February 2011

ISC Schools collectively have invested £221M in ICT Capital Expenditure during the past four years, which equates to about £108 per pupil p.a. However, sector-wide figures are to some extent misleading as they mask the range of investment. The 246 HMC schools account for about £25M p.a. which is about £131 per pupil p.a.; whereas IAPS schools account for £9.2M which is £76 per pupil p.a. [Source: ISC Census Data2007-10]

Although the recession has had a minimal impact, there is no sign that the overall level of capital expenditure on ICT is reducing. On the face of it, this is surprising given that the cost of ICT equipment is falling year on year.

When will we see a return on our investment?

In most industries the introduction of ICT has had some impact in increasing productivity and in reducing operating costs. Usually this has been achieved through the automation of mundane tasks and the reduction of administrative staffing levels. However, [Independent] Schools seem to be an exception to this rule. I suspect that most Heads and Governors have asked themselves how the ICT spend keeps going up despite the cost of ICT kit reducing significantly each year and wondered when they are going to see “some return on all this investment”.

The simple answers are that the ICT spend is set to continue and that we are already seeing the return on our ICT investment – it is just that the return is not a direct financial one. I believe that this is for three reasons:

First, the Independent sector has raised the bar in response to increased competition between schools. We are providing - indeed we are now expected to provide current and prospective parents with more information, more frequently and faster than ever before. Schools are handling vastly more parental communication than ever before – and this is only set to increase.

Secondly,ICT investment has, in effect, cushioned the impact of the increased administrative burden that has been imposed on schools during the past fifteen years. Increased external regulation and the perceived threat [real or otherwise] of litigation have meant that school record-keeping and data management is necessarily at unprecedented levels. Schools would have undoubtedly required increased administrative staffing levels if it were not for the automation of these processes through central administrative databases.

Thirdly, teachers are beginning to harness the power of ICT in the classroom finding new and innovative ways to ply their craft to a generation of pupils who are wired very differently to their predecessors.

Want not, waste not – learning the lessons of the Interactive Whiteboard

Undoubtedly some of the investment in ICT has been misguided or even wasted. Take for example the initiative to put an Interactive Whiteboard [IWB] into every classroom. Their introduction was not driven by an educational agenda; rather they were foisted on schools by suppliers who successfully persuaded the Government and School leaders, who were desperate to be seen to be embracing ICT, to spend the cash.

In the Maintained sector the introduction of IWBs was driven by Becta and supported with significant Government funding from 2003-04. The consequence was that by 2007 98% of secondary and 100% of primary schools had IWBs.

Competition and marketing were the main drivers for the introduction of IWBs within the Independent sector. Schools bought them because if the local state school had them they had to follow suit – and they were a visible symbol to prospective parents that this is a twenty-first century, forward-looking and technologically-savvy school.

However, whilst there is a general consensus that IWBs contribute to increased levels of attainment in Mathematics, Science and English at both KS1 and KS2, there is a growing realisation that there is going to be very little return on IWBs at KS3, KS4 and KS5. Research on their use in secondary schools has not demonstrated that they make any difference to learning outcomes and the fact is that IWBs are rarely used interactively - i.e. pupils driving the machine. [Indeed, if it is interactivity that schools want then the same level of interactivity can be achieved with a data projector, a Bluetooth keyboard and a gyro-mouse for a fraction of the cost. It’s just not so sexy and it doesn’t wow prospective parents in the same way.]

The main advantage of the promotion of IWBs was that it has meant that nearly every classroom now has a data projector – and these do seem to be a very cost-effective teaching tool and most teachers would not be without one. I can’t help but think that had schools invested in voting software and handsets, or in a faster Internet connection, rather than in IWBs that secondary education would be further on than it presently is. In these times of budgetary constraint, the lessons of the Interactive Whiteboard are more important than ever.

Tips to ensure a return on your school ICT investment:

FIRST, ENSURE THAT EDUCATIONAL PRIORITIES INFORM ICT BUDGET DECISIONS.

The ICT budgeting process needs to be “bottom up” and demand driven. It needs to start with teachers who want to be able to do in the classroom to facilitate learning. If teachers are demanding it, they are far more likely to use it in the classroom and that is most likely to have a positive impact on pupil learning. School leaders need to draw together teachers’ ideas and then determine budget priorities. For example, if teachers want to stream videos from the Internet or have classes making films in lessons, then the demands on the network will be significant and will establish a very different set of priorities for ICT development than, say, playing film clips from a DVD. It takes Senior Leaders to decide whether or not the educational value of teachers streaming videos or having pupils making films is lessons in worth the investment in the ICT network infrastructure.

SECONDLY, BE A FOLLOWER RATHER THAN A LEADER.

Schools would be wise to resist the next technological advance, just because it is new. I am writing this article in MS Word 2003 – has my school really suffered from not upgrading to Office 2007 or 2010? [We took the view that we would migrate to Office 2010 in Summer 2011, when the ICT team have time to do the upgrades and the latest version is debugged.] With ICT it is tempting to try to be in vanguard of change – but it is ultimately impossible –and very expensive. It is very easy to be sold the idea that Tablet PCs or iPads or 3 D Projection are going to transform education – they may well make a difference – but only time will tell. It is very unlikely that there is a significant competitive advantage in being ahead of the game. It is often better to be a follower, rather than a leader when it comes to ICT investment.

THIRDLY, INVEST IN DEAD CERTAINTIES.

The ICT world is fast changing, and thus some ICT decisions are difficult to make. However the direction of travel is clear: teachers and pupils are likely always to need a fast, ubiquitous connection to the Internet. A school that invests in a high speed network infrastructure [cabling, switches and servers], good WIFI and the fastest possible Internet connection that it can  afford is likely not to be wasting its money.

By Mark S. Steed, MA (Cantab.) MA; Principal of Berkhamsted School and Chairman of the ISC ICT Strategy Group.

View Mark's blog -

http://independenthead.blogspot.com/