise that is PISA – and the politicians’ heavy-handed response – does a huge disservice to this generation of feisty, articulate and confident kids. And to the amazing generation of teachers that scaffold their learning.

Working in Pontydysgu, being a teacher trainer and a very active school governor means that I spend a lot of time in classrooms and my contention is that 99% of teachers are doing a fantastic job under pretty rubbish conditions. (Did I say this in a previous post? Yes? Well I don’t care – it needs to be shouted from the roof tops).

So what am I going to do about it? Firstly, I am tempted to rewrite the newspaper headlines showing that Welsh education is improving and is better than ‘average’. A claim I could easily back-up by a different manipulation of the PISA figures. Secondly, I could point out that the PISA survey takes place every four years but that changes at the lower age ranges – such as the introduction of the new 3-7 yr old Foundation Phase in Wales (which is awesome) will not impact on PISA results for another nine years so knee-jerk changes to ‘fix’ things seem a bit premature. Thirdly, I could argue that putting so much store on paper-based testing in Reading, Maths and Science as the measure of success of ‘a broad and balanced curriculum’ and ‘pupil-centred, experiential learning’ is a bit of an oxymoron. Fourthly, I could remind our government that Wales led the way on getting rid of SATs and league tables on the very valid grounds that comparisons are unfair because they are not comparing like with like. They funded research which showed standardised testing to be unhelpful, demotivating and did nothing to improve performance. So on a local and national level they don’t work – do they suddenly work on an international one? Or maybe I should become a politician and take on the establishment in the debating chamber – but Hey! I’ve just found there’s a whole new generation of politically astute, sussed and sorted 10year olds who are going to do that much better than I could. Fifteen years from now, it’s going to be move over Minister! Leighton Andrews – ‘your’ education system has much to be proud of.

P.S. I might put some of the entries on the Pontydysgu website over the next few weeks so that you can see for yourself. Any teacher interested in getting their kids to write and publish political stories too, have a look at the Learning About Politics website and get back to us.

So why am I cynical? Geoff Mulgan says, crucially, “within the public system and publicly funded but independently run”. This presses all my buttons.

Trust schools

The Studio Schools are trust schools. Trust schools are local authority maintained schools and draw down public money from the local authority according to the same formula as any other community school.

However, trust schools are independent – owned by a trust with charitable status, run by their own governing body, employing their own staff, setting their own admissions criteria and owning their own land and buildings but with no accountability to the tax payers who fund them. And the publicly owned assets that were transferred to them, they are now in a position to sell.

The trust schools are having the best of both worlds, by tapping into the Local Authority for advice and support for ongoing maintenance, yet being independent from them in terms of funding and ownership of the assets. This, in my book, is called having your cake and eating it!

Whether or not the Studio Schools are doing a good job, the fact remains that I am paying – and I have no democratic channels, through my elected representatives to have any say in how my money is spent.

Moreover, the teachers in those schools do not benefit from the collective bargaining power that their unions have with the local authority public employers, their support staff (notwithstanding TUPE regulations) do not have any nationally agreed pay rates or conditions of service.

…and who pays?

I would also like to see the costing model. Mulgan assures us that Studio Schools run at ‘no extra cost’ – but what exactly does that mean? No extra cost to whom? Are we saying that there is no increase in gross expenditure on the education system (possibly) or are we saying the unit costs per pupil are no higher (unlikely)?

I would not be working for Pontydysgu if I was not interested in pedagogy but in my previous life I was a government officer responsible for running the education system in a large local authority and, significantly, managing the budget – endlessly balancing the statutory responsibility for providing quality education for EVERY child whilst also making the sums add up..

Although both trust and community schools are treated the same in terms of distribution of the formula budget, there are significant savings to be made by sharing services and resources between schools, rationalizing provision in particular areas and co-ordinating activities. The Studio Schools have opted out of this but thanks to the voluntary co-operation that exists between the community schools and the savings effected by their efforts, they, like other trust schools, reap the benefits. If trust schools such as the Studio Schools spread, there will ultimately be even less of a pot from which the local authority is able to distribute resources.

Back door to privatisation

Finally, I will stick my neck out and say you cannot run a school for the 300 pupils that Mulgan quoted at the same unit cost you can run one for 1000 pupils. This is not to say that large schools are, in terms of quality of education, better or worse than smaller schools – but they are cheaper. So if we grow the Studio School model in the future, we have to run small, technology-intensive schools ‘at no extra cost’ – presumably at no extra cost to the public sector. So where the issue of trust schools becomes even more entangled and contentious is with the introduction of Private Finance Initiatives – but that is the basis for a whole new editorial rant. Watch this space!!

Pedagogy v democracy

For the moment I will just conclude by saying firstly, I don’t actually think that Geoff Mulgan’s ideas around Studio Schools are in any way new or different. Learning through doing, through real projects, in groups, using technologies and so on have been part of mainstream thinking for years. What Studio Schools have done is make it happen. Ten out of Ten. Secondly, I think every school can be as good as a Studio School – we have the teachers with the skills and the enthusiasm to do it. What we don’t have are the funds to do it with or the commitment to public sector capital investment in community schools. And the solution is not the creation of unaccountable trust schools as a back door route to privatisation

So, with the present economic crisis, we would expect increased attention and investment in education and training. But quite the reverse. Just as in previous recessions, one of the first things to be cut is training. Worse, as governments slavishly follow the neo liberal policies which led to casino capitalism and the collapse of the world banking system, expenditure on education is being cut. Social equity and access to education no longer a priority as the UK government invokes a stealth policy to privatise education. Education is cast as no longer a societal goal but a private investment for private return on investment.

In the short term the obsession with neo liberalism risks a double dip recession, the collapse of the Euro and a prolonged depression. In the longer term the cuts in education not only exclude thousands from opportunities to learning, but endanger future innovation and economic and social development.

Did the politicians believe their own rhetoric about the importance of education? Possibly. But it seems only to have been 0nly rhetoric, to be cast aside when the greater priority of protecting the interests of the wealthy intervenes.

Of the 20 constituencies with the highest percentage of people with no qualifications, the West Midlands accounts for eight, and has four in the top 10. There is a clear east-west divide in London, the union found: of the 20 worst-performing constituencies in the capital, three-quarters are in the east.

You do not have to be a statistical or sociological genius to understand what these figures mean. The areas with the highest levels of qualification are the richest areas, the areas with lowest are the poorer areas with higher levels of unemployment and social exclusion. In other words levels of achievement are closely bound to social class.

And it also is not difficult to predict that the present UK government policies,  increasing student fees at many univeristies to £9000 a year, abolishing student maintenance grants and reducing funding for vocational education will only excaerbate these divides.

Despite their claims that they wish to promote equal educational opportunity it is hard not to think they really don’t care.

Whilst the main langauge for the programmes will be Italian, Graham Attwell will try to provide a commentary for English lanaguge listeners. It is going to be mad, summer fun.

Try to drop in on the programmes. Just point your internet browser at http://is.gd/5O3xjR and the radio stream will open in the MP3 player of your choice. Or go to the SMIAF web site where we will provide an inline radio player.

May has dismissed her own department’s official assessment of the impact of her policy on overseas student visas, and has instead asked the migration advisory committee for a “better assessment and a better judgment of the true picture”.

Her actions are strongly criticised by MPs on the Commons home affairs select committee, who say it confirms their “deep concerns” that Home Office ministers are not taking “evidence-based policy” as seriously as they could.

The MPs say that the disputed impact assessment – which warns of the £2.4bn cost to the British economy of curbing overseas student visas – was not published until 12 weeks after the policy was announced, despite ministerial promises.”

Other European countries are fighting to attract students at just the very time when England is refusing them entry. And whilst the first impact will be on university income, in the long term this measure will only stifle innovation in the UK. But this may be of little concern with a politician who when confronted with the results of research merely tells the researcher to do it again and make sure the outcomes are what she wants.

Personal Learning Environments Conference, Southampton, England
Tuesday 12 July 1330 – 1400 UK, 1430 – 1500 CET
Wednesday 13 July, 1330 – 1400 UK, 1430 – 1500 CET

RadioActive, Hackney, London
Friday 15 July 1530 – 1600 UK, 1630 – 1700 CET

Gary Chapman International School, Porto, Portugal
Week beginning 18 July (times to be announced)

SMIAF – the San Marino Arts Festival
Saturday 6 August (time ot be announced)
Sunday 7 August (time to be announced)

To listen to any of the programmes just go to http://cp2.internet-radio.org.uk/start/ravenscroft/

You can listen direct from this web page or open the stream in the music player of your choice.

For more details click here.

Government policies to cut education expenditure and effectively privatise universities have great repercussions for the future of innovation and innovation cultures for years to come. There is little evidence that similar moves in the USA have stimulated innovation indeed quite the reverse. More effective in policy terms is the reaction of Germany to the crisis, who, even with a conservative government, have increased the number of university places and boosted research funding as a move to stimulate the economy and secure future employment.

The UK government actions are not just because of a spending deficit. They are born out of an ideological attachment to the private for profit sector. It seems unlikely that handing over swathes of the education sector to the private sector will do anything for quality. Of course it will reduce access to education for those less well off. But ultimately it threatens to damage the contribution that research makes to economic and social innovation. Where Greece goes today, will the UK go tomorrow? Or will the UK just become a nation of stockbrokers?

It is hard to see how these different discourses can be resolved.It is also sometimes hard to see the spaces in the official education systems for the creative spaces for experimenting that are needed if we are to introduce new pedagogic approaches to teaching and learning.

But whilst they continue to pursue file sharers, governments seem to turn a blind eye to the one thing they could do to help develop creativity on the internet – BAN SPAMMERS. According to Wikipedia, Cisco reported in 2009 that 7.7 trillion spam messages originated from Brazil and 6.6 trillion from the USA. Surely these countries could so more to stop such misuse of the web. Not only does it waste an incredible amount of bandwidth but forces us to waste valuable time setting up filters and anti spam blockers, rather than being able to promote richer conversations and interactio0ns.

Our spam protection works pretty well on the Pontydysgu site, every day filtering out spam messages which are manually posted (robots are automatically blocked). But this weekend we were deluged by spammers registering accounts, forcing us to temporarily suspend new account registration. We will find a way to block the spammers out and reopen registration for those genuinely wanting to contribute but once more we are being forced to waste ti9me and effort on things we would rather not be doing.

However the debate is confused, not least because of the UK press obsession with chatter about the private lives of celebreties. Ordinary people have no access to legal redress to ban press reports. And the real issue is not so much privacy but our abilities and rights to control our own digital identities. And that debate will not go away.

Yet there is no serious research to support Prensky’s ideas. indeed most research refutes such different behavior based on age. Instead we find people of all ages embracing digital technologies and people of all ages who are less confident in their use. Equally some people thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards, some do not. But once more this is not age related.

How has the Digital Natives myth become so prevalent. it may be because what Prensky offered was an instant soundbite for journalists eager to reflect on the impact of technology on society. It may be due to the slowness of sociologists in understanding the profound changes in our society as a result of what could be seen as a technological revolution. And it may be that in a period of rapid socio0-technical change people want a simple answer. In any case the idea of digital natives and digital immigrants is not the answer and is not helpful in debating much needed pedagogical and institutional change in our education systems.

Wray was chosen because it has fast up and down connectivity to the internet. The event was truly absorbing, even though the quality of the cricket could have been better!

Organiser John Popham explained: “The serious side is to demonstrate that it can be done, it IS possible to live broadcast events like this using relatively cheap equipment and a good internet connection. It will also demonstrate the importance of good internet connectivity in rural areas, and the need for fast UPLOAD connections if we are to realise the aspiration to use the internet to enable more people to produce their own content.”

The event certainly showed that. And it provided a glimpse into the future, where we are freed from the domination of big business entertainment providers. It was especially heartening to see so many on the Twitter feed asking can we do this? Congratulations to all involved.

So why has Cisco decided to stop manufacturing the Flip. It is profitable, albeit with a falling volume of sales. The answer it seems is that with the rising use of mobile phones for filming and uploading video content, Cisco do not see a long term future for the Flip.

Last week I wrote in the editorial how I saw no future for dedicated educati0nal technology. But perhaps I was wrong. Even if mobiles do have advanced video capacity, for teaching and learning they are no competitors to the Flip. Biut it seems the educational market is too small and insignificant for manufacturers such as Cisco.

For some time now I have been questioning the idea of educational technology – of technology development specifically focused on education. That is not to say there is no place for research on the use of technology for learning – nor of implementation of insubstantiations of technology specifically in a learning context. But the educational technology community can only be the poorer for developing ideas and applications based on use cases posited in a silo – outside of the rest of the world.

Indeed, I would suggest that the reason this came about was because of a focus on control and management of learning – and thus on replicating and reinforcing institutional practices, rather than supporting the learning process itself. Whilst institutional practice may be quite particular and confined to the educational sector, learning processes take place throughout society. If we start designing for learning, their is nothing in the use cases of those designs which separates them from the home or from work or the wider community.

And if we take our main focus as design for learning, then we have a far greater chance of developing technologies which can transform learning, rather than reinforcing the class and technology divides which inhibit access to education.

And here goes rant number one. I am ever more dismayed by projects claiming to use technology to measure competence. Why? Because firstly I think we should be using software to develop imagination, to let people play, to encourage creativity, not restricting the idea of what is or is not legitimate learning or achievement. And secondly simply because I don’t think we can measure competence through software. Inevitably such attempts become just lists of tasks or formal knowledge which can be ticked off – with or without the help of evidencing. Such check box lists tell little of what people can really do and next to nothing about their ability to use skills and knowledge in real world situations. It was that approach which led to the near demise of the first wave of e-Portfolio development. And it is time we learned from that lesson.

Here endeth the first rant

And we are broadcasting two internet radio shows from Sounds of the Bazaar live from the conference. With features, guests and interviews we aim to bring you the best of the conference. The radio shows go out at 1300 – 1335 Central European Time (1200 – 1235 UK time) on Monday 20 March and Tuesday 21 March. To listen in just point your internet browser to http://radio.jiscemerge.org.uk:80/Emerge.m3u and the stream will open in your MP3 player of choice (e.g. iTunes). looking forward to you being there.