Well, this is very timely. On 12 October 2018 I wrote an article stating that I have grave doubts about governments getting involved in ed tech initiatives because, somehow, they usually mess them up, or at least the initiatives don’t work. The government nevertheless trumpets how successful they’ve been — I suspect the press releases are prepared in advance — and life goes on in much the same way as before.

Here we are, two years later, and the government recently announced that laptops would be provided to disadvantaged kids. Great idea, except:

According to an article in Schools Week, 30,000 laptops have not been delivered. That may have been because of the contractor, or other circumstances, but the government was the prime mover and so, in my opinion, should take responsibility.
In the information about the scheme on the government’s website, it states:

“If there are widespread school closures, allocations could be reduced.”

Erm, isn’t that when the laptops are going to be most needed?

Yet despite these failures, or probably because of them, a new report from a body called the Ed Tech Advisory Forum calls for a new national strategy and an office for ed tech at the heart of government. The report states:

“The creation of an Office for EdTech and Digital Skills to drive forward coherent national change to support the adoption and use of EdTech and a UK-wide approach to digital skills is needed. We also need to harness the potential of the Digital Skills Regional Partnerships to drive change locally.”

And there you can see the same old corporate guff about driving things forward. Well, I suppose it’s better to drive forward than backward, and coherent national change is preferable to the more common incoherent approach, but even so. To me, this whole idea is an example of the triumph of hope over experience.

I agree with this:

“The Networks of schools and colleges that are part of Apple / Microsoft / Google Education Technology networks could develop remote offers more quickly;”

I think governments getting directly involved in schools’ ed tech is often the kiss of death. In my opinion, it would be much better to do one or more of the following:

Hold schools accountable for not investing adequately in ed tech when they had the money.
Link (genuine) provision of assistance to schools to tax breaks etc for relevant companies.
Provide already well-established ed tech organisations (like the Technology, Pedagogy and Education Association with the funding to organise a national ed tech strategy based on members’ knowledge, research and experience. (Disclosure: I’m a member of the committee of the TPEA.)

If the government wants to make itself useful, it can provide the brief and the funding, but have as little direct involvement as possible.

Now, I should acknowledge that at least one person, Stephen Downes, disagreed with my original article. I found his response quite interesting, even though I disagreed with it.

If you found this article interesting and useful, why not subscribe to my newsletter, Digital Education? It’s been going since the year 2000, and has news, views and reviews for Computing and ed tech teachers — and useful tips.