On Tap
The Age
Wednesday May 26, 1999
THE NUMBERS are impressive. It is estimated that there are 70,000 computers in schools in Victoria. In 1998 the Government spent $50 million on technology, materials and training (but schools must raise $3 for every dollar they get for computers), 12,150 teachers have their own notebooks under a program that will eventually benefit 37,000 and the state budget gave $104 million to technology support over four years.
It's big business moving schools into the 21st century. Around Australia, billions of dollars are being spent on computers and related services. Publishing companies are reorganising their materials, Internet access is proliferating and curriculum materials are being produced in bright new electronic formats.
But where does the average teacher fit into all this?
The reality is that relatively few are ready for the revolution. For a start, they don't have time for proper training. While the education minister, Mr Gude, proudly proclaims that Victoria has the best student-computer ratio in the country, class sizes are higher than in many other states and the Productivity Commission earlier this year named Victoria as the only state or territory to reduce spending on Government education since 1992. Consequently teachers have more students to care for, more work to assess at home and less preparation time than at any time since the early '70s.
Is it any wonder that most teachers are unable to incorporate computer technology into the curriculum?
A study completed last year for the Federal Department of Education identified the problems of teacher preparedness as crucial to the success of any information technology spending. Digital Rhetorics, authored by Colin Lankshear and Chris Bigum, concluded that the first priority should be ensuring that teachers are confident with the technology so that they can use computers appropriately in their classrooms.
In one sense Victoria should be doing well by this measure. A large proportion of the Government spending on IT has been allocated to training and one aim of the subsidised provision of notebook computers is to enable teachers to become confident users.
But there appears to be no clear mechanism for ensuring that these aims are being achieved. An Education Department spokeswoman says that principals are responsible for teachers completing the 40 hours of professional development that was a condition of accepting a subsidised notebook. And teachers must agree to ``use the equipment as a tool in their curriculum planning, classroom practice and assessment and reporting" and share their expertise with colleagues.
Principals, hard-pressed for funds to release teachers for training, can be forgiven for considering the laptops a well-deserved bonus for generally underappreciated staff.
In any case, for many schools the real benefit of the proliferation of computers is not educational but a marketing exercise.
When he announced his school's decision to move away from its laptop program last week, John Brenan, principal of Eltham College, talked of the ``cargo cult" mentality that has placed increasing pressure on schools to follow the lead of places like MLC, which pioneered compulsory student laptops.
Ironically, a conference held at MLC the same day heard from a leading US educator who maintains that ``we have been spending too much money on infrastructure and equipment... and too little on readiness". Mr Jamie McKenzie said ``there is no credible evidence that networks improve student reading, math(s) or thinking skills unless they are in the service of carefully crafted learning programs which show students how to interpret information and make up their own minds."
Mr McKenzie made the point that good teaching is far more important than good computers.
There is no doubting the importance of all children having access to decent computers and relevant software. But until there is properly targeted, well-funded and compulsory professional development, the millions being invested in state-of-the-art technology is unlikely to have a genuine impact on educational standards.
© 1999 The Age